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

Adobe Jensen vs. Lanston Metropolitan

Expand Messages
  • rob848
    Hello, I ve searched the archives here, but haven t quite found an anwser to the question I have. Any help will be appreciated. If I understand correctly, the
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      I've searched the archives here, but haven't quite found an anwser to
      the question I have. Any help will be appreciated.

      If I understand correctly, the Lanston faces have been digitized with
      letterpress printing in mind, while the Adobe faces may be better
      suited for offset printing.

      I haven't printed either of these from photopolymer yet, so I don't
      have a side by side comparison. But my question is this: Just how
      measurable is the difference when one talks about digital versions of
      faces intended for one printing method (letterpress) versus another
      (offset)? Stated another way, is it reasonable to expect that a
      beautiful letterpress page can be printed from Adobe Jensen? If not,
      how would you quantify the qualities that are lacking?

      I'm open to suggestions, and look forward to hearing your ideas.

      Thank you, Rob
    • Gerald Lange
      Rob Actually, no, the Lanston faces were not digitized with letterpress in mind. But they were digitized in such a manner (scanned from inked metal type
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Rob

        Actually, no, the Lanston faces were not digitized with letterpress in
        mind. But they were digitized in such a manner (scanned from inked
        metal type patterns) as to be relatively compatible with the
        letterpress process.

        The Adobe Jensen was originally released in a multiple master
        PostScript format with, among others, an optical axis. Thus it could
        be easily configured for letterpress. In fact, in the prospectus that
        Adobe released on the Jensen, they mention this and even show a
        photograph of a letterpress produced piece.

        But generally, digital faces will not work well letterpress unless
        they are either naturally compatible or adjusted. A thinned out or
        spindly, anemic looking face has potential.

        Take a look at the new P22 release of a typeface that is a replication
        of one of Czech type designer Karl Dyrynk's typefaces (link below).
        This I would think would work well. But only in a certain range of
        size. You would want a number of size ranked variations of a font, the
        Jensen allows for this.

        I believe the PostScript version of Jensen MM is still available from
        Veer and I understand (?) that Adobe does still sell the old
        PostScript fonts but they are quite hard to find on the site.

        http://www.p22.com/ihof/dyrynkset.html

        Gerald


        >
        > I've searched the archives here, but haven't quite found an anwser to
        > the question I have. Any help will be appreciated.
        >
        > If I understand correctly, the Lanston faces have been digitized with
        > letterpress printing in mind, while the Adobe faces may be better
        > suited for offset printing.
        >
        > I haven't printed either of these from photopolymer yet, so I don't
        > have a side by side comparison. But my question is this: Just how
        > measurable is the difference when one talks about digital versions of
        > faces intended for one printing method (letterpress) versus another
        > (offset)? Stated another way, is it reasonable to expect that a
        > beautiful letterpress page can be printed from Adobe Jensen? If not,
        > how would you quantify the qualities that are lacking?
        >
        > I'm open to suggestions, and look forward to hearing your ideas.
        >
        > Thank you, Rob
      • berliner
        Rob: You will find that the Monotype faces were mostly made from the English Monotype patterns, not Lanston, and they are excellent, right on the par with
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Rob:

          You will find that the Monotype faces were mostly made from the
          English Monotype patterns, not Lanston, and they are excellent, right on the
          par with Adobe which is excellent also.


          Harold Berliner



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.