Cyrillic. OPSZ 5, ITALIC *new observations

[vikagrabowska]

Basic Cyrillic LC

• ы and ь feel a little too upright
• ч looks lightly dark on its join compared to и, т, ш etc.

Basic Cyrillic SMCP

• п (smcp), but also ц(smcp) - seem to be a little wide compared to н (smcp).

• ч (smcp) - its top part drops too low.

• In wght 900 ч (smcp) is too wide, but in wght 900; wdth 50 there is clearly too wide version used.

• ю (smcp) -the ellipse seems to be more upright than in о.

• я (smcp) - in the narrow the top counter seems to be dominant in comparison with the bottom counter. This brought my attention as it is not happening in the accompanying upright style. However in the upright wdth 50 I think the letter could be made wider, as it is slightly dense now.

• In the wght 900 я (smcp) seems dark and dense in the overall colour.

Serbian

ЉЊљњ (please see the general note posted for UPRIGHT OPSZ 5) #8
Here in the italic the size of the bowl in љњ seem to be aligned closely to the bowl in ь. However in ЉЊ the bowls seem to be too low / small.

Serbian LC

• џ tail looks a little light / underrepresented.
• ђ looks slightly too wide / bright in its counter, that mostly happens in wght 900 and esp in its wdth 50.

Serbian UC

• ЋЂ - the bar could extend a little more to the right. And if the construction allows to be shorter on the left.

Serbian SMCP

• ђђ (smcp) - the bottom part is lowered, not as much as in accompanying upright style, but is is still pretty substantial. In the wght 900 these letters seem to be extremely wide and the bottom part is very low.

Bulgarian LC

• я - the bowl lacks light spot, while the leg achieves quite a light weight. I wonder if the bowl be a little lighter, especially on the middle stroke?
• в - is brighter (has more light) than its upright version. It also seems to appear a little light on the middle stroke, at the same time, in the dark weight some (or all) of the outside curves could be perhaps lighter. I think this would help to establish the modulation more similar to another letters.
• з - feels a little light in a dark weight.
• ж - is a little dense / dark on strokes.

Bulgarian UC

• Bulgarian Д, and Л look wider and more bright than other letters, especially in wide styles and in dark weights.

• In Italic wdth 50 И appears dark.

• Bulgarian Ф appears very large in overall rhythm, wchich is most visible in narrow light, but is present in darker weights and wide masters as well.

• Я - the left side of it looks touch dark. The leg looks darker in comparison to the bottom leg in К.
• Ж - I’m wondering if left arm’s terminal could have slightly less of a tilt / slant effect.

Bulgarian SMCP

• д (smcp) - seems to be too wide and bright in text.
• л (smcp)- substitution to the localised Bulgarian shape doesn’t work.

• ф (smcp) - seems to be too large and catches an eye in text.
• ъ (smcp) - top serif seems to be pretty dark, it is also a little dark in roman but overall the bar+serif situation seems to be better balanced in roman.

• и (smcp) - is too dark in wght 900; wdth 50. The screenshot is however from the previous version of font.

I’m not sure if this is something happening on my side, but Bulgarian и (smcp) doesn’t seem to substitute right now. This can be noticed on another Bulgarian SMCP screenshots presented here.