Re: typeface to go with photographs of various kinds

on 7/26/04 11:48 AM, Ryuji Suzuki at rs@silvergrain.org wrote:

> 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)
>>
>> 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.

Yes, I think Bringhurst actually makes the suggestion if you want lettering
with a brushed, calligraphic, cursive, hand-lettered, or analogue typewriter
look to it, it's much better to get the real thing and scan it if necessary.
(Steve's Remington sounds ideal.) Fonts that imitate these sorts of
"organic" writing processes are short cuts that rarely ever come close to
being satisfactory.

I think what Kris did with the statement for cyanotypes is a great approach.
Output your set type/lettering on some kind of trasparency and make
photograms usings the same technique as for your prints.

jt
Received on Mon Jul 26 10:20:52 2004