What's This Font 1.2 - VOGUE Paris

Greetings designers and type geeks. It's time for a What's This Font post and this time we'll be looking at Vogue Paris. Definitely an upgrade on Vogue U.S if you ask me. There are lots of interesting things in there, especially layout and font wise. The first font we will  be looking at is the font used on the cover. On the one hand you have the VOGUE logo which is a slightly altered version of Didot (T1) HTF M42 Medium (who knew right?) and on the other we have a mix of Miller Banner light, roman and semi bold for the headlines. 

I don't find there is much to say on the Vogue logo itself, it's pretty iconic and speaks for itself so for now I will just focus on the use of Miller which was designed by Matthew Carter and Richard Lipton in 2010. The first time I discovered Miller I was working as an intern at Victoria's Secret and it was one of the fonts they used the most. You would think I would have recognized it but the way Vogue uses it is so different that to me it looked like a completely different font. It's modern yet has got all the right curves. It works very well for them and all in all it's quite a gorgeous typeface. Not only that but the price range is quite reasonable, you can find Miller Banner here.

Now despite all these good aspects this font does have a major flaw which comes to light in a more obvious way as you flip through the pages and Vogue Paris doesn't seem to have noticed it: readability. If this reads well on the cover I'm afraid the same thing can't be said on the inside of the magazine. That is mostly due to the layouts, a lot of cramped text everywhere whether it be big or small, not the smartest choice. Vogue also decided they wanted a customized version of Miller specially designed for them and that's how they ended up with...let's say interesting, alternates.

While some of the alternates work quite well and give the page a little more beauty and vogue, one in particular is just plain weird. You can guess from looking below, it's the B. It looks like a J and a B stuck together and reads really weird. No one's perfect right?

Yippeekayay GQ readers

 This March Bruce Willis is taking over the movie theaters with Die Hard 5 and the magazine stands as well. The Die Hard saga star is covering both GQ U.S and U.K march issues, the question is, who did it better?

On the one hand we have the french, who chose to shoot Willis wearing a black t-shirt, keeping things simple, and on the other, GQ U.S, who chose a jean shirt with a tie, topped with a grey/blue blazer. Now simply based on the styling and the pose, I do think the french did it better. I don't know about the U.S, it seems they had this picture retouched a LOT and the actor is starting to look like his wax replica from Mme Tussaud…

Typography wise, Despite the fact that the fonts are way better on french GQ, the layout on the U.S one is better. The french cover feels very crowded and I'm having a hard time enjoying the picture because of it. I also really don't like the way they're advertising the iPad app on the french cover with that yellow tablet on the left, it just doesn't go.

However I have to go with GQ France, I like the photography a lot better and I'm never disappointed with the inside layouts which is not so often case with G.Q U.S. Once again, the U.S will just have to try and do better… what do you think?

On a side note, below is a comparison between french GQ's current cover and a quick retweak I did getting rid of the ipad icon and slightly rearanging the headline type to uncrowd the page. Not necessarily a solution but something to think about, I wanted to give the picture some more breathing space to see how it looked.

Esquire's bitchy february cover

Ah esquire, you have been one of my favorites for a while now and I thought it would take a lot for you to disappoint me. However, I noticed recently that I have been so hung up on how beautiful, interactive and user friendly the magazine app was that I completely forgot taking a look at the print version of the issues. 

Let's look at the february 2013 issue with Megan fox on the cover (not one of my favorite people but I will admit she looks good). all in all not a bad cover. the color palette is nice, the picture is up to the esquire criteria and standing and when I see that it does make me want to pick it up. The photography is from Sante D'Orazio (who seems to only specialize in taking pictures of naked models and actresses…). The picture of Fox is not that revealing but she does look a bit high and considering the photographer I'm surprised she didn't lose more clothes for this.

The typography on the cover is a lot similar to what they did for Sofia Vergara's cover (april 2012). I didn't really like it then I'm still not sure about it now. There are interesting things going on like the copy above the esquire logo, but the rest feels a bit too much underrated for me.

Now the cover is not my biggest concern…after looking at this issue on the iPad I was delighted, the interactivity, user interface and everything else was up to Esquire standards. But I did get a print version of this issue (which I hadn't done in a while) and I can honestly say I almost hard a heart attack. The layouts and design looks terrible. It takes a lot of bad for me to say that, as this magazine is in my top 3 favorites of all time. It looked messy and under-treated and I honestly cannot understand how you can have such an amazing iPad app and such an awful printed version of the exact same thing. one of the pages that shocked me was the "Funny joke from a beautiful woman". Gorgeous on the app, a serious wtf on the print, see for yourself below.

Cheesy december vogue U.S

for their december issue, vogue US showed no fear…of total failure. Anne hathaway is an actress I admire for her acting as well as her beauty and vogue decided to put her on their december 2012 cover...

I haven't had the time to post in a while and missed the golden opportunity to talk about this cover. As soon as I saw this cover my face pretty much looked like a cartoon character in shock. What was Vogue thinking?? Let's dissect this winter mess shall we:

First, the photography by (amazing) Annie Leibovitz is far from reaching her normal level of talent. Anne Hathaway looks so terribly sad, I swear her eyes are drooping downer and downer the more I look at this….She looks like she is melting and hat isn't something I want to see. On top of that you add your grandma's rose bush in the back and you're set to cry for a while.

Second, the typography. To be honest it's nothing different that what Vogue has been doing for a while now, a bold and light boring old sans serif typeface that is ready to eat everything standing in its way. Soon they will put type on top of people's faces…. As I mentioned in one of my previous post, this cover does not say vogue AT ALL to me. it screams a cheap house and garden magazine and the first sentence that comes to mind while looking at this is "how to stay pretty (or fail) while planting roses in a cocktail dress".

Third, the color palette. Oh wow red and green how original for a christmas issue…why not put a christmas tree and a stocking with Anne's name while you're at it?

and fourth but not least, the actual pictures of Hathaway used for her feature. If you have ever heard of Mylene Farmer (famous french singer in the 80's and 90's) you definitely see where I'm going with this. The styling and pictures look like they were taken straight from Farmer's video clip from one of her hit songs "libertine" in 1986. If you watch it now it does look a bit cheesy but the way Leibovitz photographed Hathaway is even cheesier. Again I ask: How is this Vogue?

Mylene Farmer in 1986 on the left facing Anne Hathaway in Vogue US dec 2012
 

My Geeky Valentine

_________

 

Not everyone likes Valentine's Day, but this year I thought I might just try to make
it special for all the geeks like myself out there. This year they can all tell the geek they love,
friend or more, how they feel in the most perfect way. So to all the graphic designers,
programmers, adobe lovers or typographers, have a Happy Valentine's Day!

_________

 See all the 23 designs HERE

Prints are available HERE

 

 See all the 23 designs HERE

Prints are available HERE

What's This Font 1.1 - Vanity Fair

Hey guys and welcome back for this special second edition of What's This Font! This month on the menu is one of my favorite magazines, Conde Nast's Vanity Fair. They have (for the most part) great typefaces that create an overall beautiful design throughout the issues and this post will let you know what they are and where you can find them.

The first one we'll start with is Didot. It is for all intents and purposes Vanity Fair's signature font and is used almost exclusively on the cover and most of the pages of the magazine. It's one of those fonts that you may find more common than you should. It's an elegant and at the same time modern typeface. You can find it on typography.com here for $300 for 42 typefaces. When used correctly this font has a great impact and is of course absolutely beautiful.

Font number two on our list today is VF Sans. It has five weights, two widths, and was created for Vanity Fair by David Harris (design director) and Greg Mastrianni (art director) and designed, drawn and produced by James Montalbano of Terminal Design. This typeface can be found abundantly throughout the magazine, mostly in the artciles and captions, giving it a modern edge.

Finally the third font and also the most recent design addition to the magazine is Solano designed by Mark van Bronkhorst between 2007 and 2009. This typeface is a perfect new addition to Vanity Fair's design library. It is used mostly with a wide tracking and in a smaller point size which does not tone down its importance. You can purchase Solano on myfonts.com, the price is reasonable per font, the whole family in itself though is quite expensive but definitely a good buy.
More info to come soon!

GQ U.S going playboy style?

Ok so I haven't posted in a while but it doesn't mean I haven't been paying attention...I don't know about you but I have been really disappointed with the covers GQ has been publishing lately. It seems instead of publishing a men's style magazine, they've gone trashy on us and have now started to take  playboy looking pictures. I am of course talking about 2 of their latest covers, Rihanna and Beyonce. Yes Beyonce is hot, yes Terry Richardson is a very good photographer and no, this right there, isn't working.

Now I was willing to overlook the Rihanna cover as I did see some good things about it. It was provocative yet not trashy. However I can't ttribute the same compliments to the Beyonce cover. The pictures are not GQ material, just a playboy or maxim shoot at best...(see below). I know they are trying to sell more paper but this is just not right. If you look at GQ france you can truly see a magazine with a strong identity, photography that says something. Even GQ U.K whose identity/graphic design may be all over the place is still stronger than GQ U.S. Am I wrong? you tell me.

Vogue UK december redesign

Here is a 30 minute redesign of VOGUE UK's December 2012 cover, using the same copy and basic layout, only adjusting the main color and of course changing the photo.

SO as I have done before, here is a 30 minute redesign of Vogue UK's december 2012 cover using a picture from inside of this issue to give you an idea of how this could have been way more interesting (and pop since this was clearly what they were aiming for...).I am using pretty much the first typeface that I stumbld across in my font library for this as the type isn't the focus here. I don't know about you but I absolutely cannot tell that these two pictures are of the same woman...

VOGUE UK's december mess

In one of my previous posts I said Vogue could do much better but it also seems they can do MUCH worse. Vogue UK has the gorgeous Natalia Vodianova on their cover for their December issue and this mess makes me want to weep for designers everywhere...

The past two issues of our British neighbors have been disappointing but this one is just plain ridiculous. The photo on the cover (by Mario Testino) is not what anyone could call a Vogue picture nor a good picture. I'm not sure who was in charge of the styling but oh dear! Especially considering when you look at the gorgeous and colorful spreads of Vodianova inside! The pictures in this issue are great, vibrant with all the pop you could want but who could get a chance to see those with a cover so bad? This outfit combined with the grey background makes the whole scene very dull and Vodianova's face and expression is just not right. I have seen her on may covers (including vogues) and I didn't even recognize her on this wreck of a cover. I am being very harsh but it is so disappointing to follow a magazine who did such amazing things just a few months ago and is now daring to publish a cover that looks like this.

The cover photo is not the only thing lacking work, the typography combinations are not that good either. I don't even think I can go in and comment on it, the hierarchy is a complete mess and the line "an explosion of fashion and fun" makes the magazine sound like a cheap version of cosmo.

My biggest concern on this is how can they make the inside layouts so decent and detailed and leave a cover like this? Come on Vogue, please don't keep disappointing like this...

--

here are the gorgeous spreads/photography of Vodianova once you are brave enough to flip through this issue after seeing the cover. The saying about not judging a book from it's cover does not apply here folks, I'm judging whoever is responsible for this humongous difference between the design inside the issue and outside. Shame on you. shame on you.

GQ's Naked Rihanna

For their Man/woman of the year covers, GQ U.S has gone all in showing a naked and steamy Rihanna. Is it getting hot where you are too?

GQ woman of the year Rihanna definitely has nothing to envy other singers and I think this cover speaks for itself. First of all, I am loving the color combination used by GQ for this issue, its fresh and pops up nicely. It goes very well with the picture. I can't say much else type design wise because I am really not a fan of GQ US's covers. I find the typeface very blah and it doesn't do much for the magazine, there's no it factor. Everything is just there laying on top of each other boringly stacked and I think a magazine as big should be able to do better.

Now I won't lie, this picture is HOT, but there is something I find uneasy about Rihanna's face and pose. She looks a bit awkward and mannish. This also has to do with her boy's haircut (not a fan of that...am I wrong?). Her face looks chubbier than we've seen and the way that leather jacket is arranged on her shoulders is not ideal, that left sleeve is really bothering me, very stiff. All in all this is not my favorite picture of her though it has been making quite the buzz. Love the concept and I think they could have shot a way better picture. Her general pose is great but had those few details been altered this picture could have been amazing. Good point for GQ, it's good they have good buzz ideas because design wise they're not flying so high.

what do you think?