>>11364585
>i also think i will go back and add gaussian blur to my "pally bold" font captions (probably won't bother with the "wild word" font of my earliest captions
>>11364827
>and, yeah, i didn't bother doing so for the "wild words" font captions my first captions used
i just went back and did it, but my fear was definitely correct: since "wild words" is a much narrower font than "pally bold", its line spacing is much denser, and it's caps-only (so visually the kerning appears denser, even though it isn't), using the same gaussian blur "stroke" layer proportions as i do "pally bold" (2.5x the size of the normal "stroke" layer, and three [3] layers of the "gaussian blur" "stroke" layers total total) makes it appear extremely heavy-handed; it is just way too dark, and not big enough for how dark it is. i thought i didn't care- since i wasn't that emotionally-invested in my earliest captions which used the "wild words" font anymore, since i found the font didn't reflect my tastes as well as "pally bold" does-, but i can't in clean conscience consider these the definitive versions of my captions, so even after tediously retroactively adding the "gaussian blur" stroke layers to them, i think i wasted my time, and should either do it properly or not at all. but i don't know if i will ever be arsed to trial-and-error proportions that work for this font i don't care that much about, so i might never do so. though i said similar the first time, and i just bothered trying to do it since the thread was nearing autosage and i felt it was time enough to bother, but having to do more makes it not so exciting of a prospect to do anymore