>>11361967
i guess i was just being kinda schizo about capital letter-only fonts. i just remembered switching from "wild words" to "pally bold" and seeing that it was denser, so i somehow thought that it was no contest. pic related is "Pally Bold"/ "Laffayette Comic Pro Regular" "CC Wild Words Roman", respectively. i think what's happening between "Laffayette" and "wild words" is that "wild words" is denser vertically, and "Laffayette" is denser horizontally, because "Laffayette" is 9 lines, and "wild words" is 10, but they're about the same height. but the difference in density between them and "pally bold" isn't as drastic as i thought it'd be, especially considering the "pally bold" paragraph is cheating, since i manually fucked with the proportions of the text box until it produced an outcome that i thought was ideal; for "Laffayette" and "wild words" i literally just duplicated the text layer and changed the font to either of them, without min-maxing for aesthetic or density in either height or width at all

but, wow. yeah, i didn't recognize comic sans there, lmao. maybe you're right in that it's usually bolder. again, i was just drawn to the lowercase letters approaching being circular, even if in comic sans it's not really trying to get there, so it's not ideal to me. when i was using "wild words" over "pally bold" (my edits still only use a single font for everything), i tried "stroke" (outline) text, to make the text legible, but didn't like how it looked, over "drop shadow". but when i switched to "pally bold" i switched entirely to "stroke". i think "wild words" would've looked good in my captions if on top of the "stroke", i did another "stroke" layer beneath it, but extremely big and blurred, as a shadow, as pseudo "drop shadow", or maybe even literal "drop shadow", since the "stroke" would be making the top left of the letters legible anyway. but i didn't want to make the background image any harder to read by using blurred "drop shadow"