this is a sequel of baustelle, a typeface i started some time ago.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Sample_BaustelleThinDisplay.pdf | 35.53 KB |
| Sample_BaustelleThinText.pdf | 30.02 KB |
this is a sequel of baustelle, a typeface i started some time ago.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Sample_BaustelleThinDisplay.pdf | 35.53 KB |
| Sample_BaustelleThinText.pdf | 30.02 KB |
This is quite nice! The overall polish is very good, and the display cut is original but understated. However the text cut is of course way too light for [much] text. If you're not going to have darker weights I would suggest changing the naming and targeting the system for intermixed usage - that would allow for some very cool "emphasis" via the [current] display cut in a body of the [current] text, or vice versa! Of course in that case every glyph in the display cut would need some swell.
Looking at the "text" cut:
Both "g"s have problems. The binocular one is quite unhappy; maybe make the bottom bowl larger and more to the right, simplify the join between the two bowls, and try making the ear a simple straight line. The monocular one just needs a less curly terminal I think.
The tittles (dots on "i" and "j") are too big. Although that would work great in the display cut (where I'd make them even bigger).
Numerals: 4 and 8 too narrow.
Spacing: considering this will almost always be used large, the spacing I'd make quite a bit tighter. If you decide to keep this loose spacing, the wordspace needs to be bigger.
hhp
@hrant:
thanks for the comments, they all make sense indeed, specially the »g« and the dots on »i«, »j«...
i guess, i should try doing a regular version, i am facing some difficulties at the time, that will take some time to post something proper..
you are mentioning display version is a bit understated – so you are suggesting, there should be even more contrast betw. the elegance of the lines and the »black ink« spaces?
Captured from web.archive.org on 14 Apr 2015. view this capture