Re: typeface as new subject

It makes me happy to use Remmington. With two Remmington typewriters, pica
and elite; I chuckle as I write in a typeface used by greats such as
Faulkner and Earnie Pile. What treats me most is that Remmington refuses to
let their typeface, or type style be used in computer programs.

NB: the balance of the Remmington keys is so perfect they're actually easier
than the computer keyboard.

Although as Judy points out, typefaces can be copied and there are programs
where you can scan a typeface and the whole gammut will burn into your
writing program.

S. Shapiro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: typeface to go with photographs of various kinds

>
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 kris.erickson@utoronto.ca wrote:
>
> > Ryuji-- Bringhurst's book, "The elements of typographic style," is one
> > of the definitive books out there, in my opinion. It's very complete,
> > and very well argued. Anything anyone can say here is probably put much
> > better by him in that volume. But, to suggest a few ways to think about
> > it: 1. Readability: a familiar type face (Times, Garamond, Palatino, or
> > Perpetua--faces books and newspapers are commonly set in) or a simple
> > face (Optima, Univers--faces often used for signage and advertisement
> > headings and brief passages) are often best.
>
> A lot depends on how large the type face will be, how much of it there
> will be, and how important it is that it be read. Artforum to the
> contrary, sans serif faces are shown to be much harder to read as text
> than serif faces.. tho it isn't clear whether Ryuji plans a serious body
> of type, or a few lines on the order of a caption.
>
> I've been through books on type, old and new, collections of prize winning
> typographical designs, and so forth and so on (even had a long, long,
> long-ago compulsory course in typography that nearly caused me to quit art
> school), but none of the above offered the guide and inspiration, at least
> for me, that I found in the typography of the New York Times Sunday
> Magazine.
>
> Sorry to be forced to mention the Times again, but its magazine layouts
> are consistently readable, elegant, inventive and stylish. Of course my
> ability to copy them for P-F was limited by my lack of white space, and
> lack of color, not to mention experience & knowledge (I leave talent moot)
> -- but it's also a full manual of smart examples, which the type sample
> books so rarely provide. Plus, it's only $3.50 and you get the rest of the
> Sunday paper free.
>
> > 2. Overused type faces:
> > Courier (a very typewriter-looking face), as well as the common "web"
>
> I think it's not so much that Courier is overused, as that it's not good
> for laser/digital printing. I've found it charming from an actual old
> typewriter, where the hump of the p, for instance, could be clogged,
> making a dot on the page, the pressure of the hand is uneven, so the type
> varies, and the letters also can hit at different heights -- for years I
> kept my old Smith Corona going for the occasional title to incorporate in
> a print, but in *digital* Courier, the lines of the characters are too
> thin to be legible (and making it bold face makes it look even more
> mechanical), and so regular they look palpably phony.
>
> I've seen versions that fake the irregularity of a typewriter -- a
> definite improvement but NG for a lot of text to be read, in fact raising
> the possibility of the type "design" drowning out the photograph... or
> being smarter (or too much dumber) than the picture.
>
> Judy
>
Received on Sun Jul 25 22:59:24 2004