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

Re: Adobe Jensen vs. Lanston Metropolitan

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.