Re: letterpress optimised digital type [was: Favourite fonts for Photopolymer pr
I was looking back through the thread and was wondering about this and
the source for your information.
I've not heard that the trapping flower was used by dfTYPE.(?) The
trapping on Rialto Pressa doesn't look like it would correspond in
anyway to Hrant's development. I first saw the trapping flower some
time after Rialto appeared. Also, Hrant had no prior experience with
letterpress when he developed the flower as I recall. Given the
variances of letterforms and the variables of the letterpress process,
I can't imagine that the trapping procedure could be automated as
such. Basically I'm suspect of any of these automated schemes. Now if
things had never gotten out of hand in Mainz way back when and the
one, two, three stroke of the textura still reigned supreme, well,
maybe. But that ain't the way it turned out. :)
--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Ludwig M. Solzen"
> 6. As for such specific matters of letterpress optimisation, I am
> about the adequateness of the "Trapping flower"used
> (http://www.themicrofoundry.com/ss_trapping1.html), a tool which was
> intensely during the production of Rialto Pressa. In what degree didmister
> Hrant Papazian based his model on true observations of the behaviourof type
> when printed letterpress?
> Kind regards
I think I have found something...
I had previously not read the final chapter, "The Colorado Project,"
on Mandel's work in the Southall book. Mandel used the term "cutout"
for ink trap and "finial" for thorn. The note regarding the problem of
scale and size with PostScript is of interest as is his suggestion
that these additions need to be sacrified during printing "leaving
behind the real intended shape of the character." Southall does spend
a bit more time with this.
> > In this regard I have another question. Discussing ink traps, it is
> > claimed that in the old days such skilled punch cutters / font
> designers as
> > e.g. J.M. Fleischmann deliberately changed the form of their glyphs
> on the
> > punches, precisely because of ink gain matters. Is that so? Did you
> > metal punches that prove this? And if that be the case, what exactly
> > punch cutters took into account? Did they write down their
> experiences so as
> > to hand over their knowledge to progeny?
> > As soon as I have cleaned up my messy documentation folders and
> found the df
> > paper, I'll inform you.
> > Kind regards
> > Ludwig