3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIt’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 agoThis 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...