... Hi Phil Ink traps designed for smaller size presentation of type would cause problems when presented at larger size but isn t this more a problem of theMessage 1 of 4 , May 31, 2002View Sourcephilip gallo <phil@t...> wrote:
> Ink traps may very well cause more problems that they solve,Hi Phil
> especially in larger sizes. My experience with filmsetters in the 80s
> using typefaces from Alphabet Innovations was that the keyline
> department had to ink in ink traps as in large sizes the trap revealed
> itself as a deep gap into the character, and that in offset printing t
> his would be printed as such.
> I cannot imagine someone realistically designing any one particular
> face exclusively for letterpress, unless this were an alternate font
> with an assignable algorithm, maybe something along the lines of
> Multiple Masters. And of course Multiple Masters are no longer
> supported because of RIP problems.
Ink traps designed for smaller size presentation of type would cause
problems when presented at larger size but isn't this more a problem
of the end user? That is, wrongly using a face designed for smaller
presentation at larger size?
dfTYPE has designed a digital face for letterpress, Rialto Pressa,
and it does have ink traps, and yes, if used at larger sizes, they
will reveal themselves. So the cognizant typographer would avoid
that, would he/she not?
MM no longer supported because of RIP problems????? News to me. What's up with
... Ink traps are considered by many to be superfluous, while others (including some of the most respected names in the field) incorporate it regularly intoMessage 1 of 4 , Jun 3, 2002View Source--- In PPLetterpress@y..., "bielerpr" <bieler@w...> wrote:
> I have been discussing with a type designer the possibilityInk traps are considered by many to be superfluous,
> of incorporating ink traps into digital type designs.
while others (including some of the most respected
names in the field) incorporate it regularly into their
work, especially their text fonts. The problem is that
it's always done by "eyeballing", which is a shame con-
sidering it's a task requiring very little creativity.
Many superb designs (like the inimitable Rialto with its
special trapped version, Pressa) seem to have trapping that
could generously be called "inconstant"... And this is most
probably due to the simple human limitations of eyeballing.
There are different constructions for traps, but the
principal one I've tried to "quantify" into a method
which can be applied with consistency and speed.
Here is the "first installment" explaining my method:
The Flower could even be automated into a FontLab script,
allowing the trapping of an entire font in seconds which
in turn opens the door to iterative fine-tuning.
What I would very much like to learn is how ink gain
works in real life, in order to refine (or possibly
discard :-) this trapping method.