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

Re: best-loved faces

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.