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

Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: best-loved faces

Expand Messages
  • Dan Franklin
    ... You can t generate new individual MM instances in InDesign (CS2), but you can use any instances within the MM fonts you have installed and activated. In
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 2, 2007
      >The technology is definitely not supported in InDesign.

      You can't generate new individual MM instances in InDesign (CS2), but
      you can use any instances within the MM fonts you have installed and
      activated. In addition, you can tell InDesign, by way of preferences,
      to automatically select the correct optical size from an MM font that
      has an optical axis.

      >However, Multiple Masters instances that you create in OS 8.6 to 9.2.2
      >can be ported over as PS1 fonts and will work, but successfully only if
      >transferred from a computer isolated from OS X (from what I've read, a
      >computer with shared Classic/OS X won't quite do the job).

      I haven't tried to port these as PS1 fonts from a pre-OSX system to
      OSX, but I have been able to generate additional instances in OS
      9.2.2 on a dual-boot G4, then bring the 'new' MM font into Suitcase
      Fusion, which I use as my font organizer. Once activated there, it's
      available in all its instances to applications like InDesign and
      Illustrator.
    • Gerald Lange
      Dan Well, yes, MM was never dependent upon a secondary application for generation. But, inquiring minds want to know. Have you installed a complete MM font
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 2, 2007
        Dan

        Well, yes, MM was never dependent upon a secondary application for
        generation.

        But, inquiring minds want to know. Have you installed a complete MM
        font (parents and instances) that works in Indy? And wouldn't an
        instance of an optically mastered font be singular entity? I'm a bit
        confused by the statement "you can tell InDesign, by way of
        preferences, to automatically select the correct optical size from an
        MM font that has an optical axis." Not sure what you mean by correct
        optical size (well, I know what a correct optical size is, but isn't
        this dependent upon a user configured instance?). Is this capability
        because of how Fusion treats fonts? Font Explorer X sure doesn't cator
        much to a complete MM font (parents and all). How does this work?

        I've got Font Agent and Font Explorer X but I gave up on Fusion when
        the initial try out app (a year or so ago?) opened up as an Excel
        file. Figured if they hadn't figured that out, not worth going much
        further with it.


        Gerald
        http://BielerPress.blogspot.com

        --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Dan Franklin <dan@...> wrote:
        >
        > >The technology is definitely not supported in InDesign.
        >
        > You can't generate new individual MM instances in InDesign (CS2), but
        > you can use any instances within the MM fonts you have installed and
        > activated. In addition, you can tell InDesign, by way of preferences,
        > to automatically select the correct optical size from an MM font that
        > has an optical axis.
        >
        > >However, Multiple Masters instances that you create in OS 8.6 to 9.2.2
        > >can be ported over as PS1 fonts and will work, but successfully only if
        > >transferred from a computer isolated from OS X (from what I've read, a
        > >computer with shared Classic/OS X won't quite do the job).
        >
        > I haven't tried to port these as PS1 fonts from a pre-OSX system to
        > OSX, but I have been able to generate additional instances in OS
        > 9.2.2 on a dual-boot G4, then bring the 'new' MM font into Suitcase
        > Fusion, which I use as my font organizer. Once activated there, it's
        > available in all its instances to applications like InDesign and
        > Illustrator.
        >
      • Dan Franklin
        Hi, Gerald. ... Yes. ... Yes, but read on ... ... If you have Automatically Use Correct Optical Size checked in Preferences, you get the optical size closest
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 3, 2007
          Hi, Gerald.

          >Have you installed a complete MM font (parents and instances) that
          >works in Indy?

          Yes.

          >And wouldn't an instance of an optically mastered font be a singular entity?

          Yes, but read on ...

          >I'm a bit confused by the statement "you can tell InDesign, by way
          >of preferences, to automatically select the correct optical size
          >from an MM font that has an optical axis."

          If you have 'Automatically Use Correct Optical Size' checked in
          Preferences, you get the optical size closest to the point size of
          the type.

          Here's an example (and an experiment):

          You have Minion MM Roman installed with these instances, among others:

          367 wt 600 wd 10 op (normal weight, slightly wider than normal width,
          10-point optical size)
          367 wt 600 wd 14 op
          367 wt 600 wd 18 op
          367 wt 600 wd 24 op

          Type two 24-pt cap aitches side by side. Swipe one and select
          367-600-10; swipe the other and select 367-600-24. If you have
          'Automatically Use Correct Optical Size' selected in Preferences,
          both aitches look identical (because InDesign is using the 367-600-24
          instance -- even though the font indicator shows Minion MM Roman, 367
          wt 600 wd 10 op for the first, and Minion MM Roman, 367 wt 600 wd 24
          op for the second).

          Now turn off that preference. You will see the 367-600-10 aitch
          change (for example, the bar and the serifs will thicken, as you
          would expect with a 10-pt optical size).

          Turn the preference on again, and the aitches appear identical.

          >Not sure what you mean by correct optical size (well, I know what a
          >correct optical size is, but isn't this dependent upon a user
          >configured instance?).

          For 20-pt type, InDesign auto-selects 367-600-18; for 22-pt type, it
          auto-selects 367-600-24; for 21-pt type (exactly halfway between 18
          and 24), it auto-selects 367-600-18 (the lower optical size value).

          >Is this capability because of how Fusion treats fonts? Font Explorer
          >X sure doesn't cater much to a complete MM font (parents and all).
          >How does this work?

          I don't know. I use Fusion, which I love, because I used its
          predecessor, Font Reserve, and I used Font Reserve because it allowed
          me to classify/search my fonts by traditional designations, like
          'Oldstyle', 'Humanist sans', 'Grotesque sans', etc. When I wanted a
          transitional face for a project (but wasn't sure which one), I didn't
          have to scroll through Jenson, Caslon, Minion, Bodoni, etc.; I could
          search for 'Transitional' and immediately see that I could choose
          from Baskerville, Bell, Caledonia, etc.

          >I've got Font Agent and Font Explorer X but I gave up on Fusion when
          >the initial try out app (a year or so ago?) opened up as an Excel
          >file. Figured if they hadn't figured that out, not worth going much
          >further with it.

          That's a bummer. It's better now.

          Fun to talk type with you.
        • Kayle Simon
          I would strongly urge people to wait to use Fusion; they still have a lot of work to do on it, at least on the Mac platform. That program ground my business to
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 3, 2007
            I would strongly urge people to wait to use Fusion; they still have
            a lot of work to do on it, at least on the Mac platform. That program
            ground my business to a halt for more than a week, just a month
            or two ago; it was worse than anything I have ever experience
            on any mac in 25 years.

            A very disappointing
            release from an otherwise great company.

            A review of the message boards at extensis and other sites
            would be wise before proceeding with that program. Apparently
            my problems were common. I'm glad to hear, for Dan's sake,
            that he has not had issues, but I believe he may be in the minority.

            Kayle
            www.indigodesign.com


            On Jan 3, 2007, at 3:14 AM, Dan Franklin wrote:

            > Hi, Gerald.
            >
            > >Have you installed a complete MM font (parents and instances) that
            > >works in Indy?
            >
            > Yes.
            >
            > >And wouldn't an instance of an optically mastered font be a
            > singular entity?
            >
            > Yes, but read on ...
            >
            > >I'm a bit confused by the statement "you can tell InDesign, by way
            > >of preferences, to automatically select the correct optical size
            > >from an MM font that has an optical axis."
            >
            > If you have 'Automatically Use Correct Optical Size' checked in
            > Preferences, you get the optical size closest to the point size of
            > the type.
            >
            > Here's an example (and an experiment):
            >
            > You have Minion MM Roman installed with these instances, among others:
            >
            > 367 wt 600 wd 10 op (normal weight, slightly wider than normal width,
            > 10-point optical size)
            > 367 wt 600 wd 14 op
            > 367 wt 600 wd 18 op
            > 367 wt 600 wd 24 op
            >
            > Type two 24-pt cap aitches side by side. Swipe one and select
            > 367-600-10; swipe the other and select 367-600-24. If you have
            > 'Automatically Use Correct Optical Size' selected in Preferences,
            > both aitches look identical (because InDesign is using the 367-600-24
            > instance -- even though the font indicator shows Minion MM Roman, 367
            > wt 600 wd 10 op for the first, and Minion MM Roman, 367 wt 600 wd 24
            > op for the second).
            >
            > Now turn off that preference. You will see the 367-600-10 aitch
            > change (for example, the bar and the serifs will thicken, as you
            > would expect with a 10-pt optical size).
            >
            > Turn the preference on again, and the aitches appear identical.
            >
            > >Not sure what you mean by correct optical size (well, I know what a
            > >correct optical size is, but isn't this dependent upon a user
            > >configured instance?).
            >
            > For 20-pt type, InDesign auto-selects 367-600-18; for 22-pt type, it
            > auto-selects 367-600-24; for 21-pt type (exactly halfway between 18
            > and 24), it auto-selects 367-600-18 (the lower optical size value).
            >
            > >Is this capability because of how Fusion treats fonts? Font Explorer
            > >X sure doesn't cater much to a complete MM font (parents and all).
            > >How does this work?
            >
            > I don't know. I use Fusion, which I love, because I used its
            > predecessor, Font Reserve, and I used Font Reserve because it allowed
            > me to classify/search my fonts by traditional designations, like
            > 'Oldstyle', 'Humanist sans', 'Grotesque sans', etc. When I wanted a
            > transitional face for a project (but wasn't sure which one), I didn't
            > have to scroll through Jenson, Caslon, Minion, Bodoni, etc.; I could
            > search for 'Transitional' and immediately see that I could choose
            > from Baskerville, Bell, Caledonia, etc.
            >
            > >I've got Font Agent and Font Explorer X but I gave up on Fusion when
            > >the initial try out app (a year or so ago?) opened up as an Excel
            > >file. Figured if they hadn't figured that out, not worth going much
            > >further with it.
            >
            > That's a bummer. It's better now.
            >
            > Fun to talk type with you.
            >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Dan Franklin
            ... Could be. I m a single user. G4, Mac OS 10.3.9 (9.2.2). For me, Fusion is so much faster than Font Reserve and is pretty intuitive right out of the box. No
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 3, 2007
              Kayle warned:

              >I would strongly urge people to wait to use Fusion; they still have
              >a lot of work to do on it, at least on the Mac platform. ... I'm
              >glad to hear, for Dan's sake, that he has not had issues, but I
              >believe he may be in the minority.

              Could be.

              I'm a single user. G4, Mac OS 10.3.9 (9.2.2). For me, Fusion is so
              much faster than Font Reserve and is pretty intuitive right out of
              the box. No crashes. Small annoyances, which I have forwarded to
              Extensis.
            • Gerald Lange
              Dan Thanks for the information. Looks like I need to seriously check this all out. I ve a project in the works with MM Kepler and was dreading the interaction
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 3, 2007
                Dan

                Thanks for the information. Looks like I need to seriously check this
                all out. I've a project in the works with MM Kepler and was dreading
                the interaction in Indy. Looks like it will all work out based on what
                you have provided.

                Thanks again.

                Gerald
                http://BielerPress.blogspot.com




                --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Dan Franklin <dan@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi, Gerald.
                >
                > >Have you installed a complete MM font (parents and instances) that
                > >works in Indy?
                >
                > Yes.
                >
                > >And wouldn't an instance of an optically mastered font be a
                singular entity?
                >
                > Yes, but read on ...
                >
                > >I'm a bit confused by the statement "you can tell InDesign, by way
                > >of preferences, to automatically select the correct optical size
                > >from an MM font that has an optical axis."
                >
                > If you have 'Automatically Use Correct Optical Size' checked in
                > Preferences, you get the optical size closest to the point size of
                > the type.
                >
                > Here's an example (and an experiment):
                >
                > You have Minion MM Roman installed with these instances, among others:
                >
                > 367 wt 600 wd 10 op (normal weight, slightly wider than normal width,
                > 10-point optical size)
                > 367 wt 600 wd 14 op
                > 367 wt 600 wd 18 op
                > 367 wt 600 wd 24 op
                >
                > Type two 24-pt cap aitches side by side. Swipe one and select
                > 367-600-10; swipe the other and select 367-600-24. If you have
                > 'Automatically Use Correct Optical Size' selected in Preferences,
                > both aitches look identical (because InDesign is using the 367-600-24
                > instance -- even though the font indicator shows Minion MM Roman, 367
                > wt 600 wd 10 op for the first, and Minion MM Roman, 367 wt 600 wd 24
                > op for the second).
                >
                > Now turn off that preference. You will see the 367-600-10 aitch
                > change (for example, the bar and the serifs will thicken, as you
                > would expect with a 10-pt optical size).
                >
                > Turn the preference on again, and the aitches appear identical.
                >
                > >Not sure what you mean by correct optical size (well, I know what a
                > >correct optical size is, but isn't this dependent upon a user
                > >configured instance?).
                >
                > For 20-pt type, InDesign auto-selects 367-600-18; for 22-pt type, it
                > auto-selects 367-600-24; for 21-pt type (exactly halfway between 18
                > and 24), it auto-selects 367-600-18 (the lower optical size value).
                >
                > >Is this capability because of how Fusion treats fonts? Font Explorer
                > >X sure doesn't cater much to a complete MM font (parents and all).
                > >How does this work?
                >
                > I don't know. I use Fusion, which I love, because I used its
                > predecessor, Font Reserve, and I used Font Reserve because it allowed
                > me to classify/search my fonts by traditional designations, like
                > 'Oldstyle', 'Humanist sans', 'Grotesque sans', etc. When I wanted a
                > transitional face for a project (but wasn't sure which one), I didn't
                > have to scroll through Jenson, Caslon, Minion, Bodoni, etc.; I could
                > search for 'Transitional' and immediately see that I could choose
                > from Baskerville, Bell, Caledonia, etc.
                >
                > >I've got Font Agent and Font Explorer X but I gave up on Fusion when
                > >the initial try out app (a year or so ago?) opened up as an Excel
                > >file. Figured if they hadn't figured that out, not worth going much
                > >further with it.
                >
                > That's a bummer. It's better now.
                >
                > Fun to talk type with you.
                >
              • Gerald Lange
                PPL Actually, I was hoping some of the folks involved in the recent letterpress revival, the stationery/invitational card folks, would have responded to this.
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 3, 2007
                  PPL

                  Actually, I was hoping some of the folks involved in the recent
                  letterpress revival, the stationery/invitational card folks, would
                  have responded to this. Truth be told though, I can't really find
                  their representation on any of the letterpress lists. Not sure what
                  that says. Insular? Competitive? Letterpress is a selling point, but
                  no real further, deeper interest?

                  Gerald
                  http://BielerPress.blogspot.com
                • Lance Williams
                  Well, As a stationery printer for over 25 years, and the business for over 73 years, I ll chime in here a little.... I can t say what my personal favorite
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 4, 2007
                    Well,

                    As a stationery printer for over 25 years, and the business for over 73
                    years, I'll chime in here a little.... I can't say what my personal
                    favorite faces are, it all depends on what I am working on at the time.
                    However, we have always limited out stationery lines to a few specific
                    faces for two reasons:

                    1: Ease of selling the stationery, as we sell "door to door" through
                    school groups, church groups, etc, and by having only a few type styles
                    makes it easier, especially for the younger salespeople.

                    2: Easier for us, as we don't have to change magazines in our Intertypes
                    as we set type. We currently have one Model C with 2 mags with duplex
                    faces, giving us a total of 6 usable type styles on that machine, and the
                    other Model C has 5 usable type styles. We also use 3 faces on our Ludlow,
                    even though we have many more for other uses.

                    First Model C: 10 Pt. Helvetica w/italic, 12 Pt. Bernard Fashion w/ Park
                    Ave & 12 Pt. Engravers Text w/Typo Roman.

                    2nd Model C: 11 Pt. Times Roman w/ Italic, 14 Pt. Waverly w/ italic, 18 pt.
                    Vogue Oblique.

                    Ludlow: 18 Pt. Society Text, 18 pt. Tempo Light Italic, 24 pt. Coronet

                    These are the various faces we have used on our stationery products for
                    more than the past 25 years. However, I am currently in the process of
                    adding several magazines of mats to offer some new faces to the line to see
                    if it will help improve sales. I think our line has become somewhat
                    "stale" over the years, and needs some "modernization" to infuse a little
                    more life in it...

                    Well, have to cut this short, as I have to make/eat breakfast and get to
                    work....

                    - Lance Williams
                    Williams Stationery Co.
                    Camden, New York
                    APA #785


                    > [Original Message]
                    > From: Gerald Lange <Bieler@...>
                    > To: <PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Date: 1/4/2007 2:42:04 AM
                    > Subject: [PPLetterpress] Re: best-loved faces
                    >
                    > PPL
                    >
                    > Actually, I was hoping some of the folks involved in the recent
                    > letterpress revival, the stationery/invitational card folks, would
                    > have responded to this. Truth be told though, I can't really find
                    > their representation on any of the letterpress lists. Not sure what
                    > that says. Insular? Competitive? Letterpress is a selling point, but
                    > no real further, deeper interest?
                    >
                    > Gerald
                    > http://BielerPress.blogspot.com
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • lisa rappoport
                    ... Hi Gerald, As someone who prints invitations, along with other commercial work and my own personal work, the answer seems clear: One s own favorite faces
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 4, 2007
                      >Actually, I was hoping some of the folks involved in the recent
                      >letterpress revival, the stationery/invitational card folks, would
                      >have responded to this. Truth be told though, I can't really find
                      >their representation on any of the letterpress lists. Not sure what
                      >that says. Insular? Competitive? Letterpress is a selling point, but
                      >no real further, deeper interest?

                      Hi Gerald,
                      As someone who prints invitations, along with other commercial work and my own personal work, the answer seems clear: One's own favorite faces are generally irrelevant. The customer will select the face, esp. if you're going the polymer plate route, in which case they can choose from whatever digital font, suitable or not, they've ever seen.

                      With handset metal type obviously they're limited to what I have, and within that to what I have enough of, in appropriate sizes, for the job at hand. So it's a pre-selected selection.

                      My house font has always been Centaur. I'm also very drawn to Garamond, esp. the italic; Bernhard Gothic, esp. the light weight; and some oddities like Greeting Monotone (rarely appropriate, but wonderful in the right usage) and Glamour Light.

                      And I confess to some low tastes, like Park Avenue and Typo Upright.

                      Best,
                      Lisa
                      Littoral Press
                    • Gerald Lange
                      Hi Lisa Well, yes, and no. I process plates for a number of stationery/invitational card folks—some of them quite high end and prolific—and the latter will
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 4, 2007
                        Hi Lisa

                        Well, yes, and no. I process plates for a number of
                        stationery/invitational card folks—some of them quite high end and
                        prolific—and the latter will either direct their clients
                        appropriately, as designers should (I'd think), or (in regard to favs)
                        they may have a line of cards developed in which they are using their
                        own preferred faces.

                        So, I'd suggest it is not always just what the client demands but
                        often how they are directed to what they need. And, I would think, if
                        they are coming to you (generic you), they are coming for a specific
                        reason, your taste, your expertise, skill, what uniquely you have to
                        offer, etc. Yes? No?

                        Gerald
                        http://BielerPress.blogspot.com



                        --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, lisa rappoport <cutvelvet@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > >Actually, I was hoping some of the folks involved in the recent
                        > >letterpress revival, the stationery/invitational card folks, would
                        > >have responded to this. Truth be told though, I can't really find
                        > >their representation on any of the letterpress lists. Not sure what
                        > >that says. Insular? Competitive? Letterpress is a selling point, but
                        > >no real further, deeper interest?
                        >
                        > Hi Gerald,
                        > As someone who prints invitations, along with other commercial work
                        and my own personal work, the answer seems clear: One's own favorite
                        faces are generally irrelevant. The customer will select the face,
                        esp. if you're going the polymer plate route, in which case they can
                        choose from whatever digital font, suitable or not, they've ever seen.
                        >

                        >
                      • juliemackenzie2003
                        Hi Gerald and Lisa- I am a custom invitation designer and also print for designers as well. I agree with Gerald, I tend to steer my clients in the directions
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 5, 2007
                          Hi Gerald and Lisa-

                          I am a custom invitation designer and also print for designers as
                          well.

                          I agree with Gerald, I tend to steer my clients in the directions of
                          my tried and true typefaces. I have in my early days, tried
                          different faces because it was what they liked. Often to my dismay.
                          They liked the end result, but I fussed through the entire print
                          process.

                          When time allows, I will print for an occasional designer. Not
                          always liking the design and type faces. I did one time get quite a
                          surprise on a typeface that I thought was horrible. Hard to read and
                          letters were not what I thought (in digital format) Yet when I
                          printed it. It looked quite lovely. That was Escrita Principal.

                          anyways, long story short. What the client wants is often what you
                          will recommend within their design style.

                          Thanks,
                          Julie MacKenzie
                          www.mackenziepress.com

                          > Well, yes, and no. I process plates for a number of
                          > stationery/invitational card folks—some of them quite high end and
                          > prolific—and the latter will either direct their clients
                          > appropriately, as designers should (I'd think), or (in regard to
                          favs)
                          > they may have a line of cards developed in which they are using
                          their
                          > own preferred faces.
                          >
                          > So, I'd suggest it is not always just what the client demands but
                          > often how they are directed to what they need. And, I would think,
                          if
                          > they are coming to you (generic you), they are coming for a specific
                          > reason, your taste, your expertise, skill, what uniquely you have to
                          > offer, etc. Yes? No?
                          >
                          > Gerald
                          > http://BielerPress.blogspot.com
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.