Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

765Re: Rialto Pressa ink traps

Expand Messages
  • Hrant H Papazian
    Jul 25, 2002
      {Finally back from vacation...}

      From: dfType
      > Inktraps RialtoDF.pdf

      First, thanks for providing that - very insightful.

      Second, I'm happy to hear your opinion that the Trapping
      Flower has potential. It's very encouraging, coming from
      designers of your accomplishment. I will provide as much
      detail as you'd like - please just let me know in private,
      since this list is probably not a good place to elaborate
      too deeply about type design.

      Third, let's get down to business!

      1. The red gain that you're showing, it seems that you got
      it by applying stroke thickness in an illustration program.
      For most outline segments that's fine, but it seems that it
      fails to reproduce the "filling in" of acute angles: inside
      angles remain sharp, which is not the case in real life.
      I myself have come to use a certain sequence of Photoshop
      effects to try to simulate gain accurately - see below.

      2. When I first took a close look at Rialto Pressa, I applied
      my Photoshop "Gain Simulator" and got the following result:
      http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/gain.gif
      It shows two (arbitrary) gain amounts, and you can see how
      some traps fill in much sooner than others. I started to
      think the trapping was inconsistent; but after reading your
      messages (as well as those of Peter) I realized that there
      might actually be *two* things going on there: one is what
      might be called "conventional" ink trapping, while the other
      is more along the lines of optical compensation (in order
      to simulate greater definition through exageration), which
      reminds me of some of Dwiggins's wonderful ideas concerning
      the enhancement of low-fidelity output.

      3. From what I understand, you got #7 through manual mani-
      pulation? That's impressive! Not just because of the nice
      result, but because of the dedication needed to apply this
      to an entire font. :-) But one thing that confuses me is:
      why is there a difference between #6 and #9 (and by extension
      between #4 and #7) if they're both intended for small sizes
      and the only difference is supposed to be the amount of gain?

      4. You say that you did tests at your letterpress studio.
      Did you measure just gain in one dimension, or other things
      as well? Could we possibly be priviledged to "the numbers"?

      From: "Mark Attwood"
      > does it really make a difference?

      A very good question, and I think the bothersome answer
      is "usually no"... On the other hand, I believe it's in
      effect a matter of levels of quality, and who needs how
      much at what time. Take smallcaps: they're considered a
      sign of quality in a font family, even though virtually
      nobody at all uses them...

      In any case, I think it's useful to note the fact
      that we often do things because we feel the need
      to in our souls, with the least possible concern
      whether or not the unwashed masses will end up
      appreciating it, as un-utilitarian as that is.

      hhp
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic