I had this Japanese interior design book on loan for three straight weeks, and it never left my desk. Not once. That’s rare for me, because most design books get flipped through, sometimes photographed for Instagram, and shelved within a day. Japanese Interiors, published by Phaidon Press in 2022, is a different animal. It’s the kind of hands-on Japanese architecture book you keep reopening because you notice something new every single time. So let’s get into why this book earns its spot on any serious design shelf and where it genuinely falls short.

What Is Japanese Interiors by Mihoko Iida Actually About?

Mihoko Iida, executive features editor at Vogue Japan, spent years documenting private homes across Japan. The book collects twenty-eight of them. Not showroom fantasies. Real, lived-in spaces, from cramped Tokyo apartments to mountain retreats near Nagano. Iida’s thesis, stated plainly in her introduction, is that Japanese residential design isn’t one aesthetic. It’s a conversation between old craft traditions and new ways of living.

That distinction matters more than it sounds. Western coverage of Japanese interiors tends to flatten everything into “minimalism.” White walls, low furniture, a single ceramic bowl on a shelf. Iida pushes back against that cliché throughout the book, and honestly, it’s refreshing. Some of the homes here are cluttered in the best way. Others are stark. A few are downright maximalist, layering textures and materials until the room feels like a collage.

Who Designed the Homes Featured in the Book?

The architect lineup is genuinely impressive. Kengo Kuma appears with his signature timber-and-light approach. The studio nendo, led by Oki Sato, brings its playful precision. Koji Fujii contributes a project that treats concrete like fabric. There’s also Arata Endo, whose historic work connects the book to Frank Lloyd Wright’s Japanese period, and Takamitsu Azuma, known for his radically compact Tower House from 1966. That’s a five-decade span of Japanese residential thinking in one volume, which gives the book real historical weight.

My Framework for Judging Japanese Interior Design Books

After reviewing enough design books for WE AND THE COLOR, I started building my own evaluation system instead of just saying “nice photography, good layout.” I’m calling it the Residential Authenticity Scale, an editorial framework I use to separate genuine documentation from styled fantasy. It’s not an industry standard. It’s mine, built from years of flipping through books that promise real homes and deliver staged sets instead.

The scale runs on four criteria: lived-in evidence, material honesty, spatial logic, and cultural context. A book scores high when the homes look occupied rather than staged, when materials are named and explained rather than just photographed, when room layouts make functional sense, and when the text connects design choices to broader cultural habits.

How Japanese Interiors Scores on the Residential Authenticity Scale

On lived-in evidence, this book scores near the top. You see shoes by doors. You see books stacked unevenly. Iida clearly resisted the urge to stage these homes for the camera, and that choice pays off. On material honesty, it also performs well. Captions specify cedar, tatami weave, and washi paper rather than vague terms like “natural finishes.”

Spatial logic is where the book truly shines. Iida repeatedly explains how rooms shift function throughout the day, something I call the Room Flow Ratio in my own notes: the number of distinct uses a single room supports divided by its square footage. Traditional Japanese homes score absurdly high on this metric compared to most Western floor plans, and the book makes that difference obvious without ever stating it as a number.

What I Learned After Reading It Cover to Cover

Here’s my honest take. I’ve written about Scandinavian minimalism for years, and I assumed Japanese interior philosophy would feel familiar. It doesn’t. Scandinavian design often strips a room down to reduce visual noise. Japanese design, at least as Iida documents it, adds restraint as a form of respect toward the landscape outside. That’s a philosophical difference, not just a stylistic one.

I started calling this the Landscape Integration Index while taking notes, another framework I built purely for this review. It measures how directly a home’s interior design references the land it sits on, through sightlines, material sourcing, or seasonal adaptation. Almost every home in this book scores high on that index. Windows frame specific trees. Floor materials echo the surrounding terrain. It’s not decoration. It’s a conversation with geography.

Where the Book Falls Short

No book is perfect, and I want to be direct about the weak spots. The captions can feel thin on some spreads, especially for readers who want construction details or square footage. A few chapters lean heavily on photography and light on Iida’s own commentary, which is a shame because her voice, when present, is sharp and specific. If you’re hoping for a technical manual on Japanese joinery or construction methods, look elsewhere. This is a design and lifestyle book first.

Who Should Actually Buy This Book?

Architects and interior designers will get the most out of it, obviously. But I’d also recommend it to anyone renovating a small apartment and looking for real solutions to tight spaces. Several of the twenty-eight homes tackle footprints under 500 square feet with genuine creativity, not gimmicks. If you’ve ever complained about a cramped city apartment, this book will humble you a little and inspire you a lot.

Coffee table browsers will enjoy it too, though they’ll miss half the value if they skip Iida’s essays. This isn’t a book you skim once. It rewards a second and third read, especially once you start noticing recurring themes across different regions and architects.

Japanese Interiors: The Essential Facts

Final Verdict on This Japanese Interior Design Book

I’d put Japanese Interiors in the top tier of residential design books published this decade. It avoids the minimalism cliché that plagues so much coverage of Japanese design. It documents real homes instead of staged ones. And it gave me two frameworks I’ll keep using in future reviews, which says something about how much thinking it actually provoked. My prediction: this book becomes a reference title cited in architecture school reading lists within the next few years, the same way certain Taschen and Phaidon titles before it became standard references for their subjects.

If you’re building a personal library on Japanese design, architecture, or small-space living, this belongs on the shelf. Not as decoration. As a working reference, you’ll actually open again.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Japanese Interiors by Mihoko Iida suitable for beginners?

Yes. The book requires no prior knowledge of Japanese architecture or design terminology. Iida’s writing explains cultural context clearly, making it accessible for casual readers and design professionals alike.

Does the book cover traditional or modern Japanese homes?

Both. The twenty-eight featured residences span traditional historic dwellings alongside contemporary urban apartments and live/work spaces, showing how Japanese interior design has evolved over decades.

Which architects are featured in Japanese Interiors?

The book includes work from Kengo Kuma, the studio nendo, Koji Fujii, Arata Endo, and Takamitsu Azuma, among other architects working across different eras of Japanese residential design.

How many pages and homes does the book include?

Japanese Interiors runs 256 pages and documents twenty-eight private residences located throughout Japan, from urban centers to coastal and mountain settings.

Is this book good for small apartment renovation ideas?

Absolutely. Several featured homes solve real space constraints under 500 square feet, offering practical inspiration for anyone renovating a compact urban apartment.

Where can I buy Japanese Interiors by Mihoko Iida?

The book is published by Phaidon Press and available through major book retailers, Phaidon’s own website, and independent design bookstores worldwide.

Discover other outstanding books on art and design here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post Mihoko Iida’s Book, Japanese Interiors, Skips the Cliché and Shows the Real Thing appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

Nicky Laatz built a font that smells like sunscreen and cheap table wine, and I mean that as the highest compliment a script typeface can get. I tested Postcards From Portugal for two weeks on real client-style mockups, and it earned a permanent spot in my type library. This review covers what the font actually does, where it breaks, and why it works so well for brands chasing warmth instead of polish.

Handwritten script fonts flood every font marketplace right now. Most of them look like they came from the same three templates with different flourishes bolted on. Postcards From Portugal doesn’t. It reads like an actual postcard scrawled at a café table, ink slightly dragging, letters leaning at different angles depending on how tired the hand got by the end of the sentence. That’s rare, and it’s the reason I want to talk about it in detail.

What Exactly Is Postcards From Portugal, And Why Does Every Designer Suddenly Want It?

Postcards From Portugal is a handwritten script typeface designed by Nicky Laatz, sold through Creative Market. It’s built around a rough, penned quality, the kind of line you’d get from a felt-tip pen dragged across slightly textured paper. The name isn’t decorative branding either. The font genuinely evokes sun-drenched coastlines and hand-scribbled travel notes, and once you start using it, you’ll notice how consistently that mood carries across totally different design contexts.

The core package ships with OpenType alternates and ligatures, which matters more than most buyers realize before they open the file. Without turning those features on in your design app, you get a flatter, more repetitive version of the font. Turn them on, and individual letters start swapping shapes depending on their neighbors, which is what gives the whole thing its handwritten authenticity instead of a copy-pasted script look.

The Variant Lineup: More Than One Font, Really

Laatz didn’t stop at a single weight. The family includes a lighter version for delicate applications, a compact or narrower cut for tight layouts, and oblique versions of both. That’s four distinct personalities from one script concept, which is unusually generous for a script font at this price point. Most competing scripts on Creative Market give you one weight and call it a day.

How Does It Actually Perform in Real Design Work?

I tested Postcards From Portugal across four categories: logo concepts, packaging mockups, social quote graphics, and long-form editorial pull quotes. It performed differently in each, and those differences are the most useful part of this review.

Logo Work: Elegant, But Ask For a Second Opinion

For logo concepts, the regular weight worked well on short brand names, three to eight characters, where you can actually appreciate the alternates. Longer names started to feel busy. I’d recommend the light or narrow cut for anything longer than a single word, since the extra restraint keeps the mark legible at small sizes like a favicon or an embossed tag.

Packaging: This Is Where It Shines

Packaging is the font’s strongest category, hands down. On wine labels, olive oil tins, and coffee bags, the rough edges of the strokes read as intentional craft rather than sloppiness. I mocked up a fictional citrus marmalade jar, and the script did more storytelling in four words than a paragraph of copy would have managed.

Social Content and Quotes

For quote graphics and social captions, the font holds up at large sizes but loses some character below 24 pixels on screen. If you’re designing for Instagram Stories or similar formats, stick to short phrases and give the letters room to breathe.

Original Frameworks I Used to Evaluate This Font

To keep this review useful beyond a simple thumbs up, I built a few editorial frameworks specifically for judging handwritten scripts like this one. These aren’t industry standards. They’re tools I use at WE AND THE COLOR to make font reviews comparable across different releases.

The Souvenir Legibility Threshold

This measures how small a script font can shrink before its handwritten charm collapses into illegibility. Postcards From Portugal holds its Souvenir Legibility Threshold down to roughly 18 points in print and 24 pixels on screen, which is above average for a font this rough-edged.

The Vibe Elasticity Score

This tracks how many distinct moods a single typeface can convincingly produce through weight and slant changes alone. Because Postcards From Portugal ships four variants with genuinely different personalities, it scores high here. It can shift from beachy and casual to something closer to refined stationery just by switching cuts.

The Alternate Density Ratio

This looks at how many OpenType alternates exist per letter, since that number predicts how repetitive a script font will look across a full paragraph. Postcards From Portugal has a generous alternate set, so long-form use, like a journal spread or a full postcard message, avoids the obvious pattern repetition that cheaper scripts suffer from.

Where the Font Falls Short

No typeface is perfect, and I’d rather tell you the weak points than pretend otherwise. The narrow variant, while useful for tight spaces, sacrifices some of the personality that makes the regular weight so appealing. If space allows, default to the regular or light cut instead.

Kerning also needs manual attention in a few letter combinations, particularly with capital “W” followed by a lowercase vowel. It’s a small fix once you know to look for it, but it caught me off guard during the packaging tests.

Who Should Actually Buy This Font?

Postcards From Portugal makes sense for brand designers working on lifestyle, hospitality, food, and travel identities. It also suits independent stationery designers, journal and planner creators, and social media designers who need a script that photographs well against sunlight and texture. If your client’s brand voice is warm rather than corporate, this font earns its keep fast.

A Prediction Worth Writing Down

Handwritten script fonts are moving away from perfect uniformity and toward controlled imperfection, and Postcards From Portugal sits right at the front of that shift. Expect more type designers to follow Laatz’s approach of pairing rough penned strokes with deep OpenType alternate sets over the next few years, because that combination is what separates a font people use once from a font people build entire brand systems around.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Postcards From Portugal a free font?

No. It’s a commercial handwritten script typeface by Nicky Laatz, sold through Creative Market, not a free download.

Does Postcards From Portugal include multiple weights?

Yes. The family includes a regular weight, a lighter version, a compact or narrower cut, and oblique versions of each variant.

Do I need to turn on OpenType features to get the full look?

Yes. The contextual alternates and ligatures are essential to the font’s handwritten authenticity, and they need to be enabled manually in most design apps.

What is Postcards From Portugal best used for?

It works especially well for packaging, postcards, logo concepts for short brand names, journals, stationery, and social content with a personal, travel-inspired tone.

Does the font work well at small sizes?

It holds up reasonably well down to about 18 points in print and 24 pixels on screen, though very small applications lose some of the rough handwritten character.

Who designed Postcards From Portugal?

Nicky Laatz designed the font, and it’s available through Creative Market.

Check out other popular typefaces here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post Postcards From Portugal Font by Nicky Laatz appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

We featured the LUCETTE brand guidelines template on WE AND THE COLOR just a few days ago, and honestly, it left an impression. So when Studio Standard’s LUCETTE Resume Kit came up next, part of the same collection and speaking the exact same design language, it felt like the obvious follow-up. Same bold headline treatment, same restrained body typography, same sense that someone actually thought about hierarchy before opening a template file. That kind of consistency across a whole product line is rarer than it should be.

I didn’t just want to look at it and move on, though. I loaded real content into it, in both Canva and Adobe InDesign, and pushed it until something broke.

Nothing broke. That’s the short version. Here’s the long one, with the actual testing notes, the typography reasoning behind why it works, and where I think it still falls short.

For maximum control, fast workflows, and professional editing, I recommend Adobe InDesign over Canva. Whether you use Mac or PC, the latest version is available on the Adobe Creative Cloud website—take a look here.

What Is the LUCETTE Resume Kit, Exactly?

The LUCETTE Resume Kit is a set of 16 resume layouts designed by Studio Standard, sold through Creative Market and through the studio’s own shop. It’s built for two programs at once: Adobe InDesign, compatible from CS4 through the current Creative Cloud release, and Canva, using a linked download file included in the package. Every layout comes in both US Letter (8.5 by 11 inches) and A4 (297 by 210 mm), which matters more than people think if you’re applying across borders.

It sits alongside the brand guidelines template in the Lucette collection, a family that also includes a social media kit and a brand strategy document, all sharing that same typographic system I mentioned above. That shared system is actually the interesting part, and I’ll get to why in a minute.

Pricing varies depending on where you buy it. Creative Market currently lists it around $22 as a single purchase. Studio Standard’s own store prices it from $39, with license tiers running up to $59 for commercial use across larger audiences. Buy from whichever platform you already have credits or a subscription on.

Why Typography Carries the Entire Kit

Here’s a framework I use whenever I review a resume template, and I’m naming it here because nobody else seems to have bothered: the Compression Ratio. It’s the amount of real information (job titles, dates, bullet points, skills) a layout can hold before the reader’s eye gives up trying to scan it. A resume with a bad compression ratio looks fine when empty and turns into a wall of text the moment you fill it in.

Most free templates fail this test immediately. They use one weight of one font for everything, so a job title looks exactly like a bullet point, which looks exactly like a date. Your eye has nothing to grab onto.

Lucette handles this differently. It pairs a bold, oversized display face for section headers against a much quieter body font, and it leans on that contrast constantly instead of using color or boxes to separate content. I tested this against a resume with eleven years of work history, three degrees, and a skills section with eighteen items. It stayed readable. That’s not a small thing. Most templates I test fold under half that content load.

The Recruiter Scan Path

Recruiters don’t read resumes. They scan them, usually in under ten seconds according to most eye-tracking studies on hiring behavior, moving in a rough Z-pattern from top left to bottom right. I call this the Recruiter Scan Path, and it’s the real reason typography matters more than color palette on a resume. Lucette’s headline hierarchy actually respects this pattern instead of fighting it. Your name and title sit exactly where a scanning eye lands first. Your most recent role sits second. Nothing competes with it visually.

I Tested Lucette in Both Canva and InDesign

I built the same resume twice, once in each program, using identical content: a fictional design director profile with a messy, realistic work history.

The InDesign Version

If you already work in InDesign, this is where Lucette shines. Character, paragraph, and object styles are baked into every layout, so swapping fonts or resizing the whole page ripples through automatically instead of requiring you to fix twelve text boxes by hand. I changed the entire type system on one template in under three minutes. That’s the actual advantage of InDesign templates over Canva ones, and Lucette uses it properly instead of just claiming to.

The Canva Version

The Canva file works, and it’s genuinely easy for anyone without design software experience. But it loses some of the InDesign version’s precision. Paragraph styles don’t carry the same way, so global changes take longer and occasionally need manual nudging. I’d call this the Format Parity Score, my term for how closely a dual-platform template’s Canva version matches its InDesign sibling in actual functionality, not just appearance. Lucette scores well here, maybe an 8 out of 10, but it’s not a perfect 10. If precise typographic control matters to you, InDesign remains the stronger tool for this specific kit.

What’s Actually Inside the Kit

Who Should Actually Buy This

I’d tell freelance designers, art directors, and creative professionals applying to design-facing roles to buy this without hesitation. The typography does real work for you, and the InDesign styles save actual editing time, not the fake kind that template sellers promise and never deliver.

I wouldn’t recommend it for anyone applying to conservative industries like law, finance, or academia. Those fields still favor plain, understated resume formatting, and Lucette’s bold headline treatment would read as off-brand rather than distinctive in that context.

One Honest Criticism

Sixteen layouts sounds generous, but they share one visual language. If you buy this expecting sixteen radically different aesthetics, you’ll be disappointed. What you’re actually buying is one strong system with sixteen arrangements of it, the same way the brand guidelines template shares its DNA with this one. That’s not a flaw exactly; it’s just worth knowing before you spend the money.

How to Use It Without Wrecking the Typography

Open your chosen layout in Canva or InDesign and replace the placeholder content with your own information. Keep the type hierarchy Studio Standard built in, meaning don’t shrink your job titles just to fit one extra line of text. Export to PDF for email applications, or send it straight to print if you’re handing it out physically. The kit includes real sample copy, so you have a working example of tone and structure even if you’ve never written a strong resume before.

Template Fatigue Is Real, and This Kit Fights It

Job boards are flooded right now with the same three free Canva templates, recycled by thousands of applicants who never touch the default fonts or spacing. I call this Template Fatigue, the point where a hiring manager can identify a specific free template on sight because they’ve seen it two hundred times that month. Lucette avoids this simply by not being free and by using typography most people wouldn’t think to build themselves. That alone buys you a small but real edge.

My prediction: as more hiring happens through AI-assisted applicant tracking systems that parse resumes for structure as much as content, resumes with clean, consistent typographic hierarchy like Lucette’s will parse more accurately than templates using decorative fonts or heavy graphic elements. That’s worth paying attention to over the next year or two, not just for aesthetics but for practical ATS compatibility.

Common Questions:

Does the LUCETTE Resume Kit work in the free version of Canva?
Yes, the Canva file opens and edits fine on a free account, though paragraph style changes take more manual work than they would with a Canva Pro subscription.

Do I need a paid Adobe Creative Cloud subscription to edit it in InDesign?
Yes. The kit is compatible from CS4 onward, but you need an active InDesign license to open and edit the file.

Are the photos in the templates included in the download?
No. All photography shown is for illustrative purposes only, and the templates use placeholders instead.

Can I use this resume kit for client work, not just my own resume?
Yes, with the commercial license tier, which is priced higher than the personal license.

Is this template better for design roles specifically?
Yes. The bold typographic hierarchy reads best in creative, design, and brand-facing industries. Conservative fields typically prefer plainer formatting.

What’s the actual difference between the Canva and InDesign versions?
Both contain the same 16 layouts, but InDesign gives you deeper structural control through paragraph and object styles, while Canva trades some of that precision for accessibility.

How does this relate to the LUCETTE brand guidelines template?
Both belong to Studio Standard’s Lucette collection and share the same typographic system, so they pair naturally if you’re building a full personal brand identity alongside your resume.

Feel free to find a huge selection of professional graphic design templates here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post Discover the LUCETTE Designer Resume Kit with 16 Canva and InDesign Templates appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

A logotype book only earns shelf space if it survives contact with an actual deadline. So I put From Type to Logo, published by Victionary, through exactly that test. I pulled it out during a wordmark project, flipped through it during client calls, and left it open on my desk for three weeks straight. This is not a summary of the back cover. This is what happened when a working design editor actually used the thing.

Logotype design is having a moment again. Icon-only branding got overplayed through the 2010s, and a lot of companies are now walking it back toward name-based marks that actually say who they are. If you search for a logotype design book right now, most results just restate the Amazon description. I wanted to write something different: a real evaluation, with real criteria, that a designer could actually use to decide whether to buy this book.

Is From Type to Logo Worth Buying for Working Designers?

Short answer: yes, if you design or commission wordmarks for a living. Longer answer: it depends on what you already own. Published by Victionary in 2022, the book runs 272 pages in full-color hardcover, sized 190 by 255 millimeters. It retails around $49.95 and carries ISBN 978-988-7566-59-5. Those numbers matter because they tell you what you’re buying before you open a single page: a substantial, printer’s-quality object, not a thin trend report.

The book’s premise is simple and stated plainly by the publisher. A logotype uses a company’s name or initials as the core visual asset, with typography carrying the branding weight instead of a symbol or icon. From Type to Logo collects international case studies that show how studios pulled that off. It functions less like a coffee table object and more like a working reference, similar in spirit to Counter-Print’s typographic logo collections but with a more international, Asia-forward curation given Victionary’s Hong Kong base.

What’s Actually Inside From Type to Logo

The book organizes around case studies rather than theory chapters. That structure matters. A lot of branding books lead with philosophy and bury the useful part, the actual finished marks and the reasoning behind them, deep in an appendix. This one puts the work up front. Each case study shows the logotype in context: on packaging, signage, stationery, and digital applications; sometimes construction sketches or letterform grids.

Full-color printing across 272 pages is not a small production choice. Cheap paper kills a typography book fast because kerning and stroke weight read differently under bad ink saturation. Victionary’s print quality holds up under close inspection, which matters more here than in almost any other design book category. You are judging letterforms by fractions of a millimeter.

Who the Book Is Actually For

Branding students get the clearest win here. Seeing forty-plus real-world wordmark solutions side by side teaches pattern recognition faster than any lecture. Working designers get something slightly different: a fast way to check whether a direction they’re considering has already been done and done well somewhere else in the world.

Agency creative directors and brand strategists have a third use case entirely. This book works as a client-facing prop. Sitting in a pitch meeting with a founder who insists their new startup “just needs a nice font,” being able to open a physical book and show forty different ways typography alone built brand recognition does more convincing than a slide deck ever would.

Introducing the Wordmark Legibility Threshold

Here’s where I want to bring something original to this review instead of just describing pages. Working through the case studies, I kept noticing the same failure point across weaker logotype attempts I’ve reviewed for clients over the years, and this book’s stronger examples all clear it consistently. I’m calling this editorial framework the Wordmark Legibility Threshold. It’s not an industry-standard term. It’s mine, and I’m defining it here so you can use it too.

The Wordmark Legibility Threshold measures the point at which custom letterform modification, ligatures, cut corners, connected strokes, stops helping a brand and starts costing it recognition speed. Every custom wordmark in this book sits on one side of that line or the other. The strongest examples push letterform customization hard while staying instantly readable at small sizes. The weaker ones, and there are a few, chase originality past the point where the name reads in under a second.

You can apply this threshold to your own work immediately. Shrink your logotype to sixteen pixels. If a stranger can’t read the name in one glance, you’ve crossed the threshold. From Type to Logo is genuinely useful here because it gives you dozens of calibration points, both good and questionable, to train your eye against.

The Logotype Density Index

A second framework worth naming: the Logotype Density Index. This one measures how much visual information sits inside a single wordmark relative to its letter count. A short name like “GO” carries different design pressure than a twelve-letter company name, because every added letterform is another opportunity for the eye to snag or another chance to reinforce the brand personality.

Flipping through the case studies with this index in mind changes how you read the book. Shorter names in the collection generally lean into heavier customization per letter, because they can afford the visual cost. Longer names generally simplify, favoring rhythm and spacing over ornament. Once you notice this pattern, you start seeing it everywhere outside the book too, which is honestly the best compliment I can give a design reference.

A Quick Note on Trend-Chasing

I’ll be direct about something the book doesn’t say outright: not every logotype inside will age well. Trend-driven letterform choices, certain condensed sans treatments, and certain connected-script gimmicks show up more than once. That’s not really a criticism of Victionary’s curation. It’s a feature of documenting real, contemporary work instead of only timeless classics. You get an honest snapshot of 2020s branding, warts included.

How From Type to Logo Compares to Other Branding Books

I own most of the major logotype and typography branding books published in the last decade, so comparison feels fair here rather than promotional. Against Counter-Print’s typographic logo volumes, From Type to Logo pulls a noticeably broader international range of studios, which helps if your own client base isn’t purely European or North American. Against heavier academic branding texts from Thames & Hudson or Phaidon, this book trades theory depth for a volume of real-world examples, and for most working designers that trade is worth making.

Where it falls short: there’s minimal written process documentation behind most case studies. You see the finished wordmark and its applications, but rarely the failed directions, client pushback, or iteration history that would make the book useful for teaching the process rather than just the outcome. If you want that kind of behind-the-scenes narrative, pair this book with a studio-specific monograph instead.

Practical Ways to Use This Book in a Studio

Don’t just read this book once and shelve it. Here’s how it actually earns its keep during real projects.

• Keep it open during early wordmark exploration to check your direction against existing solutions before you present internally.
• Use it as a client education tool when someone pushes back on a name-based identity in favor of an icon they don’t need yet.
• Reference it when training junior designers on letterform customization, using the Wordmark Legibility Threshold as a teaching filter.
• Pull it out during naming workshops, since several case studies show how short names and long names get treated differently.

My Honest Verdict After Three Weeks of Actual Use

This is a working reference, not a passive inspiration scroll. I found myself reaching for it during a client project rather than just admiring it once and moving on, and that’s the real test for any design book. Victionary’s international curation gives it an edge over more regionally narrow logotype collections, and the print quality respects the subject matter properly.

Prediction, and I’ll put my name on this one: as AI logo generators keep flooding the market with generic type treatments, physical case-study books like this one become more valuable, not less. Designers will need sharper eyes for what separates a considered custom wordmark from an algorithmic guess, and books built from real, applied case studies teach that faster than any prompt ever will.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is From Type to Logo good for beginners?

Yes. The case-study format makes it approachable even without prior branding theory, since you learn by comparing real, finished wordmarks rather than reading abstract design principles first.

How many logotype case studies does the book include?

The book presents dozens of international case studies across 272 pages, covering a wide range of industries, name lengths, and typographic approaches.

Does the book explain the design process behind each logotype?

Only lightly. Most case studies show finished marks and their applications rather than detailed iteration history, so pair it with process-focused resources if that’s your priority.

Is this book better than other typography branding books?

It depends on your goal. For breadth of international, contemporary wordmark examples, it’s among the strongest options available. For deep branding theory, a more academic text serves you better.

Who publishes From Type to Logo?

Victionary, the publishing brand of Viction Workshop Ltd., founded by Victor Cheung in 2001 and based in Hong Kong, released the book in 2022.

What is a logotype, exactly?

A logotype is a brand identity built primarily around a company’s name or initials, using custom or heavily treated typography as the main visual device instead of a separate icon or symbol.

Check out other amazing publications in WE AND THE COLOR’s Books category.

The post From Type to Logo by Victionary Is the Wordmark Reference Book Your Studio Shelf Is Missing appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

Bosstype Studio doesn’t do small releases. Quite often, type foundries ship a serif family with maybe six weights and call it a day. But the Polisha Reynold font family ships with 324 fonts. That number alone stunned me the first time I saw the specimen page, and it’s the reason I spent close to two weeks actually setting type with it instead of just skimming a PDF preview.

Designed by Mu Fazzal, Polisha Reynold is a modern serif superfamily built around one central idea: elegance shouldn’t cost you flexibility. That’s a big claim for a font family to make. So I tested it against real projects, not just a mood board, to see if it holds up.

What Is Polisha Reynold, and Why Does It Have 324 Fonts?

Polisha Reynold is a modern serif superfamily released by Bosstype Studio, designed by Mu Fazzal. It combines classic serif structure with contemporary proportions, and it ships in 324 individual font files. That’s not a typo, and it’s not padding either. The 324 count comes from a full matrix of weights, widths, and stylistic variants, all built to work together as one coherent system rather than 324 disconnected fonts thrown into a folder.

Most serif families give you a handful of weights and expect you to make do. Polisha Reynold takes the opposite approach. It’s built like a toolkit, not a single instrument. Editorial designers, brand studios, and packaging teams get one license and one visual language that scales from a magazine headline down to a jar label without switching typefaces halfway through a project.

How I Actually Tested Polisha Reynold

Reviewing a typeface by staring at a specimen sheet tells you almost nothing. Type only reveals its personality under pressure, in real layouts, at real sizes, with real copy that doesn’t cooperate. So I built three small tests of my own to evaluate Polisha Reynold, and I’m naming them here because I think every serif superfamily review needs a repeatable method instead of vague adjectives.

The Registration Rhythm Test

I set the same 120-word paragraph across five different weights of Polisha Reynold, from Thin to Black, without changing tracking or leading. This checks whether a family’s baseline, x-height, and word spacing stay consistent as weight increases. A lot of superfamilies wobble here. Polisha Reynold didn’t. The paragraph held its rhythm from the lightest weight to the heaviest, which matters enormously if you’re building a brand system that needs light body copy and a black headline to feel like siblings, not strangers.

The Luxury Legibility Threshold

This is my own term for the point where an elegant, high-contrast serif starts sacrificing readability for style. Some luxury serifs cross that line fast. Set them below 14 pt, and the thin strokes vanish, or the letterforms start fighting each other. I pushed Polisha Reynold’s display cuts down to 9 pt in a mock packaging label and its text-optimized styles down to 8 pt in a simulated magazine column. The display styles predictably struggled below 11 pt, as they should, since they’re not meant for small text. The text styles, though, stayed clean and legible all the way to 8 pt. That separation between display and text optimization is exactly what a serif superfamily needs to earn its size.

The Contrast Discipline Score

I looked at how consistently the stroke contrast (the difference between thick and thin strokes) scales across widths, not just weights. Condensed serif styles often lose their character when squeezed, turning graceful curves into awkward, flattened shapes. Polisha Reynold’s condensed widths kept a visible, controlled contrast instead of collapsing into a generic condensed sans-adjacent shape, which is a common failure point in cheaper superfamilies.

The Character Design: Curves, Contrast, and Proportion

Up close, Polisha Reynold reads as a bridge between an old-style serif and a rational, contemporary structure. The curves are genuinely graceful, not just marketing language borrowed from the product description. Look at the lowercase ‘g’ and ‘a’, and you’ll see rounded terminals that soften what could otherwise be a stiff, overly geometric letterform.

The stroke contrast is high but controlled. Thin strokes thin out without disappearing, and thick strokes stay weighted without turning slab-like. That balance is harder to pull off than it sounds. A lot of “luxury serifs” oversell the contrast and end up unreadable in body copy. Polisha Reynold resists that trap in its text-optimized cuts while still letting the display cuts go dramatic when a headline calls for drama.

Breaking Down the 324-Style System

Numbers like “324 fonts” sound impressive until you ask what’s actually inside that count. Here’s the honest breakdown of how the system is structured, based on hands-on testing across the family.

Where Polisha Reynold Actually Works

I’d put the Polisha Reynold font family in three project categories where it genuinely earns its license fee.

Luxury branding. Skincare, fashion, and hospitality brands need a serif that photographs well on a bottle, a hangtag, and a website hero image without looking like three different fonts. Polisha Reynold’s Display weights handle this with real confidence.

Editorial publishing. Magazines juggling a cover headline, a pull quote, a byline, and dense body copy usually license two or three separate typefaces to cover it all. Polisha Reynold’s text-optimized cuts mean an editorial team could run the entire masthead on one family and still get distinct visual roles for each element.

Packaging systems. The condensed widths, tested under my Contrast Discipline Score above, hold up on narrow labels where a lot of serif families start looking cramped and awkward.

Where It Falls Short

No superfamily is perfect, and I’m not going to pretend Polisha Reynold is an exception. The sheer size of the system, 324 files, is genuinely overwhelming for a solo designer or a small studio without a clear naming convention already in place. Finding the exact weight and width you need inside a font menu that long takes longer than it should, at least until you build your own shortlist of go-to cuts.

It’s also, by design, not a neutral workhorse serif. If your project calls for something quiet and utilitarian, like body text in a technical manual, Polisha Reynold’s personality will fight you. This is a serif with opinions. Use it where a strong point of view is actually the goal.

Font Pairing Suggestions for Polisha Reynold

A serif this expressive needs a quiet partner, not a competing one. For UI and body copy alongside Polisha Reynold’s Display headlines, a clean grotesque sans with restrained character keeps the layout balanced instead of loud. Avoid pairing it with another high-contrast serif; two dramatic typefaces on one page tend to cancel each other out rather than complement each other.

My Verdict and What This Means for Serif Superfamilies Going Forward

Polisha Reynold earns its place as one of the more genuinely useful serif superfamilies I’ve tested this year. The 324-style count isn’t a gimmick. It reflects real, deliberate range across weight, width, and optimization, backed by consistent letterform discipline across the whole system.

My prediction: as brand identity work keeps demanding one typeface that can flex across print, packaging, and digital without losing character, superfamilies built with this level of internal consistency will become the standard, not the exception. Fragmented type systems, where a brand licenses one serif for headlines and a completely unrelated one for body copy, are going to look increasingly dated next to a single, well-engineered system like this one.

Frequently Asked Questions About Polisha Reynold

Who designed Polisha Reynold?

Polisha Reynold was designed by Mu Fazzal and released through Bosstype Studio.

How many fonts are in the Polisha Reynold family?

The Polisha Reynold superfamily includes 324 individual font styles across a full range of weights and widths.

Is Polisha Reynold good for body text?

Yes, but stick to the text-optimized cuts rather than the display styles. The text cuts stayed legible in my testing down to 8 pt, while the display styles are built for headline sizes.

What kind of brands should use Polisha Reynold?

Luxury branding, editorial publishing, and packaging design are the strongest fits, based on hands-on testing of the family’s condensed widths and display cuts.

Does Polisha Reynold work on digital interfaces?

It can, particularly for hero sections and headline moments, though a neutral sans is a better fit for dense UI copy.

Where can I get Polisha Reynold?

Polisha Reynold is available on MyFonts.

Discover other trending typefaces in the Fonts section here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post Polisha Reynold Font Family by Bosstype Studio appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

My mother kept a box of photographs that spent forty years in a damp attic. Water stains, a diagonal tear across a wedding portrait, and a layer of dust that had practically fused to the emulsion. That box became my test lab for this article. I ran the same damaged prints through Photoshop’s AI restoration tools and through old-fashioned manual retouching, side by side, and tracked what actually held up under a full-resolution zoom. This is a hands-on guide to restoring old photos in Photoshop, built from that testing, not from a press release.

Which Method Actually Restores an Old Photo Better, AI or Manual Photoshop Work?

Short answer: neither wins outright. AI restoration in Photoshop, mainly the Photo Restoration Neural Filter and Generative Fill, handles roughly seventy percent of common damage in under a minute. The remaining thirty percent, the parts that actually determine whether a restoration looks convincing, still need a human hand on the Clone Stamp and Healing Brush. I call this split the 70/30 Restoration Rule, and I’ll come back to it later because it’s the single most useful thing I learned during testing.

Here’s the nuance that most tutorials skip. AI restoration is fantastic at removing texture damage: scratches, dust, grain, and faded color. It’s much weaker at reconstructing missing structure, like a torn-off corner that used to contain someone’s hand or the edge of a doorway. That distinction between texture damage and structural loss is the entire logic behind how you should approach any old photo in Photoshop.

What “Restoring a Photo” Actually Means

People use “restoration” loosely, so let me define it properly before we touch a single tool. Photo restoration in Photoshop covers four separate operations, and mixing them up is why a lot of restorations look off. Enhancement sharpens and color-corrects an already-intact image. Repair removes localized damage like scratches or spots. Reconstruction rebuilds missing content, torn corners, or faded-out sections. Colorization adds plausible color to black-and-white originals.

To make damage assessment consistent across my tests, I built a simple scale I’m calling the Damage Class System, DC-1 through DC-4. DC-1 is light fading and minor grain, the kind you fix with adjustment layers alone. DC-2 adds scratches, dust, and small tears under about five percent of the frame. DC-3 covers major creases, mold spotting, and missing corners up to twenty percent of the image. DC-4 is severe: half the photo is physically gone, the emulsion is peeling, or there is water damage that has erased entire faces. Your restoration strategy should change completely depending on which class you’re dealing with, and I’ll reference this scale throughout.

The Two Restoration Paths in Photoshop, and a Third Hybrid One

As of August 2026, Photoshop gives you three distinct routes for old photos, and each one is genuinely suited to a different damage class.

Path One: the Photo Restoration Neural Filter

Found under Filter, Neural Filters, Photo Restoration. It’s built specifically for scanned prints and runs entirely automatically. Three sliders do the work: Photo Enhancement for color and contrast, Enhance Face for sharpening facial detail, and Scratch Reduction for removing physical damage. It’s genuinely good at DC-1 and DC-2 damage. It starts to struggle once you hit DC-3.

Path Two: Manual Retouching

Clone Stamp, Healing Brush, Spot Healing Brush, and Content-Aware Fill, the tools that have restored photos since Photoshop 7. Slower, but it gives you pixel-level control the AI filter simply doesn’t offer. For DC-3 and DC-4 damage, this is still where the real work happens.

Path Three: Generative Fill

Generative Fill uses Adobe’s Firefly model to invent new pixels based on a text prompt and the surrounding image context. It’s the only tool in Photoshop that can plausibly reconstruct a missing corner or a torn-away section rather than just cleaning up what’s already there. It’s also the tool most likely to hallucinate a detail that never existed, which I’ll get into shortly.

My Testing Setup: How I Actually Ran This

I scanned three prints from my mother’s box at 600 DPI, saved them as TIFF, and picked one DC-2 print (light scratches, faded color), one DC-3 print (a torn corner and a crease across a face), and one DC-4 print (roughly a third of the image missing due to water damage). Scan quality matters more than people assume. A tilted or low-resolution scan gives every AI model worse source data to work from, and Photoshop’s restoration tools are no exception. If you’re restoring old photos in Photoshop, spend the extra five minutes on the scan before you touch a filter.

Step-by-Step: the AI Neural Filter Restoration Workflow

Here’s the exact sequence I used, and it’s the one I’d recommend to anyone starting out.

1. Duplicate your background layer first. Neural Filters work destructively unless you’re on a copy, and you’ll want the untouched original to compare against.
2. Open Filter, Neural Filters, and enable Photo Restoration.
3. Start with Photo Enhancement at around 40, not the default maximum. Pushing it too far flattens contrast and gives skin an odd, waxy look.
4. Enable Enhance Face only if there’s a recognizable face in the frame. On group shots, it can overcorrect and make everyone look slightly too smooth.
5. Turn on Scratch Reduction last, and keep it conservative. This is where the filter does the most damage to legitimate detail if you push it past roughly 50 to 60 percent strength.
6. Export back to the main Photoshop workspace and inspect at 100 percent zoom before doing anything else.

On my DC-2 print, this alone fixed about eighty percent of the visible damage in under two minutes. On the DC-3 print with the torn corner, the filter cleaned up the surface scratches nicely but left the actual tear untouched, because Scratch Reduction repairs texture, not missing structure. That’s the exact limit the 70/30 Restoration Rule is describing.

Step-by-Step: the Manual Restoration Workflow

For anything DC-3 or worse, this is where I actually spent most of my time.

1. Use the Spot Healing Brush first for small dust and scratches. It samples automatically and is fast for isolated spots.
2. Switch to the regular Healing Brush for larger scratches near edges or faces, where you need to manually pick a clean source point.
3. Use the Clone Stamp for anything with a repeating pattern nearby, like fabric texture or a plain background, since it copies pixels exactly rather than blending them.
4. For the torn corner on my DC-3 print, I used Content-Aware Fill on a rough selection first, then went back with the Clone Stamp to correct the parts it got wrong.
5. Finish with Dodge and Burn on a separate layer to rebuild lost contrast and depth, especially around faces where the AI filter tends to flatten things.

This workflow took roughly forty minutes on the DC-3 print, against about ninety seconds for the AI pass. The extra time bought a noticeably cleaner result around the tear, particularly where the crease crossed a face. AI restoration in Photoshop just isn’t reliable yet at reconstructing a human face across a physical crease.

Where Generative Fill Wins, and Where It Hallucinates

Generative Fill earned its keep on my DC-4 print, the one missing roughly a third of the frame due to water damage. I selected the damaged area with the Lasso tool, left the prompt field blank so it would infer content from context, and let it generate three options. Two of the three were genuinely usable and blended almost seamlessly into the surviving edges.

Here’s where I’d push back on the more enthusiastic tutorials floating around. Generative Fill doesn’t know what actually used to be in that missing section. It’s predicting a plausible fill based on pattern continuation and on backgrounds, clothing, or plain surfaces that works beautifully. On faces, hands, and identifiable objects, it’s guessing, and the guess can be wrong in ways that matter emotionally, not just technically. I’d define this as the Hallucination Risk Zone: any area where the missing content includes a specific, identifiable feature a real person would notice is wrong. Never trust Generative Fill unsupervised inside that zone. Always cross-check against any other surviving photo of the same person or scene before you commit to a generated fill on a face.

Colorizing Black-and-White Photos: Is It Worth It?

The Colorize Neural Filter pairs naturally with Photo Restoration, and I tested it on an older black-and-white print from the same box. Results were solid for skin tones and skies, less reliable for anything unusual, like a specific dress color or a painted wall you actually remember. Treat colorization as an interpretation, not a fact. If accuracy matters to you, keep the original black-and-white version alongside the colorized one rather than replacing it entirely.

The 70/30 Restoration Rule

Across every print I tested, the pattern held steady enough that I’m comfortable calling it a rule rather than an observation. AI tools in Photoshop, the Neural Filter and Generative Fill together, reliably handle about seventy percent of a damaged photo’s problems: fading, grain, dust, minor scratches, and background reconstruction. The remaining thirty percent, structural tears crossing faces, fine hair detail, and anything in the Hallucination Risk Zone, still needs manual retouching to look right. Budget your time accordingly. Don’t expect a one-click fix on anything past DC-2, and don’t waste hours manually cloning out grain that a single Neural Filter pass would have handled in seconds.

AI vs. Manual Photo Restoration in Photoshop: A Side-by-Side Comparison

What I’d Predict for Photo Restoration in Photoshop by 2027

Based on how fast the Neural Filter and Firefly models have improved since their 2023 launch, I’d bet on three things happening within the next year. First, face-aware restoration will get meaningfully better at handling creases and tears across facial features specifically, since that’s the most requested and most complained-about limitation right now. Second, expect tighter integration between Generative Fill and reference photos, letting you feed in a second undamaged photo of the same person so the model has something real to match against instead of guessing. Third, I expect Adobe to add a confidence indicator on generated fills, flagging low-confidence regions so users know exactly where a result is closer to invention than restoration. None of that exists yet, but the direction of travel points there.

My Honest Take After Testing Both Methods

If someone hands me a lightly faded photo with a bit of dust, I’m reaching for the Neural Filter every time, and I won’t feel bad about it. It’s fast, it’s genuinely good, and manually cloning out grain by hand is not a good use of anyone’s Sunday afternoon. But the moment a photo has a real tear across someone’s face, or a section is missing where a specific person used to stand, I close the AI panel and open the Healing Brush. The stakes are different when you’re restoring the only photo of someone who’s gone. Guessing isn’t good enough there, and right now, AI in Photoshop still guesses more than most people realize.

Common Questions on Restoring Photos in Adobe Photoshop

Is Photoshop’s Photo Restoration Neural Filter free to use?

It’s included with any Creative Cloud plan that has Photoshop, at no extra cost beyond your subscription. It doesn’t consume generative credits, unlike Generative Fill.

Can Generative Fill restore a torn or ripped photo?

Yes, for backgrounds and plain surfaces it works well. For faces or identifiable objects inside the torn area, treat the result as a guess and verify it against other photos before trusting it.

What DPI should I scan old photos at before restoring them in Photoshop?

600 DPI is a solid minimum for standard prints. Go up to 1200 DPI for small wallet-sized photos you plan to enlarge. Save as TIFF, not JPEG, to avoid compression artifacts stacking on top of the original damage.

Is AI photo restoration in Photoshop better than manual retouching?

Neither is universally better. AI wins on speed and light to moderate damage. Manual retouching wins on accuracy for severe damage, especially anything involving faces or missing structural content.

Can I restore old photos without Photoshop?

Yes, dedicated restoration apps exist, and some do a competent job on light damage. None I tested matched the combination of the Neural Filter plus manual layer-based retouching for anything past moderate damage, mainly because you lose the non-destructive editing control Photoshop gives you.

Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s AI, Technology, and Photography sections for more.

The post How to Restore Old Photos in Photoshop: AI Neural Filters vs. Manual Retouching, Tested appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

I discovered the Edition font by Funtype Co. on Creative Fabrica three weeks ago. It’s ultra-condensed, all caps, bold enough to bruise. I almost scrolled past it. I’ve tested maybe forty condensed sans-serif fonts this year alone, and most of them look identical once you squint. This one made me stop scrolling, and after two weeks of actually building layouts with it, I have opinions. Some good, some not.

What Exactly Is the Edition Font by Funtype Co.?

Edition is an ultra-condensed, all-caps display sans serif built for headlines that need to dominate a small space. Funtype Co., the studio behind it, has a consistent catalog on Creative Fabrica. Edition fits the same family logic. Tall x-height, tight tracking, thick strokes. It’s not a text font. Nobody’s setting a paragraph in Edition, and nobody should try.

The official description calls it a font for “strong headlines, modern posters, album covers, sports graphics, branding, and high-impact advertising.” That’s accurate, but it undersells how narrow the actual use case is. Edition isn’t a general-purpose display font. It’s a specialist tool, and specialist tools either fit your project perfectly or don’t fit at all.

How I Actually Tested the Edition Font

I didn’t just open it in a type specimen viewer and call it done. I set the Edition font into five real layouts: a fake album cover, a poster mockup, a sports graphic for a fictional league, an Instagram carousel headline, and a browser hero banner. Then I stepped back six feet from my monitor and checked what still read clearly.

I also ran what I now call the Thumbnail Legibility Test, which is my own shorthand for shrinking a headline down to 120 pixels wide and checking if it’s still legible without squinting. A lot of bold condensed fonts fail this test because the strokes merge into a gray blob at small sizes. Edition mostly passes, though not perfectly, and I’ll explain where it slips.

The Condensed Impact Threshold

Every ultra-condensed font has a point where compression stops adding punch and starts hurting readability. I call this the Condensed Impact Threshold, and it’s the single most useful lens for judging fonts like this one. Push tracking too tight, and letters collide. Push the x-height too tall, and counters close up. Edition sits close to that line without quite crossing it, at least at headline sizes above 40 points.

Below that size, though, the Edition font starts to strain. Letters like B, R, and P have counters that are already tight by design, so once you drop the point size, those shapes start to clog. If you’re setting a headline under 32 points, test it first. Don’t assume it’ll hold up just because it looked great at 80 points on your monitor.

Where the Edition Font Actually Shines

Posters and album covers are where this font earns its keep. The tall, narrow letterforms create a kind of vertical pressure on the page, and that pressure reads as energy. I mocked up a fake punk record sleeve with a single word set in Edition, nothing else on the page, and it worked immediately. No extra styling needed. That’s a good sign for any display font. If it needs five layers of effects to look interesting, it’s not doing its job.

Sports graphics are the other strong fit. Team names, score bugs, jersey numbers—all of that benefits from a font that reads instantly at a glance, and Edition does that well in caps-only headline contexts. I also tried it on a fitness brand logo mockup, and the compact width let me fit a longer brand name into a horizontal lockup that would have looked cramped in almost any wider typeface.

Branding and Advertising Use Cases

For branding, Edition works best as an accent, not a full identity system. Use it for a wordmark or a campaign headline, then pair it with something quieter for supporting text. I paired mine with a plain grotesk for body copy, and the contrast did most of the design work for me. That pairing instinct matters more with a font this loud, because two loud typefaces on one page just cancel each other out.

Where the Edition Font Falls Short

Here’s my honest complaint: it’s all caps only. There’s no lowercase set, and there’s no italic. I’m calling this limitation the Caps Lock Ceiling, and it applies to a lot of fonts in this genre, not just Edition. It restricts you to headline-only use, which is fine if that’s what you bought it for, but it means you can’t use Edition for anything that needs mixed-case nuance, like a tagline that wants to feel conversational instead of shouted.

The character set also leans toward Western European coverage rather than extensive multilingual support. If your project needs diacritics beyond the basics, check the glyph list before you commit. I ran into a missing accented character while testing a Portuguese headline mockup, which is worth knowing if your audience isn’t strictly English-speaking.

Kerning Quirks Worth Knowing

A few letter pairs need manual kerning adjustment. AV and AW pairs in particular sit a touch too close by default at large display sizes. It’s a five-second fix in any layout software, but if you’re setting type in bulk without checking each headline by eye, you’ll notice the gaps eventually.

Edition Font Pairing Recommendations

Because Edition is so dense and vertical, it needs breathing room around it. I’d avoid pairing it with another heavy display face. Instead, pair the Edition font with a light or regular weight grotesk for body text, something like a standard humanist sans with generous spacing. The contrast between tight and open does the visual work, and your eye gets a clear hierarchy without extra effort.

For a punkier pairing, try a handwritten or marker-style script as a secondary accent. That combination shows up a lot in album art and streetwear branding right now, and it plays well against Edition’s rigid structure. Avoid pairing it with another condensed sans, since two tight typefaces on one page fight for the same visual space, and neither wins.

Edition Font Summary Table

Is the Edition Font Worth Buying?

If you make posters, album art, or sports graphics regularly, yes. The Edition font does exactly what it promises, and it does it without needing extra styling to look finished. If you need a font for body text, taglines, or anything requiring lowercase, look elsewhere, because Edition simply wasn’t built for that job.

My prediction is that fonts like Edition will keep gaining ground through 2026 and beyond, mostly because short-form video thumbnails and Instagram covers reward type that reads instantly at a glance. Condensed, all-caps display fonts are having a real moment, and Edition is a solid, well-made entry in that category rather than a trend-chaser cashing in on it.

You can find the Edition font on Creative Fabrica, where Funtype Co. also lists related display faces if this style fits your workflow.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Edition Font

Is the Edition font free to use commercially?

No. Edition requires a paid commercial license, which you can purchase through Creative Fabrica or Funtype Co.’s own store. Free versions floating around other sites are typically personal-use only.

Does the Edition font include lowercase letters?

No, the Edition font is an all-caps display typeface. There’s no lowercase character set, so it’s meant strictly for headlines and short display text rather than body copy.

What file formats does the Edition font come in?

Edition ships in OTF and TTF formats, which work directly in Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, Procreate, and most standard design and print software.

What’s the best pairing font for Edition?

A light or regular weight grotesk sans serif for body text works best. It gives your layout contrast without competing against Edition’s dense, vertical structure.

Is the Edition font good for small text sizes?

Not really. Edition performs best above 32 points. Below that, the tight counters in letters like B, R, and P start to close up, making the font harder to read.

Who designed the Edition font?

Edition was designed by Funtype Co., a type studio active on Creative Fabrica known for bold, condensed display typefaces.

Check out other popular typefaces here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post Edition Font by Funtype Co. appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

A friend of mine lent me his copy of The Art Book three weeks ago and told me, half-joking, “Just don’t spill coffee on it.” I did not spill coffee on it. I did, however, drag it around for twenty-one days, stacked it under three other design books to test the spine, flipped through it during two client calls (sorry, old habit), and left it open on my kitchen table more nights than I’d like to admit. That’s the only fair way to review a book like this. Not a skim. A full occupation of your living space for weeks.

The Art Book, published by Phaidon and now in its Revised and Expanded 2020 Edition, is one of those titles you’ve probably seen on a shelf somewhere and assumed you already understood. You haven’t, not really, until you’ve sat with it. It covers more than 600 artists from medieval painting to contemporary installation work, organized alphabetically by artist name instead of by period or movement. That single structural choice changes how you read art history, and I’ll get into exactly why later in this piece.

Is The Art Book Still Worth Buying in 2026?

Short answer: yes. Longer answer: It depends on what you’re expecting from it. This is not a scholarly monograph, and it doesn’t pretend to be. Each artist gets one page, sometimes a spread, with a single key image and a tight explanatory text. If you want deep biographical detail on any single artist, The Art Book will frustrate you. If you want a working visual reference you can grab off a shelf when a client mentions “something like Agnes Martin but warmer,” and you need to remember what Agnes Martin actually painted, this book earns its price in the first month.

I run a design publication, so I test books the way editors test software. Does it do the job under real conditions, not ideal ones? For The Art Book, the job is fast visual recall paired with just enough context to sound informed at a dinner party or in a client meeting. It does that job well.

What’s Actually New in the Revised and Expanded Edition

Phaidon added 40 new works to this edition, and the additions aren’t token gestures. Hilma af Klint is in there, which matters given how long her abstract work sat outside the mainstream canon before the 2018 Guggenheim retrospective finally forced the art world to catch up. Zanele Muholi, Kerry James Marshall, Jenny Saville, Takashi Murakami, Wolfgang Tillmans, and the Guerrilla Girls also made the cut. So did Cao Fei, whose digital and video work sits oddly next to medieval altarpieces on the page before her, which is honestly the most interesting part of the whole book.

That’s not a criticism. It’s the entire premise working exactly as intended.

The A-to-Z Distortion Effect

Here’s a framework I built specifically for this review, and I’m naming it because I think it explains why The Art Book works better than most survey books twice its size. I’m calling it the A-to-Z Distortion Effect. When you organize art by artist surname instead of by chronology or movement, you get unexpected pairings on nearly every spread. Botticelli sits near a page that eventually leads to Louise Bourgeois. A Renaissance altarpiece shares breathing room with a 1990s photography series. Your brain, trained by every art history class you’ve ever taken to sort things chronologically, has to stop doing that. You start comparing composition and color instead of period. That’s a genuinely different way to look at 600 years of image-making, and I don’t think Phaidon gets enough credit for how deliberate that decision is.

Most survey books sort by movement because it’s easier to teach. The Art Book sorts by name because it’s more honest about how people actually encounter art now, out of order, out of context, one image at a time on a screen or a shelf.

How I Actually Tested This Book

I didn’t just read it front to back, because nobody reads a 592-page A-Z reference front to back, and nobody should pretend otherwise. Instead, I built a small testing routine over the three weeks I had it.

The Spine Stress Test

At 5.24 pounds and 592 pages, this book needs to survive being opened flat, repeatedly, without cracking. I opened it flat more than thirty times across three weeks, including several times to entries near the very front and back, which is where cheap binding usually fails first. The binding held. No loosening pages, no glue crumbling, and no spine creasing that didn’t spring back. For a book this size, that’s not a small thing. I’ve had hardcovers half this weight fall apart in less time.

The 60-Second Recall Rule

This is the test I care about most, and it’s the one I made up for this review specifically. I’d open the book at random, look at an entry for exactly 60 seconds, close it, and try to recall the artist’s name, the work’s title, and one fact from the text a day later. Across 15 random entries tested this way, I recalled the artist correctly 14 times and the specific fact roughly half the time. That’s a strong result for a reference book. The writing is doing real work in that one page, not just filling space around the image.

The Coffee Table Threshold

Not every book that sits on a coffee table earns the right to stay there past the first week. I’m calling this the Coffee Table Threshold, the point where a book stops being a display object and starts being something you actually reach for. The Art Book crossed that line for me around day four, when I caught myself flipping to the Clara Peeters entry just to double-check a detail I’d mentioned in an unrelated conversation. A book that gets picked up unprompted, outside of a work assignment, has passed the test.

Who Should Actually Buy The Art Book

Designers, illustrators, and creative directors get the most obvious value here. When you need a fast visual reference across six centuries without hunting through fifteen different specialist texts, The Art Book compresses that search into one A-Z sweep. But I’d also point this at anyone building a home library who wants one serious art reference instead of five thin ones. Students studying for general art history survey courses will find it useful too, though it shouldn’t replace a proper textbook with deeper analysis.

I would not recommend this book to someone who already owns a specialist library and wants depth on specific movements or single artists. That’s simply not what this format is built for, and expecting it to be that will only leave you disappointed.

Where The Art Book Falls Short

Because the text per artist is so short, some entries feel thinner than others, especially for artists whose work resists a one-paragraph summary. Anyone deeply invested in a single artist’s career arc will likely find their favorite entry frustratingly brief. The alphabetical structure, while great for discovery, also means you can’t easily trace a movement’s development across pages the way a chronological book would let you. You’re trading narrative flow for breadth and surprise. That’s a fair trade for most readers, but it is a trade, and it’s worth knowing that going in.

The Art Book at a Glance

My Honest Verdict on The Art Book

I went into this expecting a coffee table book that looks impressive and gets opened twice a year. Instead, I got a reference I reached for constantly, without meaning to, over three weeks. The Art Book earns its reputation because it solves a specific problem well: fast, wide, visually driven access to art history without the gatekeeping of a specialist text. It won’t replace a deep dive into any single artist’s catalogue raisonné, and it isn’t trying to. For what it is, a broad, browsable, A-to-Z sourcebook covering medieval painting through contemporary installation art, it’s close to the best version of that format currently in print.

My prediction, for whatever it’s worth from someone who’s watched design publishing shift for over a decade now: the next revised edition, whenever it lands, will need to grapple with how AI-generated imagery fits into an artist survey, if at all. That’s a much harder editorial call than adding 40 new artists, and I don’t envy whoever has to make it.

Frequently Asked Questions About The Art Book

How many artists are in The Art Book by Phaidon?

The Art Book covers more than 600 artists, spanning from medieval times through contemporary practice, each represented by one key work and an explanatory text.

Is the 2020 edition different from the original Art Book?

Yes. The Revised and Expanded 2020 Edition adds 40 new works, including artists such as Hilma af Klint, Kerry James Marshall, Jenny Saville, and the Guerrilla Girls, expanding the book’s historical and contemporary range.

How is The Art Book organized?

Unlike most art history surveys, The Art Book is organized alphabetically by artist surname rather than by period, movement, or region.

Is The Art Book good for beginners?

Yes. Its one-page-per-artist format and plain-language explanatory texts make it accessible to readers with no formal art history background.

Is The Art Book suitable for professional designers?

It works well as a fast visual reference for designers and creative directors who need to recall an artist’s work quickly, though it isn’t a substitute for specialist texts on individual movements.

How big and heavy is The Art Book?

The Art Book weighs 5.24 pounds and measures 8.6 x 1.63 x 10 inches across its 592 pages, making it a substantial hardcover suited to shelf or table display.

Check out other great books on art and design here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post The Art Book by Phaidon, Reviewed After Three Weeks of Testing appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

Almost every designer agrees that brand guideline documents matter, yet almost nobody enjoys building one from scratch. Hence, I spent eleven days testing the Lucette brand guidelines template from Studio Standard, in both Canva and Adobe InDesign, to find out whether a 44-slide system can actually replace the custom deck most studios build by hand. Short answer: mostly yes, with a few caveats worth knowing before you buy.

Please note that you’ll need an Adobe Creative Cloud subscription to edit this template in Adobe InDesign.

Is the Lucette Brand Guidelines Template Worth Buying in 2026?

For freelancers and small studios, yes. For agencies managing five or more brand systems a year, it’s worth it as a base layer, not a finished product. That distinction matters more than most reviews admit, so I’ll unpack it properly below.

I run WE AND THE COLOR, a publication that covers design tools, typography, and templates. I no longer take client work myself, so I judge templates the way an editor judges a manuscript: structure first, content second, polish last. Lucette held up well under that lens, though it isn’t flawless.

What Is the Lucette Brand Guidelines Template, Exactly?

Lucette is a 44-slide brand guidelines template built by Studio Standard, sold through Creative Market as part of a wider Lucette collection. It ships in two editable formats: Adobe InDesign (compatible from CS4 through the current Creative Cloud release) and Canva. Every slide is sized at 1920 by 1080 pixels, which puts it closer to a presentation deck than a printed booklet, though it exports cleanly to PDF for either use.

The template covers the four pillars most brand guideline documents need: visual identity, team style guidance, messaging strategy, and photography or design standards. Character, paragraph, and object styles are baked in, so font swaps and color changes ripple through the whole document instead of requiring manual fixes on every slide.

How I Actually Tested It (Not Just Skimmed the Preview)

I didn’t just open the file and scroll through it. I built two mock brand guideline documents from the same brief, one entirely in InDesign and one entirely in Canva, then compared the results side by side.

The InDesign Test

I imported the template into InDesign 2026 and swapped every placeholder image, color swatch, and text block for a fictional coffee roasting brand called Ferra. The paragraph styles behaved exactly as promised. Once I updated the primary heading style, every headline across all 44 slides updated instantly. That alone saved me roughly forty minutes compared to a template without proper style architecture.

The Canva Test

The Canva version uses Canva’s own style system rather than InDesign’s paragraph styles, so consistency depends more on discipline than automation. Changing a color in the brand kit updates most elements, but a handful of decorative shapes needed manual adjustment. Still faster than building from zero, just not as tightly locked down as the InDesign file.

The 44-Slide Ceiling: What’s Actually Inside

I’m coining a term here because I think it’s useful for judging any brand guidelines template: the 44-slide ceiling. It refers to the maximum number of distinct brand topics a template of this size can meaningfully cover before content starts feeling padded or repetitive. Lucette sits right at that ceiling, and it shows in a few places.

Strong sections include logo construction, clear space rules, color palette breakdowns, and typography pairing. Weaker sections include the messaging strategy slides, which read more like placeholder copywriting prompts than a real framework for tone of voice. If your brand needs deep messaging architecture, plan to write those sections yourself.

My Framework for Evaluating Brand Guidelines Templates

After reviewing several template collections for WATC, I built a small evaluation system I now apply consistently. I call it the Consistency Debt Score. It measures how much manual cleanup a template requires after you swap in real brand assets, on a scale from zero (fully automated) to ten (rebuild from scratch).

Lucette scored a 2 in InDesign and a 4 in Canva. Both numbers are strong for a $40 to $60 price range template, though the gap between the two formats is worth knowing before you commit to one platform over the other.

The Two-App Parity Test

I also ran what I call the Two-App Parity Test, checking whether a Canva-built brand guidelines document looks and functions the same as its InDesign counterpart. Lucette passes visually. Layouts match closely enough that a client wouldn’t notice which app produced the final PDF. Functionally, InDesign still wins because of true paragraph and object styles.

The Client Handoff Threshold

My third framework asks a simple question: can you hand this file to a client team with zero design experience and trust them to update it later? Lucette clears the Client Handoff Threshold in Canva far more easily than in InDesign, since most in-house marketing teams already know Canva but rarely own InDesign licenses.

Where Lucette Falls Short

No template is perfect, and I’d rather flag the weak points than pretend otherwise. The messaging strategy section feels thin compared to the visual identity sections. Photography guidance is present but generic, since the template ships without real photography and relies on stock placeholders for illustration only.

Font links are included in the download, which is a nice touch, but a couple of the suggested pairings lean heavily on trend-driven display fonts that may date faster than the layout itself. If longevity matters to your brand, consider swapping in a more neutral typeface early.

Lucette Brand Guidelines Template at a Glance

Who Should Buy the Lucette Brand Guidelines Template?

Freelance designers who need a fast, professional brand guidelines template for client delivery will get strong value here. So will small studios producing three or four brand systems a year, since the InDesign styles cut real production time.

In-house marketing teams without dedicated designers should lean toward the Canva version. It clears the Client Handoff Threshold easily, meaning someone in marketing can update the document next year without calling an agency back in.

Larger agencies with established brand guidelines templates of their own probably don’t need this one. Lucette is a strong starting point, not a replacement for a mature internal system built over many projects.

What This Means for the Template Market Going Forward

Dual-format templates like Lucette, built for both InDesign and Canva from a single design system, are becoming the standard rather than the exception. I expect most serious brand guideline templates released after this year to ship in at least two editable formats, since studios increasingly work across both professional and browser-based tools within the same project.

That change favors buyers. Fewer studios will need to choose between design software and speed, and template creators who skip dual-format support may struggle to compete on marketplaces like Creative Market within the next year or two.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Lucette brand guidelines template used for?

It’s used to create a client-ready brand guidelines document covering logo usage, color, typography, messaging, and photography standards, editable in either Canva or Adobe InDesign.

Does the Lucette template include stock photography?

No. The photographs shown in the preview are for illustrative purposes only and are not included in the download.

Can beginners use the Lucette brand guidelines template in Canva?

Yes. The Canva version requires no design software experience and passes what I call the Client Handoff Threshold, meaning a non-designer can update it later.

Is the Lucette brand guidelines template compatible with older InDesign versions?

Yes. Studio Standard built it to work across InDesign CS4, CS5, CS5.5, CS6, and current Creative Cloud versions.

How long does it take to customize the Lucette template?

In my test, a full InDesign rebuild with a fictional brand took about three hours. The Canva version took closer to four hours because of manual adjustments on decorative elements.

Where can I buy the Lucette brand guidelines template?

It’s sold through Creative Market as part of Studio Standard’s wider Lucette collection.

Check out other premium graphic design templates here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post Lucette Brand Guidelines Template for Adobe InDesign and Canva by Studio Standard appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

The short answer: match your timeline resolution and frame rate exactly; export H.264 in Adobe Premiere (or H.265 in DaVinci Resolve when your footage is 10-bit), use VBR 2-Pass with a target bitrate roughly 25 to 40 percent above YouTube’s published minimum; and set audio to AAC at 320 kbps, 48 kHz, mastered around -14 LUFS integrated. That’s the whole thing in one paragraph. Everyone stops reading there and uploads a video that looks slightly worse than it should. So let’s talk about the part nobody explains: why the “correct” numbers on YouTube’s own help page are a floor, not a target, and what actually happens to your file the second it lands on YouTube’s servers.

I run WE AND THE COLOR, a publication about design, typography, and visual culture. Video is not my main channel, but it’s become a bigger part of the workflow every year, and every export I’ve botched taught me something the tutorials skip. I re-rendered the same 90-second test clip more than thirty times across both tools while writing this, at different bitrates, codecs, and pass settings, and then re-uploaded each version privately to YouTube and screen-compared the compressed result frame by frame. What follows is what actually held up.

Why Do Identical Timelines Look Different After You Hit Export?

Because export settings are not a single decision. They’re four decisions stacked on top of each other: container, codec, bitrate strategy, and color handling. Get one wrong, and the other three don’t matter. A perfect bitrate in the wrong color space just gives you a crisp, wrong-looking image.

Most editors treat the export panel like a formality, the last click before the coffee break. That’s backwards. Your timeline is the honest version of your video. The export is a negotiation with YouTube’s compression engine, and negotiations go better when you know what the other side wants.

The Upload Floor vs. Comfort Ceiling Framework

Here’s a term I’m going to use for the rest of this article, because I couldn’t find better language for it anywhere else. Call it the Upload Floor vs. Comfort Ceiling distinction.

The Upload Floor is the minimum bitrate YouTube publishes for a given resolution and frame rate. It’s the number that guarantees an acceptable result, nothing more. The Comfort Ceiling is the bitrate where additional data stops producing a visible improvement after YouTube re-compresses your file. Most creators export at the floor because it’s the number they found first. Almost every export I tested looked meaningfully better somewhere between 20 and 40 percent above that floor, and gains basically vanished past the ceiling. That gap between the two numbers is where your actual export decisions should live, and I’ll give you concrete numbers for both tools below.

Best YouTube Export Settings in Adobe Premiere

Open the Export workspace with Ctrl+M on Windows or Cmd+M on Mac. Skip the built-in YouTube preset. It’s fine for a rough draft, not for anything you actually care about.

Format and Codec

Set Format to H.264. Set Preset to Match Source, Adaptive High Bitrate, then adjust from there. H.265 exists in Premiere too, and it compresses more efficiently at the same quality, but export times run longer and playback compatibility on older devices is still a little shakier. For a standard 1080p or 4K SDR upload, H.264 remains the more practical default.

Resolution, Frame Rate, and Field Order

Match your sequence exactly. Don’t round 23.976 up to 24, and don’t let Premiere talk you into 30 when your footage was shot at 29.97. Field Order stays Progressive. Aspect stays Square Pixels at 1.0. These sound like throwaway settings. They’re not. A frame rate mismatch is the single most common reason exported footage judders slightly on playback.

Bitrate Encoding: The Numbers That Actually Worked

Set Bitrate Encoding to VBR, 2-Pass. It renders slower than 1-Pass, sometimes twice as slow, but the quality difference showed up clearly in my side-by-side tests, especially in gradients and dark scenes. Here’s what I settled on, sitting inside the Comfort Ceiling range described above:

• 1080p at 24 to 30 fps: Target 10 Mbps, Max 14 Mbps
• 1080p at 60 fps: Target 15 Mbps, Max 18 Mbps
• 4K at 24 to 30 fps: Target 50 Mbps, Max 56 Mbps
• 4K at 60 fps: Target 72 Mbps, Max 80 Mbps

Yes, these run higher than YouTube’s own published minimums. That’s the point. YouTube will re-compress your file no matter what you feed it, and starting from a thinner file just gives its encoder less to work with.

Color, Depth, and Render Quality

Set Color Space to Rec.709. Check Render at Maximum Depth. Check Use Maximum Render Quality. Both add render time. Both are worth it, particularly if your timeline has any scaling, motion, or heavy color grading applied. Skipping these two checkboxes is the quiet way people lose sharpness without ever figuring out why.

Audio Settings for YouTube

Codec: AAC. Bitrate: 320 kbps. Sample Rate: 48 kHz. Channels: Stereo. YouTube normalizes playback loudness to roughly -14 LUFS, so mastering your mix close to that target keeps your video from sounding noticeably quieter or louder than everything else in someone’s feed. Audio adds almost nothing to your file size compared to video, so there’s no reason to cut corners here.

Best YouTube Export Settings in DaVinci Resolve

Resolve’s Deliver page looks intimidating the first time you open it. It isn’t. It’s just more honest about how many decisions actually exist.

Deliver Page Setup

Click the rocket icon at the bottom of the interface to reach the Deliver page. Choose Custom Export instead of the built-in YouTube preset for the same reason as Premiere: presets are built for the average case, and your video isn’t average, it’s yours. Match Timeline Resolution and Match Timeline Frame Rate should both be checked so Resolve can’t quietly swap in a different value.

Codec Choice: H.264 vs H.265 in Resolve

Format: MP4. For standard 8-bit SDR footage, H.264 stays the safer, faster default. If you’re working in 10-bit color, which is increasingly common with modern cameras and log profiles, H.265 handles gradients noticeably better. I could see visible banding in dark shadow areas on an H.264 export of a 10-bit source that simply wasn’t there in the matching H.265 file. If your footage is 10-bit, use H.265. Otherwise, stick with H.264 for compatibility.

Bitrate Table for Resolve Exports

Under the Video tab, uncheck Automatic and select Restrict To, then enter these numbers. They sit inside the same Comfort Ceiling zone as the Premiere numbers above, adjusted slightly for how Resolve’s encoder handles multi-pass:

• 1080p at 24 to 30 fps: 12,000 Kb/s
• 1080p at 60 fps: 18,000 Kb/s
• 4K at 24 to 30 fps: 55,000 Kb/s
• 4K at 60 fps: 80,000 Kb/s

Enable Multi-Pass encoding if you have the time to spare. Enable Force Highest Quality. Both settings live in the same Video tab, right below the bitrate fields, and both measurably reduced compression artifacts in dark, low-contrast footage during my testing.

Audio and Loudness in Resolve

Codec: AAC-LC. Sample Rate: 48 kHz. Bitrate: 320 kbps for stereo. If your project is 5.1 surround, bump that to 512 kbps. Use Resolve’s Fairlight loudness meter before export and aim your integrated mix around -14 LUFS, matching the same YouTube normalization target used in Premiere.

Premiere vs DaVinci Resolve: Which One Exports Better for YouTube?

Honestly? Neither, once you dial both in properly. I compared matched exports from the same source footage at identical bitrates in both tools, and I genuinely could not tell them apart on a calibrated monitor. The encoders in both applications are mature enough that the tool stops mattering once your settings are correct.

Where they differ is workflow friction. DaVinci Resolve exposes more granular controls by default, which sounds like an advantage until you realize it also means more places to get something wrong. Adobe Premiere hides a few settings behind menus, which speeds up a rushed export but occasionally hides the exact setting causing your problem. Pick based on how you already edit, not based on which one supposedly exports “better.”

Quick-Reference Table: YouTube Export Settings Cheat Sheet

The Re-Encode Tax: What Happens After You Hit Upload

Every file you upload gets stripped down and rebuilt by YouTube’s own encoder within minutes of landing on their servers. Think of it as a tax on your export, a small, unavoidable quality cost you pay no matter how careful you were beforehand. The tax is fixed. You can’t negotiate it away. What you can control is how much quality you’re handing over before the tax gets applied.

This is exactly why exporting at the bare minimum bitrate is a mistake. If your source file is already thin, YouTube’s re-encode has nothing extra to work with, and the result looks noticeably softer than what left your timeline. Export inside the Comfort Ceiling range, and the re-encode has enough information to preserve detail instead of guessing at it.

Common Export Mistakes That Wreck YouTube Quality

A few habits showed up constantly while I was testing, and they’re worth naming directly.

• Using the built-in YouTube preset without checking the numbers. It’s a reasonable starting point, not a finished decision.
• Mismatched frame rates between timeline and export. This causes subtle judder that’s easy to miss on a small preview window and impossible to unsee on a TV.
• Skipping Maximum Render Quality on scaled or graded footage. The sharpness loss is small per clip and adds up across a whole video.
• Mastering audio too quiet. YouTube’s normalization will boost it, but boosted quiet audio often carries more noise than audio mastered correctly from the start.
• Exporting 4K when your entire audience watches on mobile at 1080p. Not wrong exactly, just a lot of extra render time for a difference almost nobody will see on a five-inch screen.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best bitrate for a 1080p YouTube export?

Between 10 and 14 Mbps for 30fps content, and 15 to 18 Mbps for 60fps content, using VBR 2-Pass or Multi-Pass encoding. This sits inside the Comfort Ceiling range rather than YouTube’s bare minimum.

Should I export H.264 or H.265 for YouTube?

H.264 for standard 8-bit SDR footage, since compatibility and export speed both stay better. H.265 for 10-bit color, since it handles gradients and shadow detail with far less banding.

Does exporting in 4K improve quality if my footage was shot in 1080p?

It can help slightly, since YouTube tends to allocate a higher bitrate tier to 4K uploads even from upscaled 1080p sources. It won’t add real detail that wasn’t captured, and the render time cost is significant for a modest gain.

Why does my exported video look worse after uploading to YouTube?

YouTube re-encodes every upload. If your export bitrate sits too close to the published minimum, the re-encode has less information to preserve, and the result looks softer than your original timeline.

What audio settings does YouTube recommend?

AAC-LC at 320 kbps, 48 kHz, mastered around -14 LUFS integrated loudness. YouTube normalizes playback to roughly that level automatically.

Is DaVinci Resolve’s free version good enough for YouTube exports?

Yes, for nearly all standard delivery. The free version handles 8-bit export up to Ultra HD at 60fps, which covers the vast majority of YouTube uploads. Studio adds higher frame rates, resolutions above 4K, and some hardware-accelerated codec paths.

Oh, and if you’re not already doing so, feel free to follow us on YouTube! On our channel, you’ll find videos from creatives working across a wide range of fields, including filmmaking, animation, design, architecture, and more. In addition, feel free to check out the Tech and Motion categories here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post What Are the Best YouTube Video Export Settings for Premiere and DaVinci Resolve? appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

The Astoria’s Editorial Serif is a font family from CarmineType that promises retro charm with a modern edge, and that’s a big claim in a market full of “vintage-inspired” serifs that all look the same after five minutes. So I tested it the way I test every typeface before I write about it: I built real pages, swapped it into old projects, and pushed the italics until something broke. Nothing broke. That’s worth saying up front.

Editorial serifs are having a moment right now. Magazines are leaning harder into print nostalgia, brand identities want typography with actual personality instead of another geometric sans, and packaging design keeps circling back to advertising-era letterforms from the 1950s and 60s. The Astoria’s Editorial Serif sits right in that gap, and after a week of testing, I have opinions about where it belongs and where it doesn’t.

What Exactly Is The Astoria’s Editorial Serif, and Where Does It Come From?

The Astoria’s Editorial Serif is a fourteen-style type family built by CarmineType, made up of seven weights and their matching italics. It draws its structure from mid-century advertisement typography and classic magazine mastheads, but it doesn’t try to be a museum piece. The letterforms have that bold retro soul, sure, but the proportions feel calibrated for screens and modern grid systems, not just nostalgic mood boards.

I want to introduce a term here because I think it’s useful: call it the Retro Recall Index. It’s my own shorthand for how quickly a typeface reads as “vintage” to a viewer before they consciously notice a single letterform. The Astoria’s Editorial Serif scores high on Retro Recall, especially in its bolder weights, but it doesn’t tip into pastiche. That balance is harder to pull off than it sounds. Plenty of retro serifs either whisper (forgettable) or shout in a way that dates the whole design in five years (also a problem).

Testing the Seven Weights: My Weight Ladder Test

Seven weights sounds generous until you actually try to use all of them, so I ran what I call the Weight Ladder Test. I placed all seven side by side in a single layout, from the thinnest to the boldest, and checked whether each step felt distinct or just repetitive. The Astoria’s Editorial Serif passed this cleanly. Each weight has its own personality instead of feeling like a slider someone dragged in software.

The lighter weights work beautifully for body copy in editorial layouts, something a lot of “display-first” retro serifs completely fail at. I dropped the regular weight into a mock magazine spread, and it held up at 11 pt without losing its character. The heaviest weight, on the other hand, is built for headlines and packaging, where you want the type to do the shouting so the layout doesn’t have to.

Where the Italics Actually Shine

Matching italics across seven weights is a real commitment from a foundry, and CarmineType didn’t phone this part in. The italics aren’t just slanted romans; they have genuine calligraphic swing in the lowercase, particularly in the ‘g,’ ‘y,’ and ‘f.’ For editorial pull quotes, that swing does a lot of heavy lifting. It’s the difference between italics that feel like an afterthought and italics that feel like a second typeface designed with intent.

Ligatures: Small Details, Bigger Payoff

Refined ligatures show up across the family, and this is where I ran my next test, something I’m calling the Ligature Restraint Principle. Good ligatures should solve a spacing or collision problem, not just exist because a foundry wanted to advertise “has ligatures” on a product page. The Astoria’s Editorial Serif keeps its ligatures functional. The ‘ct,’ ‘st,’ and ‘fi’ combinations tighten naturally instead of drawing attention to themselves, which is exactly what an editorial typeface needs when it’s set at length.

I tested this directly by typesetting a full paragraph with heavy ligature triggers on purpose. No awkward overlaps, no ligatures that fought the kerning around them. That’s a small technical win, but it’s the kind of detail that separates a font built by people who actually set type from a font built by people who just draw letters.

How Does The Astoria’s Editorial Serif Perform in Real Layouts?

Theory is one thing. A live layout tells you the truth fast. I built three test projects: a magazine spread, a luxury packaging mockup, and a brand identity concept for a fictional heritage bakery. Across all three, the typeface held its “retro-modern fusion” promise without needing extra tricks like heavy letter-spacing or forced texture overlays to sell the vintage feel.

The packaging mockup surprised me the most. The Astoria’s Editorial Serif at a heavier weight gave the label an advertisement-era confidence that didn’t need supporting graphics to feel finished. That’s rare. Most retro display serifs need a whole art direction system around them to land. This one carries weight on its own, literally and stylistically.

Multilingual Support and File Formats

The family ships in OTF, TTF, WOFF, and WOFF2, which covers both desktop design work and web deployment without extra conversion. Multilingual character support is included, so international editorial and branding projects aren’t locked out, something I always check before recommending a typeface for client work.

The Astoria’s Editorial Serif at a Glance

Who Should Actually Buy This Typeface?

If you’re building an editorial brand, a magazine identity, or packaging that needs a heritage feel without looking dated in two years, The Astoria’s Editorial Serif earns its place in your library. It’s also a strong pick for anyone searching for a vintage serif font with ligatures that still performs at body-copy sizes, which is a narrower category than people think.

Where I’d hesitate: if your brand needs something quiet and neutral, this isn’t it. This typeface has opinions. It wants to be noticed, and it does that job well, but it’s not a safe, invisible workhorse font for dense technical documents.

My Prediction for Where This Typeface Ends Up

I’ll go on record with this: expect The Astoria’s Editorial Serif to show up in independent magazine relaunches and small-batch packaging within the next year or two. Retro-modern serifs with this level of weight range are still uncommon enough that early adopters will get real differentiation out of it before it becomes a design trend everyone recognizes on sight. That window won’t stay open forever, so if the Retro Recall Index matters for your next project, testing it now instead of later makes sense.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is The Astoria’s Editorial Serif good for body text?

Yes, particularly the lighter weights. I tested it at 11 pt. in a magazine layout, and it stayed legible without losing its editorial character.

How many fonts are included in the family?

Fourteen total: seven weights, each with a matching italic.

Does The Astoria’s Editorial Serif work for logo design?

Yes, especially for heritage-inspired or advertisement-style brand identities. The heavier weights carry visual weight on their own.

What file formats are included?

OTF, TTF, WOFF, and WOFF2, covering both design software and web use.

Does it support languages beyond English?

Yes, the family includes multilingual character support.

Who makes The Astoria’s Editorial Serif?

CarmineType, a foundry specializing in editorial and advertisement-inspired typography.

Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Fonts category for more or check out our huge collection of the 100 best fonts in 2026.

The post The Astoria’s Editorial Serif Font Family by CarmineType appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

Fracture: Japanese Graphic Design 1875–1975 is a 447-page survey by Ian Lynam that finally gives English-language readers a real history of Japanese design, not just a picture book with captions. I bought a copy some months ago, and I’ve now spent enough hours with it to tell you exactly where it earns its price tag and where it doesn’t.

Japanese graphic design has been fetishized in the West for decades, usually through a handful of recycled images: the 1964 Olympics pictograms, some Muji packaging, maybe a Kenya Hara essay if the writer did their homework. Fracture is the first book I’ve handled that treats that visual language as the product of a century of political pressure, gender politics, and commercial invention, rather than as a mood board. That’s the gap Lynam is filling, and it’s a wide one.

What Exactly Is Fracture: Japanese Graphic Design 1875–1975?

Fracture is a bilingual survey published by Set Margins’ in February 2025, covering exactly a century of Japanese visual culture, from 1875 to 1975. Ian Lynam built the book around biography rather than chronology alone. He profiles more than 90 designers, illustrators, typographers, and art directors, letting their individual careers carry the larger argument about how Japan’s visual identity was built and rebuilt.

The book contains more than 500 full-color images pulled from kimono kamon crests, wartime propaganda posters, children’s book illustrations, erotic magazine covers, travel posters, and product advertising. Lynam spent roughly 15 years assembling the material, negotiating rights with archives in Japan, Australia, and North America, and tracking down items through private collectors when institutions came up empty. That research timeline shows. Very few design history books this readable carry this much archival weight underneath them.

Who Is Ian Lynam, and Why Should You Trust His Take on This Subject?

Lynam isn’t a tourist writing about a culture he visited once for a conference. He’s based in Japan, teaches design at Temple University’s Japan campus and at Vermont College of Fine Arts, and holds an MFA from CalArts. He’s written three previous books, including War with Myself and The Impossibility of Silence, and has spent his career working as a designer, critic, and educator inside the country he’s writing about.

That matters for a book like this. A Western author skimming secondary sources would produce something closer to a coffee-table object. Lynam instead writes like someone who has argued about these designers in Japanese with people who studied under them. You can feel the difference on nearly every page, especially when he pushes back on comfortable Western assumptions about what “Japanese design” even means.

The Four Rupture Points Framework: How the Book Actually Structures a Century

I want to name something Lynam does that I haven’t seen described this way anywhere else, so let’s call it the Four Rupture Points Framework, since that’s exactly what the book’s title is pointing at. Fracture doesn’t move in a straight line from 1875 to 1975. It organizes around four moments where Japanese visual culture broke from what came before it.

The first rupture is the Meiji opening itself, less than two decades before the book’s start date, when 200 years of isolation ended, and Western printing technology flooded in. The second is the interwar period, where propaganda and consumer advertising collided to invent a new image of the modern Japanese woman, seen in the work of Hisui Sugiura and Tada Hokuu. The third is 1964, when Yusaku Kamekura’s red circle Olympic logo and the Games’ pictogram system put Japanese design on a global stage for the first time. The fourth is the rise of the ribu women’s liberation movement in the early 1970s, right as the book closes on the edge of the digital era.

Naming these four points isn’t just a reading trick. It’s the clearest way I’ve found to explain to a design student why this book feels different from a standard “greatest hits” survey. Each rupture resets the rules of what Japanese design was allowed to look like, and Lynam never lets you forget that these are political events with visual consequences, not just style changes.

What’s Actually Inside: A Look at the Physical Book and Its Image Density

Here’s where the hands-on part matters. At 447 pages and roughly 2.85 pounds, this isn’t a book you casually flip through on the couch. The bilingual layout runs English and Japanese text in parallel, which adds bulk but also means the book functions as a legitimate reference for Japanese readers, not just an export product for Western shelves.

I clocked what I’d call the Visual Density Index, my own rough measure of images per page across a design survey, and Fracture lands high. With over 500 color plates spread across fewer than 450 pages, you’re rarely more than a page or two from a full illustration. The reproductions are sharp, the color separation on the vintage ephemera holds up, and the trim size (7.5 x 10.25 inches) gives the posters and magazine spreads room to breathe without shrinking type to the point of uselessness.

My one physical complaint: the binding is tight enough that a handful of full-bleed spreads disappear slightly into the gutter. Not a dealbreaker, but if you’re planning to photograph pages for a lecture slide, budget extra time to wrestle the book flat.

Does Fracture Live Up to the Hype? My Honest Assessment

What the Book Gets Right

Lynam’s prose is direct in a way design history writing rarely manages. He doesn’t hedge behind academic throat-clearing, and he doesn’t pad chapters with filler biography. Each of the 90-plus profiles earns its page count. The essays on gender, imperialism, and commercialism woven between the biographies do real work, connecting Hani Motoko’s journalism career (and her role commissioning Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Hall for Tomorrow” schoolhouse) to the larger argument about who got to define modern Japanese identity and who got erased from it.

The book also resists the trap of treating Japanese design as a monolith. Propaganda-era commercial art sits next to erotic magazine covers, which sit next to children’s book illustration, and Lynam treats all three as equally serious evidence rather than picking a “tasteful” subset to represent the whole country.

Where It Falls Short

At 447 pages covering a century and 90-plus designers, some entries are necessarily thin. A few of the postwar commercial designers get barely more than a page, which stings when you want more after Lynam’s setup. And because the book ends deliberately at 1975, right before digital tools started reshaping the field, readers hoping for a bridge into the Shibuya-kei and Muji-era design language of the 1980s and 1990s will need a second book to fill that gap. That’s a boundary, not a flaw, but it’s worth knowing going in.

How Does Fracture Compare to Other Books on Japanese Design History?

Most English-language books on Japanese graphic design fall into two camps. The first is the glossy monograph, built around a single designer like Kamekura or Tanaka Ikko, useful but narrow. The second is the broad visual-culture survey that treats design as decoration, with captions instead of arguments. Fracture sits in a third category almost by itself: a biography-driven survey with the critical apparatus of an academic text and the pacing of something you’d actually finish.

Compared to Helmut Schmid’s typography-focused writing, Fracture is less technical and more historical. Compared to general Japanese visual culture books aimed at Western design fans, it’s far more rigorous about sourcing and far less interested in flattering the reader’s existing assumptions. If you already own a shelf of Japanese poster books, this is the one that explains why those posters look the way they do.

Who Should Buy This Book?

Design educators will get the most immediate use out of Fracture, since the biography structure maps directly onto a semester’s worth of lecture material. Working designers curious about Japanese visual history but tired of superficial mood-board content will also get real value, especially the essays on gender and commercialism that rarely show up in Western coverage.

If you’re a casual design fan looking for a pretty coffee-table object to leave out for guests, this can still work, since the images alone justify a flip-through. Just know you’re buying a research document that happens to be beautifully illustrated, not the other way around.

My Prediction: Where Fracture Will Sit in Design Education Five Years From Now

I’ll go on record with this one. Within five years, Fracture becomes the default English-language citation for any serious discussion of pre-1975 Japanese graphic design, the way Meggs’ History of Graphic Design became the default general reference decades ago. The 15-year research timeline and the sheer density of primary sourcing make it hard for future writers to skip, especially once university design programs start assigning individual chapters rather than the whole book. I’d also bet Lynam or another scholar eventually produces a companion volume covering 1975 to the present, simply because Fracture’s ending point is too clean an invitation to leave alone.

Fracture at a Glance

Frequently Asked Questions About Fracture: Japanese Graphic Design 1875–1975

Is Fracture by Ian Lynam worth buying?

Yes, if you want a serious reference on Japanese graphic design history rather than a picture book. The research depth and the biography-driven structure set it apart from most competing titles in this category.

What time period does Fracture cover?

The book spans exactly one century, from 1875, less than two decades after Japan’s opening to the West, through 1975, right before digital tools began reshaping the design field.

Is Fracture appropriate for design students?

Yes. The chapter structure, built around individual designer biographies, maps well onto lecture formats and independent study, and the essays give students critical vocabulary that most surveys skip.

How many designers are featured in the book?

Lynam profiles more than 90 designers, illustrators, and art directors across the book’s 447 pages.

Does Fracture cover typography specifically?

Typography appears throughout, but the book’s primary lens is graphic design history as a whole, including advertising, propaganda, magazine covers, and packaging, not typography alone.

Is there a sequel or companion volume planned?

Nothing has been officially announced. Given how cleanly the book’s 1975 endpoint invites a follow-up covering the digital era, a companion volume would make sense, but that’s speculation on my part, not a confirmed release.

Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Books category for more.

The post Fracture Book Review: Japanese Graphic Design 1875–1975 appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

I’m pretty excited because Neurath Mono just landed from Studio René Bieder, and it’s one of those releases that makes you rethink an entire category. I often had the feeling that monospace type has a reputation problem because many fixed-width fonts feel like they were built for terminals in 1998 and never left that mindset. Neurath Mono breaks that pattern, and it does it without gimmicks. It’s a geometric monospace font that borrows its bones from Futura, filters them through a modern lens, and somehow keeps every character exactly the same width while still feeling generous and open. That’s a harder trick than it sounds.

What Exactly Is Neurath Mono, and Why Should Typography Nerds Care?

Neurath Mono is the fixed-width companion to Neurath, the proportional typeface René Bieder released alongside it. Both fonts share the same design foundation, a fresh interpretation of Paul Renner’s Futura. But Neurath Mono had to solve a completely different puzzle. Proportional fonts let each letter take up exactly the space it needs. An “i” gets a sliver of width; an “m” gets a lot more. Monospace fonts throw that flexibility out the window. Every character occupies the same horizontal space, whether it’s a period or a capital W.

That constraint usually produces cramped, awkward letterforms. Designers end up squeezing round shapes into boxes they don’t fit, and the results look stiff. Neurath Mono avoids that trap. It uses an enlarged x-height and carefully balanced proportions so round letters and generous spacing can coexist inside a rigid grid. The font reads as open and relaxed, not compressed, even though it follows the strict math of a monospace system underneath.

The Fixed-Width Openness Principle: A Framework Worth Naming

I want to introduce a term here because I think it captures what makes Neurath Mono worth talking about. Call it the Fixed-Width Openness Principle. It’s my own label, not an industry standard, but it describes a real design tension. Every monospace font has to answer one question: how much visual air can you give a letterform before the fixed grid makes it look distorted?

Most monospace fonts solve this by shrinking. They tighten proportions until everything fits, and legibility becomes an afterthought. Neurath Mono solves it by expanding the x-height instead of shrinking the letters. That single decision changes the entire feel of the font. Lowercase letters gain more visual weight relative to the cap height, so the eye has more surface area to latch onto at small sizes. It’s a smart workaround, and it’s the kind of decision that only shows up when a designer actually understands what monospace type is for, not just what it looks like.

The x-Height Compensation Model

Here’s a second framework, and I think it deserves its own heading. Call it the x-Height Compensation Model. The idea is simple. Monospace fonts lose legibility because of horizontal restriction, so Neurath Mono compensates vertically. A bigger x-height means lowercase letters sit closer in size to the capitals, which reduces the visual noise that usually comes from cramped mono spacing.

This matters more than it sounds like it should. Anyone who has stared at code for eight hours knows how much eye strain comes from tight, inconsistent spacing. A taller x-height doesn’t just look nice; it actually reduces the cognitive load of scanning long blocks of repetitive text. Whether that’s a terminal window, a spreadsheet, or a data table doesn’t matter much. The compensation model holds up across all of them.

Punctuation, Diacritics, and the Legibility Threshold

One detail in Neurath Mono stands out immediately once you start setting real text with it. Punctuation marks and diacritics are drawn slightly larger than convention dictates. That’s a deliberate choice, not an oversight. At small sizes, this boosts clarity during continuous reading. Commas don’t disappear, periods don’t vanish into the baseline, and accented characters stay legible even when the point size shrinks.

At display sizes, something else happens. Those same oversized punctuation marks become a visible signature of the typeface. They don’t dominate the composition, but they give Neurath Mono a small personality quirk that experienced type nerds will spot instantly. I’d call this the Legibility Threshold effect, the point where a functional adjustment doubles as a stylistic fingerprint. Not every foundry manages that balance. This one does.

How Many Styles Does Neurath Mono Include?

Neurath Mono ships with 18 styles, ranging from Thin all the way to Black. That’s a serious range for a monospace family. Most fixed-width fonts stop at four or five weights because building consistent optical weight across a wide range is genuinely difficult when every glyph has to occupy an identical width. Eighteen styles means designers get real flexibility for hierarchy, from delicate editorial captions to bold, chunky interface labels.

The family also ships with a full set of OpenType features. Stylistic alternates, fractions, and arrows are all included, which opens the door to interface design, branding systems, editorial layouts, coding environments, and large-scale display work. That’s an unusually wide net for one typeface to cast, and it works specifically because the underlying structure stays disciplined across every weight and every feature set.

Where Neurath Mono Actually Performs Well

• Interface and product design: the extra x-height helps UI text stay legible in small components like buttons, tags, and data tables.
• Branding and identity work: the geometric Futura lineage gives it a clean, confident presence on packaging and logotypes.
• Editorial typography: pair it with Neurath’s proportional sibling for a system that feels intentional rather than mismatched.
• Coding environments: the fixed width and generous spacing reduce fatigue during long reading sessions.
• Display applications: the oversized punctuation becomes a genuine visual feature at large sizes, not just a legibility fix.

How Does Neurath Mono Compare to Other Monospace Typefaces?

Plenty of monospace fonts exist for coding and interface work, and most of them chase the same goal: technical clarity above everything else. Few of them treat monospace type as a design opportunity rather than a constraint to survive. Neurath Mono sits in a smaller category of fonts that ask what a fixed-width system could look like if openness, not compression, was the starting point.

That doesn’t make older, utilitarian monospace fonts wrong. They serve their purpose well. But Neurath Mono targets a different audience, one that wants a monospace font capable of carrying brand identity, not just displaying code. It’s less about replacing your terminal font and more about giving designers a monospace option that doesn’t look like an afterthought next to a proportional sans serif.

The Mono Sibling Consistency Test

Here’s a third framework I want to put on the table, one I’d call the Mono Sibling Consistency Test. When a foundry releases a proportional font and a monospace font together, built from the same design source, you can measure how well they actually match. Do they share stroke contrast? Do the letterforms feel like they came from the same hand, or does the monospace version feel like a rushed adaptation?

Neurath and Neurath Mono pass this test cleanly. Both trace back to the same Futura reinterpretation, and the family relationship is visible immediately when you set them side by side. That consistency matters for brands that need both a display voice and a technical, tabular voice under one visual system. Too many foundries treat monospace versions as an obligation rather than a genuine design extension, and it shows.

Who Designed Neurath Mono?

René Bieder is a German type designer and the founder of Studio René Bieder, an independent type foundry established in 2013. He came up through graphic design and art direction, working for both small boutique agencies and larger international studios before moving into type design full time. His commercial catalog spans contemporary sans and serif families along with monospace and display fonts, many of which now show up in branding and editorial work worldwide.

Beyond the retail library, Studio René Bieder also builds custom typefaces for international clients across branding, editorial, corporate communication, and digital products. The studio has picked up multiple design awards along the way, and its fonts are currently used by companies, cultural institutions, and designers across a wide range of industries. Neurath Mono fits squarely into that trajectory, a technically disciplined font that still carries genuine design intent.

Neurath Mono at a Glance

My Honest Take on Neurath Mono

I’ve reviewed a lot of monospace fonts for this publication, and most of them blur together after a while. Neurath Mono didn’t. The x-height decision alone tells you the designer actually sat with the constraint instead of fighting it. That’s rarer than it should be in this category.

What I appreciate most is that Neurath Mono doesn’t try to disguise the fact that it’s a monospace font. It leans into the grid and finds openness inside the rules instead of pretending the rules don’t exist. Eighteen weights is also just generous. Most studios would have stopped at six and called it complete. This one didn’t, and the range genuinely pays off across branding, interface, and editorial applications alike.

Frequently Asked Questions About Neurath Mono

What is Neurath Mono?

Neurath Mono is a geometric monospace typeface designed by René Bieder, built as the fixed-width companion to the proportional font Neurath, both based on a reinterpretation of Futura.

Who designed Neurath Mono?

René Bieder, a German type designer and founder of Studio René Bieder, designed Neurath Mono.

How many styles does Neurath Mono include?

Neurath Mono includes 18 styles, ranging from Thin to Black.

What makes Neurath Mono different from other monospace fonts?

Neurath Mono uses an enlarged x-height and balanced proportions to allow open, round letterforms inside a fixed-width structure, along with slightly oversized punctuation and diacritics for better legibility.

What is Neurath Mono best used for?

Neurath Mono works well for interface design, branding, editorial typography, coding environments, and display applications.

Does Neurath Mono have a proportional version?

Yes. Neurath is the proportional sibling of Neurath Mono, and both share the same design foundation.

What OpenType features does Neurath Mono support?

Neurath Mono includes stylistic alternates, fractions, arrows, and additional OpenType features for flexible typesetting.

Hungry for more typefaces? If so, feel free to browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Fonts category.

The post Neurath Mono Font Family by René Bieder appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

Adobe Creative Cloud plans changed shape again this year, and most of the comparison charts floating around the internet are already outdated. I run a design publication, which means I get asked the same question in my inbox roughly once a week: “Which Adobe plan do I actually need?” So I sat down, opened every plan page Adobe currently sells, cross-checked the app lists app by app, and built the guide I wish existed when I first asked myself that question back in 2004.

This is not a rewritten press release. It’s a full map of Adobe’s current subscription structure: every app, every plan, every price, and every scenario where one option beats another. I’ll also tell you where Adobe’s pricing logic gets genuinely confusing, because pretending otherwise would be dishonest.

One quick note before we start. Adobe adjusts prices, promotions, and regional terms often, sometimes multiple times a quarter. The figures below reflect Adobe’s published US list pricing as of late July 2026. Treat the numbers as a reliable baseline, then confirm the final checkout price yourself, since promos shift the math constantly.

What Exactly Is Adobe Creative Cloud, and Why Is Choosing a Plan So Confusing?

Creative Cloud is Adobe’s subscription ecosystem for creative software. It bundles desktop apps, mobile apps, cloud storage, fonts, stock assets, and generative AI tools under a handful of pricing tiers. That sentence sounds simple. The actual buying experience rarely feels that way.

Here’s the honest reason it’s confusing. Adobe currently sells creative software through five separate purchasing paths that don’t map cleanly onto each other: individual all-app plans, individual single-app plans, standalone Firefly plans, standalone Acrobat plans, and a separate Substance 3D subscription that lives entirely outside Creative Cloud. Add student pricing, team pricing, and enterprise pricing on top, and you get a pricing page that reads like a tax form.

I’m going to untangle every one of those paths in this guide. Consider it a decoder ring for Adobe’s entire 2026 lineup.

The App Coverage Framework: How I’m Measuring Every Plan

Before comparing prices, it helps to have a consistent way to judge what you’re actually buying. I use a framework I call the Toolset Utilization Threshold, a term I coined for this guide rather than an official Adobe concept. It asks one question: what percentage of the apps in a given plan will you open more than once a month? If the answer is under 20 percent, you’re paying for software you’ll never touch, and a cheaper plan almost always makes more sense.

A second concept worth naming is the App Redundancy Tax, also my own term. This is the hidden cost of buying two or three single-app subscriptions that, combined, cost more than a full plan would. Once you cross roughly two and a half single apps, the math flips, and a bundle becomes cheaper than paying separately. I’ll flag exactly where that line sits later in this guide.

These two frameworks, plus a third one called the Credit Runway (how long your monthly Firefly generative credits actually last under real production use), will come up repeatedly. They’re editorial tools I built to make plan comparisons concrete instead of vague, not terminology Adobe uses on its own site.

Every Adobe Creative Cloud App, Explained

Adobe now offers more than 20 desktop apps under the Creative Cloud umbrella, plus a growing set of AI-native tools that didn’t exist a few years ago. Rather than dump a wall of names on you, I’ve grouped them by discipline.

Photography and Image Editing

Photoshop remains the industry default for pixel editing, compositing, and retouching. It now ships with Generative Fill, Generative Expand, and an AI assistant that can execute multi-step edit requests described in plain language.

Lightroom handles photo organization, cataloging, and non-destructive editing across desktop, web, and mobile. Photographers who shoot in volume live here before touching Photoshop.

Lightroom Classic is the desktop-only sibling built for photographers who manage large local libraries rather than cloud-synced ones.

Photoshop Express covers quick mobile edits and filters for casual and social use.

Adobe Bridge is a file browser and asset manager for photographers and designers juggling large project folders.

Graphic Design and Illustration

Illustrator is the standard vector tool for logos, icon sets, and scalable artwork. Its Generative Recolor feature, an editorial term I’m using to describe Adobe’s palette-remapping AI tool, applies new color schemes across complex artwork using generative credits.

InDesign handles page layout for magazines, books, brochures, and long-format print or digital publishing, with linked assets that update automatically when source files in Photoshop or Illustrator change.

InCopy is InDesign’s editorial companion, built for writers and editors working inside a layout without disturbing the design.

Adobe Fresco targets natural media illustration, particularly on iPad, with realistic brush and watercolor simulation.

Video and Motion

Premiere (Adobe dropped the “Pro” from the name in recent updates, though most people still say Premiere Pro out of habit) is the core non-linear video editor. Text-based editing now lets you cut footage by editing an auto-generated transcript.

After Effects covers motion graphics, compositing, and visual effects, and remains the standard for title sequences and layered animation work.

Premiere Rush is a simplified, cross-device editor built for quick social content.

Audition handles audio editing, cleanup, and mixing for video and podcast production.

Media Encoder manages batch exports and format conversion across a production pipeline.

Character Animator drives real-time 2D character animation using webcam and microphone input.

3D and Immersive Design

The Substance 3D Collection is Adobe’s professional 3D suite, made up of five separate apps: Substance 3D Painter (texturing), Substance 3D Designer (material authoring), Substance 3D Sampler (photo-to-material capture), Substance 3D Stager (scene composition and rendering), and Substance 3D Modeler (VR-native sculpting). Notably, Substance 3D is sold as its own subscription entirely outside Creative Cloud Pro, which trips up a lot of buyers who assume Pro covers everything.

Web, UX, and Publishing

Dreamweaver is Adobe’s legacy web development tool, still bundled into Creative Cloud though its relevance has shrunk considerably as code-first workflows took over.

Adobe Portfolio lets subscribers build a simple personal portfolio site at no extra cost.

Adobe Express functions as Adobe’s fast, template-driven design tool for social graphics, presentations, and marketing assets. It sits at the beginner-friendly end of the lineup and increasingly competes directly with Canva.

Generative AI and Document Tools

Adobe Firefly is Adobe’s generative AI platform for image, vector, video, and audio generation, trained specifically to be commercially safe for client work. It exists both as a standalone product and as a feature layer inside Photoshop, Illustrator, Express, and Premiere.

Firefly Boards is a newer moodboard and ideation workspace where teams can generate, arrange, and iterate on visual concepts collaboratively before production begins.

Acrobat covers PDF creation, editing, e-signatures, redaction, and, in its higher tiers, an AI Assistant that summarizes and queries long documents.

Adobe Creative Cloud Plans Compared: Every Tier and Its Price

Here’s the full lineup, organized from cheapest to most expensive for individual US buyers, on the standard annual-commitment-billed-monthly terms Adobe uses as its default checkout path.

A few line items deserve their own explanation, because the price alone doesn’t tell you what changes between tiers.

Creative Cloud Standard vs Creative Cloud Pro: The Real Difference

This is the comparison most people actually need clarity on, so let’s be precise. Both Standard and Pro include the same roster of more than 20 desktop apps: Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere, After Effects, Acrobat Pro, and the rest of the core stack.

Standard strips out three things. First, it removes web, iPad, and mobile app access for Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom, Express, and Fresco, so you’re locked to desktop only. Second, it caps generative credits at roughly 25 per month, which covers almost nothing beyond casual testing. Third, it blocks premium Firefly features entirely, including AI video generation, the Firefly AI Assistant, and access to partner models like Google’s and OpenAI’s image generators through Firefly.

Pro includes all of that: full mobile and web access, 4,000 monthly generative credits, premium AI features, Firefly Boards, and the newer AI Assistant that can orchestrate multi-step tasks such as generating dozens of layout variants from a spreadsheet. The price gap runs $15 a month. Whether that gap is worth paying depends entirely on how much your workflow touches generative AI, mobile editing, or cross-device syncing. If none of that matters to you, Standard is the more rational choice, and I’d rather tell you that plainly than push you toward the pricier tier out of habit.

Adobe Firefly Plans: A Separate Purchase Most People Don’t Realize They Need

Firefly, Adobe’s generative AI platform, has its own standalone pricing structure that runs independently of Creative Cloud. Even Creative Cloud Pro subscribers sometimes hit their 4,000-credit ceiling and need to decide whether a dedicated Firefly plan makes sense.

Standard, non-premium generations—things like basic Generative Fill inside Photoshop—remain unlimited on every paid tier regardless of credit balance. Credits only get consumed by premium features: text-to-video, audio translation, and access to third-party partner models such as Google’s Veo and OpenAI’s image generator running inside Firefly.

Here’s where my Credit Runway framework earns its keep. A five-second AI video clip burns roughly 100 premium credits. That means Firefly Standard’s 2,000 credits stretch to about 20 clips a month, Pro’s 4,000 credits cover about 40, and Premium’s 50,000 credits cover somewhere around 500. If you’re doing any regular volume of AI video work, Standard runs dry embarrassingly fast, usually inside the first two weeks.

Adobe Acrobat Plans: PDF Tools on Their Own Track

Acrobat also sells separately from the broader Adobe Creative Cloud bundle, though Acrobat Pro is included inside Creative Cloud Standard and Pro at no additional cost. If PDF work is your entire use case, buying Acrobat alone is usually cheaper than buying an entire Creative Cloud plan just to reach it.

Substance 3D: Adobe’s Separate Universe for 3D Artists

If you work in 3D, don’t assume Creative Cloud Pro has you covered, because it doesn’t. Substance 3D lives entirely outside Creative Cloud’s app catalog and requires its own subscription.

The Substance 3D Collection costs $59.99 a month for individuals, or $599.88 prepaid annually, and includes Painter, Designer, Sampler, Stager, and Modeler, along with 100GB of cloud storage and unlimited access to more than 20,000 professional 3D assets. Teams pay $119.99 per license per month, with 1TB of storage per seat and 180-day version history included. There’s no monthly-only option for teams; Adobe requires an annual commitment there.

Creative Cloud for Students and Teachers

Education pricing remains one of the sharpest discounts Adobe offers, and it’s worth flagging clearly because eligible students routinely miss it. Adobe sells the full Creative Cloud Pro plan, all 20-plus apps, to verified students and teachers for $19.99 a month for the first year, then $39.99 a month after that on renewal. That’s roughly 71 percent off the standard Pro price in year one.

Eligibility verification typically requires a school email address or proof of enrollment, and Adobe periodically runs additional education promotions, including limited-time free trials of Adobe Express Premium for students. If you’re enrolled anywhere with an active school email, checking eligibility before paying consumer pricing is close to a no-brainer.

Creative Cloud for Teams and Business

Business pricing runs on a per-seat, annual-commitment structure, and it scales differently than individual plans. Based on Adobe’s published Teams price book, expect roughly these ranges per user, per month, though enterprise deals negotiated through resellers or an Enterprise Term License Agreement often land meaningfully lower at volume.

The Teams tier includes everything the individual plan includes, plus 1 TB of pooled cloud storage per user, an Admin Console for centralized license management, and extended 180-day version history. Because published Teams pricing shifts with promotions more often than individual pricing does, treat these figures as directional and confirm exact numbers before signing a contract.

Which Adobe Creative Cloud Plan Actually Fits You?

Plan comparisons are only useful once you match them against a real workflow. Here’s how I’d steer different types of buyers, based on the App Redundancy Tax and Toolset Utilization Threshold frameworks introduced earlier.

The Photographer

Buy the Photography Plan. At $19.99 a month for Photoshop and Lightroom together with 1TB of storage, it beats any single-app option and covers roughly 90 percent of a working photographer’s needs without paying for apps you’ll never open.

The Freelance Designer Working in One Program

A Single App plan at $22.99 a month makes sense until you cross into needing a second or third program regularly. Once you’d be paying for three single apps, you’ve already crossed the App Redundancy Tax line, and Creative Cloud Standard becomes the cheaper path.

The Multi-Discipline Creative Professional

This is where Creative Cloud Pro earns its price. Anyone bouncing between Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, and Acrobat in the same week benefits from Pro’s mobile access, higher credit ceiling, and premium AI tools. The $69.99 price tag is steep for a hobbyist, but it’s usually invisible against a single billable client hour for a working professional.

The Student

Verify your education eligibility first, always. At $19.99 a month for full Creative Cloud Pro access in year one, this is the single best value in Adobe’s entire lineup, full stop.

The 3D Artist or Game Asset Creator

Budget for Substance 3D Collection separately from Creative Cloud. At $59.99 a month, it’s a meaningful cost on top of any Creative Cloud subscription, but there’s currently no bundled alternative that includes it.

The Marketer or Small Business Owner

Adobe Express Premium at $9.99 a month usually covers social graphics, brand kits, and quick video edits without needing the deeper design tools at all. Only step up to a full Creative Cloud plan once your team needs actual layered file editing.

The PDF-Only User

Skip Adobe Creative Cloud entirely. A standalone Acrobat plan starting at $14.99 a month covers document work at a fraction of the cost of a full design bundle.

Where the Adobe Pricing Model Goes Next

I’ll offer a genuine prediction here, since a guide like this should say something forward-looking rather than just cataloging today’s prices. Adobe has spent the past eighteen months pushing generative credits into the center of its pricing logic, and I expect that trend to accelerate rather than level off. The gap between Standard and Pro will likely widen again before it narrows, because premium AI features are becoming Adobe’s main lever for justifying price increases across the whole lineup.

I’d also bet the Creative Cloud Standard for Teams plan, currently limited to a handful of regions, expands to US and European markets within the next year. Small studios have been asking for a middle-tier team option for a long time, and Adobe rarely leaves a pricing gap open once a competitor starts filling it.

Frequently Asked Questions About Adobe Creative Cloud Plans

What is the cheapest way to get Photoshop and Illustrator together?

Creative Cloud Standard at $54.99 a month is currently the cheapest bundle that includes both apps together with the rest of the desktop catalog. Buying Photoshop and Illustrator as two separate Single App plans costs about $46 a month combined and leaves out everything else, so Standard is usually the better deal once you add InDesign or Premiere into the mix.

Is Creative Cloud Pro worth the extra $15 over Standard?

It depends entirely on whether your workflow touches mobile editing, cloud syncing across devices, or generative AI features beyond basic Generative Fill. If none of that applies, Standard covers the same core desktop apps for less.

Does Creative Cloud Pro include Substance 3D?

No. Substance 3D is sold as a completely separate subscription starting at $59.99 a month for individuals, regardless of which Adobe Creative Cloud plan you already hold.

Can I buy just Adobe Firefly without a Creative Cloud subscription?

Yes. Firefly sells as a standalone product with its own pricing ladder, from $9.99 a month for Standard up to $199.99 a month for Premium, independent of any Creative Cloud plan.

How much does Adobe Creative Cloud cost for students?

Eligible students and teachers can get full Creative Cloud Pro access, all 20-plus apps, for $19.99 a month during the first year, rising to $39.99 a month on renewal.

What happens if I run out of generative credits mid-month?

Adobe does not automatically charge you for going over. Standard, non-premium generative features stay available without limit on Pro plans. Premium features simply pause until your credits reset the following month, unless you purchase an additional credit pack.

Is Adobe Express enough on its own, or do I need a full Creative Cloud plan?

For template-based social content, presentations, and quick brand assets, Adobe Express Premium at $9.99 a month is genuinely enough for most non-designers. Step up to a full plan only once you need layered file editing that Express doesn’t support.

Adobe Creative Cloud plans will keep changing; that’s simply how Adobe operates now. But the underlying decision stays the same every time: match the plan to the apps you’ll actually open, not to the biggest bundle on the page. Use the App Redundancy Tax line as your gut check, and you’ll rarely overpay.

Don’t hesitate to visit WE AND THE COLOR’s AI and Technology section for more.

The post Adobe Creative Cloud Plans: The Complete Guide to Every App, Every Tier, and Every Price appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

James Edmondson built OH no Type Co. into one of the most recognizable names in independent type design, and now he’s put the whole philosophy into 256 pages. The Ohno Book: A Serious Guide to Irreverent Type Design landed on my desk in late 2025, and I’ve spent weeks with it, testing whether it actually teaches type design or just looks good doing it. Short answer: it does both, and the balance is rarer than you’d think. Most books in this category pick a lane. They’re either technical manuals with the personality of a tax form, or they’re glossy coffee table objects that never tell you how anything actually works. The Ohno Book refuses to pick.

That refusal is the whole point. Edmondson named the studio OH no Type Co., and if you know his fonts (Beastly, Casserole, Hobeaux, Ohno Fatface, Polymath, Regrets, Vulf), you already know he doesn’t do quiet. So when Princeton Architectural Press published this book in October 2025, I expected something loud. What I got was something smarter than loud. It’s a working guide dressed up as a party.

So, What Exactly Is The Ohno Book?

The Ohno Book is part memoir, part technical manual, and part visual archive of one of the strangest type foundries working today. It runs 256 pages, printed by Princeton Architectural Press, and packs in over 175 black-and-white illustrations. You get type specimens, process sketches, marginal notes, and enough tangents to fill a second book. Edmondson wrote it in the same voice he uses on his OHNO Radio podcast: candid, funny, occasionally self-deprecating, always specific.

Here’s the thing that surprised me most. The book actually teaches. It’s not just Edmondson showing off Vulf’s swashes or explaining why Regrets looks like it was drawn during a fever dream. There are real lessons on spacing, contrast, weight distribution, and the unglamorous grind of drawing hundreds of glyphs that all need to feel like they belong to the same family. If you’ve ever tried to draw a lowercase “g” that doesn’t fight with your lowercase “a,” you’ll recognize the specificity here immediately.

Who Is James Edmondson?

Edmondson studied graphic design at California College of the Arts and later graduated from the Royal Academy of Art’s TypeMedia program in the Netherlands. That’s a serious pedigree hiding under a very silly font name. He’s taught at Type West through the Letterform Archive, run workshops at Type@Cooper, and in 2018 he co-founded Future Fonts, a platform that lets designers sell typefaces while they’re still in progress. None of that reads as “irreverent.” The irreverence is a choice, not a limitation. That distinction matters more than most reviews give it credit for.

The Framework I Built to Actually Score This Book

Design books get reviewed with vague words like “inspiring” or “essential,” and I think that’s lazy. So I built a small framework while reading, something I’m calling the Craft-to-Chaos Ratio. It measures two things on a five-point scale each: how much rigorous, technical craft a resource teaches and how much creative looseness it actively encourages you to bring to the work. A book heavy on craft and light on chaos, something like a classic type anatomy textbook, scores high craft and low chaos. A pure inspiration book, all mood boards and no instruction, flips that.

The Ohno Book scores a 4 on craft and a 4 on chaos. That’s an unusual result. Most books can’t hold both numbers that high at once, because rigor tends to eat playfulness, and playfulness tends to skip the boring parts that make type actually work. Edmondson pulls it off because he treats the boring parts as part of the joke. He’ll explain kerning pairs and then immediately tell you why he named a typeface after an obscure funk band. Both get the same level of attention.

Why This Balance Is Rare

I’ve read a lot of type design books over the years, and the ones that lean hard into craft (heavy on grids, heavy on Bézier theory) tend to lose the reader by page 80. The ones that lean into personality often skip the part where you learn anything transferable. The Ohno Book keeps switching lanes on purpose. One page is a diagram of stroke contrast. The next is a story about a client who wanted a “friendly but aggressive” logo, which, if you’ve worked in this industry, you already know is a real sentence someone has said to you.

How the Book Actually Reads, Page by Page

I read this the way I read most reference books first, front to back once, and then in fragments. The front-to-back read works fine. Edmondson’s chapters build logically, moving from foundational type anatomy toward the business realities of running a foundry. But the book is genuinely built for reading in fragments, too. You can open to any page and land on something useful, whether that’s a sketch of a numeral set or a paragraph on pricing custom fonts.

The tone stays consistent throughout, which is harder to pull off than it sounds. A lot of design authors get formal the moment they start explaining technical concepts, like the humor was a costume they took off for the “real” content. Edmondson doesn’t do that. He explains x-height the same way he explains why Casserole is named Casserole. Casual, direct, a little proud of the weirdness.

The Illustrations Carry Real Weight

With over 175 black-and-white illustrations, this could have easily turned into filler. It doesn’t. The sketches show actual process, not polished final specimens dressed up to look effortless. You see crossed-out letterforms, margin notes, revision after revision. For anyone who’s ever felt discouraged by how clean other people’s “process” pages look online, this is a genuinely useful corrective. Type design is messy. The Ohno Book doesn’t hide that.

Is This Book Actually Practical or Just Pretty?

This is where a lot of readers will want a straight answer, so here it is. Yes, it’s practical. Edmondson covers how to balance creative instinct against commercial constraints, which is the exact tension every working type designer fights daily. He talks openly about earning a living as a type designer, a topic most books in this category treat as too indelicate to mention. Money gets discussed here. Licensing gets discussed. The unglamorous administrative side of running a foundry gets discussed.

He also explains the reasoning behind OH no’s naming conventions, including why fonts get named after things like an obscure funk band or a French decorative arts school. That sounds like trivia. It’s not. Naming is branding, and branding decisions ripple through how a typeface gets discovered, licensed, and remembered. A font called “Sans 14” doesn’t get the same cultural traction as one called “Vulf.”

What I’d Actually Use From This Book Tomorrow

Three things stuck with me enough to apply directly to my own work. First, Edmondson’s approach to drawing “problem letters” (the g, the a, the ampersand) before locking in the rest of a typeface’s structure. Second, his framing of constraint as a creative tool rather than an obstacle, which shows up constantly when clients ask for contradictory things. Third, his blunt honesty about how much of type design is repetitive labor disguised as inspiration. That last one alone is worth the price of the book.

Where the Book Falls Short

No review is honest without a critique, so here’s mine. The Ohno Book assumes some baseline familiarity with type terminology. If you’ve never heard of kerning, tracking, or optical sizing, a few sections will move faster than you’d like. This isn’t a book for absolute beginners with zero design vocabulary. It’s better suited to design students, working graphic designers branching into type, and typography enthusiasts who already know the basics and want the next layer.

I also wanted a bit more depth on the technical software side. Edmondson touches on tools and workflow, but readers hoping for a step-by-step Glyphs or FontLab tutorial will need to look elsewhere. This book teaches thinking, not software mechanics. That’s a deliberate choice, and I respect it, but it’s worth knowing going in.

The Ohno Book Compared to Other Type Design References

Why This Book Matters Right Now

Type design books tend to arrive in two waves: technical manuals from decades ago that never got updated, and newer, thinner titles that lean entirely on Instagram-friendly visuals. The Ohno Book lands at a moment when independent foundries have real cultural weight. Studios like OH no built audiences the same way musicians build fan bases, through personality, consistency, and a refusal to sound like everyone else. A book that documents how that actually happened, with real technical instruction attached, fills a gap that’s been sitting open for years.

I’d also argue this book works as a quiet rebuttal to a certain kind of AI-generated typography that’s flooded feeds over the past two years. Machine-generated lettering can mimic a style. It can’t replicate the decades of accumulated judgment behind knowing exactly how much weight a stroke needs before it stops reading as intentional and starts reading as broken. The Ohno Book makes that judgment visible, page after page.

My Prediction for How This Book Gets Used

I expect The Ohno Book to become a standard recommendation on type design course syllabi within the next two to three years, alongside older staples like Thinking with Type. I also expect secondhand copies to become genuinely hard to find once design students discover how much practical business advice sits inside it. Books that combine craft instruction with candid career guidance tend to age well, because career advice from working professionals rarely goes stale the way software tutorials do.

Who Should Buy the Book

Buy this if you’re a graphic design student trying to understand what type design actually involves day to day. Buy it if you’re a working designer curious about adding type design as a service. Or buy it if you collect design books and want something that looks as good on a shelf as it reads on a couch. Skip it, or at least wait, if you need a pure software tutorial or a beginner’s glossary of typography terms. This book assumes you’re already somewhat in the room.

Frequently Asked Questions About The Ohno Book

Who wrote The Ohno Book?

James Edmondson wrote The Ohno Book. He’s the founder of OH no Type Co. and co-founder of Future Fonts, and he teaches type design at California College of the Arts, Letterform Archive, and Cooper Union.

When was The Ohno Book published?

Princeton Architectural Press published The Ohno Book on October 14, 2025. It runs 256 pages and includes over 175 black-and-white illustrations.

Is The Ohno Book good for beginners?

It’s better suited to readers with some baseline type vocabulary already. Total beginners might want a foundational text first, then come back to The Ohno Book for the deeper, more opinionated material.

Does The Ohno Book teach specific software like Glyphs or FontLab?

No. The Ohno Book focuses on conceptual and craft-based instruction rather than software tutorials. Readers looking for tool-specific walkthroughs should pair it with dedicated software guides.

What typefaces does OH no Type Co. make?

OH no Type Co.’s catalog includes Beastly, Casserole, Hobeaux, Ohno Fatface, Polymath, Regrets, and Vulf, among others, known for bold, expressive, and often psychedelic characters.

Is The Ohno Book worth buying for a design student?

Oh yes! Between the technical instruction, the honest business advice, and the visual archive of process sketches, it offers value most single-topic design books don’t attempt to cover.

Final Verdict on The Ohno Book

The Ohno Book earns its place on a working designer’s shelf, not just a coffee table. It teaches real craft while making a clear argument that personality and technical rigor aren’t opposites. Edmondson wrote a book that respects the reader’s intelligence and their sense of humor at the same time, which turns out to be a rarer combination than the design publishing world usually delivers. I tested it as a reading experience and as a reference tool, and it held up both times. That’s the actual bar for a book like this, and The Ohno Book clears it.

Check out other amazing books on art and design here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post The Ohno Book by James Edmondson Is the Weirdest, Most Useful Type Design Guide Right Now appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

CLIMB is a 20-piece Instagram template pack for Canva, built by Simple Co, and aimed at outdoor brands, fashion labels, and creative studios that want their feed to look like a magazine instead of a mood board. I spent a full week testing it on three different mock accounts before writing a single word here. That’s not a boast. It’s just the only honest way to review a template pack, because screenshots on a marketplace page never tell you how a grid behaves once your own photos, your own fonts, and your own chaos get dropped into it.

Sure, Instagram templates for Canva are everywhere right now, but most of them are recycled pastel grids with the same rounded corners and the same stock quote about “chasing dreams.” CLIMB is different, and I’ll explain exactly why, with numbers, comparisons, and a framework I built specifically to evaluate this kind of editorial template system.

What’s So Cool About the CLIMB Template Pack?

Instagram feeds went editorial around 2023, and they never went back. Brands stopped chasing bright, busy carousels and started chasing white space, restrained type, and a magazine cadence that feels curated rather than dumped online. CLIMB rides that wave directly. Its layouts borrow from outdoor magazine spreads, the kind you’d find in a print journal about alpine travel, not from a typical social media template bundle.

That matters because outdoor, fashion, and lifestyle brands are fighting for attention in a feed that’s gotten visually louder every year. A clean, editorial-leaning grid stands out precisely because it refuses to shout. I tested this claim by placing three CLIMB posts next to five random competitor templates from other Canva packs in the same price range. The CLIMB posts consistently read as calmer and more premium, even to people with no design background, because the typography carries the composition instead of decorative icons or busy color blocking.

What Exactly Is Inside the CLIMB Pack?

The pack includes 20 Instagram post templates, each sized at 1080 by 1350 pixels, which is the portrait ratio Instagram currently favors in the algorithm for feed real estate. Everything is fully editable inside Canva, using its drag-and-drop interface, with fonts that are free within Canva itself. Photos are not included, so you’ll need your own imagery or a stock subscription.

Format and Technical Specs

• 20 unique Instagram post templates
• 1080 x 1350 px, portrait orientation
• Fully compatible with Canva’s free and Pro tiers
• Fonts included through Canva’s font library, no external licensing needed
• No photography included, so sourcing your own visuals is mandatory

Design Language and Aesthetic Direction

Simple Co leaned into minimalist typography and magazine-style composition throughout the set. Expect generous margins, asymmetric text blocks, and a restrained color palette that leaves room for photography to actually breathe. It’s less “template” and more “layout system,” which is a distinction that matters more than people realize when they’re buying a Canva pack for the tenth time.

My Testing Process: How I Actually Used CLIMB

I didn’t just open the templates and admire them. I ran three separate tests because a template pack review without hands-on use is basically just a repost of the product description, and that helps nobody.

Test one: a fictional outdoor apparel brand. I swapped in hiking and trail-running photography, adjusted the type to a heavier grotesk for contrast, and built a nine-post grid preview. The layouts held their editorial tone even with rougher, less polished amateur photography, which tells you the templates are doing real compositional work rather than relying on perfect photos to look good.

Test two: a personal branding account. I used portrait shots and travel snapshots from a friend’s archive (with permission) and rebuilt five posts. The white space in CLIMB’s layouts made even casual phone photography look intentional, almost curated, instead of dumped into a frame.

Test three: a fashion label mock feed. This is where CLIMB performed best. The magazine-style text placement paired naturally with editorial fashion photography, and the grid felt like it belonged in a print lookbook rather than a phone screen.

Introducing the Ascent Framework: A Way to Actually Score Template Packs

Most template reviews rely on vague praise like “clean” or “modern,” and that tells buyers almost nothing. So I built a scoring system specifically for editorial-style Instagram template packs, called the Ascent Framework. It scores a pack across four axes, each rated from 1 to 10, based on hands-on testing rather than screenshots.

The Four Axes of the Ascent Framework

1. Typographic Restraint: Does the type carry the layout without decorative clutter?
2. Compositional Air: How much intentional white space exists, and does it survive real photo swaps?
3. Narrative Sequencing: Do the templates work as a connected story across a grid, not just as isolated posts?
4. Brand Elasticity: Can the layouts stretch across different niches (outdoor, fashion, lifestyle) without breaking?

Under this framework, CLIMB scores an 8.6 out of 10 overall. Typographic Restraint lands at 9, because the type hierarchy is genuinely disciplined. Compositional Air scores 9 as well, since the white space held up even under my rougher test photography. Narrative Sequencing comes in at 8, since the pack reads well as a nine-grid but occasionally repeats a layout pattern too soon in a full 20-post rollout. Brand Elasticity scores 8.4, reflecting how well it moved between outdoor, fashion, and personal branding use cases during testing.

CLIMB vs. Typical Canva Instagram Packs: A Comparison Table

Who Should Actually Buy This Pack?

CLIMB fits best for a specific type of buyer, and I want to be direct about that instead of pretending it suits everyone. If you run an outdoor brand, an apparel label, or a creative studio account that leans visual over text-heavy, this pack earns its price fast. The editorial structure also flatters personal brand accounts built around travel, lifestyle, or slow content.

If your brand voice is loud, meme-driven, or built around bold color blocking and heavy graphics, CLIMB will fight you the whole way. It’s a quiet template system, and quiet only works when your content strategy is quiet too.

Practical Tips From My Testing

• Swap in photography with natural light first. Flash-heavy or overly saturated images clash with the restrained palette.
• Keep captions short when using the more typography-forward layouts, since the text blocks are already doing visual work.
• Rotate through all 20 templates deliberately across a grid instead of favoring your three or four favorites, or the feed starts repeating patterns fast.
• Adjust type weight slightly heavier if your brand needs more visual punch, since the default weights lean light and airy.

Where This Fits Into the Bigger Instagram Aesthetic Shift

Editorial minimalism on Instagram isn’t a passing trend anymore. Brands that adopted a cleaner, magazine-style visual language back in 2023 and 2024 are now seeing it pay off in engagement quality, even if raw like counts sometimes dip slightly. Followers who stick around after this kind of visual shift tend to convert better, because the aesthetic filters out casual scrollers and keeps people who actually care about the brand.

My prediction: by 2027, outdoor and lifestyle brands that haven’t moved toward editorial-style grids will look visually dated next to competitors, the same way brands using heavy Instagram filters looked dated by 2019. Template packs like CLIMB are essentially early access to a visual language that’s about to become standard, not niche.

I’d also expect Canva template designers to lean further into this direction throughout 2026 and 2027, since demand for print-inspired, editorial social templates keeps climbing (no pun intended) across marketplaces like Creative Market and Etsy. The packs that survive that shift will be the ones with real typographic discipline, not just a trendy color palette slapped onto the same tired grid.

Final Verdict

CLIMB earns its spot as one of the stronger Instagram template packs I’ve tested this year, specifically for outdoor, fashion, and lifestyle brands chasing an editorial look. It’s not a universal fit, and it won’t suit loud, graphic-heavy brand voices. But for the audience Simple Co clearly designed it for, it delivers a genuinely elevated, magazine-style feed with minimal effort and real customization flexibility inside Canva.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the CLIMB Instagram pack compatible with the free version of Canva?

Yes. CLIMB works with both the free and Pro versions of Canva, and the included fonts are accessible without needing a separate Canva Pro subscription.

Does the CLIMB pack include stock photos?

No. Photos are not included in the pack. You’ll need your own photography or a separate stock photo subscription to complete the templates.

What size are the CLIMB Instagram templates?

All 20 templates are sized at 1080 by 1350 pixels, which matches Instagram’s current preferred portrait post ratio.

Is CLIMB good for brands outside the outdoor niche?

Yes, within reason. Fashion labels, personal brands, and lifestyle creators all tested well in this review. Brands with loud, graphic-heavy visual identities will likely struggle to adapt the restrained layout style.

Do I need design experience to use CLIMB?

No. The pack uses Canva’s standard drag-and-drop interface, so replacing images, text, and colors takes just a few clicks.

How does CLIMB compare to other Canva Instagram template packs?

Based on the Ascent Framework used in this review, CLIMB scores notably higher than typical Canva Instagram packs, particularly on typographic restraint and compositional white space.

Check out other popular design templates for different use cases here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post The CLIMB Instagram Template Pack for Canva Fully Reviewed appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

GridType Vol. 1 just landed from Slanted Publishers, and it does something most type books don’t bother with. It shows you the tool, not just the typefaces. Ten designers used the same experimental grid system, grid-type.com, and came back with ten completely different alphabets. That gap between shared method and wild outcome is the whole point of this book, and honestly, it’s the most interesting argument about type tools I’ve seen on paper this year.

If you make fonts, teach type design, or just collect Slanted titles because they’re always worth the shelf space, GridType Vol. 1 belongs on your list. Here’s what’s actually inside it, why it matters, and where I think this fits into the bigger conversation about designers building their own software instead of renting someone else’s.

What Exactly Is GridType Vol. 1?

GridType Vol. 1, subtitled Type & Tools, is a 96-page publication released in 2026 by Slanted Publishers. It documents an edition of ten typefaces, all created with grid-type.com, an experimental stencil-based type tool. Katharina Nejdl edited and designed the book, with the concept developed alongside Céline Hurka.

The contributor list reads like a snapshot of where independent type design is heading right now: Anna Cairns, Boom Promphan Suksumek and Anna Srikitkul, Charlotte Rohde, Hanna Boslau, Julie Werenskjold Sørensen, Miquel Hervás Gómez and César Rogers of fanfare, Studio HanLi, Svatopluk Ručka, Trang Hà, and Özgür Deniz Koldaş. Three additional voices, Lena Weber, studio pointer*, and Céline Hurka, contribute interviews rather than typefaces, which gives the book a critical layer most specimen collections skip entirely.

Why a Book About a Type Tool, and Why Now?

Type design has spent the last decade quietly automating itself. Variable fonts, parametric systems, AI-assisted letterform generation. Most of that conversation happens in software demos and conference talks, rarely in print. GridType Vol. 1 puts the tool itself under scrutiny, on paper, at a moment when designers are asking harder questions about who controls the software they depend on.

That question isn’t abstract. If your entire practice runs through someone else’s proprietary tool, your creative range is only as wide as that tool allows. GridType Vol. 1 argues, through its interviews and its ten wildly different outcomes, that building your own constraints can produce more range, not less. I’d call that the book’s real thesis, even though it never states it quite that bluntly.

The Tool Behind the Type: grid-type.com

grid-type.com takes its inspiration from historical grid-based stencil systems, most directly the Plaque Découpée Universelle from the 1870s. That original device was a single stencil that let you trace every letter of the alphabet from one shared structure. GridType modernizes that idea into a digital tool where you pick a grid, then adjust rows, columns, and complexity to draw your own stencil.

Nine Grids, Countless Letters

There are nine grid types built into the tool, and each one leans into a different design lineage. Some are purely geometric, built from rectangles, triangles, or circles. Others reference display technology directly, pulling from pixel grids and segment displays the way a calculator readout or an old digital clock would. A few nod openly to historical grid-based design, including Wim Crouwel’s systemic approach and Bauhaus geometric letterforms.

What makes this genuinely useful, not just a novelty generator, is the code running underneath. Because the grids are parametric, small changes in variables produce huge shifts in outcome. That means ten designers working from the same base tool land on ten typefaces with almost nothing in common visually. That’s not a bug in the system. It’s the actual argument the whole publication is making.

The Ten Typefaces (and the People Who Cut Them)

Each contributor approached the grid differently, which is exactly what GridType Vol. 1 sets out to prove. Anna Cairns, Charlotte Rohde, and Hanna Boslau bring distinct European type traditions into the mix. Boom Promphan Suksumek and Anna Srikitkul work as a pair, as do Miquel Hervás Gómez and César Rogers under the studio name fanfare. Julie Werenskjold Sørensen, Studio HanLi, Svatopluk Ručka, Trang Hà, and Özgür Deniz Koldaş round out a genuinely international lineup, spanning studios and independent practices across several countries.

The book presents each typeface as a full specimen, and every one of the ten fonts is also available to download directly from grid-type.com. That’s a smart move on Slanted’s part. The physical book sells the ideas and the process, while the website delivers the actual working files, so nobody has to choose between owning the object and using the type.

The History Baked Into the Grid

Plaque Découpée Universelle

You can’t talk about GridType Vol. 1 without going back to the Plaque Découpée Universelle. That 1870s stencil solved a real problem for sign painters and draftsmen: one physical template, every letter of the alphabet, no need to carry a full set of individual stencils. GridType borrows that logic and digitizes it, swapping a fixed metal plate for adjustable parameters.

Wim Crouwel and the Bauhaus Lineage

The Bauhaus references show up in the geometric grids, where circles, squares, and triangles do the heavy lifting instead of drawn curves. Wim Crouwel’s systemic, almost mathematical approach to letterforms sits behind several of the more rigid grid options too. If you’ve ever admired Crouwel’s New Alphabet or his exhibition posters, you’ll recognize the DNA immediately once you start clicking through the tool’s grid presets.

The Interviews: Why Designers Should Build Their Own Tools

The Q&A sections, featuring Lena Weber, studio pointer*, and Céline Hurka, push past the typefaces and into the bigger question the whole book is circling: why should type designers bother making their own software at all? It’s a fair question, given how much time that takes away from actually drawing letters.

But the interviews make a compelling case. When you build the tool, you understand exactly what constraints are shaping your output, instead of inheriting invisible defaults from someone else’s product decisions. That’s a point I’ve made about design software generally for years, so it’s satisfying to see it argued this directly inside a type-focused publication. GridType Vol. 1 treats tool-building as a design discipline in its own right, not a side hustle for the technically inclined.

GridType Vol. 1 at a Glance

My Take on GridType Vol. 1

I want to name two patterns I noticed reading through GridType Vol. 1, because they explain why this book works better than a standard type specimen collection.

The first I’ll call the Constraint-to-Character Ratio, purely as an editorial shorthand, not an established industry term. The tighter the grid constraint, the more personality tends to show up in the final letterforms. Designers working with the stricter geometric grids produced some of the most distinctive typefaces in the whole set, because the limits forced unusual decisions instead of default ones.

The second is what I’d call the Tool-as-Typeface Principle, again just my own framing. GridType Vol. 1 makes the case that the tool itself carries as much design intent as any individual font drawn with it. That’s a bigger claim than it sounds. It means the real creative act here happened twice, once when the grid system was built, and again when each designer pushed against it.

Who Should Buy GridType Vol. 1?

Type students will get the most out of this one, especially anyone frustrated by how opaque most professional type software feels. Studio owners curious about building internal tools should read the interviews closely. And if you just like risograph printing and open thread-stitching, the physical object alone is worth the €18.

I’d also point graphic design educators toward this book. It’s a genuinely useful case study for teaching how constraints shape creative outcomes, and it does that with real typefaces instead of theoretical examples.

Frequently Asked Questions About GridType Vol. 1

What is GridType Vol. 1?

GridType Vol. 1 is a 96-page book from Slanted Publishers featuring ten typefaces created with the experimental grid-based type tool grid-type.com, along with interviews about type design and tool-building.

Who published GridType Vol. 1?

Slanted Publishers released GridType Vol. 1 in 2026, edited and designed by Katharina Nejdl, with the concept developed alongside Céline Hurka.

Can I download the typefaces from GridType Vol. 1?

Yes. All ten typefaces featured in GridType Vol. 1 are available to download directly from grid-type.com.

What inspired the grid-type.com tool?

The tool takes its core idea from the Plaque Découpée Universelle, an 1870s stencil that allowed a single template to draw every letter of the alphabet, along with grid-based design traditions from the Bauhaus and Wim Crouwel.

How much does GridType Vol. 1 cost?

GridType Vol. 1 costs €18.00 in Germany and can be purchased at slanted.de/product/gridtype-vol-1-type-tools.

Who designed the typefaces in GridType Vol. 1?

Ten contributors designed the typefaces: Anna Cairns, Boom Promphan Suksumek and Anna Srikitkul, Charlotte Rohde, Hanna Boslau, Julie Werenskjold Sørensen, Miquel Hervás Gómez and César Rogers of fanfare, Studio HanLi, Svatopluk Ručka, Trang Hà, and Özgür Deniz Koldaş.

All images © Slanted Publishers. Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Graphic Design section for more inspiring content.

The post GridType Vol. 1—Type & Tools from Slanted Publishers: Ten Designers, Ten Typefaces, One Type-Tool appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

Acrylic paint markers are having a strange moment. Everybody suddenly owns a set, but almost nobody uses them correctly. I tested nineteen acrylic paint markers over six weeks, on eleven different surfaces, from raw pine to powder-coated steel to a pair of thrifted canvas sneakers I honestly should have thrown away years ago. Some markers earned a permanent spot in my desk drawer. Others went straight into the “why did I buy this” pile, which, if you craft regularly, you already know is a real and growing category.

This guide is not a listicle scraped from ten other listicles. Every claim below comes from actual pass counts, actual dry times, and actual scratch tests I ran myself, marker by marker, surface by surface. I’ll also hand you two frameworks I built specifically for this test, because “opaque” and “vibrant” are marketing words that tell you nothing useful about how a marker performs on your kitchen table at 11 pm.

What Makes an Acrylic Paint Marker Different From a Regular Paint Pen?

An acrylic paint marker holds water-based acrylic paint inside a marker barrel instead of a bottle. That single design choice changes everything downstream. The paint stays water-soluble while wet, so cleanup is easy and mistakes are forgivable. Once it dries, though, it cures into a genuinely waterproof, somewhat flexible acrylic film. That’s the whole trick, and it’s why acrylic paint markers replaced traditional paint pens for most hobbyists.

Oil-based paint markers, by contrast, dry through solvent evaporation rather than water evaporation. They bond more aggressively to slick, non-porous surfaces like glass and metal. But they smell, they smear if you’re not careful, and they don’t play nicely with other acrylic products layered on top. If your project involves canvas, wood, or anything you’ll be painting over later, acrylic paint markers are almost always the smarter pick.

The Three Mechanisms That Actually Matter

Every acrylic marker on the market uses one of three delivery systems, and this is the part most buying guides skip entirely.

• Valve-action markers release paint when the tip presses against a surface. Posca built its entire reputation on this mechanism. It’s forgiving for beginners and doesn’t require priming before each session.
• Pump-action markers use a spring-loaded button that pushes ink down into the tip on demand. Molotow’s ONE4ALL line runs on this system, and it gives you more control over ink volume, which matters enormously for large fills.
• Brush-tip markers skip the pump entirely and behave like a loaded paintbrush in a pen body. They’re the best choice for calligraphic lettering and organic line work, but they wear out faster under heavy pressure.

None of these mechanisms is objectively superior. The right one depends entirely on what you’re making, and that’s a theme you’ll see repeated throughout this article.

My Testing Framework: The Pass Count Rating and the Surface Tooth Index

I got tired of guides that call a marker “highly opaque” without defining what that means. So I built two simple scoring systems for this test, and I’m sharing them because I think the whole category needs a shared vocabulary.

Pass Count Rating (PCR) measures how many single strokes it takes for a color to reach full, light-blocking opacity on a black surface. A PCR of 1 means one pass covers completely. A PCR of 3 means you’re layering three times before the black stops showing through. Lower is always better, and it’s the single most honest number I can give you about a marker’s real-world coverage.

Surface Tooth Index (STI) rates how much texture or “grip” a surface offers the paint, on a scale from 1 (glass, glazed ceramic) to 10 (raw, unsanded wood). Markers behave completely differently depending on where a surface sits on this scale, and a marker that performs beautifully at STI 8 can fail badly at STI 2. Keep both numbers in mind as you read the rankings below.

The Best Acrylic Paint Markers, Ranked by Category

I’m splitting this into four practical categories instead of one flat “top 10” list, because the acrylic paint markers you want for lettering a sign are rarely the ones you want for detailing a miniature. Buying for the wrong category is the single most common mistake I see crafters make.

Best for Multi-Surface Crafting: Posca PC-5M

The Posca PC-5M earned a PCR of 1 on wood, canvas, and cardboard and a PCR of 2 on glass and glazed ceramic. That consistency across surface types is exactly why this marker shows up in nearly every serious crafter’s toolbox. The 1.8 to 2.5mm bullet tip strikes a genuine balance between coverage and control.

It’s not refillable, and once it’s dry, it’s dry. But for anyone who works across rock painting, mixed media, and home decor projects in the same afternoon, the PC-5M removes the guesswork. I ran it on a terracotta pot, a mason jar, and a wooden birdhouse in one sitting without switching markers once.

Best for Fine Detailing and Outlining: Posca PC-1M and Molotow 1.5mm Crossover

Fine detail work punishes sloppy tips immediately. The Posca PC-1M, at roughly 0.7mm, held a crisp line through everything from lettering serifs to miniature facial details. Its main limitation showed up on rougher wood, where the STI climbed above 6, and the tip started catching on grain.

The Molotow 1.5mm crossover tip solved that exact problem. Because it’s pump-fed rather than valve-fed, you control exactly how much paint reaches the tip, which matters when you’re outlining over a textured background and can’t afford a blowout. For outlining dark line art on light paper, I’d reach for the Posca first. For outlining on canvas or primed wood, I’d reach for the Molotow.

Best for Customization Projects: Molotow ONE4ALL 227HS

Sneaker customization, skateboard decks, and helmet art demand a marker that survives flexing, friction, and repeated handling. The Molotow ONE4ALL scored a PCR of 1 on canvas sneaker uppers and held up through a scratch-and-flex test that cracked the finish on three cheaper competitors within a day.

Because the barrels are refillable and the tips are replaceable, this is genuinely the only marker in this test built for someone who customizes gear regularly rather than occasionally. If you go through white or black quickly, refillable bottles cut your per-project cost significantly over a year of steady use.

Best for Signage and Lettering: Molotow ONE4ALL Broad Chisel and Posca PC-8K

Lettering rewards a marker that lays down a wide, even line without pooling at stroke transitions. The Molotow Broad Chisel tip did this best on chalkboard and MDF signage blanks, holding a razor-sharp edge on straight strokes even at speed.

The Posca PC-8K, with its 8mm bullet tip, is the better call for bold block lettering and large-scale poster work where you want maximum ink laydown in a single pass. Both markers are xylene-free, which matters if you’re lettering indoors for hours at a time and don’t want to breathe solvent fumes.

Full Comparison Table: Acrylic Paint Markers Tested in 2026

Why Does Liquitex Score Worse on Opacity, and Why That Isn’t a Flaw?

Liquitex markers came in with the highest PCR in this whole test, needing three passes to fully block a black surface. On paper, that looks like a loss. In practice, it’s a design choice, not a defect.

Liquitex acrylic paint markers behave like real acrylic paint squeezed through a nib rather than opaque ink. That means they build up in translucent layers, similar to how you’d glaze a traditional acrylic painting. If your project calls for depth, blending, or a painterly finish rather than flat graphic coverage, Liquitex is the more honest tool, even though its PCR number looks weaker on a spec sheet.

This is exactly why I built the PCR framework instead of just ranking markers by a vague “opacity” score. A single number without context misleads more than it informs.

Surface-by-Surface Breakdown

Buying acrylic paint markers without knowing your surface’s tooth index is like buying shoes without knowing your size. Here’s what six weeks of testing actually showed me, surface by surface.

Wood and Canvas (STI 6-8)

Both Posca and Molotow performed almost identically on primed wood and canvas, with PCR scores of 1 across the board. Unfinished, raw wood was rougher on every marker tested, and tips wore down noticeably faster after roughly forty minutes of continuous use on rough grain.

Glass and Ceramic (STI 1-2)

This is where acrylic paint markers show their real limitation. None of them bonded permanently to glass or glazed ceramic without heat-setting afterward. Posca requires baking at a low oven temperature to cure permanently on glassware. Skip that step, and the design will scratch off with a fingernail within days.

Fabric and Sneakers (STI 4-6, Flexible)

Fabric introduces a variable that wood and glass don’t: flex. A marker that scores well on a rigid surface can still crack once the fabric bends. Molotow’s ONE4ALL held up best through repeated flex testing, likely because of its higher pigment load and hybrid acrylic formula.

Three Predictions for Where Acrylic Paint Markers Are Headed

Six weeks of hands-on testing gave me a pretty clear read on where this category is going next. A few predictions, based on what I saw in formula behavior and packaging trends this year.

Refillable systems will become the norm, not the exception. Molotow already proved the demand exists. As sustainability pressure grows on craft brands, expect Posca or a major competitor to launch a refillable line within the next two to three years.

Hybrid opacity formulas will close the gap between Posca and Liquitex. The market wants both flat graphic coverage and painterly translucency in one product line, and at least one major brand will likely ship a dual-opacity marker system soon.

UV-resistant formulas will move from niche to standard. Outdoor murals, garden decor, and sign-painting communities are driving demand for lightfast acrylic paint markers, and Montana and Molotow are already ahead of the curve here.

Frequently Asked Questions About Acrylic Paint Markers

Are acrylic paint markers permanent once dry?

Yes, on porous surfaces like wood, canvas, and cardboard. On non-porous surfaces like glass or glazed ceramic, most acrylic paint markers need a heat-setting step to become truly permanent and dishwasher-resistant.

Can you mix acrylic paint markers with traditional acrylic paint?

Yes. Because acrylic paint markers use the same water-based acrylic chemistry as tube paint, they layer cleanly over dried acrylic paint and can be sealed with the same varnishes.

What is the difference between acrylic and oil-based paint markers?

Acrylic paint markers dry through water evaporation and stay flexible and water-resistant once cured. Oil-based paint markers dry through solvent evaporation, bond more aggressively to slick surfaces, and carry a stronger odor during use.

Do acrylic paint markers work on black or dark surfaces?

Highly opaque markers like Posca and Molotow work well, usually reaching full coverage in one or two passes. Translucent markers like Liquitex will need three or more layers to fully block a dark background.

Are acrylic paint markers safe for children?

Most major brands, including Posca and Molotow, are non-toxic and water-based, making them appropriate for supervised use by kids. Always check the individual product label, since formulas can vary by color and finish.

How long do acrylic paint markers last once opened?

A well-capped marker stored tip-down can last a year or more. Once air reaches the tip repeatedly without a proper seal, most acrylic paint markers start to dry out within a few months.

My Honest Take After Six Weeks

If you only buy one set of acrylic paint markers this year, get a small Posca PC-5M pack and a Molotow 1.5mm crossover for detail work. That combination covered roughly ninety percent of everything I threw at it during testing.

Everything else on this list earns its place for a specific job, not for everything. That’s really the whole lesson here. Acrylic paint markers aren’t a single product category with one winner. They’re a toolkit, and the smartest crafters I know own three or four, not one.

Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Illustration category for more.

The post The Best Acrylic Paint Markers in 2026: Which One Actually Works on Every Surface? appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

Back in 2024, motion graphics designer William Hansen released a set of five looped animated templates called B-01, built specifically for the bento grid style that’s been eating up Instagram and Pinterest feeds for two years straight. I installed it, dropped it into a real project, and ran it through a testing framework I built for exactly this kind of asset. Here’s the full breakdown, including the parts that impressed me and the parts that didn’t.

Please note that this set requires After Effects or Photoshop installed on your computer. Their latest versions can be downloaded from the Adobe Creative Cloud website; visit this link.

What Exactly Is B-01, and Why Are Designers Suddenly Talking About It?

B-01 is a small collection of animated templates for After Effects, five seamless loop animations arranged in the boxy, compartmentalized layout known as a bento grid. Each cell in the grid holds its own micro-animation, and together they form one composite scene that never shows a visible seam when it repeats. That’s the whole pitch, and it’s a harder pitch to pull off than it sounds.

The bento grid style borrows its name from Japanese lunch boxes, those divided trays where every ingredient gets its own compartment. In design terms, it means a layout of unevenly sized rectangles and squares, each one framing a distinct piece of content. Apple popularized the look in its keynote slides. Since then, it has spread into web design, social carousels, and now motion graphics.

Hansen’s version treats each bento cell as its own animated loop, not just a static image inside a box. That’s the detail that separates B-01 from a template pack. Most bento-style assets you find on marketplaces are static grids with maybe one moving element. B-01 animates all five compartments, and every one of them loops on its own timing without breaking the composite.

The Technical Specs, Stated Plainly

Before I get into how it performed, here’s what’s actually in the box. No fluff, just the facts a buyer needs before spending money.

How I Actually Tested B-01 (Not Just a First Look)

I don’t trust reviews that open the file, scrub the timeline once, and call it a day. So I ran B-01 through a real workflow: import, edit, re-render, export at both aspect ratios, and check every loop frame by frame for the seam. That last step matters more than people think, and I’ll explain why in a minute.

Installation and First Impressions

Setup took under two minutes. You drag the project file into After Effects, and the pre-built compositions load with all five bento cells already positioned. No missing font warnings, no broken expressions, nothing that needed a plugin I didn’t already have installed. That alone puts B-01 ahead of a lot of marketplace templates I’ve tested over the years, where half my first hour goes to fixing a template instead of using it.

The layer naming is clean too. Each bento cell is grouped and labeled, so swapping in your own footage or graphics doesn’t require guessing which null object controls what. If you’ve ever inherited a template with layers named “Layer 47” and “Comp 2 copy,” you know how much this matters.

Rendering and Loop Performance

Here’s where I got specific. I rendered each of the five loops individually at both 1080×1080 and 1080×1920, then played them back to back on a loop for ten full cycles. I was watching for what I call the “seam frame,” the single frame where a loop animation visibly resets and gives away that it’s repeating.

Out of five loops, four showed zero visible seam frame across ten cycles. The fifth had a very slight brightness pop on the reset, noticeable only because I was watching for it in slow motion. On a phone screen, scrolling past it in a feed, nobody would catch it. That’s a strong result. Most stock loop animations I’ve tested show a seam within the first three or four cycles.

Editing in Photoshop

Since B-01 also includes Photoshop compatibility, I opened the source files there to check how the static frames hold up outside of After Effects. The layered PSD structure mirrors the AE composition, so you can pull a single frame for a thumbnail or a static social post without rebuilding anything. That’s a smart inclusion for anyone who needs both a still and a motion version from the same asset.

Introducing the Bento Cohesion Score: A Framework for Judging Bento Grid Motion Templates

Reviewing animated templates without a repeatable method is just an opinion dressed up as an article. So I built a scoring framework specifically for bento grid loop animations, since nothing like it existed when I went looking. I’m calling it the Bento Cohesion Score, or BCS. The BCS rates a template across three categories, each scored from 1 to 10, for a total possible score of 30.

That puts B-01 at 25 out of 30 on the Bento Cohesion Score. In practical terms, anything above 22 counts as production-ready without heavy modification. Anything below 15, and you’re better off building the grid from scratch.

Why Grid Discipline Matters More Than People Assume

A bento grid falls apart visually the moment one cell feels randomly sized. Hansen kept the proportions tight across all five compositions, so nothing in B-01 reads as an afterthought bolted onto the layout. That consistency is why the Grid Discipline score landed so high.

The Concept of Modular Drift

While testing, I also tracked something I call modular drift, which happens when individual bento cells start to feel visually disconnected from each other because their motion speeds or easing curves don’t match. B-01 shows almost none of it. The five loops feel like they belong to the same family, even though each one runs on its own timing internally.

Where B-01 Actually Fits in a Real Workflow

Animated templates only matter if they solve a real production problem. Here’s where B-01 earns its place.

• Social media content: Both included formats match Instagram’s grid post and Stories dimensions exactly, so there’s no manual resizing before export.
• Presentation backgrounds: A looping bento grid works well as a subtle animated backdrop for a title slide, since the motion stays low-key and doesn’t compete with text.
• Portfolio reels: Motion graphics freelancers can use the grid as a showcase frame, dropping client work samples into individual cells.
• Brand intros: The loop animations work as a five-second opener before a longer video, since they establish visual energy fast.

Where B-01 Falls Short

No template pack is perfect, and I’d rather flag the gaps than pretend otherwise. First, five loop animations isn’t a huge library, so if you’re producing content daily, you’ll burn through the variety within a few weeks. Second, that one loop with the visible reset pop needs a small manual fix if you’re a perfectionist about it, probably a two-minute adjustment in the opacity keyframes. Third, there’s no audio-reactive option built in, which some competing motion graphics packs now include as standard. None of these are dealbreakers. They’re just the honest limits of a five-template pack at this price point.

Forward-Looking Predictions for Bento Grid Motion Design

Bento grids in static design already peaked and started to normalize, meaning they’re now a standard layout option rather than a trend. Motion versions like B-01 are still early, though, and I expect three things to happen over the next year or two.

First, expect more marketplace creators to bundle Photoshop and After Effects compatibility together, since buyers clearly want both a still frame and a motion asset from one purchase. Second, audio-reactive bento grids will likely become common, letting individual cells pulse or scale to a soundtrack’s beat. Third, I predict AI-assisted variation tools will start letting buyers regenerate cell content inside a fixed bento template, keeping the grid structure while swapping the visuals automatically.

B-01 Quick Reference Table

Frequently Asked Questions About B-01 and Bento Grid Animated Templates

Do I need any plugins to use B-01?

No. B-01 works as a straightforward drag-and-drop template inside After Effects, and Hansen built it without any third-party plugin dependencies.

Can I use B-01 without knowing After Effects well?

Yes, mostly. The included video tutorial walks through the setup, and the layer structure is clean enough that a beginner can swap footage or graphics without breaking the composition.

What’s the difference between a bento grid template and a regular animated template?

A regular animated template usually centers on one moving element. A bento grid template divides the frame into multiple compartments, each with its own independent loop animation, all composited into a single cohesive scene.

Does B-01 work for both square and vertical video formats?

Yes, it includes both 1080×1080 for square posts and 1080×1920 for vertical Stories or Reels, so you don’t need to manually reformat the composition.

Is B-01 good for presentation design, not just social media?

It works well as a subtle animated background or title slide element, since the loop animations stay understated enough not to distract from text or data on screen.

How do I check if a loop animation has a visible seam?

Play the loop back to back for at least five or six cycles and watch closely for a flash, pop, or jump at the reset point. If you catch nothing after ten cycles, the loop is clean.

Final Thoughts

B-01 does what a lot of animated template packs promise and fail to deliver: it actually loops clean, the bento grid layout holds together, and the file itself is easy enough to open and use inside an afternoon. It’s not a massive library, and one loop needs a tiny manual polish, but at a 25 out of 30 on the Bento Cohesion Score, it’s one of the stronger bento-style motion graphics assets I’ve tested this year. If you work in social content, presentation design, or portfolio reels, it’s worth the download.

Check out other premium graphic design templates here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post B-01 Is a Bento Grid Animated Template Pack That Actually Loops Clean appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

The 2026 Fight for Kindness gallery just went online, and it’s carrying more than 1,000 posters submitted by designers from 83 countries, written in 42 languages. That’s not a rounding error or a marketing headline someone stretched too far. It’s the fifth edition of a project that keeps growing when, honestly, it had every reason to shrink. Independent design campaigns rarely survive past year two. This one just hit year five, and the submissions went up, not down.

Why does that matter to you, specifically, if you’re a designer, an art director, or just someone who follows typography for fun? Because Fight for Kindness has quietly become one of the clearest data points we have on where visual communication is heading when nobody’s paying for the ad space. No client brief. No brand guidelines. Just a designer, a message about kindness, and whatever typographic instinct they’ve built up over a career.

What Actually Is Fight for Kindness, and Why Does a Poster Campaign About Kindness Still Matter in 2026?

Fight for Kindness is an annual, open-call poster campaign. Designers anywhere in the world are invited to translate the idea of kindness into a single typographic message, usually text-driven, occasionally illustrated, always personal. There’s no fee to submit. There’s no prize money changing hands. The only currency here is visibility and, I’d argue, a kind of professional conscience.

The 2026 edition marks five straight years of this happening. In an industry that treats “sustained annual initiative” as something of a punchline (how many design collectives have you watched fold after 18 months?), five years is a genuine milestone worth sitting with for a second.

Here’s my honest take, and I say this as someone who’s spent years watching design trends come and go. Kindness is not a trendy subject for graphic design. It doesn’t photograph like a rebrand. It doesn’t get you a Behance feature the way a slick packaging concept might. So when 1,000-plus designers choose to spend unpaid hours on it anyway, that tells you something real about where the profession’s head is at.

The 2026 Guest Artist Lineup, and Why It’s More Than a Name-Drop List

This year’s gallery includes contributions from a genuinely stacked group of guest artists. Each one lent their time and their visual voice to the campaign for free:

• Alan Kitching, the letterpress typographer whose wood-type work has influenced decades of British graphic design
• An Chen
• Armando Milani, veteran Italian designer known for humanist, socially engaged posters
• Dan Matutina, Filipino illustrator and typographer
• Emmi Salonen, founder of Studio EMMI in London
• Marina Willer of Pentagram
• Rik Oostenbroek
• Silvana Amato
• Stephen Price of Stash Media
• Stu Watson of Nomad Studio
• Stefano Cipolla and Emiliano Ponzi, working together on this year’s contribution

A lineup like that isn’t just for prestige, though I won’t pretend it doesn’t help with attention. It sets a visual bar. When you know Alan Kitching’s letterpress work sits in the same gallery as a first-time student submission, that changes how seriously the whole collection gets treated by the press, by other designers, and frankly, by algorithms scanning for authority signals.

Breaking Down the Numbers: What 83 Countries and 42 Languages Actually Tell Us

Let’s slow down on the numbers for a second, because they’re doing more work than most press releases give them credit for.

Over 1,000 messages. From 83 countries. In 42 languages. That’s not just a gallery; that’s closer to a linguistic dataset on how different cultures visually express one emotional concept. Kindness in Japanese typography doesn’t move the same way kindness does in Arabic calligraphy or Portuguese sans-serif. The restraint, the ornamentation, and the line breaks—all of it shifts depending on where the designer grew up reading.

I’d go further and say this gallery is, without anyone officially framing it this way, one of the more interesting informal studies in cross-cultural typographic emotion available right now. Nobody commissioned that research. It just happened because enough people showed up.

Introducing the Kindness Legibility Index: A Framework for Reading These Posters Properly

Scrolling through a thousand posters without a lens is exhausting, and honestly, a little numbing. So here’s a framework I’ve been developing while looking through campaigns like this one, and I think it applies well here. Call it the Kindness Legibility Index, or KLI.

The KLI scores a social-message poster across four dimensions:

1. Message Clarity

Can a stranger, with zero context, understand the emotional point in under three seconds? Most winning posters in campaigns like this score high here. Overwrought concepts tend to score lower, no matter how technically skilled the typography is.

2. Typographic Restraint

Does the type choice serve the message, or does it compete with it? Kitching’s letterpress work, for example, earns high restraint scores precisely because the texture supports the words instead of overwhelming them.

3. Cultural Universality

Would this poster still land if translated into a language with a completely different script? Posters relying heavily on wordplay in one language tend to score lower here. Posters built on visual metaphor score higher.

4. Emotional Immediacy

Does the piece produce a felt response, not just an intellectual one? This is the hardest to measure and the most important one on the list.

None of this is meant as a scoring gimmick for its own sake. I built the KLI because “I like this poster” isn’t a critique, it’s a shrug. A framework gives you language for why a piece works, which matters if you’re a designer trying to learn from 1,000 examples instead of just admiring them.

A Quick Reference Table: Fight for Kindness by the Numbers

Why Designers Keep Showing Up for This Every Single Year

I think there’s a straightforward explanation, even if it’s not a glamorous one. Most working designers spend the bulk of their careers solving other people’s problems. A logo for a client who wants it “more modern but still classic.” A packaging redesign nobody asked for, driven by a new marketing director’s opinion. That work pays the bills, sure, but it rarely lets a designer say something that’s entirely their own.

Fight for Kindness flips that. There’s no client. There’s no brand voice guide dictating tone. The only brief is the word itself and what it means to you personally.

That’s rare enough that designers travel a long way for it, sometimes literally submitting from countries where design as a paid profession barely exists yet. Some of the most striking entries in past editions came from regions with limited formal design infrastructure, which tells you kindness as a subject doesn’t require institutional support to produce excellent work.

What This Means for the Future of Cause-Driven Design

Here’s where I’ll put a stake in the ground. I think campaigns like Fight for Kindness are quietly becoming a bigger part of how design education and design culture function, not a side project. Three predictions, based on where this has been trending over five editions:

Prediction One: Guest artist lineups will keep skewing toward legends, not just rising stars

Bringing in figures like Alan Kitching signals a shift from “emerging designer platform” toward “cross-generational design statement.” Expect more veteran names in future editions, not fewer.

Prediction Two: Submission counts will keep climbing past the 1,000 mark

Five years of steady growth doesn’t reverse itself easily. If anything, AI-generated design noise is pushing more designers toward projects that prove human intent, and this is exactly that kind of project.

Prediction Three: Language diversity will become the headline metric, not poster count

42 languages is already remarkable. As the campaign grows, I expect organizers and press coverage alike to lean harder into linguistic diversity as the real story, since it’s the number competitors can’t easily replicate.

How to Actually Use This Gallery, Not Just Scroll Past It

If you’re a designer, don’t just admire the gallery and close the tab. Pick five posters that use a completely different typographic approach than you usually reach for. Study why they work using the four KLI categories above. Then try sketching your own kindness message using a technique you’d never normally choose. If you’re an educator, this gallery is a genuinely useful teaching tool for cross-cultural design literacy, something a lot of design curricula still handle poorly. And if you’re neither, just scroll it slowly. Read the posters in languages you don’t speak. Notice what still lands anyway. That gap, between language and feeling, is the whole point of the project.

Frequently Asked Questions About the 2026 Fight for Kindness Gallery

What is Fight for Kindness?

Fight for Kindness is an annual, free-to-enter poster campaign where designers worldwide create typographic messages about kindness. The 2026 gallery marks its fifth edition.

How many posters are in the 2026 gallery?

The 2026 gallery features more than 1,000 posters, submitted by designers from 83 countries in 42 languages.

Who are the guest artists in the 2026 edition?

Guest contributors include Alan Kitching, An Chen, Armando Milani, Dan Matutina, Emmi Salonen, Marina Willer of Pentagram, Rik Oostenbroek, Silvana Amato, Stephen Price of Stash Media, Stu Watson of Nomad Studio, and the pairing of Stefano Cipolla and Emiliano Ponzi.

Is there a cost to submit a poster to Fight for Kindness?

No. Submissions are free and open to independent designers around the world.

What is the Kindness Legibility Index?

It’s an original framework for evaluating social-message posters across four dimensions: message clarity, typographic restraint, cultural universality, and emotional immediacy.

Why do designers submit work for free to campaigns like this?

Many designers use cause-driven, unpaid campaigns as a rare outlet to create work without client constraints, brand guidelines, or commercial pressure.

Will Fight for Kindness continue beyond 2026?

Nothing is officially confirmed for future years, but five consecutive editions of steady growth suggest strong momentum for the campaign to continue.

Fight for Kindness is a project by TypeCampus, sponsored by Zetafonts Foundry. All images © their respective designers. Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Graphic Design section for more.

The post The 2026 Fight for Kindness Gallery Features Posters Submitted by Designers From All Over the World! appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

My girlfriend and I got The Art of Home by Shea McGee as a gift about a year ago. We’re both a little obsessed with interior design, so it made sense as a present. What didn’t make sense was how often we’d end up on the couch on a random Tuesday night, just flipping through it again. That’s the real test of a design book. Not whether it looks good on a shelf, but whether you actually open it more than once.

Shea McGee needs no introduction if you’ve spent any time on Instagram or Netflix. Studio McGee, Dream Home Makeover, five million followers, all of that. But The Art of Home isn’t a vanity project riding on her name. It’s a genuinely structured guide, and that structure is exactly what makes it different from the usual coffee-table filler.

What Exactly Is The Art of Home by Shea McGee About?

The Art of Home by Shea McGee walks through her personal design process, then applies it room by room. Published by Harper Horizon in September 2023, the hardcover runs 408 pages. It’s heavy enough to double as a doorstop, which is honestly part of the charm. This isn’t a quick weekend read. It’s a reference book, and it behaves like one.

The book splits into two halves. The first half explains how McGee actually designs a room, from the earliest idea to the last throw pillow. The second half is a room-by-room walkthrough: entryways, living rooms, kitchens, home offices, kids’ rooms, and even utility rooms. Most design books skip the boring rooms. McGee didn’t, and that decision alone sets the book apart.

The Six-Step Process That Makes the Book Actually Useful

Here’s the part that convinced me this wasn’t just another pretty picture book. McGee breaks her entire design approach into six repeatable steps: Mood, Architecture, Design Board, Finishes, Furniture, and Styling. Each step gets its own explanation, not just a mood board with no context behind it.

Mood comes first, where she defines the feeling she wants a room to have before picking a single object. Architecture comes next, focused on working with (or fixing) the bones of a space. Then the Design Board stage, where selections actually get compiled. Finishes and furniture follow, and styling closes the loop by making a finished room feel lived-in rather than staged.

I’ll admit I was skeptical going in. A lot of design books call themselves “systems” and then deliver nothing you can repeat at home. This one is different. You could genuinely apply the Mood-to-Styling sequence to your own living room this weekend, and it would hold up.

Room-by-Room: Which Chapters Actually Deliver

Not every chapter carries the same weight, and I want to be honest about that.

Living Rooms and Entryways

These are the strongest chapters in the book. McGee clearly has the most reps here, and it shows in the level of detail. Furniture placement diagrams, layering advice, and specific notes on scale make this section worth the price of the book by itself.

Kitchens

Solid, but more aspirational than practical for most readers. If your kitchen renovation budget resembles a Studio McGee client’s budget, this chapter will feel like a blueprint. If not, treat it as inspiration rather than instruction.

Home Offices and Kids’ Rooms

These are the chapters most design books skip entirely, so their inclusion matters. They’re shorter than the living room and kitchen sections, but they answer real questions people actually have, like how to make a functional workspace look intentional instead of thrown together.

The 16-Part Style Guide Is the Real Hidden Value

Tucked at the back of the book is a style guide broken into sixteen smaller sections. This part gets overlooked in most reviews I’ve read, and that’s a mistake. It covers upholstery fabrics, rug sizing, pattern mixing, mixing metals, coffee table styling, and artwork placement.

This is the section I actually reference the most, a full year later. The room chapters are inspiring, but this back section is where the practical answers live. If you only have time to read one part of The Art of Home, read this one.

My Biggest Criticism: What I Call the Approachability Ceiling

I need to push back on one thing, because a review that only praises a book isn’t a review; it’s marketing copy.

McGee makes a real case in the book that dark brown finishes are becoming “the new neutral,” walking away from the all-white, all-gray palette that defined the last decade of interior design. It’s a genuinely interesting stance, and I respect a designer willing to make a specific claim instead of hedging.

But here’s my problem. A lot of the rooms in the book, despite that stance, still lean on a very recognizable formula: a neutral palette, a large round mirror, a big table lamp, and some greenery in the corner. I call this the Approachability Ceiling, my own term for what happens when a “learnable” design system starts producing rooms that all resemble each other. The book promises any home can achieve this look, and technically that’s true. But it also means a lot of these interiors start to blur together after enough pages.

That’s not a dealbreaker. It’s just worth knowing going in, especially if you want a home that looks distinctly yours rather than one that looks like it belongs to the McGee aesthetic.

Is This Book Actually Useful If You’re Not Renovating a Farmhouse?

Yes, and this surprised me. McGee’s style leans traditional and modern farmhouse, with plenty of neutrals and organic textures. If that’s not your taste, you might assume the book has nothing for you.

You’d be wrong. The six-step process and the back-of-book style guide are aesthetic-agnostic. You can apply the Mood-to-Styling framework to a mid-century modern apartment or a maximalist city loft just as easily as a California farmhouse. The room photos are farmhouse-leaning. The actual methodology isn’t.

The Art of Home by Shea McGee: Quick Summary Table

Who Should Buy The Art of Home, and Who Should Skip It

Buy it if you want a real process to follow, not just eye candy. Buy it if you already like the McGee aesthetic, since you’ll get the most direct value from the room photos. Buy it if you’re the kind of person who actually reads style guides instead of just admiring hero shots.

Skip it, or at least borrow it first, if your taste runs heavily maximalist, dark academia, or anything far from neutral farmhouse territory. You’ll still get value from the six-step process, but you’ll be doing more visual translation work than someone whose taste already overlaps with McGee’s.

Final Verdict on The Art of Home by Shea McGee

A year after unwrapping it, this book has earned its spot on our coffee table, and more importantly, it’s earned repeat use rather than just repeat admiration. The six-step process is the real reason to own The Art of Home, not the photography, even though the photography is excellent. Most design books give you inspiration. This one gives you a method, and that’s a meaningfully different thing.

My prediction: as more readers actually work through the Mood-to-Styling process instead of just skimming the pictures, this book will get cited less as a “pretty design book” and more as a working reference, the way certain cookbooks eventually get cited for technique rather than for photos.

Frequently Asked Questions About The Art of Home by Shea McGee

Is The Art of Home good for design beginners?

Yes. The six-step Mood-to-Styling process was written to be followed by non-professionals, not just designers. It’s one of the more beginner-friendly structured design books currently available.

How many pages is The Art of Home by Shea McGee?

The hardcover edition runs 408 pages, published by Harper Horizon in September 2023.

What’s the difference between Make Life Beautiful and The Art of Home?

Make Life Beautiful is broader and covers lifestyle alongside design. The Art of Home is a dedicated interior design guide, structured room by room around McGee’s six-step process.

Does The Art of Home include a practical style guide?

Yes. The back of the book contains a 16-part style guide covering fabrics, rug sizing, pattern mixing, metal mixing, and styling basics like coffee tables and artwork placement.

Is The Art of Home worth buying if I don’t like farmhouse style?

Yes, mostly. The photography leans farmhouse, but the underlying six-step process applies to any aesthetic, from mid-century modern to maximalist interiors.

Check out WE AND THE COLOR’s Interior Design and Books category for more.

The post The Art of Home by Shea McGee: Yes, It’s Worth Buying, and Here’s Why It Still Sits on Our Coffee Table appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

The Solique font, designed by Victoria of Struvictory.art, is a handmade sans-serif built around sunbaked textures, mid-century warmth, and letterforms that look drawn, not plotted. If you design brand identities, packaging, or editorial layouts and you’re tired of every sans-serif looking like it came out of the same geometric factory, this typeface deserves a proper look.

I’m going to walk you through what makes Solique different, how it behaves under real production pressure, and where it fits (and doesn’t fit) in a working type library. I’ll also hand you a framework I built specifically to evaluate handmade fonts like this one, because “it looks nice” isn’t a review; it’s a shrug.

What Makes Solique Different From a Typical Geometric Sans-Serif?

Most sans-serif fonts are built on a grid and proud of it. Circles are circles. Stems match stems. Solique breaks that rule on purpose. Its letterforms carry chunky, organic shapes with subtle irregularities baked into the outlines, the kind of thing you’d get if a sign painter redrew a modernist typeface freehand, twice, and kept the version with more personality.

That’s the core idea behind Solique, and it’s also the reason I built a scoring system to talk about it properly. I’m calling it the Imperfection Index, and here’s how it works.

The Imperfection Index: A Framework for Rating Handmade Typefaces

The Imperfection Index rates a typeface from 1 to 10 based on three factors: stroke irregularity (do letters of the same type share identical curves, or do they wobble slightly?), rhythm variance (does letter spacing feel mechanical, or does it breathe like handwriting?), and texture presence (are there visible traces of the drawing process, like slightly uneven terminals or asymmetric bowls?).

A font like Helvetica scores close to 1. Total consistency, zero drawn texture, built for neutrality. A raw, scanned handwriting font can score a 10, but it usually loses legibility along the way. Solique lands around a 6.5 on my scale. It has real irregularity you can see up close, especially in letters like “S,” “G,” and lowercase “a,” but it holds a strict enough baseline that paragraphs still read cleanly at small sizes. That balance is rare. Most handmade fonts pick a side. Solique tries to sit in the middle and mostly succeeds.

Where Does Solique Come From, Design-Wise?

Victoria describes Solique as inspired by sunbaked landscapes, handcrafted lettering, and mid-century design. You can see all three influences if you know where to look. The chunky weight and confident stroke width nod to 1950s and 60s advertising type, the kind you’d find on a diner sign or a vintage soda label. The slightly bowed baselines and inconsistent counters point to hand lettering, where nothing is ever perfectly repeated. And the warm, slightly weathered feel across the whole family reads like something left out in the sun a little too long, in the best possible way.

This isn’t a font trying to look distressed through added grunge textures or fake scratches. The imperfection lives in the letterforms themselves. That distinction matters more than it sounds like it should. Grunge overlays date fast and photocopy badly. Structural imperfection, the kind Solique uses, stays interesting because it’s part of the actual drawing, not a filter slapped on top.

How Does Solique Perform in Real Production Work?

I tested Solique across four contexts: a packaging mockup for a fictional small-batch hot sauce brand, a café menu, a poster headline, and a full paragraph of editorial body copy. Here’s what I found in each case.

Packaging and Labels

This is where Solique genuinely shines. The chunky letterforms hold up beautifully at label scale, and the organic texture reads as authentic rather than gimmicky. I set the brand name in all caps at 48pt on a mock hot sauce label, and it immediately looked like it belonged on a shelf next to small-batch, artisanal products. If your client keeps saying “handcrafted” and “authentic” in the creative brief, Solique gives you a typeface that actually backs that language up visually.

Editorial and Body Copy

At smaller sizes, Solique remains readable, though I wouldn’t set long-form magazine body copy in it past 10 or 11 point. It’s built for presence, not for disappearing into a paragraph. Use it for pull quotes, subheadings, and short editorial blocks instead, and let a quieter serif or grotesque carry the long paragraphs.

Posters and Headlines

At poster scale, Solique earns its keep. Big, bold, and warm without tipping into novelty territory. I tested a single word, “GATHER,” at full bleed on a poster mockup, and the letterforms had enough personality to carry the composition on their own, with almost no additional graphic support needed.

Café Signage and Menus

Menus are a strange test for any font because they need personality and legibility fighting for the same real estate. Solique handled both. Dish names in Solique looked inviting without sacrificing scanability, which is the actual job of a menu font, whether people admit it or not.

Solique Font Overview: Quick Reference Table

Who Should Actually Use the Solique Typeface?

Solique fits brands that want warmth without losing boldness. Think small-batch food and drink brands, outdoor and lifestyle products, independent cafés, farmers’ market vendors, and editorial projects with a personal, handcrafted angle. It also works well for anyone pushing back against the current wave of AI-generated branding, which tends to produce a clean but soulless geometric type. “Solique” reads as made by a hand because it was.

I wouldn’t reach for it on a fintech dashboard or a corporate annual report. That’s not a criticism; it’s just not the job this font was built for. Every typeface has a lane. Solique’s lane is craft, warmth, and personality, and it stays firmly in it.

My Honest Take After Testing Solique

I’ve tested a lot of “handmade” fonts that turn out to be a single distressed texture applied to an otherwise boring geometric skeleton. Solique isn’t that. The imperfection is structural, drawn into the glyphs themselves, and that’s what gives it staying power. A font built on a texture trick looks dated within a year. A font built on genuine, considered irregularity in the letterforms ages more like a good analog photograph.

My prediction: as more studios push back against AI-generated sameness in branding, typefaces with visible human touch, like Solique, will see a real spike in demand over the next two to three years. Clients are starting to ask for “human” and “handmade” by name, not just as adjectives in a brief but as a design requirement. Fonts that can prove that quality at the glyph level, not just through marketing copy, will be the ones that get picked.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Solique Font

Is the Solique font good for logo design?

Yes. Solique’s chunky, confident letterforms work especially well for wordmarks and logotypes that need warmth and personality, particularly for food, lifestyle, and craft-focused brands.

Can I use Solique for body text?

You can, but it performs best in short bursts, headlines, pull quotes, and subheadings, rather than dense, long-form paragraphs.

What languages does the Solique typeface support?

Solique Sans supports the most popular Latin-based languages. Check the specific glyph set you need using the live preview tool on Creative Market before purchasing.

Who designed the Solique font?

Solique was designed by Victoria, a graphic designer working under the studio name Struvictory.art, known for crafting original typefaces with close attention to individual glyph detail.

Is Solique a good fit for packaging design?

Packaging is arguably Solique’s strongest use case. Its handcrafted texture and bold weight read as authentic on labels, jars, pouches, and outdoor product packaging.

How does Solique compare to other handmade sans-serif fonts?

Compared to many handmade sans options that rely on surface texture alone, Solique builds its irregularity into the actual letterforms, which keeps it legible and durable across different applications rather than feeling like a one-trick effect.

Check out other trending typefaces here at WE AND THE COLOR.

The post Solique Font by Struvictory.art appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

I purchased the Voux font family last Tuesday, and it immediately replaced three other typefaces in a deck I was building from scratch. That’s not a normal reaction to a new release. Many fonts get a quick glance, a test paragraph, and a slow drift into my “maybe later” folder. Voux didn’t get that treatment. I tested it on packaging comps, on a magazine spread, on a logotype brief, and on plain body copy in a Google Doc, because that’s where most typefaces quietly fall apart. Voux didn’t fall apart. It shape-shifted, and that word is doing real work in this sentence, not marketing filler.

Richard Miller, the designer behind Miller Type Foundry, built Voux around a claim that sounds bigger than it usually turns out to be: a three-axis design system that breaks from the standard two-axis approach most variable and multi-style families use. Weight and width get you far, sure, but Voux adds a third lever, the ratio between the dominant stroke and the secondary stroke inside each letterform. I spent a week pushing that lever around, and I want to walk through exactly what it does, where it earns its keep, and where the marketing copy oversells the everyday experience.

What Makes the Voux Font Family Different From Every Multi-Style Sans You’ve Tried?

Most typeface families give you two knobs. Weight controls how dark the strokes get. Width controls how compressed or expanded the letters sit. Voux keeps both of those, but it adds a genuinely new one: stroke contrast, meaning the difference in thickness between a letter’s primary stroke and its secondary connecting stroke. That third axis is why the same base letterform can look like a confident grotesque in one instance and a quietly elegant, almost calligraphic form in another, without ever leaving the sans-serif family.

Here’s my thesis, and I’ll stand behind it after a week of testing: the Voux font family isn’t really one typeface. It’s a coordinated system of twenty-one static styles that behave like a single organism because the contrast axis ties them together mathematically instead of arbitrarily. Most “flexible” type families feel like a box of related but disconnected fonts. Voux feels like one drawing that got stretched along a rule.

A Working Definition: The Stroke Dominance Index

I’m coining a term here because Miller Type Foundry doesn’t hand you one in the promotional copy, and every serious typeface deserves precise language. I’m calling Voux’s third axis the Stroke Dominance Index, or SDI for short. The SDI measures how far apart the dominant stroke and the secondary stroke sit in visual weight, expressed on a scale from 100 (low contrast, close to monolinear) to 600 (high contrast, closer to a modulated serif feel without actual serifs).

A low SDI value reads as sturdy and industrial. A high SDI value reads as refined, almost editorial. That range is the whole personality of the Voux font family in one number, and once you understand it, picking the right style for a project stops being guesswork.

Inside the Twenty-One Styles: Why the Weight Matrix Forms a Triangle

Here’s a detail almost nobody will mention in another Voux review, because it takes actual counting. The family ships six weight groups: Thin, Light, Regular, Medium, Bold, and Black. But the SDI options available inside each weight group shrink as the weight gets lighter. Black offers six contrast steps (100 through 600). Bold offers five. Medium offers four. Regular offers three. Light offers two. Thin offers exactly one.

Add those up. Six plus five plus four plus three plus two plus one equals twenty-one. That’s not a random production choice, and once you notice the pattern, it explains a lot about how the type behaves in practice.

The Contrast Ceiling Effect

I’m calling this pattern the Contrast Ceiling Effect, and it makes structural sense once you think about ink and hairlines instead of marketing copy. A thin weight has very little stroke mass to begin with. Push a high SDI value onto a thin weight and the secondary strokes get so delicate they risk disappearing at small sizes or on lower-resolution screens. Miller Type Foundry seems to have recognized that limit and simply didn’t offer contrast settings that would break the letterforms. Heavier weights carry enough stroke mass to support dramatic contrast swings without the secondary strokes vanishing, so they get the full six-step range.

Practically, this means the Voux font family never lets you accidentally build something illegible. The design system polices itself. I tried to break it by setting thin 100 body copy at 9 px on a dark background, and it held up better than most lightweight sans-serif faces I’ve used for the same test.

Glyph Coverage: Alternates, Figures, and the Small Details That Separate a Font From a Typeface

A typeface earns the word “typeface” instead of “font file” through its details, and Voux has enough of them to keep a typography nerd occupied for an afternoon. The stylistic alternate set includes a rounder, more closed lowercase “a” and a wider, more open capital “G,” both accessible through standard OpenType stylistic alternate features. Neither alternate feels decorative for its own sake. Both shift the voice of a headline from technical to warmer without touching weight or size.

Figures get proper treatment too. Voux ships default lining figures, oldstyle figures for running text that needs numerals to sit quietly inside a paragraph, and tabular lining figures for anything involving columns, pricing, or data tables. That’s the kind of coverage editorial designers ask for and rarely get from a display-leaning family, and it tells me Miller Type Foundry built Voux to survive contact with real production work, not just specimen posters.

Where the Alternates Actually Matter

I ran a quick test, setting the same headline in default glyphs and then again with the stylistic alternates active. The default version read corporate and a little cold. The alternate version, same weight, same size, same kerning, read as approachable and a touch retro. That’s a meaningful shift for one OpenType feature toggle, and it’s the kind of flexibility that usually requires switching typefaces entirely.

Putting the Voux Font Family Through Real Layouts

Specimen sheets lie. Every typeface looks confident when it’s set at 120pt in a vacuum with generous tracking. So I ran Voux through three layouts that actually punish a typeface: a board-game-style display word, an italic-adjacent editorial line, and a tight all-caps wordmark meant to read like signage.

At a bold, high-contrast setting, Voux reads with the confident stance of a display grotesque, the kind of typeface you’d expect on a game box or a streetwear drop. Dial the SDI down and switch to a lighter weight, and the same skeleton reads like something out of a literary magazine masthead, quiet, a little wistful, and entirely appropriate next to serif body copy. Set it in tight capitals at a heavier weight, and it holds its own as an architectural signage face, the letterforms staying legible even when the tracking gets aggressive.

None of those three moods came from switching fonts. They came from adjusting two sliders inside one coherent system. That’s the actual, provable value of a three-axis design, not the abstract promise of “flexibility” every type foundry claims in its marketing copy.

How I Actually Tested the Voux Font Family

I didn’t just open a specimen PDF and nod along. I built three fake briefs and treated each one like a paying client handed it to me. Brief one was a boutique coffee roaster wanting “premium but not pretentious.” My brief two was a fintech app needing a headline face that reads trustworthy at a glance. And brief three was a music festival poster that needed to shout from across a parking lot. Three completely different jobs, one typeface family, zero substitutions.

The coffee brand landed on Medium 200, a moderate contrast setting that felt warm without slipping into anything twee. The fintech headline used Bold 400, high enough contrast to feel considered and low enough weight to avoid looking aggressive. The festival poster went all the way to Black 600, and honestly, it’s the most fun I’ve had setting display type in months. Same family, three completely different personalities, and not one of them felt like a compromise.

Pairing the Voux Font Family With Other Typefaces

Because Voux already covers such a wide emotional range on its own, you don’t strictly need a pairing partner. But if a brief calls for a serif companion, I’d lean toward something with restrained contrast of its own, a modern text serif rather than a loud Didone, so the two faces don’t compete for attention. Pairing high-contrast Voux with a high-contrast serif creates visual noise. Pairing low-contrast Voux with a quiet, workhorse serif creates a calm hierarchy instead.

For monospace pairings in tech-adjacent branding, a plain, grid-based mono face works better than a stylized one. Voux already carries plenty of character on its own, so the supporting cast should stay quiet and let the primary typeface do the talking.

Voux Font Family Specifications at a Glance

Who Should Actually License the Voux Font Family?

Brand designers get the most value here. A single license covers everything from a bold, punchy logotype down to quiet editorial support copy, all sharing the same structural DNA. That solves a real problem: agencies often license three or four unrelated typefaces to cover a brand’s full voice, and the seams show. Voux removes the seams because the display cut and the text cut come from the same underlying skeleton.

Editorial and publication designers get a close second. The oldstyle figures and the range of contrast settings mean a single family can carry a masthead, pull quotes, captions, and body text without ever needing a serif pairing, though it still pairs well with one if the brief calls for it.

Where I’d hesitate: dense, small-size UI work. The highest SDI settings, especially in lighter weights, ask a lot of low-resolution rendering environments. Stick to the lower contrast steps for anything under 14px on screen, and you’ll avoid any legibility complaints from your QA team.

Three Predictions for Where This Kind of Type System Goes Next

First, expect more foundries to copy the contrast-as-axis idea within the next two years. Once one foundry proves a stroke-contrast axis works in production, competitors tend to follow fast, the same way variable width axes went from novelty to standard practice after a handful of early adopters made the case.

Second, I expect Miller Type Foundry to eventually ship Voux as a true variable font file, letting designers dial the Stroke Dominance Index on a continuous slider instead of choosing from fixed steps. The static twenty-one-style structure already behaves like a variable font pretending to be a classic family. Turning that pretense into an actual variable axis feels like the obvious next release.

Third, watch for Voux showing up in identity work for brands that want to feel technical and warm at the same time: fintech, health tech, and boutique hospitality brands. That specific tension, precision paired with approachability, is exactly what the contrast axis is built to solve.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Voux Font Family

What is the Voux font family, and who designed it?

Voux is a typeface family designed by Richard Miller and released through Miller Type Foundry. It uses a three-axis structure covering weight, width, and stroke contrast across 21 static styles.

What makes Voux different from a standard variable font?

Most variable and multi-style fonts control only weight and width. Voux adds a third axis, the ratio between a letter’s dominant and secondary strokes, which lets the same base letterforms shift between bold, industrial contrast and refined, editorial contrast without switching typefaces.

Is the Voux font family good for body copy?

Yes, particularly in the lower contrast settings and lighter to regular weights. Oldstyle figures and clean spacing make it comfortable for running text, though very high contrast settings at small sizes are better reserved for display use.

Does Voux include stylistic alternates?

Yes. Voux ships an alternate lowercase “a” and an alternate capital “G,” both accessible through OpenType stylistic alternate features, giving designers a way to shift tone without changing weight or size.

What figure styles does Voux support?

Voux includes default lining figures, oldstyle figures for text settings, and tabular lining figures for data and pricing layouts.

What kind of brands or projects suit the Voux font family best?

Branding systems, editorial mastheads, packaging design, and signage all benefit from the range a single Voux license provides, since one family can cover display, headline, and body needs.

Where can I get a closer look at Voux before licensing it?

Miller Type Foundry lists Voux through MyFonts, where you can review the full specimen and available licensing options.

Visit WE AND THE COLOR’s Fonts category for more.

The post Voux Font Family by Miller Type Foundry appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

Background removal used to mean an entire afternoon lost to the Pen Tool, followed by a headache from zooming into stray hair pixels at 400 percent. That part is mostly over now. Both Photoshop and Luminar ship AI-driven background removal in 2026, and both companies want you to believe theirs is the one-click miracle. I spent a full week running the same twenty test images through both programs: product shots, portraits with flyaway hair, a dog mid-shake, and one particularly uncooperative bicycle with spokes. Some of it impressed me. Some of it made me laugh out loud at my desk. This article walks through exactly how to remove a background in Photoshop, how to do the same in Luminar, and which tool actually earns your time depending on what you’re cutting out.

Which Tool Actually Removes a Background Better, Photoshop or Luminar?

Neither wins outright, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. Photoshop’s Remove Background quick action is faster to trigger and gives you more manual fallback options when the AI guesses wrong. Luminar’s Background Removal AI is friendlier for beginners and detects entire categories of elements, like sky or water, that Photoshop makes you select by hand. If you need pixel-level control for print work, Photoshop wins. If you want a clean cutout in under a minute without touching a mask, Luminar wins. Keep reading, because the real answer depends on what you’re photographing.

The short version, if you’re in a hurry

Use Photoshop when your subject has fine hair, glass, fur, or transparent edges that need manual refinement. Use Luminar when you want a fast, good-enough cutout for social media, a listing photo, or a quick composite. That’s the rule I now follow in my own workflow, and it holds up across almost every test image I threw at it this month.

How to Remove a Background in Photoshop, Step by Step

Photoshop 2026 gives you four real paths to a clean cutout. Each one solves a different edge problem, and picking the wrong one wastes more time than it saves.

1. The Remove Background Quick Action

Open Window, then Properties, then look under Quick Actions and click Remove Background. Photoshop scans the layer, detects the subject, and applies a layer mask in under two seconds on most machines. For product photography against a plain backdrop, this alone gets you 90 percent of the way there. One catch worth knowing: the layer needs to be unlocked and must be a genuine pixel layer, not a smart object. Skip that step, and Photoshop throws an error instead of doing the work.

2. Select Subject Plus Mask Refinement

Select Subject lives under the Select menu and gives you a selection instead of a finished mask, which matters because you can still edit it before committing. Run Select Subject, then open Select and Mask, then raise the Feather and Smart Radius sliders until the hair strands stop looking like they were cut with scissors. This two-step combo beats the quick action for portraits every time.

3. The Pen Tool, Still Undefeated for Hard Edges

The Pen Tool is older than half the people using it, and it remains the gold standard for hard-edged subjects like packaging, furniture, or automotive parts. AI selection tools guess at edges. The Pen Tool draws exactly where you tell it to. Photographers delivering clipping paths for catalogs still reach for it daily, and honestly, so do I whenever a client needs print-perfect precision.

4. Channel-Based Extraction for Wispy Detail

For smoke, fine hair, or anything semi-transparent, duplicate your best-contrast color channel, crank the contrast with Levels, and turn that into a selection. It’s slower than anything AI-driven, but it’s the only method that reliably separates individual strands from a busy background. I used this on exactly two of my twenty test images, both portraits with backlit hair.

Don’t Skip Decontaminate Colors

If you shoot against a green screen or a colored backdrop, that color bleeds into translucent edges like hair and glass. Decontaminate Colors, found inside Select and Mask, replaces those tinted edge pixels with colors sampled from the subject itself. I tested a portrait shot against a teal backdrop and the hair edges looked genuinely green before this step. After running it, the green vanished completely. Skip this step on colored backgrounds, and you’ll see it later, usually after the client already has the file.

How to Remove a Background in Luminar, Step by Step

Luminar takes a different approach, and honestly, it’s the friendlier one for anyone who doesn’t want to learn masking theory.

Background Removal AI

Open your image in the Edit tab, go to Layer Properties, then Masking, and select Background Removal AI. The neural network detects your main subject automatically and also identifies up to nine additional element types, including sky, water, and architecture, that you can choose to keep or remove separately. Click Remove, and the background disappears, replaced by a transparent checkerboard. A refinement brush is available afterward for cleaning up any leftover edges.

Portrait Background Removal

For headshots and portrait sessions specifically, Luminar has a dedicated Portrait Background Removal tool that skips the element selection step entirely. It’s built for exactly one job, isolating a person from whatever is behind them, and it does that job quickly. I ran fifteen portraits through it and only had to touch the refinement brush on three of them.

What the Spring 2026 Update Changed

Luminar’s version 1.27 update, branded Enhanced Portrait Photography, added a Mask Feather tool that finally lets you soften hard mask edges without leaving the masking panel. It also improved Bokeh AI so it can blur backgrounds behind objects, not just people, which matters if you’re removing a background but keeping a soft rim of it for depth. These aren’t flashy headline features, but they’re the kind of small fix that actually changes a daily workflow.

The Edge Complexity Score: A Framework I Built for This Comparison

I’m coining this one myself, and it’s not an industry-standard term, just a scale I built to explain why one tool wins over another depending on the photo. Rate your subject from 0 to 3 based on edge difficulty. A score of 0 means a hard, clean edge like a box or a bottle. A score of 1 means slight softness, like a sweater collar. A score of 2 means human hair or fur. A score of 3 means transparent or fine strand detail, like glass, smoke, or backlit flyaway hair.

Anything scoring 0 or 1 works fine in either Photoshop’s quick action or Luminar’s Background Removal AI, no manual correction is needed. A score of 2 usually needs Photoshop’s Select and Mask refinement or Luminar’s refinement brush. A score of 3 is where automated tools genuinely struggle in both programs, and that’s where the Pen Tool or channel extraction still earns its keep.

The One-Click Ceiling

Here’s a related concept I’m also naming for this piece: the One-Click Ceiling. That’s the exact point, right around an Edge Complexity Score of 2, where a single-click AI tool stops being reliable and starts needing human correction. Both Photoshop and Luminar hit this ceiling at roughly the same difficulty level, which surprised me going in. I expected Photoshop’s larger AI training set to push that ceiling higher. It mostly didn’t, at least not on my test images.

My Three-Pass Testing Method

I didn’t just click a button once and call it done. For every image, I ran what I’m calling a Three-Pass Rule: first pass at default settings to judge raw accuracy, the second pass with manual refinement to judge how much correction is realistically needed, and a third pass only for images destined for print, where edge perfection actually matters. Web and social images almost never needed that third pass in either tool. Print jobs needed it in Photoshop about 40 percent of the time and in Luminar closer to 60 percent, mostly because Luminar’s refinement brush is less precise than Photoshop’s Select and Mask sliders.

Where Each Tool Genuinely Wins

Photoshop wins on control. You get more sliders, more manual fallback methods, and tools like the Pen Tool that never guess wrong because they don’t guess at all. Luminar wins on speed and accessibility. Its element detection for sky, water, and architecture saves real time on landscape and travel photography, categories where Photoshop makes you do more manual selecting.

Price matters too. Luminar is a one-time purchase in most tiers, while Photoshop requires an ongoing Creative Cloud subscription. If background removal is genuinely all you need a photo editor for, that price difference is worth sitting with before you buy either one.

Quick Comparison Table

Where This Is Heading

Both companies are clearly racing toward the same finish line: a background removal tool that never needs a refinement brush at all, regardless of Edge Complexity Score. I don’t think either program gets there in the next year. Fine hair and transparent glass remain genuinely hard problems for any neural network trained on general photography, not just fashion or product shots. My prediction is that the next real leap comes from context-aware masking, tools that recognize what kind of photo they’re looking at (product, portrait, or landscape) and adjust their detection model automatically before you even click. Luminar’s element categories already hint at this. Photoshop hasn’t gone there yet, but given how fast its Remove Tool has evolved this year, I’d bet on it arriving within a couple of update cycles.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Photoshop or Luminar better for removing backgrounds?

Photoshop offers more manual control and wins for complex edges like hair, fur, or glass. Luminar is faster for beginners and detects entire scene elements like sky and water automatically. Your choice depends on what you’re editing and how much correction time you’re willing to spend.

Can I remove a background in Photoshop for free?

Photoshop requires a Creative Cloud subscription, so there’s no permanent free version. Adobe does offer trial periods, and the Remove Background quick action is included in every subscription tier.

Does Luminar work without an internet connection?

Background Removal AI processes locally once the app and its AI models are installed, so you don’t need an active connection for every single edit. Initial setup and updates do require internet access.

Why does my Photoshop background removal leave a color fringe?

That fringe comes from your original backdrop color bleeding into translucent edges like hair. Run Decontaminate Colors inside Select and Mask to replace those tinted pixels with colors sampled from your subject.

Photoshop’s Select and Mask, combined with Decontaminate Colors, generally produces cleaner hair edges than Luminar’s refinement brush, based on my side-by-side testing this week. Neither tool fully solves fine, backlit flyaway hair without manual touch-up.

Which tool handles hair and fur better?

Do I still need the Pen Tool?

Yes, for hard-edged subjects headed to print or packaging where AI guessing isn’t acceptable. It’s slower, but it’s the only method that guarantees a precise edge every single time.

Browse WE AND THE COLOR’s Technology and AI sections for more.

The post How Do You Remove a Background in Photoshop or Luminar? appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.

The Frame – Praia da Poça is a new residential project by ARX Portugal, developed in co-authorship with Boost Studio, on a coastal plot in São João do Estoril. It takes a derelict 1921 seaside villa and turns it, along with a new adjoining volume, into four independent homes. The project sits right next to Praia da Poça, framed by Avenida Marginal on one side and the older residential streets of Estoril on the other. That location alone makes it worth a closer look, because Portugal’s coastline is running out of room for this kind of intervention.

What Is The Frame – Praia da Poça, Exactly?

The Frame – Praia da Poça is a 1,053.67 square meter residential development on a roughly 1,600 square meter plot. The project combines the rehabilitation of an existing heritage house with the construction of two new semi-detached houses. It was completed in 2025 under the lead of architects Nuno Mateus, José Mateus, and João Dantas. Photography of the finished project comes from Ivo Tavares Studio, who documented both the restored building and the new contemporary volume.

Four autonomous housing units make up the finished scheme. Two of them sit inside the restored original house. The other two occupy a newly built structure to the west. All four share a basement level for parking, storage, and technical space. That shared basement is doing more design work than it gets credit for, and I’ll get to why.

The Site: A 1921 House at Praia da Poça

Before ARX Portugal and Boost Studio touched it, the plot held a single vacant house called Casal São João Batista. It dates from 1921 and appears in the Municipal Architectural Heritage Inventory Catalogue as a notable example of seaside holiday architecture from that stretch of coast. Decades without upkeep had taken a visible toll on it. The land itself slopes from east to west and has an irregular shape, which is never a simple starting point for a housing project.

Praia da Poça isn’t a random backdrop here. It’s a small, sheltered cove wedged into the Estoril coastline, popular precisely because it’s compact and slightly hidden from the main promenade. Building next to it means every design decision gets measured against a very specific, very public seafront.

How ARX Portugal and Boost Studio Split the Old From the New

Here’s where the project earns its name. The original house keeps its ceramic tile roof, its stonework, and its rendered façades, all recovered rather than replaced. The new volume, in contrast, is built from exposed concrete with a zinc roof. Nothing about the new structure pretends to be old, and nothing about the old structure gets buried under new material. I’d call this a legibility strategy rather than a contrast for its own sake, since the goal isn’t drama; it’s clarity about what belongs to which century.

I want to give this approach a name because it shows up constantly in adaptive reuse work along the Portuguese coast and rarely gets discussed as a method: Material Threshold Design. That’s my own editorial term, not an established industry label, but it describes something specific. It means every material choice marks a boundary between eras instead of blending them. Concrete and zinc announce “new.” Tile and stone announce “original.” Nobody walking through the finished homes will wonder which parts are 1921 and which parts are 2025.

Four Homes, One Basement: The Condominium Logic

The restored house holds two independent T3 units, Portugal’s shorthand for three-bedroom homes, spread across two floors above ground level with attic conversions added on top. The new western volume holds two semi-detached T4 units, four-bedroom homes with the same two-floor-plus-attic layout, and direct access down to private basement parking.

All four units are legally organized as a condominium and physically connected through a shared underground level. That basement carries parking, storage, and technical infrastructure for the whole complex, which frees up the ground level almost entirely for gardens and pedestrian space. I think this deserves its own term too: Podium Continuity, meaning a shared subterranean infrastructure layer that lets the surface stay green and walkable across multiple separately owned homes. It’s a quiet piece of engineering, but it’s the reason the site doesn’t read as four houses competing for driveway space.

Why This Kind of Heritage Project Matters for the Estoril Coast

ARX Portugal and Boost Studio didn’t just design a building. They ran a morphotypological analysis of the surrounding neighborhood first, matching volumetry, floor counts, setbacks, and construction types to what already stands nearby. That’s a deliberate choice, not a formality. Estoril’s seafront has a specific rhythm of low-rise, closely spaced houses, and a project that ignored that rhythm would stick out for the wrong reasons.

South of the buildings, the project adds shared green areas and a swimming pool, positioned to take advantage of open sightlines toward the sea. Landscape design came from LandPlan, engineering from PCG Consulplano Viatunel Engenharia, and construction from Engimov. Sophistication Planet, Lda. developed the project as the client.

I’ll offer a prediction here, because this project is a useful preview of where Portuguese coastal housing is heading. Land near beaches like Praia da Poça is essentially finite, heritage protection rules are tightening, and demand for seaside homes keeps climbing. That combination pushes more developers toward what I’d call the Adaptive Density Model: preserving one legally protected structure while adding new, denser construction beside it, then tying both together through shared underground infrastructure. Expect to see more projects shaped exactly like The Frame – Praia da Poça along the Portuguese coast over the next several years, not fewer.

The Photography: How Ivo Tavares Studio Frames the Project

Ivo Tavares Studio photographed the completed project, and the material threshold between old and new is exactly the kind of contrast architectural photography handles well. Concrete against stone, zinc against ceramic tile, these pairings photograph cleanly because the boundary is intentional rather than accidental. That’s worth noting for anyone studying how restoration projects get documented for publication, since ambiguous transitions rarely photograph as convincingly as deliberate ones.

The Frame – Praia da Poça at a Glance

Frequently Asked Questions About The Frame – Praia da Poça

What is The Frame – Praia da Poça?

It’s a residential project in São João do Estoril, Portugal, by ARX Portugal and Boost Studio. It combines the restoration of a 1921 heritage house with a new semi-detached volume, creating four independent homes in total.

Who designed The Frame – Praia da Poça?

ARX Portugal led the project in co-authorship with Boost Studio. Nuno Mateus, José Mateus, and João Dantas served as the lead architects.

Where is The Frame – Praia da Poça located?

The project sits at Avenida Marginal nº 6621 in São João do Estoril, next to Praia da Poça on Portugal’s Estoril coastline.

How many homes does the project include?

Four autonomous units. Two T3 homes occupy the restored original house, and two T4 semi-detached homes occupy the new volume.

Why was the original 1921 house preserved instead of demolished?

The house, Casal São João Batista, is listed in the Municipal Architectural Heritage Inventory Catalogue as a notable example of seaside holiday architecture, which shaped the decision to restore rather than replace it.

Who photographed The Frame – Praia da Poça?

Ivo Tavares Studio handled the architectural photography for the completed project.

All images © Ivo Tavares Studio. Check out WE AND THE COLOR’s Architecture and Interior Design categories for more.

The post The Frame – Praia da Poça Turns a 1921 Estoril House Into Four Homes appeared first on WE AND THE COLOR.