Re: Adobe Jensen vs. Lanston Metropolitan
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
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.
> 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