Thanks for the reference. I'll persue it.
Actually there were at least four considerations per ink lay down on
stress/movement: horizontal (normal), vertical (less), circular/curves
(best guess, quite tricky), and angular (heavier). And, as well, a
harmonization between the letterforms that itself required further
individual modification so the whole of it looked correct in the
setting. At least, to me!!! The idea is just to bring it "back" so
when printed, yeah know, it's "back." :-)
So no, I don't think there is one precise way to do it (or even that
"precise" is the goal). Mainly it would be the requirements of the job
and the pecularities of the face. Specifically I was building in "ink
supports" (maybe too much of that, I was guessing about the printer's
habits) and trying to compensate for ink gain in a slightly different
manner, by constructing slightly abnormal contrasts. At the large size
they look wrong but shrunk down do work. Trapping was not a
consideration as such so much as the face (it seemed to me the more I
worked with it) with its many many wells, was literally built for ink
gain allowance. In the sense that it seemed designed to "anticipate."
Hadn't realized that in a face before.
Size optimization was a bit more of a challenge as I had to work on
traditional assumptions about that and I had a fairly big jump to
make. And I have a different theory about that (re: supports). Anyway,
it depends on how well the printing went... never saw the finished
piece or even know that it was printed. Got the check and that was that.
No, only the required characters were completed. That was the focus of
the job, and they were configured as such, so... on to other things.
Thanks for the back and forth,