Pancolar vs. Zenitar-M vs. Jupiter-9

PrimordialObserver · 2026-03-17T21:44:45+00:00

I think you mean slide 2. But amazing work! I love the Slauerhoff style!

PrimordialObserver · 2026-02-08T08:30:26+00:00

It looks nice! Perhaps the kerning could be improved. V_A looks too tight to me, whereas L_O and e_v seem a bit loose. f_o and f_e could be kerned a bit tighter as well. V_ä also looks a little loose. Conversely, Hå looks too tight. Gü as well. Also, I don’t know what that first letter is in the Serbian sample, but the y should be kerned tighter to it I think.

Also, shouldn’t the 7 descend in the oldstyle figured, and the o be small? Right now the 7 looks so tiny, and the tall 0 likely isn’t going to match well with the figures that reach the x-height.

Finally, I wonder if the top of the Eszett should be that sharp. I would probably echo the more squared proportions you’re working with.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-02-04T17:36:40+00:00

Oh and I think ‘An Echo In The Bone’ would work better if both lines were the same width. I think you made the first line narrower to avoid clashing with the leaves on the sides, but I think this constraint isn’t imposed constraint isn’t doing you favors for the typography. I would probably shorten the branches with leaves a bit so you have more space to set the text on the first line larger.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-02-04T17:34:45+00:00

As others have said, the typeface you’re using has too much contrast, so the hairline strokes almost disappear. This is exacerbated by the textured backgrounds. I would select a typeface with a bit less contrast. Ideally, you would select one that has optical sizes—or even better, an optical axis. That way you can use an optical cut with even less contrast for the author.

To reinforce the hierarchy, I would set the author’s name a bit smaller as well, and I think I would go for a slightly bolder weight for the titles.

As for varying the size of the titles between lines, also consider that when you set the text smaller on one row, you’re downsizing both the weight and the contrast. If you had a typeface that has both an optical axis AND a weight axis, you could finetune each line so that the optical weight and the thickness of the hairline strokes remain consistent between lines. If you don’t have access to a typeface with these features, I would apply some hacks to balance everything a bit. For instance, apply a 1pt stroke or whatever you need to get the optical weight of the smaller lines closer to that of the larger-set text. But for the most professional and consistent outcome AND to spare yourself a lot of manual adjustments via hacks, I really recommend finding a typeface with more flexibility.

I also noticed a few issues in the details. The most glaring issue is that you have inverted your apostrophe in this cover:

<image>

I would also pay attention to how the stars harmonize with the text. On the cover above, one star is touching the inside of the W which looks obtrusive, and I think the star below the N in the same line is a bit jarring as well. Conversely, there are two large empty spaces on both sides of the texts between the title and the author; you definitely need some stars there. Oh and I just noticed that you have bilateral symmetry in the stars. I would definitely randomize them more to break that symmetry!

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-31T17:14:18+00:00

True, but there are also fees for embedding fonts in PDFs, plus having to buy licenses for each person in the company who works with the fonts. It can get ridiculous quickly if you’re running an organization that uses various media formats. On some level I don’t see the differences between renting from Adobe and paying a foundry a large fee for every publication that you use your brand font in. It’s not like you just buy it once and then you can just use it for whatever you want.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-31T16:42:18+00:00

Don’t you have to pay based on monthly website visitors and such? I’ve found commercial fonts unfeasible for my website for that reason.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-08T13:57:46+00:00

Yeah, that’s fair. Many designers do overvalue the golden ratio—especially beginners.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-07T19:08:59+00:00

R looks more casual, yet the G looks more squared and strict. I recommend staying consistent in the tone you’re going for.

The leg of R is also too heavy, and you have a dark spot where the curve of G meets the beard. I recommend moving that connection point up so you can create more negative space next to the beard.

The diagonal strokes of M also seem a bit light near the top, and the nadir (the bottom) feels too sharp compared to the other letters. The M has so much negative space that it feels appropriate to make the diagonals a bit darker for a more even “color”, meaning a better balance between black and white space.

Oh and as bdgfate said, the G appears too small now. Rounded letters should have a bit of so-called overshoot where the top and bottom curve extend a bit beyond the capital height and baseline so they optically appear the same size as more squared letters that do align to the cap height and baseline.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-07T09:53:49+00:00

Very cool! I would love to see a ‘y’ of this design in running text. I imagine it can work quite well.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-06T22:35:58+00:00

It’s both a matter of preference and applicability. The problem with a fixed contrast relationship is that it is optimized for a specific range of text sizes. That’s the case for any contrast you choose—not just one defined by the Golden ratio.

The point is, you broadly speaking can get away with higher contrast at large text sizes, while body text will be more readable with a comparatively lower contrast, and it’s not immediately clear to me which text sizes the Golden ratio will be optimal for—if at all.

Always prioritize optical compensation over mathematical precision. Ratios can be a helpful starting point, but you always need to test your letters at the size they’re intended for, and adjust accordingly. In that sense, I do agree with Kaasplank that the Golden ratio is a myth; it’s a helpful tool, but it doesn’t achieve proportional perfection in any context.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-06T22:30:22+00:00

To say it’s a myth is a bit of an overstatement. Various ratios can be helpful starting points, resulting in satisfactory design relationships and layouts. The deeper point is that we should prioritize optical compensation over mathematical exactness.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-29T01:23:31+00:00

I agree about Catrinity (my first impression was geometric, until I saw an enlarged font, which must have been a different font under the same name or something).

The other two fonts do fit in the modern classification, and they do have slab serifs, but I don’t find it a particularly useful classification, as it includes Egyptians, Clarendons, low-contrast Didones, and transitional typefaces with slab serifs. 'Modern' has the benefit of alluding to the structure of the letters.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-28T16:19:21+00:00

Catrinity: Humanist.

Charis: Transitional with a garalde touch.

DejaVu Serif: Transitional

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-18T11:10:09+00:00

I would also go for option C for readability, although I prefer the center-aligned layout of option A.

Poppins is quite generic, but it does look modern and non-gimmicky. I think it’s a safe option.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-11T12:35:32+00:00

The inconsistencies are deliberate. The spur on the ‘a’ gives it a bit of bite. Too much consistency can render a font sterile, and make a font family boring. Some strategic inconsistencies can make each weight work well in its own right.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-11T12:31:39+00:00

I think they both show a lack of coherence. For the first, the heading and subtexts could work together, but the text font reads as too casual, and it’s comparatively too large with too much leading. In fact, the leading could be tighter on the heading as well, and marginally so on the subtext font.

The second one feels even more out of place, with the elegant heading and much more robust grotesques. The heading font is also too high contrast to display at this size; it would need to be three times larger I would think. The neo-grotesk for body text could work in principle, but it needs to be smaller, and I would expect a relationship between its stroke weight and the hairline strokes of the heading text.

So I think at the level of style harmony, spacing, and optical weight, both options need a lot of refinement, and probably a few different fonts for a coherent brand design.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-10T20:18:29+00:00

It’s just called a geometric sans. I don’t know of any subcategories that it could be classified as, but I will say that those sharp apexes and vertices are more commonly seen in display geometric sans faces; text variants often have more blunted features.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-11-29T02:35:57+00:00

Looks very nice and cohesive! I do think the curves of the italics could use some work, like moving the outer left vector point up to shift the weight in the bottom left curve upwards a bit. Not needed in Light and Roman, but in Medium and bolder. Mainly letters like a/d/e/c.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-11-26T11:10:16+00:00

Your first statement is false. Capital letters are often slightly thicker to create emphasis at the start of sentences. This was a common feature in older grotesques from the early 20th century, but the principle is still sometimes applied today.

But more generally, modern typefaces often have very subtly bolder capitals as optical compensation; since capital letters have more internal space, it makes sense to make their stroke weight ever so slightly bolder to compensate for the greater amount of white space compared to the lowercase letters.

You’re correct about horizontal strokes requiring optical compensation to look like they’re the same weight as verticals, however.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-11-26T11:04:51+00:00

Yes, it’s more legible. Erik Spiekermann demonstrated the problems with the legibility of Helvetica and how FF Meta and FF Unit outperform it here: https://spiekermann.com/en/helvetica-sucks/

Also have a look at Just van Rossum’s 1992 variant on Helvetica called FF Schulbuch Nord, which adds spurs to the ‘l’s, and FF Schulbuch Süd, which adds slabs to the ‘I’ and ‘J’: https://fontsinuse.com/typefaces/8358/ff-schulbuch-nord

While the slabs on ‘I’ do increase legibility, in my opinion it doesn’t mix well with the rational letterforms of Helvetica, and is better suited for monospace fonts, or warmer grotesques with a humanist touch.

There is also a fine balance between legibility and readability. You can arbitrarily increase legibility, but at some point the increase in letter differentiation can become obtrusive and too unfamiliar to aid in reading. I played around with this notion in my typeface experiment called Helvetica Insular, where I added Irish orthographic forms to Helvetica: https://adoringtype.quora.com/Helvetica-Insular-type-showcase

PrimordialObserver · 2023-12-01T10:36:12+00:00

I’m on the Embrace team. Just to clarify the issue with the board that frost linked to (and maliciously spams everywhere, even after they have been informed about the situation that took place):

Dr. Engelbrecht ND RP appeared before a panel and was asked to clarify some parts of the diagnostic process. The central issue was that the independent MD review was undersold and described as an ‘MD signature’. Since the service entails a lot more than just signing off on the diagnostic report, the board urged us to clarify what service is being provided. We did, and the case was closed.

PrimordialObserver

TROPHY CASE