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

Re: [PPLetterpress] best fonts for photopolymer?

Expand Messages
  • Lisa Davidson
    ... Lisa ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 25 , Oct 26, 2007
      > I'm confused now, because I thought you were saying that small type
      > printed lighter. Now if ink spread is greater in small type,
      > shouldn't that make this not happen? But are you talking about the
      > digital version of these faces, or metal?

      Lisa

      >
      >
      > Goudy Old Style, and Deepdene are the faces I've used in multiple
      > sizes.
      >
      > They are both lovely and are perfectly fine at whatever sizes, but
      > I find that the smaller sizes seem lighter in appearance. However,
      > he was aware that much printing was not 'fine', and ink spread is
      > proportionally greater in the small type.
      >> .
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Gerald Lange
      Lisa I m having a hard time following this as well. A digital typeface would get lighter if reduced in size from its master (usually made at 10- or 12-pt).
      Message 2 of 25 , Oct 26, 2007
        Lisa

        I'm having a hard time following this as well. A digital typeface
        would get lighter if reduced in size from its master (usually made at
        10- or 12-pt). This would be an advantage in card work IF the typeface
        were sturdy enough to support this, that is, if it would not lose the
        dots over lowerecse i's or periods or punctuation as the result of
        this thinning effect.

        I would normally, in broadside work or even book work, create a bit
        sturdier instance of a small text size.

        If the typeface were metal one could assume some form of optimization
        was built in, except if as Peter suggests, the entire size range was
        developed from a single master pattern.

        Gerald
        http://BielerPress.blogspot.com

        --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Lisa Davidson
        <lisaxdavidson@...> wrote:
        >
        > > I'm confused now, because I thought you were saying that small type
        > > printed lighter. Now if ink spread is greater in small type,
        > > shouldn't that make this not happen? But are you talking about the
        > > digital version of these faces, or metal?
        >
        > Lisa
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > Goudy Old Style, and Deepdene are the faces I've used in multiple
        > > sizes.
        > >
        > > They are both lovely and are perfectly fine at whatever sizes, but
        > > I find that the smaller sizes seem lighter in appearance. However,
        > > he was aware that much printing was not 'fine', and ink spread is
        > > proportionally greater in the small type.
        > >> .
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Peter Fraterdeus
        ... Hi Lisa Both, and yes. However, ink spread is minimal when rollers and ink are optimally configured. Ink spread is not actually greater in small type, of
        Message 3 of 25 , Oct 26, 2007
          At 11:03 AM -0700 26 10 07, Lisa Davidson wrote:
          > > I'm confused now, because I thought you were saying that small type
          >> printed lighter. Now if ink spread is greater in small type,
          >> shouldn't that make this not happen? But are you talking about the
          >> digital version of these faces, or metal?

          Hi Lisa

          Both, and yes.
          However, ink spread is minimal when rollers and ink are optimally configured.

          Ink spread is not actually greater in small type, of course, it's only greater _in proportion_ to the stroke width.

          In particular, most digital type, when set small, there's substantial loss of visual 'substance'.

          Also the proportions are generally too skinny. If you examine a face which DOES have an 'optical axis', you'll find that the Display size is narrower and lighter in weight than the 'text' sizes. And ideally, there's a 'tiny' size for captions, and mice-type, which is again wider and heavier (it's all in the subtlety, of course)

          See Adobe's Jenson Pro http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/P/P_1716.html

          P


          --
          AzByCx DwEvFu GtHsIr JqKpLo MnNmOl PkQjRi ShTgUf VeWdXc YbZa&@
          {ARTQ: Help stop in-box bloat! Always Remember to Trim the Quote!}

          ExquisiteLetterpress http://www.exquisiteletterpress.com

          -:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*
          Peter Fraterdeus http://www.alphabets.com : Sign up for "MiceType"!
          Galena, Illinois Design Philosophy Fonts Lettering Letterpress Wood Type
          Dubuque, Iowa http://www.fraterdeus.com
          Photography Irish Fiddle Political Observation
          http://flickr.com/photos/pfraterdeus
          http://youtube.com/user/pfraterdeus
        • Lisa Davidson
          Gerald, When you say card work as distinguished from broadsides or books, does this mean that the card stock takes small impressions better than paper does,
          Message 4 of 25 , Oct 26, 2007
            Gerald,

            When you say "card work" as distinguished from broadsides or books,
            does this mean that the card stock takes small impressions better
            than paper does, except for the dots of "i" ' s, or would that be a
            plate problem? that was supposed to be close quote apostrophe
            space l/c s. Or you just mean that lighter small type would be more
            legible if the stock would support it, so the less ink the better,
            really?

            Lisa


            On Oct 26, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Gerald Lange wrote:

            > Lisa
            >
            > I'm having a hard time following this as well. A digital typeface
            > would get lighter if reduced in size from its master (usually made at
            > 10- or 12-pt). This would be an advantage in card work IF the typeface
            > were sturdy enough to support this, that is, if it would not lose the
            > dots over lowerecse i's or periods or punctuation as the result of
            > this thinning effect.
            >
            > I would normally, in broadside work or even book work, create a bit
            > sturdier instance of a small text size.
            >
            > If the typeface were metal one could assume some form of optimization
            > was built in, except if as Peter suggests, the entire size range was
            > developed from a single master pattern.
            >
            > Gerald
            > http://BielerPress.blogspot.com
            >
            > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Lisa Davidson
            > <lisaxdavidson@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > > I'm confused now, because I thought you were saying that small
            > type
            > > > printed lighter. Now if ink spread is greater in small type,
            > > > shouldn't that make this not happen? But are you talking about the
            > > > digital version of these faces, or metal?
            > >
            > > Lisa
            > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Goudy Old Style, and Deepdene are the faces I've used in multiple
            > > > sizes.
            > > >
            > > > They are both lovely and are perfectly fine at whatever sizes, but
            > > > I find that the smaller sizes seem lighter in appearance. However,
            > > > he was aware that much printing was not 'fine', and ink spread is
            > > > proportionally greater in the small type.
            > > >> .
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Gerald Lange
            Lisa No, I was not addressing any of these concerns, but rather that card work, being of a smaller format, is more likely than not going to use small point
            Message 5 of 25 , Oct 26, 2007
              Lisa

              No, I was not addressing any of these concerns, but rather that card
              work, being of a smaller format, is more likely than not going to use
              small point sizes.

              Gerald

              --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Lisa Davidson
              <lisaxdavidson@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Gerald,
              >
              > When you say "card work" as distinguished from broadsides or books,
              > does this mean that the card stock takes small impressions better
              > than paper does, except for the dots of "i" ' s, or would that be a
              > plate problem? that was supposed to be close quote apostrophe
              > space l/c s. Or you just mean that lighter small type would be more
              > legible if the stock would support it, so the less ink the better,
              > really?
              >
              > Lisa
              >
              >
              > On Oct 26, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Gerald Lange wrote:
              >
              > > Lisa
              > >
              > > I'm having a hard time following this as well. A digital typeface
              > > would get lighter if reduced in size from its master (usually made at
              > > 10- or 12-pt). This would be an advantage in card work IF the typeface
              > > were sturdy enough to support this, that is, if it would not lose the
              > > dots over lowerecse i's or periods or punctuation as the result of
              > > this thinning effect.
              > >
              > > I would normally, in broadside work or even book work, create a bit
              > > sturdier instance of a small text size.
              > >
              > > If the typeface were metal one could assume some form of optimization
              > > was built in, except if as Peter suggests, the entire size range was
              > > developed from a single master pattern.
              > >
              > > Gerald
              > > http://BielerPress.blogspot.com
              > >
              > > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Lisa Davidson
              > > <lisaxdavidson@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > > I'm confused now, because I thought you were saying that small
              > > type
              > > > > printed lighter. Now if ink spread is greater in small type,
              > > > > shouldn't that make this not happen? But are you talking about the
              > > > > digital version of these faces, or metal?
              > > >
              > > > Lisa
              > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Goudy Old Style, and Deepdene are the faces I've used in multiple
              > > > > sizes.
              > > > >
              > > > > They are both lovely and are perfectly fine at whatever sizes, but
              > > > > I find that the smaller sizes seem lighter in appearance. However,
              > > > > he was aware that much printing was not 'fine', and ink spread is
              > > > > proportionally greater in the small type.
              > > > >> .
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • David McNamara
              Lisa, I don t presume to speak for Gerald, but my interpretation of his email is that he s discussing typography strictly. Stock one might use for cards,
              Message 6 of 25 , Oct 26, 2007
                Lisa,

                I don't presume to speak for Gerald, but my interpretation of his email is that he's discussing typography strictly. Stock one might use for cards, broadsheets, or books can vary all over the place; it's too much of a variable for the conclusions you've drawn.

                I would suppose that the reference is to page color, and readibility. (Or is it legibility? I'm tired; apologies.) Regardless, these are concerns that come much earlier in the game than worries about plate performance and font modification--in fact, isn't the whole consideration given to these to ensure replication of the aforementioned?

                That said, I would advocate that less ink is almost always better, provided you have enough ink. In other words: too much ink is rarely (never?) a good thing.
                __

                David
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Lisa Davidson
                To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 12:27 AM
                Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: best fonts for photopolymer?



                Gerald,

                When you say "card work" as distinguished from broadsides or books,
                does this mean that the card stock takes small impressions better
                than paper does, except for the dots of "i" ' s, or would that be a
                plate problem? that was supposed to be close quote apostrophe
                space l/c s. Or you just mean that lighter small type would be more
                legible if the stock would support it, so the less ink the better,
                really?

                Lisa

                On Oct 26, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Gerald Lange wrote:

                > Lisa
                >
                > I'm having a hard time following this as well. A digital typeface
                > would get lighter if reduced in size from its master (usually made at
                > 10- or 12-pt). This would be an advantage in card work IF the typeface
                > were sturdy enough to support this, that is, if it would not lose the
                > dots over lowerecse i's or periods or punctuation as the result of
                > this thinning effect.
                >
                > I would normally, in broadside work or even book work, create a bit
                > sturdier instance of a small text size.
                >
                > If the typeface were metal one could assume some form of optimization
                > was built in, except if as Peter suggests, the entire size range was
                > developed from a single master pattern.
                >
                > Gerald
                > http://BielerPress.blogspot.com
                >
                > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Lisa Davidson
                > <lisaxdavidson@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > > I'm confused now, because I thought you were saying that small
                > type
                > > > printed lighter. Now if ink spread is greater in small type,
                > > > shouldn't that make this not happen? But are you talking about the
                > > > digital version of these faces, or metal?
                > >
                > > Lisa
                > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Goudy Old Style, and Deepdene are the faces I've used in multiple
                > > > sizes.
                > > >
                > > > They are both lovely and are perfectly fine at whatever sizes, but
                > > > I find that the smaller sizes seem lighter in appearance. However,
                > > > he was aware that much printing was not 'fine', and ink spread is
                > > > proportionally greater in the small type.
                > > >> .
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
                >
                >

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Peter Fraterdeus
                ... By definition, too much is too much ;-) I like this, the Three Bears principle... ... Legibility is able to be perceived as unique and meaningful
                Message 7 of 25 , Oct 26, 2007
                  At 12:51 AM -0400 27 10 07, David McNamara wrote:
                  >
                  >That said, I would advocate that less ink is almost always better, provided you have enough ink. In other words: too much ink is rarely (never?) a good thing.

                  By definition, too much is too much ;-)

                  I like this, the "Three Bears" principle...


                  > readibility. (Or is it legibility?

                  Legibility is "able to be perceived as unique and meaningful glyphs" (ie, a legible typeface versus a scribbled 'greeking' font)
                  Readability is "legible copy presented in a context which allows the copy to be read" (ie, even a very legible type can be presented in an un-readable fashion)

                  At least that's how I use the terms.

                  P


                  --
                  AzByCx DwEvFu GtHsIr JqKpLo MnNmOl PkQjRi ShTgUf VeWdXc YbZa&@
                  {ARTQ: Help stop in-box bloat! Always Remember to Trim the Quote!}

                  ExquisiteLetterpress http://www.exquisiteletterpress.com

                  -:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*
                  Peter Fraterdeus http://www.alphabets.com : Sign up for "MiceType"!
                  Galena, Illinois Design Philosophy Fonts Lettering Letterpress Wood Type
                  Dubuque, Iowa http://www.fraterdeus.com
                  Photography Irish Fiddle Political Observation
                  http://flickr.com/photos/pfraterdeus
                  http://youtube.com/user/pfraterdeus
                • David McNamara
                  Peter, Thanks for the correction. In the context of my message I did, then, mean legibility. But in retrospect, I probably should have joined them with an
                  Message 8 of 25 , Oct 26, 2007
                    Peter,

                    Thanks for the correction. In the context of my message I did, then, mean legibility. But in retrospect, I probably should have joined them with an "and" as I think both are pertinent to the discussion at hand. But probably legibility moreso, no?
                    __

                    David
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Peter Fraterdeus
                    To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 1:20 AM
                    Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: best fonts for photopolymer?


                    At 12:51 AM -0400 27 10 07, David McNamara wrote:
                    >
                    >That said, I would advocate that less ink is almost always better, provided you have enough ink. In other words: too much ink is rarely (never?) a good thing.

                    By definition, too much is too much ;-)

                    I like this, the "Three Bears" principle...

                    > readibility. (Or is it legibility?

                    Legibility is "able to be perceived as unique and meaningful glyphs" (ie, a legible typeface versus a scribbled 'greeking' font)
                    Readability is "legible copy presented in a context which allows the copy to be read" (ie, even a very legible type can be presented in an un-readable fashion)

                    At least that's how I use the terms.

                    P

                    --
                    AzByCx DwEvFu GtHsIr JqKpLo MnNmOl PkQjRi ShTgUf VeWdXc YbZa&@
                    {ARTQ: Help stop in-box bloat! Always Remember to Trim the Quote!}

                    ExquisiteLetterpress http://www.exquisiteletterpress.com

                    -:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*
                    Peter Fraterdeus http://www.alphabets.com : Sign up for "MiceType"!
                    Galena, Illinois Design Philosophy Fonts Lettering Letterpress Wood Type
                    Dubuque, Iowa http://www.fraterdeus.com
                    Photography Irish Fiddle Political Observation
                    http://flickr.com/photos/pfraterdeus
                    http://youtube.com/user/pfraterdeus






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Matt Kelsey
                    I m not expert on many of the technical details concerned with pantograph masters and typecasting, but I worked for a few years at Arion Press in the late
                    Message 9 of 25 , Oct 26, 2007
                      I'm not expert on many of the technical details concerned with pantograph
                      masters and typecasting, but I worked for a few years at Arion Press in the
                      late 1980s when they subletted space from Mackenzie & Harris (now known as M
                      & H Type). At the time I noticed idling on the premises the pantograph
                      masters and related equipment (pantographs), all of which it seems was sold
                      shortly thereafter to its subsequent owner who became known as the end of
                      the line of those materials.

                      Note: this was all sold by the previous owner of Mackenzie & Harris, well
                      before the hot metal foundry assets were acquired by Arion Press. Quite an
                      unfortunate turn of events within a few years, to get a dedicated new owner
                      but lose those valuable assets! Alas for those pantograph masters, each 4"
                      square or so as I recall, now lost to us...

                      In any case, I would question whether Lanston had more than one master per
                      type face based on size? I don't know the answer, but I would guess that for
                      most typefaces there was only one master for all sizes (with possible
                      exceptions for typefaces that had special display fonts.. but I think
                      display fonts were used mostly with English Monotype for special sizes, such
                      as Centaur Titling.

                      Matt

                      On 10/26/07, typetom@... <typetom@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > In a message dated 10/25/2007 4:07:23 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
                      > peterf@... <peterf%40design.org> writes:
                      >
                      > One can see this problem with Goudy's faces, where he used the same master
                      >
                      > for all his sizes, engraving his matrices pantographically, and by golly,
                      > the
                      > six point is very much lighter in appearance than the 24.
                      >
                      > Hi Peter,
                      > Might you give a more specific reference here?
                      >
                      > I would be completely surprised if Goudy was unaware of this problem, or
                      > if
                      > he did not address it in his designs. Some of his important designs were
                      > originally cut by hand, by Robert Wiebking especially, and others were
                      > done for
                      > ATF. In those instances, I think the use of multiple patterns for
                      > different
                      > sizes would have been the normal practice.
                      >
                      > In fact, while Goudy championed use of machines for type-casting (in
                      > contrast to the strictures of William Morris) -- the pantograph, the
                      > Monotype
                      > caster, his own improvised methods for making patterns -- he wrote clearly
                      > about
                      > the challenges of getting the machine to handle subtleties of design. He
                      > argued
                      > actively with ATF about compromises that had to be made, and even forced
                      > special revisions at Monotype for Kennerley composition matrices, where
                      > the unit
                      > system did not quite fit the set width requirements of his design. His
                      > attraction to the pantograph in large part was that he might directly
                      > control the
                      > production of his designs.
                      >
                      > Many Goudy faces were offered only in a limited range of sizes, some only
                      > 12-16 points, or 14-36 points, or even in just a single point size, 18
                      > points,
                      > or 24 points. It seems to me Goudy was clearly aware of the issue of size
                      > and
                      > weight. So I wonder if you might be more specific which of the master's
                      > faces you find troubling this way?
                      >
                      > Certainly there were compromises and experiments and mistakes in a
                      > lifetime
                      > of a hundred designs, but I think it wrong to sweep his work into a single
                      >
                      > conclusion.
                      > Best regards,
                      > Tom
                      >
                      >
                      > Tom Parson
                      > Now It's Up To You Publications
                      > 157 S. Logan, Denver CO 80209
                      > (303) 777-8951 home
                      > (720) 480-5358 cell phone
                      > http://members.aol.com/typetom
                      >
                      > ************************************** See what's new at
                      > http://www.aol.com
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Gerald Lange
                      Matt I received a letter from David Saunders when he was Typographical Consultant (1992) for The Monotype Corporation plc. [this letter was reprinted in
                      Message 10 of 25 , Oct 26, 2007
                        Matt

                        I received a letter from David Saunders when he was Typographical
                        Consultant (1992) for The Monotype Corporation plc. [this letter was
                        reprinted in AbraCadaBra no. 6—I was editor at the time) Monotype did
                        indeed, as did Linotype, have several pattern masters for most of
                        their metal typefaces, more for some, less for others. He mentions
                        four as somewhat routine. I'd assume this was Lanston's policy as
                        well. This practice, on the part of the machine comp matrix makers,
                        was attempted, as a continuance, during the photocomp years, but it
                        failed to entice consumers. "Why buy four sizes of the same face when
                        you can buy four different typefaces for the same amount of money?"
                        Digital type manufacture, unfortunately, followed suit.

                        Gerald
                        http://BielerPress.blogspot.com



                        --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Kelsey"
                        <matthewkelsey@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I'm not expert on many of the technical details concerned with
                        pantograph
                        > masters and typecasting, but I worked for a few years at Arion Press
                        in the
                        > late 1980s when they subletted space from Mackenzie & Harris (now
                        known as M
                        > & H Type). At the time I noticed idling on the premises the pantograph
                        > masters and related equipment (pantographs), all of which it seems
                        was sold
                        > shortly thereafter to its subsequent owner who became known as the
                        end of
                        > the line of those materials.
                        >
                        > Note: this was all sold by the previous owner of Mackenzie & Harris,
                        well
                        > before the hot metal foundry assets were acquired by Arion Press.
                        Quite an
                        > unfortunate turn of events within a few years, to get a dedicated
                        new owner
                        > but lose those valuable assets! Alas for those pantograph masters,
                        each 4"
                        > square or so as I recall, now lost to us...
                        >
                        > In any case, I would question whether Lanston had more than one
                        master per
                        > type face based on size? I don't know the answer, but I would guess
                        that for
                        > most typefaces there was only one master for all sizes (with possible
                        > exceptions for typefaces that had special display fonts.. but I think
                        > display fonts were used mostly with English Monotype for special
                        sizes, such
                        > as Centaur Titling.
                        >
                        > Matt
                        >
                        > On 10/26/07, typetom@... <typetom@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > In a message dated 10/25/2007 4:07:23 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
                        > > peterf@... <peterf%40design.org> writes:
                        > >
                        > > One can see this problem with Goudy's faces, where he used the
                        same master
                        > >
                        > > for all his sizes, engraving his matrices pantographically, and by
                        golly,
                        > > the
                        > > six point is very much lighter in appearance than the 24.
                        > >
                        > > Hi Peter,
                        > > Might you give a more specific reference here?
                        > >
                        > > I would be completely surprised if Goudy was unaware of this
                        problem, or
                        > > if
                        > > he did not address it in his designs. Some of his important
                        designs were
                        > > originally cut by hand, by Robert Wiebking especially, and others were
                        > > done for
                        > > ATF. In those instances, I think the use of multiple patterns for
                        > > different
                        > > sizes would have been the normal practice.
                        > >
                        > > In fact, while Goudy championed use of machines for type-casting (in
                        > > contrast to the strictures of William Morris) -- the pantograph, the
                        > > Monotype
                        > > caster, his own improvised methods for making patterns -- he wrote
                        clearly
                        > > about
                        > > the challenges of getting the machine to handle subtleties of
                        design. He
                        > > argued
                        > > actively with ATF about compromises that had to be made, and even
                        forced
                        > > special revisions at Monotype for Kennerley composition matrices,
                        where
                        > > the unit
                        > > system did not quite fit the set width requirements of his design. His
                        > > attraction to the pantograph in large part was that he might directly
                        > > control the
                        > > production of his designs.
                        > >
                        > > Many Goudy faces were offered only in a limited range of sizes,
                        some only
                        > > 12-16 points, or 14-36 points, or even in just a single point size, 18
                        > > points,
                        > > or 24 points. It seems to me Goudy was clearly aware of the issue
                        of size
                        > > and
                        > > weight. So I wonder if you might be more specific which of the
                        master's
                        > > faces you find troubling this way?
                        > >
                        > > Certainly there were compromises and experiments and mistakes in a
                        > > lifetime
                        > > of a hundred designs, but I think it wrong to sweep his work into
                        a single
                        > >
                        > > conclusion.
                        > > Best regards,
                        > > Tom
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Tom Parson
                        > > Now It's Up To You Publications
                        > > 157 S. Logan, Denver CO 80209
                        > > (303) 777-8951 home
                        > > (720) 480-5358 cell phone
                        > > http://members.aol.com/typetom
                        > >
                        > > ************************************** See what's new at
                        > > http://www.aol.com
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • Mike Anderson
                        For what it is worth, this is the little bit I know about pattern size and weight of the typeface. The wonder of the Pantograph is the ability to vary the
                        Message 11 of 25 , Oct 27, 2007
                          For what it is worth, this is the little bit I know about pattern size and weight of the typeface.



                          The wonder of the Pantograph is the ability to vary the ratio of the finished product to the pattern, i.e., 1:1, 70:1, etc. In reality there are three variables with a Pantograph - the ratio, as mentioned above, the diameter of the follower and the size of the cutter's tip.



                          The follower is a round tool used to follow the pattern (outside for punch cutting, inside for matrix cutting). The followers that came with my Pierpont (Benton Style) pantograph range from .020" to .56" in increments of .005". I use these same followers with my Deckle pantograph.



                          The cutter is a 1/8" hardened metal rod on which either a 3-sided or 4-sided cutting tip is ground. The tip of this cutting tool can be ground to where the cutting surface is .005" across or less. The grinders has micro dial capabilities and one even has a microscope for insuring the width of the cutting face. A handheld microscope with calibration markings of .001" is used to insure the accuracy of the cutter.



                          By changing the diameter of the follower or the surface of the cutting tool the thick/thin lines of a typeface can be varied. The important thing concerning the follower is that it must be small enough to fit within the smallest opening in the pattern when cutting matrices. Also, the cutter tip should be only as wide as the thinnest line. So by using one pattern it is possible to cut Lite, Regular and Bold faces of the same pattern. By varying the ratio, the cutting tool and/or the follower, you can reduce the point size or increase the point size of that pattern.



                          The size of the pattern can be almost any size (within reason), just as long as all the patterns for that face are the same size; otherwise the engraver would be constantly changing the ratio of pattern size to desired point size.



                          Hope this makes sense.



                          Mike

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Matt Kelsey
                          To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 1:59 AM
                          Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress] best fonts for photopolymer?


                          I'm not expert on many of the technical details concerned with pantograph
                          masters and typecasting, but I worked for a few years at Arion Press in the
                          late 1980s when they subletted space from Mackenzie & Harris (now known as M
                          & H Type). At the time I noticed idling on the premises the pantograph
                          masters and related equipment (pantographs), all of which it seems was sold
                          shortly thereafter to its subsequent owner who became known as the end of
                          the line of those materials.

                          Note: this was all sold by the previous owner of Mackenzie & Harris, well
                          before the hot metal foundry assets were acquired by Arion Press. Quite an
                          unfortunate turn of events within a few years, to get a dedicated new owner
                          but lose those valuable assets! Alas for those pantograph masters, each 4"
                          square or so as I recall, now lost to us...

                          In any case, I would question whether Lanston had more than one master per
                          type face based on size? I don't know the answer, but I would guess that for
                          most typefaces there was only one master for all sizes (with possible
                          exceptions for typefaces that had special display fonts.. but I think
                          display fonts were used mostly with English Monotype for special sizes, such
                          as Centaur Titling.

                          Matt

                          On 10/26/07, typetom@... <typetom@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > In a message dated 10/25/2007 4:07:23 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
                          > peterf@... <peterf%40design.org> writes:
                          >
                          > One can see this problem with Goudy's faces, where he used the same master
                          >
                          > for all his sizes, engraving his matrices pantographically, and by golly,
                          > the
                          > six point is very much lighter in appearance than the 24.
                          >
                          > Hi Peter,
                          > Might you give a more specific reference here?
                          >
                          > I would be completely surprised if Goudy was unaware of this problem, or
                          > if
                          > he did not address it in his designs. Some of his important designs were
                          > originally cut by hand, by Robert Wiebking especially, and others were
                          > done for
                          > ATF. In those instances, I think the use of multiple patterns for
                          > different
                          > sizes would have been the normal practice.
                          >
                          > In fact, while Goudy championed use of machines for type-casting (in
                          > contrast to the strictures of William Morris) -- the pantograph, the
                          > Monotype
                          > caster, his own improvised methods for making patterns -- he wrote clearly
                          > about
                          > the challenges of getting the machine to handle subtleties of design. He
                          > argued
                          > actively with ATF about compromises that had to be made, and even forced
                          > special revisions at Monotype for Kennerley composition matrices, where
                          > the unit
                          > system did not quite fit the set width requirements of his design. His
                          > attraction to the pantograph in large part was that he might directly
                          > control the
                          > production of his designs.
                          >
                          > Many Goudy faces were offered only in a limited range of sizes, some only
                          > 12-16 points, or 14-36 points, or even in just a single point size, 18
                          > points,
                          > or 24 points. It seems to me Goudy was clearly aware of the issue of size
                          > and
                          > weight. So I wonder if you might be more specific which of the master's
                          > faces you find troubling this way?
                          >
                          > Certainly there were compromises and experiments and mistakes in a
                          > lifetime
                          > of a hundred designs, but I think it wrong to sweep his work into a single
                          >
                          > conclusion.
                          > Best regards,
                          > Tom
                          >
                          >
                          > Tom Parson
                          > Now It's Up To You Publications
                          > 157 S. Logan, Denver CO 80209
                          > (303) 777-8951 home
                          > (720) 480-5358 cell phone
                          > http://members.aol.com/typetom
                          >
                          > ************************************** See what's new at
                          > http://www.aol.com
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Peter Fraterdeus
                          Mike thanks much for this elucidation! One question, can one vary the x/y ratio as well? I imagine. If so, then cutting the caption face 15% wider (or
                          Message 12 of 25 , Oct 27, 2007
                            Mike

                            thanks much for this elucidation!

                            One question, can one vary the x/y ratio as well? I imagine. If so, then cutting the caption face 15% wider (or whatever) than the Titling would be possible from a single master. I had not thought of this possibility before... Of course this would also slightly distort the ratio of horizontal to vertical in the letterforms, but would still likely be within the design space.

                            Thanks

                            Peter

                            At 8:39 AM -0400 27 10 07, Mike Anderson wrote:
                            >For what it is worth, this is the little bit I know about pattern size and weight of the typeface.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >The wonder of the Pantograph is the ability to vary the ratio of the finished product to the pattern, i.e., 1:1, 70:1, etc. In reality there are three variables with a Pantograph - the ratio, as mentioned above, the diameter of the follower and the size of the cutter's tip.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >The follower is a round tool used to follow the pattern (outside for punch cutting, inside for matrix cutting). The followers that came with my Pierpont (Benton Style) pantograph range from .020" to .56" in increments of .005". I use these same followers with my Deckle pantograph.
                            ...
                            --
                            AzByCx DwEvFu GtHsIr JqKpLo MnNmOl PkQjRi ShTgUf VeWdXc YbZa&@
                            {ARTQ: Help stop in-box bloat! Always Remember to Trim the Quote!}

                            ExquisiteLetterpress http://www.exquisiteletterpress.com

                            -:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*
                            Peter Fraterdeus http://www.alphabets.com : Sign up for "MiceType"!
                            Galena, Illinois Design Philosophy Fonts Lettering Letterpress Wood Type
                            Dubuque, Iowa http://www.fraterdeus.com
                            Photography Irish Fiddle Political Observation
                            http://flickr.com/photos/pfraterdeus
                            http://youtube.com/user/pfraterdeus
                          • Mike Anderson
                            Peter, there may be a way of doing it with the Pantograph - however, have not thought about it - be like making Condensed or Wide faces. I ll have to look
                            Message 13 of 25 , Oct 27, 2007
                              Peter, there may be a way of doing it with the Pantograph - however, have not thought about it - be like making Condensed or Wide faces. I'll have to look into this.

                              Also, it is "Deckel" vice the mistyped "Deckle."

                              mike

                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Peter Fraterdeus
                              To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 10:18 AM
                              Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress] best fonts for photopolymer?


                              Mike

                              thanks much for this elucidation!

                              One question, can one vary the x/y ratio as well? I imagine. If so, then cutting the caption face 15% wider (or whatever) than the Titling would be possible from a single master. I had not thought of this possibility before... Of course this would also slightly distort the ratio of horizontal to vertical in the letterforms, but would still likely be within the design space.

                              Thanks

                              Peter

                              At 8:39 AM -0400 27 10 07, Mike Anderson wrote:
                              >For what it is worth, this is the little bit I know about pattern size and weight of the typeface.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >The wonder of the Pantograph is the ability to vary the ratio of the finished product to the pattern, i.e., 1:1, 70:1, etc. In reality there are three variables with a Pantograph - the ratio, as mentioned above, the diameter of the follower and the size of the cutter's tip.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >The follower is a round tool used to follow the pattern (outside for punch cutting, inside for matrix cutting). The followers that came with my Pierpont (Benton Style) pantograph range from .020" to .56" in increments of .005". I use these same followers with my Deckle pantograph.
                              ...
                              --
                              AzByCx DwEvFu GtHsIr JqKpLo MnNmOl PkQjRi ShTgUf VeWdXc YbZa&@
                              {ARTQ: Help stop in-box bloat! Always Remember to Trim the Quote!}

                              ExquisiteLetterpress http://www.exquisiteletterpress.com

                              -:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*-:-*
                              Peter Fraterdeus http://www.alphabets.com : Sign up for "MiceType"!
                              Galena, Illinois Design Philosophy Fonts Lettering Letterpress Wood Type
                              Dubuque, Iowa http://www.fraterdeus.com
                              Photography Irish Fiddle Political Observation
                              http://flickr.com/photos/pfraterdeus
                              http://youtube.com/user/pfraterdeus






                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.