deja vu...all over again
daidala archives in pdf format here.
29-August 2002
bit behind, i am...
FontFont
2002 catalogue arrived in the mail on Friday. Um, yeah...you’ve
had yours for half a year now. Truth is, I wrote in to request a copy
of font
002 and the catalogue tagged along. This is a good thing;
looking at the fonts online is nice, but seeing them on paper is a
necessity. You’ve already formulated your thoughts; here are a few
of mine.
The first thing I noticed is that the catalogue is thicker (no surprise),
expanding from 144 to 192 pages. The second is that it’s roomier;
more white space, and some of the stock samples are now large enough
to be useful.
Third, the categories – once a bit arbitrary – have been reduced
in number from nine to six. Gone are Geometric, Intelligent, and Destructive,
and several of the faces formerly therein have found their way into
Typographic. One could still make some arguments for misidentification
(Why aren’t Hardcase, Maverick, Karbid, and Schulbuch typographic?),
but overall, the arrangement makes sense.
Fourth, larger font families are now supplemented with matrices of weight
by style, providing for a quick read on the combinations available.
Fifth, and finally, the notes are now in Mike Abbink’s Kievit
(2001), replacing Spiekermann and Schaefer’s Info.
I’ve developed a new appreciation for this open, unserifed face. Kievit
might conjure up Myriad
or Frutiger,
though it is not as restrained as either. It’s available in six weights
and includes text figures and expert characters. It is just one of
the several new faces issued semiannually by FSI that make the FontFont
2002 catalogue a necessary part of one’s specimen book library and
the FontFont collection the most comprehensive – and perhaps
the most important – series of new types today.
19-August 2002
mrs eaves: 8 of 20
Of course; it’s ubiquitous, after all. Plant yourself anywhere in a Barnes and
Noble, swivel, and you’ll spot this
Baskerville revival/parody gracing a cover or two. You won’t likely
find it on the pages, however; it’s a face that demands attention,
rather than one that invites reading.
The crown jewel of the Emigre empire – and IMHO, one
of the outstanding offerings of the 90s – is now available
in OpenType format. Those 213 ligatures should be easier to implement
than ever before.
19-August 2002
a whole slew of 'em
A few weeks ago, I wrote that the new Linotype Syntax, with its added weights,
small caps, and text figures, was the best
deal in type. A close second must be Bitstream’s
Cambridge Collection. For under $200US you get, among others,
Bitstream Amerigo, Arrus, Charter, and Iowan Old Style, 18 weights/widths
of Futura, Oranda, Serifa, and Venetian 301 (Centaur). Alas, no expert
sets here; you’ll have to supplement as needed. (Parenthetical double
alas: Bitstream apparently no longer sells its 500 Font CD, which
I obtained two years ago for a ridiculously low price.) Nonetheless,
if you want to want to get your hands on a few styles of two of the
most underrated typefaces in recent memory – yes, Arrus and
Iowan Old Style (both recently expanded) – and then some, this
is the CD (dual platform) for you.
14-August 2002
comparing typefaces 2: seria and scala
Template Gothic was not the face of the 1990s (see Blackwell, p144); Scala was. Designed and expanded throughout the decade by
Martin Majoor, Scala is a cohesive Joanna – a fresh, elegant
slab-serif face that is deservedly well-used.
I had used Scala and its unserifed companion successfully in several text
applications in the late 1990s, and so when I opened my FontFont 2000
catalog to find a new face from Majoor – called Seria –
I did not hesitate to download and start setting text.
I quickly realized that Seria was a beautiful, complex typeface, yet I was unsatisfied
with the printed output and didn’t quite know why. And to this day
– still somewhat puzzled – I have yet to find the “right”
application for it. And so I am beginning to investigate...
At first glance, Scala and Seria are essentially the same face by the same
artist; one might conclude initially that several of the lower case
romans appear to differ only in the extent of the ascender or descender.
A closer look, however, reveals that the faces are more like cousins
than twins – of the same pedigree yet distinct in physiognomy.
To compare the two in a sentence, Scala is a chiseled, neoclassical
face with a relatively large x-height; Seria is a humanist-Renaissance
hybrid with its long ascenders and descenders and its modulated stroke.
And to compare them more systematically and in more detail, I have
made some lists of points of differentiation and have included figures
for each major component of both faces.
Lower case roman
In this figure, the lower case romans
of Scala and Seria are shown normalized to x-height. Doing so requires
that Seria be multiplied by about 25%. After normalization, the strokes
of Seria are 15–20% heavier, the letters are 5–15% wider,
and the ascenders and descenders are around 45–55% longer.
But it is not the dimension of Seria’s lower case roman that defines its
character. Rather, it is a motif that is seen throughout the face
– a motif that is established and repeated in the counters.
Begin with c, d, e, and p; you will see that the top-center regions
of the counters are relatively horizontal and straight. As you move
to the left, you see that the bowl thickness sharply increases to
form a counter angle of around 60–70°. A more comprehensive
look will reveal this motif in the ascender of the f and the descender
of the j; indeed, it is present in all letters but b, i, k, l, t,
and v–z.
Another prominent difference between Scala and Seria is in the serifs. Whereas
those of Scala are defined largely by 90° angles, the serifs of
Seria have a concave base with a convex join to the stroke; the letter
k shows this clearly, both in arm and leg.
Other notable features:
- the crossbar of the f also shows the concavity/ convexity
- the rightmost strokes of h, m, and n are not vertical; rather, they
curve inward
- in contrast to Scala, the bowls of b and q completely close the
counters
- the first two stems of w are joined by an extended serif
Lower case italic
“It is true that most romans are upright and most italics slope
to the right – but flow, not slope, is what really differentiates
the two,” writes
Robert Bringhurst (p56). The italics
of Seria serve as a case in point. While the italics of Scala
slope at about 8°, those of Seria do so at only about 1–2°;
nonetheless, there is no mistaking them for roman forms.
One similarity between the italics of the two faces is the distinctive
lower case y, in which the stem of the letter lies to the left, rather
than the right, and the descender is roughly centered. A notable difference
between the two, however, is seen in the letter f, in which that of
Seria breaks away from Scala’s form by extending a straight, serifed
descender below the baseline in a manner a la Jan van Krimpen’s Romanee.
The form of the counters links Seria’s italic to its roman; the aforementioned
motif is preserved and is seen in all letters save i, k, l, s, t,
and v–z.
Upper case roman
The upper case roman in Scala seems
to be about right angles; indeed, stems and serifs in E, F, H, I,
L, and T combine to create perpendicular forms. As expected, there
is more curvature in the upper case romans of Seria. Compare the Ks;
in Seria the arm and leg gracefully curve away from the stem; those
of Scala shoot out linearly. And compare the Rs; the leg of the R
in Seria extends, tapers, and ends well below the baseline. Finally,
note that the angular-counter motif is absent in the upper case.
Also:
- the serifs are more prominent in Seria than in Scala; on letters
such as B and D, they stretch relatively far to the left of the stem
- to achieve equal cap height, Seria must be enlarged by about 15%
- while the bowl of the P is open in Scala, it is closed completely
in Seria
Upper case italic
In Scala, the major distinguishing feature of the italic
caps is the slant; in Seria, the italic caps do not slant at all
but are marked by increased curvature, and some letters approach swash
form – see J, K, N, T, and Y. Note also the prominent tail in Q.
Numerals
The roman numerals in Scala and Seria
are very similar; a major difference is the modulated stroke of the
zero in Seria.
Comparing the italics, those of Seria have
more ornate forms – notice the curl of the descenders of 5 and
7 and the open counters in 8. Compare also the numeral 1, which is
bilaterally serifed in Seria and unilaterally so in Scala.
Andy
Crewdson wrote about Scala and Seria several months back. I forget
some of the particulars, but I do recall his praise for the new face.
I also recall that, as I read, there was no hint of disappointment
in Mr Crewdson’s experience with it. I felt a bit stupid as a result;
why hadn’t I been satisfied with any of my attempts to set text in
Seria?
I believe that the answer may lie in the relationship between the angular beauty
of the face and the conditions under which I normally print. One of
Bringhurst’s principles (6.1.3, p94) is: “Choose faces that
will survive, and if possible prosper, under the final printing conditions.”
Twelve pt at 600 dpi – while perfectly sufficient for Scala
– will simply not do for Seria.
The angular motif, the subtle tapers, and the curvature of Seria’s letterforms
are all there for a reason – to be seen, not smudged. And to
be seen adequately requires high quality in both printer and paper;
this is a typeface that deserves to be treated with the same care
that the designer applied in its creation.
Somewhat equipped with an answer, I’ll continue to investigate, more aware
of Seria’s limitations, and more aware also that its limitations derive
from its exquisite form.
11-August 2002
interview with eric olson
Eric
Olson is a Minneapolis-based type designer whose studio –
Process Type Foundry
– specializes in fonts for custom and retail use.
I recently asked Mr Olson to discuss his philosophy and practice:
JC: What is your training in typography?
EO: While studying graphic design at the University of Minnesota,
I had very little formal typographic training. In general, we studied
the mechanics of the trade-page layout, color theory, print production,
mark-making, etc... For better or worse, I learned much of what I
know about typography and type design through independent study.
My greatest resources for learning have been specimen books, typefaces, and other
designers, not to mention trial and error. It was several years after
designing my first typeface that I actually released a font. Although
a digital typeface can be created very rapidly, I spent those years
developing a solid understanding of letterforms, spacing, kerning
and font production.
JC: Your typefaces – Elderkin and Process Grotesque, in particular
– draw inspiration from late 19th/early 20th century grotesques.
Why this class of typefaces?
EO: I didn’t consider either face on these terms. I’m a big fan of
solid and straightforward typefaces with a little something extra
to offer. The original grotesques have that extra something so their
influence on my work is inevitable.
JC: Who do you design type for (i.e., who is your intended
user or audience)?
EO: Because I was trained both academically and professionally as
a graphic designer, I design what I think I would use or need. I work
within the parameters of actual projects and think, would I actually
use this?
I’m also interested in creating typefaces for designers who are actively
shaping visual culture. The popularity of faces like Helvetica, Franklin
Gothic, Akzidenz Grotesk, and Univers still amazes me. They are masterful
faces, but they are also tied mechanically and conceptually to a specific
era – regardless of their supposed neutrality. In turn, they have become
out of place in current design because they do not reflect our time.
Eventually, I hope to create typefaces for work that embodies our
current environment.
JC: Why did you choose to distribute the typeface Indivisible free
of charge?
EO: The face was an experiment. I wanted to see if people would actually
use a free typeface regularly. I find monos really useful, especially
for grading student papers and general utility so I’m curious to see
if others will do the same. It’s unlikely that I’ll keep the face
up for very long. It is something I made to amuse myself while working
on larger type families.
JC: Who is your inspiration/who, among typographers or designers, do you admire most?
EO: For type designers my list includes Matthew Carter, Fred Smeijers,
Adrian Frutiger, Gerard Unger, Peter Bilak, Jonathan Hoefler, Zuzana
Licko, Peter Matthias Noordzij, John Downer – the list goes
on and on. There are too many to name.
Many of my biggest influences, however, are within the larger field
of design. I’m impressed with any well thought out, functional design
object: American automobiles of the 50s, the furniture of Charles
and Ray Eames, the posters of Josef Müller-Brockmann, the graphic
design of Karel Martens, and the furniture and graphic design of Foundation
33, just to name a few. I am inspired by work that seizes the technology,
opportunity, and atmosphere of its time, and channels it into a meaningful
design solution.
JC: What are you working on now?
EO: Currently I’m finishing up a yet unnamed typeface based on the
mechanical lettering of the Wrico lettering system. It will be my
first publicly released family of typefaces containing a full range
of weights and alternate character sets. Additionally, I’m working
on a typeface proposal/commission for the Design Institute at the
University of Minnesota to accompany the Twin Cities Design Celebration
2003.
JC: What tools do you use in font production?
EO: I try to keep things as simple as possible. All of my drawing
is done in Adobe Illustrator 8. From there I paste directly into Fontographer
4.1.5. I use Fontographer for all of my spacing, kerning and testing.
I always generate working beta versions and test them sometimes for
several months. After I have everything tied up and I’m satisfied,
I import the files into Fontlab 3 for hinting and final file preparation.
JC: What is your ideal type project?
EO: Something with a conceptual framework and relevance to current
culture and technology. A tall order!
Process Type currently offers five typefaces:
(1) Elderkin - based on early 20th century gothics, (2) FIG - inspired
by the FIGlet application, (3) Kettler - a revisitation of and tribute
to Howard Kettler’s Courier, (4) Process Grotesque - an “aggressive”
descendant of the Stephenson and Blake model, and (5) Indivisible
- a 10 pitch monospace, which, as aforementioned, is currently available
for free download.
02-August 2002
« July
