4 ms·

Curious as to why this refers to recovering the type being important to creating a digital version of the typeface, when lower in the article it shows that ther

Curious as to why this refers to recovering the type being important to creating a digital version of the typeface, when lower in the article it shows that there is a surviving bible. Couldn't that have already been used to reproduce the font?

wrp 2y ago
Due to irregular spreading of the ink when printing, the shapes on the page are not perfect representations of the type shape, so the true shape of the metal form has to be inferred from comparing multiple printed samples. There are digital reproductions of old typefaces that try to reproduce the actual weight on the page, but they seem to be not very popular with modern designers unless they are going for a deliberately archaic look.
- gus_massa 2y ago
  I'd expect the original designers to know and consider that effect, and make the types slightly thiner, so the printed version looks as intended.
  - wrp 2y ago
    They did and that is a huge point of contention in the revival of classic typefaces. In the 1970s, there was a massive push to digitize existing founts, but the type companies did it by tracing the metal rather than the prints. The result was digital fonts that printed much lighter than the original metal type. Most digitizations of early 20th-century typefaces you can find have this problem. By the late 1970s, people began to pay more heed to the actual printed shapes. I like early 20th-century typographic style and am always on the lookout for good type reproductions, but there are two other factors that come into play. One is that a font designed to look a certain way when press-printed won't look quite the same coming out of your laser printer. The other is that modern taste is for thinner lines. When I use a revival of a classic type, I want it to look at it did back when, but apparently I'm in the minority.
    - rozab 2y ago
      The worst symptom of this imo is the inclusion of ink traps in digital fonts. I think they look awful, especially when blown up to poster size.
      - dhosek 2y ago
        The problem is not the ink traps but the lack of optical scaling.
      - blt 2y ago
        most serious fonts have separate "display" variants for such applications, whereas the version accounting for ink spread is called "text" or "book".
    - dhosek 2y ago
      It’s also a matter of printing technology, letterpress, vs offset. The latter tends to have less ink spread. It’s also a matter of printing on dry vs damp paper (letterpress works best on slightly dampened sheets of paper which contributes to the ink spread). Then there are things like subtle curves that don’t digitize well (digital Optima is a poor approximation of the original analog letterforms).
    - wrp 2y ago
      This question on Graphic Design StackExchange is very informative: https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/142622/printing-will-a-font-always-give-exactly-the-same-result-regardless-of-how-it# https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/142622/pri...

wrp 2y ago

Due to irregular spreading of the ink when printing, the shapes on the page are not perfect representations of the type shape, so the true shape of the metal form has to be inferred from comparing multiple printed samples. There are digital reproductions of old typefaces that try to reproduce the actual weight on the page, but they seem to be not very popular with modern designers unless they are going for a deliberately archaic look.

gus_massa 2y ago
I'd expect the original designers to know and consider that effect, and make the types slightly thiner, so the printed version looks as intended.
- wrp 2y ago
  They did and that is a huge point of contention in the revival of classic typefaces. In the 1970s, there was a massive push to digitize existing founts, but the type companies did it by tracing the metal rather than the prints. The result was digital fonts that printed much lighter than the original metal type. Most digitizations of early 20th-century typefaces you can find have this problem. By the late 1970s, people began to pay more heed to the actual printed shapes. I like early 20th-century typographic style and am always on the lookout for good type reproductions, but there are two other factors that come into play. One is that a font designed to look a certain way when press-printed won't look quite the same coming out of your laser printer. The other is that modern taste is for thinner lines. When I use a revival of a classic type, I want it to look at it did back when, but apparently I'm in the minority.
  - rozab 2y ago
    The worst symptom of this imo is the inclusion of ink traps in digital fonts. I think they look awful, especially when blown up to poster size.
    - dhosek 2y ago
      The problem is not the ink traps but the lack of optical scaling.
    - blt 2y ago
      most serious fonts have separate "display" variants for such applications, whereas the version accounting for ink spread is called "text" or "book".
  - dhosek 2y ago
    It’s also a matter of printing technology, letterpress, vs offset. The latter tends to have less ink spread. It’s also a matter of printing on dry vs damp paper (letterpress works best on slightly dampened sheets of paper which contributes to the ink spread). Then there are things like subtle curves that don’t digitize well (digital Optima is a poor approximation of the original analog letterforms).
  - wrp 2y ago
    This question on Graphic Design StackExchange is very informative: https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/142622/printing-will-a-font-always-give-exactly-the-same-result-regardless-of-how-it# https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/142622/pri...