3 ms·
> Compare Didot to Garamond. What am I supposed to see? I'm afraid I'm having trouble seeing the conclusion you're getting at. From the samples on Wikipedia,
by swolchok 16y ago
> Compare Didot to Garamond.
What am I supposed to see? I'm afraid I'm having trouble seeing the conclusion you're getting at.
From the samples on Wikipedia, the most apparent difference is that parts of the capital "A", like the feet and the left leg, are thinner and look more "deliberate". Other than that, the two fonts look very similar.
- tptacek 16y agoPull up: * http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/linotype/didot/ http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/linotype/didot/ * http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/adobe/garamond/ http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/adobe/garamond/ Look at the dramatically contrasting weights between vertical and horizontal strokes in Didot. They bear deliberately little resemblance to how a human calligrapher would produce letters. Notice that the stroke axis in Garamond isn't 90 degrees; the "pen" that produced it isn't a a machine working an orthogonal path. There are far more calligraphic serifs than Garamond, you can see it. Look at the lowercase 'e'. Look at how Garamond's strokes flow into the serifs, and how abrupt Didot's are. Check out the lowercase 'p' on Didot. 90 degrees. Look at the terminals; Didot's are either sharp enough to cut glass, or mechanically precise teardrops. Again, Garamond strokes end the way a calligraphy stroke would.