Following last night's suggestions in crit, here are several new versions of the Baltimore Review logo. These are the best of a couple dozen I tried. Among those not posted here are some using the colon option Amy suggested, and others that emphasize the r to show the demarcation between the two words. I haven't dismissed those options, and I'll post 'em if you like, but I do not think they work as well. From top to bottom:
(1) Jenson graduated from bold to semi to Roman to light.
(2) Jenson bold/light.
(3) Jenson semibold/Candara.
(4) Jenson bold/Candara.
(5) Jenson semibold/Helvetica light.
Also revisited other oldstyle typefaces—Caslon, Garamond, and Goudy—but I think those introduce some competition between the e's since the bar is horizontal, whereas the diagonal crossbar clearly differentiates the first e from the second.
I have other thoughts on these, but would also like to hear yours.
Thanks again to Mariana for steering me in this direction.
4 comments:
Fantastic Tess. #2 is the only one that works, #1 is a nice experiment, but you graduated to a nice solution with 2. Candara is a Optima-like typeface, not serif, not sans serif—basically this grouping of fonts denote indecision and not a strong position either way, especially when used with a beautiful face like Jenson (I avoid those wishy-washy faces all the time).
I think the way your tracking is set, the thin line is not needed, if you let out your tracking some, it may be useful. I would be interested in seeing it both ways. I also would like to see # 5 set with the sans serif at a weight a bit closer to the Jenson, also, look at the "e" in the sans serif face, it doesn't work well with the "e' in the Jenson, look through some other sans serif families to find one that compliments better, the "e' looks very big and odd to me. Maybe it will be fixed by adjusting the weight.
I think this is a fantastic solution, I can't wait to see you finalize it. Nicely done.
Tess, I think you are almost there, Good Job! I also agree with Bob that #2 is the one that is working better. My opinion is that maybe I see all the options you post here a little timid, you need more contrast when you are trying to obtain the two words to work together. You can check some examples on the internet and see how far you can go with the idea. Look for logos like DIRECTV, citibank, jetblue, capitalone, these logos can perhaps help you see what I see maybe missing in your options. I'm sure you can make them look more drastic, let it flow, work with size, value to create more contrast. I feel you have something really good here.
Tess,
The #2 Jenson bold/light works best. I almost want to see a bit more contrast between the heaviness of the type, but I think having the same font makes it most readable. Well done!
I missed the comments in class, but this is a nice revision Tess. No. 2 seems a go but I see Chris' point, the small jpeg looks fine, but when u click on the pic and it enlarges, it appears to have less contrast.(My eyes may be fooling me) And like Bobby said, I don't know if u need the line splitting the words. Perhaps underline review for demarcation?
Post a Comment