It looks nice to me. I like the funny twisted serifs. There is something here that reminds me of Seagull. The basic letterforms are nice structurally. Your capital O and Q look too condensed. Also, the lowercase x and the middle serif on the lowercase m aren't working.

The biggest issue is the color, look at how much darker your r is than your o.

Over all everything needs optical adjustments for stroke widths (it looks like you made everything width mathematically identical widths, junctions (like the inside joint of the v), and overshoots (how round forms like o sit on the baseline). Open up a few good fonts to see how other people have addressed these optical issues. You're off to a really good start though. Good Luck.

Reverse-Latinization, yay! This is my type of effort. Are you sure you're 16? Because the premise of this design is quite mature. I was more than twice that age before I started having ideas like this... Anyway, onto the crit:

Your proportions and structures are pretty sound, but like Jackson says, the "finish" is lacking. Now, to some extent (like the wobbly outlines - see the bowl of the "d") this can be part of the design's character; you just have to make sure that's the intent. Other things, like the "congestion" in the bottom half of the lc "k" seems like less of a good idea. And the color is quite jumpy: like in "feroce" the straights are way too thick compared to the rounds. There are indeed a lot of optical tricks that are essential to a good finished design, and it's not possible to find one place that tells you everything you need to do... But Typophile can certainly help!

More: I like your funky foot serifs. The 1-o'clock and 7-o'clock arms on the "x" could use more flair, like that great "k". The uppercase needs more work - it seems indecisive, and in places (like the "X") way off. But the "Y" rules.

Spacing: I like the overall dark tightness, but it's pretty uneven right now.

Italics: Although I think the pronounced slant fits the character of this design, it looks a bit mechanically-slanted. And too conservative, structurally. It's a lot more work, but I think this calls for a pretty mannered (i.e. "showy") italic.

As for an affordable font editor, I'd recommend TypeTool.

And I hope more people join this thread! This is primo stuff.

hhp

Thanks, guys. I've looked back at the PDFs I made and I see what you mean. I think I did make the rounds a little bit thicker than the straights, but obviously not enough thicker. As soon as I get an opportunity I'll fix this kind of stuff up. I might be able to figure out a way to re-download Font Creator, or maybe a trial version of something else that I can use for a while. It'll be tough persuading my parents to buy me an $108 program, so I might have to wait on TypeTool for a little while. Or maybe I can figure out somewhere to get a job. The catch-22 is that I need money to make good fonts well, but I can't sell fonts for money until they're well-made. So I guess I'll have to find another source of income.
I have a few things to say/ask--
-The middle serif on the m: I don't know if a regular serif would fit next to the left one. That, and it always seemed hypocritical to me to do something to the serif on the right and not to do it in the middle. That's one thing that bugs me in Palatino.
-lc x: It probably looks too plain because it's more work to make the kind of curve on the k, and I guess I wasn't feeling up to it that day. I'll redraw the x when I redraw some of my other characters for a revision.
-Hrant - what exactly do you mean by the "congestion" on the lower half of the k?
-Maybe on the uc X I'll switch out that bottom serif for something more like on the lower.
-What do you think of the curve at the bottom right of the A?
-Ironic that the italic looks "mechanically" slanted, because I draw everything by hand. I think I see what you mean, though, and I'll try and figure out a way to give it more character.
-Thanks for the compliments. I'm especially proud that it merits being called "primo stuff". It's nice to be able to talk with people who know typography and don't say, "Looks like...Times New Roman."

Well, Hrant knows what he's talking about. I'm still a total n00b and have a lot to learn. I'm super close to getting enough courage to try to find someone to publish my first real typeface. With that said...

Curving the thin legs of the x like the k might help, but I think it looks weird mostly because of the counter made by having those long one sided serifs on the other side.

The treatment of that diagonal in the A M N and X (and the similar move on the B P and R) is making the uppercase feel a little too inconsistent for my taste. The curve on the bottom part has a nice feeling to it so maybe you could try flattening out that top serif for balance.

> It’ll be tough persuading my parents to buy me an $108 program

Show them this thread. In my experience, most parents are even more interested in encouraging creativity in their kids than stopping them from wasting money.

> I can’t sell fonts for money until they’re well-made.

But beware, making good fonts doesn't automacally mean a lot of money; or any money! :-/ Think of this as the start of a journey that might end up to be very rewarding in a number of ways; and at the very least rewarding intellectually.

> it always seemed hypocritical to me to do something to
> the serif on the right and not to do it in the middle.

On the other hand, there's a limit to how much you can apply strict formal rules; very often you have to improvise to get the font as a whole to really work.

The "k": all the other glyphs are more open all around. The diagonal arm being so close to the stem is making things a bit dark down there; maybe try curling the leg, like in the Bell typeface.

> What do you think of the curve at the bottom right of the A?

I personally think it's da bomb.

> “Looks like…Times New Roman.”

You know what's a paradox though? For a text font to work really well, laymen (as opposed to other type designers) need to sort of be oblivious to any novelty. Even though they should certainly "feel" it unknowingly, any novelty shouldn't grab their attention too stongly. Now, to be fair, in this case you're not shooting for a mainstream text face, so yes, if somebody likens it to Times, they need to be paying a little bit more attention. :-)

--

> the uppercase feel a little too inconsistent

Yes, agreed; it needs a lot of work all around.

hhp

I'm getting all these great suggestions, but I can't do anything with them yet, and it's frustrating. I tried all the loopholes I could think of to get around trial version limitations, but to no avail. However, my mom does say she'll buy the program for me. Now, you do recommend TypeTool over Font Creator, right? Or, what's the hierarchy of programs?
The capitals I think look too inconsistent because I tried to put that downcurve/slant on the top left anywhere I could but in some places it just wouldn't fit. In earlier drawings I had lowercase-looking serifs there, like on the H, but I wisely abandoned that. It looked pretty ugly. I kept it where I could, though, like I say, and that's what makes it look inconsistent, I think. I don't know what I could do about it short of straightening out the top lefts, which would alter the whole feel. Suggestions at all? (Is that the inconsistency you were talking about even?)

Hi Chuck

First of all. It's nice to see that someone as young as you
are willing to take a thing as typedesign so seriously. Rock On!

I agree with the other comments about the typeface. :)

I haven't tried out Typetool or Font Creator but I know Fontlab and to me it the best font making program there is right now. Alas it is also a bit pricy. It would probably be smarter to start out with Typetool and see what you can do with it. My understanding of the program is that it pretty much allows you to do all the basics of Fontlab without having to pay nearly as much for the program. In fact I am looking at the Typetool specs and it looks like it will let you do mostly all of the things I have ever needed to do with a font. Such as opentype features and all of that cool and neat stuff. Go for it.

--

Although it is a bit old, this link might be interesting.

Font Creation Programs
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/editors.html

Good luck

[Comment gotten rid of because it didn't really add much and it sounded like me pleading.]

Hi, everyone. Well, I've come back from my hiatus up in the hills, where I spent many months under a vow of silence in a big stone building of some sort, with incense sticks burning everywhere, where I contemplated what good fonts look like. I came to the definite conclusion: "Not the Cyril that I made." As such I did a complete redraw, which Cyril desperately needed. Then I used TypeTool, which my mom in fact did buy me, to turn the drawing into a font. Boy, does TypeTool make it a bunch easier than with Font Creator.

Well, now I go into the second criticism phase. Before you check it out: I haven't figured out what exactly I'm supposed to be doing about hinting yet, and that's why I haven't done it. I clicked an "autohinting" button, but it didn't seem to improve much. I'm not even really sure what hinting is supposed to be doing. The TypeTool manual is a bit vague. I can hold my own when it comes to drawing a font, but all the computer stuff leaves me baffled. If anyone is knowledgeable in this area and can tell me what I'm supposed to be doing, help is welcome.

Beyond that, I'll just leave it up to you. Now let me figure out how to attach this--how did I do it last time?

(P.S.: I couldn't figure out how to put it in this post, so I added it to the first one. It's the one marked "Sampil". If anyone knows how to put it on this one, I could also use help there.)

Take a look at that section : http://typophile.com/filter/tips

You'll find a lots of tips to modify or to add file to your post.

Chuck/Nathanael,

I applaud you for your decision to start over. The results show your new perceptive skills. I digitized 3 different designs my first year, and none of them survive to this day. Good thing, too! They were awful. This is exactly what happens as a designer evolves and learns; their ability to see problems with type gets more and more focused and more refined. It potentially never ends. You have started down the path of becoming more aware of type. Congratulations!

If you have got a licensed type program and a way to view or print your tests, you are on your way. Some Typophiles may be available to give you feedback; lucky for you such a forum exists while you are learning. Take advantage of it. 15 years ago a hopeful type designer had to stumble around looking for clues how to proceed. And of course scrutinize type catalogs (Letraset anyone?).

One other way to make progress is to start another design. This might sound wasteful or counterproductive, but consider how the time will pass... While spending time constantly looking at geometric sans designs (for example), your skills and perception will be advancing and you will be ignoring or forgetting Cyril. After several weeks you will be stumped by the sans and go back to Cyril, and lo! There are tons more things to fix. Do that, and a few weeks later you'll be ready to re-work the sans..... Both will benefit, and the different styles will help your mind switch gears and keep you fresh. Another benefit: If you hope to be a skilled and productive type designer, it might be useful to have experience with more than one style of type. You will develop your own style eventually, but while learning, don't shut any doors. Sometimes the most boring assignments teach you the most. Type can be deceptive. The cuddly rounded sans design might be a devil to digitize. The ornate script might be easier to work with.

Please keep the Typophiles updated with your progress. You have got some momentum and are on the right track. Good luck!

Oh, I'm working on other designs. Like I said, I sketch them all out on looseleaf first... and I have over twenty sheets of looseleaf sitting on top of my dresser. I have I think six more serif designs, and two sans, and a cursive--though only four of the serifs, one of the sans, and the cursive are any good. In fact, I can probably attribute my improvement to that, including the ones that didn't make the cut. (And they're in pencil, so I can always bring them up to standard!) I just need to do some research on the more technical, less artistic aspects of designing. I'm fully prepared to do that, too, but school of course is eating up a lot of my time. Speaking of which, I'm up awfully late at the moment, and there's a big standardized test tomorrow. So I think I'll let myself out the back here, real quick.

Oh, and the Nathanael/Chuck thing: Originally I thought I'd use my pseudonym, Chuck Masterson, but then a while later I decided I wouldn't. Nathanael is my real name. Sorry about all that.

Anyone out there? I've gotten some good suggestions on how to be a typographer, but nothing about the font I made. And then the thread got buried.
Uh, I'll say one other thing I was meaning to say: if this design seems like it's completely different in feel from the old one and naybe shouldn't even be called the same font, it's because this is what I was trying to make back then. I just didn't have the know-how, and I wasn't patient enough (especially since I only had Font Creator). I haven't totally altered my vision; I've just become competent enough to interpret it.
Okay, thanks.

Hi Nathaniel,

Sorry to focus on process in the abstract. But the term is actually fontologist. Kidding! Type designers make the type, typographers use it. You can be both, and I think active users of type make better type designers.

I recall that for this design you were inspired by a single cyrillic glyph. Did you want the font to have Cyrillic overtones throughout, or was that just a jumping-off point? If it's the former, study existing Cyrillic type and lettering for more interesting ideas. There are other Cyrillic lookalike Latin fonts out there, but nothing is stopping you from taking the idea farther.

Conversely, I see some art-deco influences in the large eye of e and exaggerated bowls of BPR. See Nick Curtis's fonts for more of these features. Is this intentional?

Then again, there's also a lot of classic bracketing and modeling on serifs, like some of Goudy's stuff. Is this meant to have a classic, renaissance feel? Right now, the proportions fight this.

Technically I think you're doing pretty well; I only see big problems with the link of the g and weights of diagonals, something everyone struggles with.

It sounded like the design grew out of a relatively vague idea, so maybe strengthening the direction or purpose of it may help decide how to proceed. Right now it has a lot of conflicting things happening, and most of them preclude using the font in long texts. If you want to see how "readable" you can make it, study moderns like Bodoni and Walbaum for more features like the one that originally attracted you, and also study the proportions of other text faces. If this will be for display, then you could be much more adventurous with shapes. If Cyrillic provides the inspiration, use some of those conventions to make this Latin design more interesting. The lowercase of Cyrillic is like small caps, so maybe focus on the caps in this design and see how unconventional they can be while still being drawn sensitively (see Exocet, Ottomat, Priori and Mason at emigre.com).

Have fun!

Hi there.

I'm not sure what I was doing when I made the g: the bottom of the top of the bottom loop was above the baseline. I put it back down where it belongs. Then I standardized the widths of all the thick strokes in the capitals (haven't worked on thins yet)--197 for straight lines and 208 for curves, I think, if you're curious. After that, I decided to try and fix some of this proportional loudness you talked about. I explain that part in the attachment.

As to your question, I believe the ka was just a jumping-off point. Most of the rest doesn't really have anything to do with historical Cyrillics; I just thought it seemed like a Russian kind of feel. The large counters in things like B P R evolved just on a whim, but since then I've decided to say that large bowls aid legibility. (Is this a valid argument?) I would like to make this a workable text font. Further to that point, what are some of the inconsistencies you're mentioning?

Thanks

The large counters in things like B P R evolved just on a whim, but since then I’ve decided to say that large bowls aid legibility. (Is this a valid argument?)

This sounds like post-rationalizing. It isn't necessary for someone as observant as you. It's only useful if you don't plan to continue learning. There are a lot of things you can do to aid legibility, more important than those letter shapes. Lately several Typophile threads have drawn out a general feeling that spacing is possibly the most important ingredient of legibility, which I agree with.

There are levels of proportion in a typeface: the stem of a letter to its bowl, width to height, length and thickness of serifs, x-height to ascender height. Those things are part of a letter's internal proportion, like the bowls of g and how they relate. There's still a little darkness there below the joint, and maybe the 2 bowls could be farther apart. If the top bowl was wider it might relate more closely to a, o and e.

Letters also have to relate to each other, so there are proportional relationships between them. Look at your BCDGOQ next to E, N, and U. This doesn't look like it's supposed to be a condensed face; if some letters look "condensed" in the context of other letters, that's an inter-character proportion that may need adjustment. Unlike tabular numbers (all the same width), the letters each need to feel "right", which is very much relative; they have to look right together. Even narrowing a single important letter like E or widening D would change things a lot. Keep adjusting. Nothing should be considered "final" until everything looks good together. It's a system of modules, for setting various languages, so no letter is more important. For instance, your r and s relate well to o and c. If you widen t and narrow h, other problems will become obvious. As you knock down big problems, you see and correct smaller ones, and the overall effect will get more smooth and fluid.

Overall the spacing is still a little tight, you can't quite use this for books yet. Do you have some long essays or papers you can set in this at regular reading sizes (10-11 point)? In proofreading your own writing, you may find some of these things pop out, like tight spacing or the dark g. Set the same text in Century, Utopia and Cyril. Compare.

There are other threads here where people talk about their methods for spacing. Some people like to work on spacing while finalizing outlines; I think you should too. If the width of a letter changes, then the spacing is hosed and you have to adjust it. In any case, spacing for text fonts should be a lot looser than for display fonts. You could increase all the sidebearings by 30-50 units and see how comfortable that is in small sizes.

Keep up the good work, Nathanael. I belive you can bring about the "Cyrillic feel" you are interested in. I can't wait to find out who this man in the snow is.

Ah, I think this is nicer. I widened BPRDOQ like you said, and then later I decided I would do the rest of the changes I describe in the PDF. I'm especially glad to have stretched the top-left serifs to the left. I widened the head of the g like you said and I made the gap a bit bigger. As regards the BPR bowls, I'd also like to say that, besides the post-rationalizing argument I made, I think they fit the style. I made them a little bit smaller, but not too much. I made the B bowls a little more equal.

Sorry if I disappoint, but the man in the snow is just a messenger.

Hey, that's looking much more comfortable.

Re: Big bowls: It's fine if you like them, but I actually think you are missing an opportunity to play with the Cyrillic style by making the R's tail so small. Like with K, Y and k, there could be a grandiose tail there and a small bowl (reverse the proportions like in B). It wouldn't have to be less exuberant, but you could get more of that feel into the design that way. Look at the cap R in ITC Bodoni Seventy Two and in Walbaum for ideas. Your K has this fun in it which doesn't make it less readable; go for that.

Remember, try everything before deciding final shapes. Does your font editor have a background layer? Put alternate candidate shapes back there.

The changes you've made are successful; other problems are becoming obvious. Surely this is intriguing and not discouraging?... That is what type design consists of.

I notice that certain bits look thin in text: the outstroke (bottom terminal) of c and e, right diagonals of VWYvwy. All of those diagonals tend to look better if they are tapered and thickened a little. Serif thickness can be separate from hairline thickness; in fact, various "thins" will need to be different weights to look right. Trickery! for examples, open Minion or Georgia and see crossbars on AHFEL, Thin stems of MNU, and thin diagonals. It's all optical, it just looks numerical.

The other thing I see is the shapes of certain curves do not seem to be closely related to their partners; i.e. the curves inside the eye of e are flatter and more angled than the curves on the outside. It's there in a,d,o,q, C, G, O and Q. It makes the letter look lumpy or stiff. Your D has the smoothness and cohesion I'm referring to. Play with the control points and the number of them. Maybe you could post a screenshot showing the point structure of a few letters. It's useful to think of postscript outlines as very very versatile raw materials; they will do EXACTLY what you want if you learn how to control them. At this point there's no reason to let the digital structure of your letters influence their appearance.

This is progressing very nicely. So have you digitized any of the other designs?

Sampil4 is up. I still have no idea how to post PDFs on current comments--I have to keep putting them all on my very first post. That link that sim gave me didn't tell me how to do it.

Anyhow, I've done the revisions you suggested, and I've included a very long sample for your viewing pleasure. Now, as to screenshots, I'm not on the ball enough to think of taking them while I'm working, and I wouldn't know exactly when to take them anyhow. Do you just want some that show the control points I'm using for my curves? Maybe that could be arranged. I don't believe my font editor (TypeTool) has any way to put up a background layer, though it could be that I'm just not astute enough to know it. I changed a few proportions more toward equality, but some of the changes you suggested I just couldn't conscion. (That's not a word, but it should be.) Viz.: the R proportioned like Bodoni 72. Well, I go into detail in the PDF. Anyhow, that's what I've got for this time.

I'm back. This time, finding time to do it between school stuff and wasting time and reading books, I've designed the italic. There are a couple of basic problems with it right now that shouldn't be too hard to fix: one is that it takes up less vertical space than the Roman, and the other is that I think it's a little bit darker than the Roman too. I'm not going to fix those at this moment: I'm too eager to get this on the web and see what people think.
Other than making an italic, I tweaked the Roman a little. The most noticeable thing is that I changed the outstrokes on c,e, and C. otherwise I did a little shape nudging ... that kind of stuff.
One other thing is that, if you didn't notice, up on the first post there are seven PDFs. I think I'm correct in saying that the rules don't allow you to post PDFs after the first post, or--how do you do it? I think I remember someone doing it. Anyhow, failing a way to put them in other posts, I think the list is getting a bit too long. Which ones can I get rid of, d'ya suppose?

I'll just comment on the italic. I see it has an extreme slant, which I think fits nicely with the unorthodox feel of the typeface. I'm liking the way the bottom of the main vertical strokes of h, p, k, etc. are treated. The curves of m and n are too heavy at this point.

Have you looked at a good range of Cyrillic italic letterforms for inspiration? I cannot fault your letterform choices, but I wonder if it will be worth looking at shapes that are closer to be, ze, and certain other Cyrillic italic lc letters as possible alternate letterforms.

Hello, everyone;
I've been quietly working on this--improving the italic and tweaking things that weren't right, but most of all making Cyrillic characters: I did every character from both the Cyrillic and the Cyrillic Supplements Unicode pages. But the problem is, I can't make a sample including Cyrillic characters, because I can't add the Cyrillic codepage. When I click the "codepages" button in TypeTool, the program just gives an error message and shuts down. I read something that caused me to believe I can only have one codepage in a .vfb and I have to use a .ttf if I want multiple codepages, but there again, when I try to open a .ttf, the program closes. I've already asked tech support what gives, but they didn't answer. Now, I know you guys aren't tech support, but I figured before I write another letter to FontLab Inc, I might as well see if anyone else has had similar annoying problems. TypeTool is pretty similar to FontLab, isn't it? I really want to show my new work, but I can't get it to work. Enclosed is a screenshot: I can't get the gray ("inactive") boxes to turn into yellow ones, so, as far as the computer is concerned, the characters don't exist.

Yesterday I discovered that I still have Font Creator loaded on my machine, and I was reminded that one of its virtues is that it codes things without giving you a whole bunch of grief. Or, well, so I thought, but I had to copy all my letters from my TypeTool-generated Cyril font to a new one, the problem being that all the letters were in different orders between the two fonts. So I had to pick through them and get them all unscrambled. Nevertheless, at least I'm able to get the letters coded, something I couldn't do no matter what the difficulty when I was using TypeTool. I'm working on that, though.
-Anyyyhhhhow, what I'm trying to say is that here's Cyril with its Cyrillics, but not all of them. But, the normal ones. They are up for critique, as is some refining I've done to the roman and especially the italic since my last post. I hope you enjoy. Like a fine wine, or a marshmallow Peep.
(New PDF Sampil7 up top)
[Edit: don't know why I didn't call it Sampil6, but I didn't.]

You know I realised I saw a font that looks very much in this style on one of Chevron's signs today when I was pumping gas. I'll try to take a picture of it next time I see it.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

Hi Nathanael,

Your cyrillic in Sampil7 leaves a very unusual impression. It certainly has the "cyrillic feel", but it goes overboard with exaggerated traits for a cyrillic text font - and at the same time is too conventional for display use. If you take your cyrillic part seriously, I think you need to pay closer attention to proportions of the letters and settle on a single set of historical allusions; now you are all over the map stylistically, which is a very hard trick to pull off even for a native type designer.

Good luck with your project; it seems to be moving along nicely.

-Sergei

Can you give me an example or two of what you mean?

Ok, let's take your cyrillic K as an example.

Its upper hand is very 19th century cyrillic, with high contrast, bullet-like top element and uniformly thin stem. Its lower counterpart is quite modern (end of 20th century) and has some latin undertones in its treatment of the serif. It also is a lot heavier than the top arm so the whole letter seems to be out of balance.

You can see historical shapes of K on this page from Yury Gordon's book "On Letters".

I love the feel of this font. I do hope you intend to include plenty of extended Latin coverage so you can perhaps represent your Esperanto correctly (among other languages, of course). :)

Hi!

Nice work, you've progressed a lot

I have a cupple of advices to tell you, from my point of view. Of course it's your choice if you want to correct them or not ;)

- The part of the "y" that touches the base line, is too sharp comparing with other leters. You could try doing that transicion just like the "," curves.

- The letter "c" at the serif, is not rounded like the rest, compare it with the "e"

- The diagonal arm of the "z" is too fine, or the horizontal ones are too dark... check that out...

- The same with the "x"

Well with all my main critiques, id like to say that its a great work, i like a lot the rounded vertical serifs! and the italics are wonderful!

greetings

Ferch

PS: sorry for my bad english, my native tongue is spanish, if you dont understand something let me know