Cyrillic. OPSZ 120, ITALIC

[vikagrabowska]

Basic Cyrillic LC

• ж - seems to be a touch dark in strokes.

• ы, ь, я feel a little more upright than other letters.

Basic Cyrillic UC

• Я - the left side of it looks dark. For example the leg looks darker then in К. The letter gets most dense in wght 900 wdth 120.

• Ч - top part seems to drop just a touch low. This can be noticed also in comparison to accompanying roman styles.
  In the wdth 150 wght 360 this letter is rather narrow. This differs from the accompanying roman style, and from the wdth 150 wght 900 where the proportion o Ч is the opposite, and rather wide.

• This is more visible in wides than in narrows, but Л’s curve looks a touch more vertical / less diagonal than the one in Д. I realise this might be intentional. However it caught my eye, as in accompanying roman styles the relation between Л and Д curves seems to be closer.

• Ы - the distance between two elements is wider than in corresponding upright styles (where I think the distance is perfect).

It is mostly present in wght 360 but can be found also in wght 900; wdth 150.

• Ж - the left bottom leg in italic is just a touch dark.

This is very subtle but can be seen in wght 360 as well.

Basic Cyrillic SMCP

• п (smcp), but also ц(smcp) - seem to be a little wide compared to н (smcp). The only exception for the observation about ц(smcp) is wght 900; wdth 50.

• ч (smcp) - top part seems to drop slightly low. The situation becomes more intense in dark weights, and esp in wght 900 wdth 150.

• я (smcp) - the left side of it looks touch dark, for example the leg looks darker then in к. In the wght 900 the bottom counter becomes more tight which creates density in text.

• ю (smcp)- the ellipse seems to be more upright than in о. In the wght 900; wdth 150 the ellipse in ю (smcp) is pretty narrow, but the distance between the ellipse and stem is relatively generous.

Serbian

ЉЊ and љњ(smcp) - similar note as for the rest of the design space (check the comments for OPSZ 5, #8). Lowercase љњ already looks nice here.

Serbian LC

• ђ looks slightly too wide / bright in its counter. I’m also wondering if the right side of the curve could be a little milder and less convex.

Serbian UC

• ЋЂ - the Ђ seems to be a little wider than I would expect in comparison to Ћ. In the light weight the left side of the bar could be touch shorter. In the dark weight, if possible shorter on the left, but longer on the right. However the last point depends on the final width of these characters.

Serbian SMCP

• ђ (smcp) looks pretty wide. The left side of the curved top bar seems pretty generous in ђћ (smcp).

Bulgarian LC

• в - is brighter (has more light) than its upright version. IMO upright version has a more balanced appearance in text.
• з - has a bit of a similar to в, yet milder effect .
• ж - is a little dense / dark on strokes.

• я - I was wondering if its belly loose a bit of weight at the bottom? I am also wondering if the leg can be just a little more slanted, and join the bowl slightly deeper, so the leg is less vertical?

Bulgarian UC

• Д - seems to appear wide / bright in the overall rhythm.

Bulgarian SMCP

• л (smcp) - substitution to the localised Bulgarian shape doesn’t work.
• д (smcp) - seems to be too wide and bright in text.
• ф (smcp) - seems to be pretty large, but it is not as noticeable in text as in opsz 5.
• ъ (smcp) - top serif is pretty long and absorbing. I think the bar+serif situation seems is better balanced in roman.