New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Magazine Redesign — font ideas?
Hello,
I'm just getting started on redesigning a university's research and arts magazine. Wide variety of readers, from young adults to old folks. I want the new look to be contemporary, sophisticated, unique. We've been using mainly Janson and Univers since the magazine's introduction about a decade ago.
A few fonts that I'm taking a closer look at:
Serifs: Whitman, Kingfisher
Sans: Bliss, Apex new, Klavika
Whatever sans we go with will need to be a fairly extensive family.
Any suggestions on either serif or sans serifs? Or combinations?
Thanks!
Also, out of curiousity, does anyone know a ballpark figure for what custom faces cost? Probably out of our league, budget-wise, but I didn't see any info on Hoefler's site.
User login
Support our Sponsors
30 Apr 2007 — 4:52pm
Looking at those sans examples, here is a thread about similar square sans serifs. Might give you some ideas.
1 May 2007 — 7:59am
Blake --
While you're contemplating your decision, you should know that I recently completed Whitman Bold Italic, along with Semibold and Semibold Italic, for a Font Bureau client. These should end up in their Retail library pretty soon. (I know a lot of people have been waiting patiently for these.) Corresponding small caps fonts are also in the works.
If you need more information sooner rather than later, you can contact Harry Parker at the Font Bureau.
You may also be interested to know that I'm in the final stages of the Whitman Display family, an expansion of some custom work that was done for the Tacoma News Tribune and Minneapolis Star Tribune newspapers a few years ago.
Here are a few first-ever public previews:
I can't tell you the timing for eventual release; but if you're interested, Harry could help you there as well.
Incidently, Whitman and Bliss were introduced to each other in the Virginia Quarterly Review in late 2003, and from what I can tell, that marriage is still healthy and happy.
-- Kent.
1 May 2007 — 10:31am
Sa-WEEET!!! Those Lights are terrific.
1 May 2007 — 11:20am
Wow, very nice!
1 May 2007 — 11:38am
Ooh, bold italic! That was the main concern we had with Whitman. Now it'll be a serious contender. Thanks Kent!
Why are so many contemporary serif fonts omitting a bold italic face? I noticed at least a few other good faces without a bold italic. What gives? On occasion when I use reversed type, I'll use the bold weight for legibility purposes. With as many books and publications we mention in our text, a bold italic is a must.
—Blake
Illumination magazine
2 May 2007 — 6:29am
Blake -- I thought the Bold Italic might make a difference. That's why I mentioned it.
I can't speak for others about omitting the bold italic, but for me, I never expected Whitman to be so well received. My personal focus is on book work, and I almost never use bold italic. I expected the face to appeal only to a few others with similar needs.
Frankly, I was more interested in getting the initial fonts released, and then possibly doing the bold italic later, if there was call for it. In restrospect, this was probably a bit short-sighted, but I'd already spent about two years on the design and I really wanted to see some return before investing in more styles.
There was a brief bit of internal debate at FB about releasing the family without the bold italic. And Mike Parker told me the cautionary tale of Ruzicka's Primer, which was released without a bold and never got one, which Mike argues really hurt its success. I promised that I would get to it after we'd had a chance to see how well Whitman was received.
Then, as fate would have it, I became immersed in an all-consuming director job for a couple years.
So, I'm only now coming around to finish up the family. Better late than never, I suppose.
Also, from conversations I've had with other colleagues, Bold Italic is held by many to be something of the ugly step sister in most families, and many designers dislike doing them. It seems this is often the first style passed off to interns or assistants.
-- Kent.
2 May 2007 — 1:36pm
I'll admit that bold italic is the least used face in my work, but the need does come up once or twice per issue, it seems. Great that it's available now.
We're going to track down a copy of Virginia Quarterly Review.
How difficult is it to test drive fonts from Font Bureau? I noticed they have that option.
— Blake
2 May 2007 — 2:11pm
Kent, very smoooove stuff!
> this was probably a bit short-sighted
I'm not so sure.
Having people clamor for an extension has multiple benefits.
What's paradoxical about something like a Bold-Italic style
in a font is that people will howl when it's missing, but on
the ground they almost never need it!
hhp
2 May 2007 — 3:19pm
What’s paradoxical about something like a Bold-Italic style
in a font is that people will howl when it’s missing, but on
the ground they almost never need it!
Yes, indeed, I think you've put your finger on it!
But . . . I can also sympathize with the frustration on that occasion when it turns out you need it and it's not there. For example, more than once I've spec'ed heads in one of the bold Bureau Grotesques after having carefully grilled the editor or scoured the manuscript to make certain that there aren't any book titles or emphasis in a heading -- only to have an eleventh-hour edit or AA introduce something that absolutely *must* be italicized. Very frustrating.
How difficult is it to test drive fonts from Font Bureau? I noticed they have that option.
Blake -- Yours seems like a very serious and sincere exploration. I know that FB does work out test licenses on occasion. It's not my place to make any promises; I'm just a freelancer. If you have good control over your design and production team and fonts don't stray out of the office, then give the Font Bureau a call and talk to Harry Parker. He can give you the low-down on test drives. He's typically in the office afternoons and into the evening, Eastern time.
-- K.