Re: typeface to go with photographs of various kinds

From: Kris Erickson <kris.erickson@utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: typeface to go with photographs of various kinds
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:37:30 -0400

> Sorry, I didn't mean to duck the question; it's just if you're talking
> about aesthetics and the decision making that goes into organizing a
> body of work, it's a really big question... bear with me.

Actually I think setting the tone with brush stroke and hand written
letters is interesting. (I bet it's very hard to write roman letters
with soft brush and ink. I had to spend many hours of writing Japanese
with it but I need a hard tip to write roman letters.)

Maybe I shoud've included more analogous examples to what I am
thinking about. And it was a big question but I didn't expect complete
answers anyway. It's like pairing wine to the main course and coffee
to the dessert, given the same set of factors, there may be several
well reasoned possibilities. So I am mostly interested in those
elements that should be considered... a competent designer can
recommend the rest (probably) and this part is probably a wrong topic
in this list anyway.

From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
Subject: Re: typeface to go with photographs of various kinds
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 23:31:39 -0400 (EDT)

> 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.

I sometimes think one must be ADHD to be a magazine editor and
designer. With completely different subject matters from page to page,
it's a difficult task for anyone with persistent style preferences.

By the way there is a typeface called LIDO-STF. Storm (the guy who
draw it) says that it was designed for a newspaper to replace Times
Roman. I printed several things with it, and it's rather compact in
space but very nice in sharp laser printouts. The letters have old
style elements but with tall x height. I wouldn't use it for purely
silver gelatin oriented matters, but it might be good for matters of
mixed processes.

> I think it's not so much that Courier is overused, as that it's not
> good for laser/digital printing.

I think that's the definition of Courier.

> [...] 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 thought several digital Couriers come in a few weights, and even
italics (I don't see a point of typewriter italics).

> 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.

I know of several, but I'm not satisfied. The problem is that those
simulated inking imperfections and irregular imprintings are
deterministic and look very fake. I think the font has to come with
many alternatives for each letter and a PostScript/PDF postprocessing
program to randomize individual rendering of letters.

--
Ryuji Suzuki
"You have to realize that junk is not the problem in and of itself.
Junk is the symptom, not the problem."
(Bob Dylan 1971; source: No Direction Home by Robert Shelton)