The titling capitals can be found here : )

Right on about that droopy g, Gustavo. I spent more time with that one glyph than most of the other lc combined, testing variation after variation without striking upon “the one”. The challenge was to get the lower bowl to descend properly without becoming too big, too squarish, or too lumpy (not sure why too droopy qualified as the best choice out of these – perhaps it fit my mood?).

To be honest, the melancholy fellow I finally settled upon was also too wide in the lower bowl which affected interletter spacing...

Well, thanks for the constructive and astute feedback! My hat, err, head dressing off to you (wait, I should really leave that on ;). I tried all the former variations again and then discovered a new one that sets more happily with the rest and also kerns correctly. Still the most challenging character in the whole set – and now it’s a bit too narrow. But I think at least it looks real pretty blown up as giant pixels! And I will remember these tricky spots as the fruitful learning experiences of my go at a pixel font.

P.S. the sample has been updated to include the new g and also revised to address the pretentiousness of too much paragraph spacing between stanzas :-P

And to aphoria, Frodo7, afrojet, minimum, and again gferreira: Your kind words touch my heart. Thank you for your generosity.

@afrojet: I like the way you think. A small cap variant would make a fitting addition. Even the original Trajedy – an all cap affair – could use it (especially for pixeling all those cheesy movie posters :). Am I up for it? I have this nagging fear that certain glyphs will just refuse to pixel well. Hey, I’ll give it a shot. After all, if I succeed I can title my poem above!

I keep thinking I “got it” as far as the g goes...well, here’s another attempt! This one combines qualities of the last two tries: it has the flicked up finial with a barely open lower bowl of the last go ’round with the slanted hip and increased width of the prior g (what I called “droopy” and Gustavo called “a bit sad”). With only one pixel defining the right-most turn of the lower bowl, this extra width still allows decent letter spacing, even in the case of two consecutive gs. Yes, it has more of an italic quality than a lot of the lc glyphs...but I was going for the slightly calligraphic feels of old style serifs.

For a bunch of other gs, including the ones that have been nixed already, check the end of the character set. Any additional suggestions will be more than appreciated – I might even get around to incorporating it in between naps >/.>

My hat’s off to you, Gustavo!

I had previously tried dropping that horizontal stroke defining the top of the g’s loop below the base line, but felt slavishly tied to at least some pixels falling where my inner traditionalist said they should. So blinded was I by this guiding logic that I didn’t even see fit to include it amongst all the variations. :-/

It just needed to be broken, this rote thought, and you helped me see with fresh eyes. When I look at the great new g (updated also in my sample...as well as a few new ligatures :) my eyes now read that essential structure as defining the baseline, even though it doesn’t really! Since this pixel font bears large ascenders, descenders, and a fairly big x-height, this optical correction is starting to make some sense to me.

By the way, I really appreciate the elegance of the instructive sample you posted. You included the & that I am still quite enamored with, the sweet pixely q stolen from Baker Signet, and inspired me that I may get some real legs out of this fontstruction in an exciting personal project to come.

Stay tuned, and thank you all for your support and approval. Especially you, Lex! To begin with I took this leap off your generous shoulders. Now if I can only muster the courage to attempt and similarly succeed at afrojet’s suggestion of small caps...