I picked up a copy of "Origines de L'Imprimerie En France" (Arthur Christian, 1905) a couple weeks ago, and among its many delights was a font with the following attribution: Cette premi
Yes, if you could scan the page(s) from the Imprimerie specimen book, that would be great. I’m working from the 16pt from the “Debuts de L’Imprimerie en France” book mentioned above (have no idea how I mistranscribed it as “Origines”). It has a fairly complete set of sorts, but is missing miniscule w and magiscule X (or, possibly, I overlooked their occurrences).
And thanks for pointing me to the IN specimen book; I wasn’t aware of it. It’s high on my want list now.
Also, if people are really curious to see my work-in-progress, ask and I’ll post. I’m kinda excited about this one.
It’s 600dpi, and cleaned up -carefully- to reduce filesize & get rid of the stuff on the back of the page. This is (almost) the best I could do - the repro in the book isn’t so hot.
> have no idea how I mistranscribed it as “Origines”
Well, that is the title of a predecessor to the 1905 edition...
—
So you’re doing a literal revival? Like you’re not going to improve that “g”? It looks like a “y” that’s a bit too happy to see its righthand glyph...
Thanks. I was hoping it was a more complete showing, but at having all the sizes is helpful. I see that what they have listed as a “14” is what I’ve measured as 16. Sigh, one of these days I’ll actually learn to measure ancient sizes.
So you’re doing a literal revival? Like you’re not going to improve that “g”?
What I’ve drawn so far is quite literal, but I do plan on improving some of the glyphs. The cap “T”, for example, reads too much like an “E”. I’m not yet convinced I need to redo the “g”, though. It’s perfectly legible, and is a very distinctive feature of the font. It’s also historically grounded, having the same shape as in Collard Mansion’s 1484 Ovid Metamorphoses (arguably a more direct influence on this font than Gutenberg; in particular, the final letter variations are almost a direct match). [plate 22 in Morison and Day]
> one of these days I’ll actually learn to measure ancient sizes.
1) I don’t think there’s a reliable way anyway. The talus (internal leading) can be anything, even negative, like if there’s kerns at the bottom of the descenders of a script face - and it doesn’t even have to be a script face: I remember seeing smaller sizes of some Baskerville with a “g” that extended below the Em! (Or maybe it was Palatino.)
2) Don’t forget to account for Didot versus Postscript points.
> What would you suggest bastardizing it to?
I’d just make the top of the “g” more integral, not so slapped on. But only if it’s not a literal revival... in which case I might not stop at the “g”.
This is a dodgy face — it’s a dog’s breakfast with colour issues.
The way it is here, the designer probably figured he had a good balance of disparate elements (“goth remix”, as Hrant put it), so normalizing problem characters kind of defeats the whole purpose of the font.
Raph, why not do your own remix from a selection of old fonts?
Nick: can I quote you in the marketing materials for the font? More seriously, I’m digitizing this because I think it makes an interesting statement, and given the resurgence in blackletter faces, I think it may well find niches in certain designs. I find it more readable than most blackletters, good enough for medium-length runs of text.
hrant (re size): yes, the talus of this font is especially confusing because the cap “V” has an ascender that vastly exceeds the normal ascent, so much so that it could almost collide with the previous line’s descender. Indeed, in one of the larger sizes (I think 16/18 but haven’t measured it carefully) you get the feeling that the compositor adjusted the line breaks to avoid just such a collision.
andigrl: actually, in the clip I posted, all the “s” glyphs happen to be final, so you’re seeing only that form of teh letter. The other form is far more standard. I’ll post three images of it here for your your amusement.
First, a raw scan (normalized for contrast) of one instance. This is a 2400 dpi scan, so it’s about 467 ppem. The printing quality is fairly good for 100-year old letterpress, but of course you can see plenty of paper texture and a bit of uneven ink spread.
Second, I averaged together dozens of instances to form a composite image. I believe this image reveals very nearly the true shape of the metal. You can see a slight lightening of the interior of the letter on corners, indicating that some instances are chipped. This lightening always happens on fragile parts of letters, and the degree of lightening corresponds to the probability of damage. Similarly, the zone of ink spread is a light-gray blur emanating from the body of the letter.
Last, my digitization. You can see that I followed the original shape quite literally, even to the point of different rounding radii for the different corners. I may want to replace some of these rounded corners with sharp ones, but I also don’t want to change the character of the font too much. In particular, at large sizes I find a mixture of soft and sharp corners to be unappealing.
>Nick: can I quote you in the marketing materials for the font?
Yes, for a small licensing fee.
>I averaged together dozens of instances to form a composite image. I believe this image reveals very nearly the true shape of the metal.
That’s like averaging all the portrait shots in a photo shoot and saying that the composite best captures the subject. An interesting modern art idea, intellectually intriguing but dull in practice. There are always one or two shots that stand out, capturing the presence of the subject, far more attractive than the others, or a composite of them can ever be.
It’s also like digitally remastering an old music recording by averaging transcriptions from vinyl. It would be better to work from the original masters, or snip the hiss and clicks. You can keep them as a featured artefact (Portishead, Founders Caslon), but averaging them just creates soft noise.
With letterpress typography neither the type (“the true[?] shape of the metal”) nor an average of impressions reveals the nature of the endeavor: there is an optimum printing. The question is, what is it? That’s open to critical interpretation (how much bite, how much ink, etc.) What was the type founder’s intent? What did he consider the best impression? Was there something that he was aiming for with the typeface that he was never able to achieve in letterpress, that may be possible digitally? I suspect he would have opted for more sharpness, rather than less.
Repurposing a typeface by digitizing invlolves a critical attitude, a value judgement. The “averaging” method is one such judgement as to what is appropriate, but it is non-commital, a statement too fuzzy to be disproved. Not the same as the truth.
Yes, and don’t forget to memorize the EULA verbatim.
> That’s like averaging all the portrait shots in a photo shoot
No, because a metal sort is not a person.
If the point is to make a literal revival, and when you don’t have access to the original metal (plus access to a way to actually print with it in an “intended” way) Raph’s method is supremely useful*, sort of because it removes printing variance. This, even (in fact especially) if the printing at hand was done in a way that the original designer didn’t want (not that all of them were sophisticated enough to worry about that) because the “average” form is still something more than nothing that you can work from, to interpret further.
* It won’t be long before it gets a lot more attention. Raph, send it to APHA for one.
Whether it’s a good idea to average an image seems like a really pleasantly complicated question. On the one hand you could be seeking an average because you want to find out what it is - just curious - or because you think that it is meaningful on an artistic level in an of itself. Maybe valid... Maybe.
You also might want to use it as Hrant said, as the base to jump off from. That seems fairly viable to me. But my intuition is that if you are not careful a blurry image may lead to soft blurry thinking. Not that it has to be that way - but the averaging could be a way of letting a process be a substitute for looking & thinking. A dubious & weak substitute. It might well be a good tool - I can’t say - I haven’t tried it. But it does seem like it could be a kind of crutch you don’t need getting in the way of the real job at hand.
I think that is probably why Nick was suggesting that a new remix might be a better route. Making your own would require a more direct & less automatic relationship with the shapes.
Being really litteral in your revival might be best served by picking an specific imprint to use & improve from ( plus some altrenates to think about ) gives you a more specific outline to develop reactions to - more specific aspects, more personality or character to like or dislike - and to make conscious decisions about.
And picking a specific instance ( or several one at a time ) also brings you face to face with the issue of ink/imprint/paper VS screen raster & laserprinting & other modern printing/output. There have been many Threads here on Typophile that talk about the relationship. The book ’ Counterpunch : making type in the sixteenth century, designing typefaces now ’ by Fred Smeijers has a great section in which talks about the way that laserprinters and other modern printing differ from metal print and what he regards as the mistakes that were made when classic faces were digitized. If you are making a revival it seems like this issue aught maybe; to be issue #1. Do you aready know about these issues? Am I preaching to the choir?
Hrant, What is APHA?
I hope your project goes well. This face has a ton of personality & verve. I think thats why I worry about averaging. It think that verve might be lost in the process.
In re-reading all this I have to admit I think that Nick is probably right about where the excitement is - in the value judgement.
Hrant - do you say this based on what is posted here or with additional material. I looked for your reference - This is as far as I could get without interlibrary loan’s help -
“How many times have APHA members compared two typefaces, thought them similar (if not identical), and felt at a loss to prove it? Such a problem was faced by Kay Amert, Professor and Director of the Typography Laboratory at the University of Iowa, when she examined the types used by two French printers: Simon de Colines and Robert Estienne. She perceived an eerie likeness when before her lay two books: the former’s La Dissection and the latter’s Georgics-like poem La Coltivatione. A bit of a mystic, she cracked the problem in a dream in which the gestalt of a single letter floated before her computer screen; and, lo, superimposition became the answer. By bit-mapping a particular letter from one page in vertical lines and its equivalent from the other in horizontals, she saw consonance where they created a cross-hatch and differences where single lines extended beyond the cross-hatchings. When she presented still another comparison, some grew impatient to learn her views as to why there should be such differences: punch modifications? re-cuttings? variations in inking? make-ready? paper-dampening? But Professor Amert held that such questions called for other seminars and that her purpose was to recommend – to serious type-history scholars – the computer as an aid in addressing problems which have plagued them for centuries. - - Greer Allen”
That thing - no? What do you think make’s ralph’s analysis better? The part about the ’broken/weaker’ bits?
Anyway - I have noticed that there is always a groupo of folk who hold that systems & analysis don’t help the design of letterforms much or at all; and those that think they can be of service. Hrant, I think you Ralph & I belong in the second group as I see it. But I have to admit that even as I seek out systems ( Like DeGroots’ letterform weight model) I remain slightly skeptical of them too and I think that’s prudent even healthy - don’t you?
3. The type seems to have no real rhythm of shapes or internal elements, the way that most “blackletters” do…
The art nouveau era was symbolized by a number of attempt to reform blackletter by mixing it with itself or with foreign styles. To my knowledge, none of the attempts “worked”*
Raph’s find doesn’t either, but it could always revived it anyway. (I don’t know what a user could use it for… the typeface didn’t successfully capture any contextual spirit in its own time, either.)
Call me a designer, but I think that the exact (or as close to exact as possible) recreation of someone else’s intent is totally boring. Put those outlines where YOU think they should go. It isn’t really important where the typefounder put them, I think. This face is not that “good” anyway. If you approach it more from a “designists” point of you, you might actually improve upon the past, rather than just recreate it.**
* After the second world war, some designers—mostly in Germany—had figured out a way to make blackletter work again, and it was not any of the art nouveau methods. Their method was The Pen. Of course many art nouveau forms were formed by the pen, too, but not with “consistency.” Those 1920s faces were more legible, even if Hrant doesn’t like pen-based forms.
**Not everything that existed in the past deserves to be revived, just because it happened to have been created once. In the end, you seem to be reviving this because you like it. But if people had “liked” this face, then it would already be with us in digital form. Show all of those nay-sayers what they were missing by finally making this design work! Its old forms will mostly likely make people think, “you know, maybe there was a reason that this had gone so long without having been revived…”
That’s why I said “like”, and also mentioned another analogy, old recordings.
No analogy is exact, or else it wouldn’t be an analogy.
The analogy is valid: there is a variance of instances in a photo portrait session, just as there is a variance in letterpress type impressions of the same character in a sort. The point is that in a session of “shots” or “instances” where the image is variable, there is always going to be an image capture that is truer than others, and hence also truer than an average. That’s the way people see things.
It is not a scientific truth, but a subjective truth: the discriminating eye of an art director chooses the “selects” for a magazine, and the discriminating eye of the type designer should likewise make its decision. That is the responsibility of design. Averaging is a cop-out.
Having said that, I do find certain kinds of averaging fascinating, but in those cases there is some edge to the procedure, for instance the musical work of Brian Whitman, where he mines massive databases. The equivalent in typography would be a blackletter mix-font that averages every font keyworded “blackletter” at Myfonts.
> if people had “liked” this face, then it would already be with us in digital form.
I think that’s too simple.
> there is a variance of instances in a photo portrait session
Because a human face is a dynamic, organic, living thing.
A metal sort however is a static thing, consicously designed. It’s a lifeless lump.
> Averaging is a cop-out.
No, in this case averaging is a tool, a useful one, because it shows you what some other designer did, in a way otherwise inaccessible. Other designers had a brain too. But, again, this is only if you’re doing a literal revival. Which makes me ask: why don’t you go ahead and state a broader belief of yours: that revivalism is a cop-out?
> The equivalent in typography would be a blackletter mix-font
> that averages every font keyworded “blackletter” at Myfonts.
>A metal sort however is a static thing, consicously designed. It’s a lifeless lump.
But the process of letterpress printing introduces all kinds of unpredictable effects, due to things like varying wear of different pieces of type which represent the same letter, variance of inking, variance of pressure, and variance of paper stock. So how is one to know which is the “true” impression, any more than one is to know which photo captures the “true” personality of the sitter?
>No, in this case averaging is a tool, a useful one,
I agree, it can be useful, but it has to be a starting point, or a stepping stone, not the destination (or almost-destination)
>why don’t you go ahead and state a broader belief of yours: that revivalism is a cop-out?
That’s not my belief. My belief is, and has always been, that revivals have their place in contemporary typography. I have done many revivals, and am working on one at the moment, actually.
What I have argued against is the suffocating dominance of revivals and old typefaces in our type culture.
>Fortunately though the 90s are over.
Generative art that uses algorithms to mine databases is a more recent idea, derived from Google, perhaps, which coincided with the millennium.
Brian Whitman: http://web.media.mit.edu/~bwhitman
A similar “algorithmically driven” openness to unpredictability of form is present in LettError’s work, e.g. Beowolf and the Twin typeface.
> But the process of letterpress printing introduces all kinds of unpredictable effects
Which is exactly what Raph’s process nicely removes. That’s its -obvious- value.
> any more than one is to know which photo captures the “true” personality of the sitter?
Obviously no photo can ever capture anybody’s personality. But the shape of a piece of metal is on a qualitatively different different plane of definition. That’s why the analogy is more confusing than insightful.
> it has to be a starting point, or a stepping stone, not the destination
If you’re making a literal revival, it’s more like a cornerstone.
> Generative art that uses algorithms to mine databases is a more recent idea
Yes, Art. Not Design.
> A similar “algorithmically driven” openness to unpredictability of form
“Anybody who intends to generate randomness by arithmetic means is, of course, in a state of sin.”
- Johnny von Neumann
BTW, I can call him “Johnny” because his student was my teacher. :-)
Could I ask you how you averaged several different s’s into one composite image? Did you do it in Photoshop, or is it some mathematical process that is way over my head?
> I have done many revivals, and am working on one at the moment, actually.
> What I have argued against is the suffocating dominance of revivals and old
> typefaces in our type culture.
If you’re talking about commissions, that’s entirely different. Being paid to explicitly do something is partly excusable (if still somewhat of a cop-out; but we’re all human). However, free-wheelingly contributing to the “suffocating dominance” is a major cop-out, no?
Also, I wonder, what do you think about type designers whose oeuvre is 90% revivals?
Maybe your thoughts on revivalism have indeed not changed since the Paleozoic; but if not, then your vitriol against revivalism has certainly subsided, just in the past half a decade or so! Wow. But why?
Antiphrasis: it’s certainly possible to do it in Photoshop (I used Gimp myself), but tedious to the extreme in quantity. Thus, I hacked up some code to segment, classify, and blend automatically. The particular run that resulted in this “s” image was taken from a half dozen pages, contained about 10,000 total glyph impressions, and took several hours of computer time to crank through. If motivated, I could probably make the tools an order of magnitude or two faster, but even so it’s a huge improvement over doing it all by hand.
Nick said, there is a variance in letterpress type impressions of the same character in a sort.. Yes, and that is simply not the case with standard digital type. (you could have a font with lots of alternates, perhaps even randomly selected, to simulate the flavor of letterpress, but that would be a whole other ball of wax).
Hrant and I had some email exchanges about Baskerville* specimens a few months back, and I pointed out an “a” impression that looked quite garaldish (garaldean?). If I were doing a Baskerville revival, it would be tempting to use this particular impression as a model. However, it would be a lot harder to argue that this form should be considered historically significant. I do think that the averaging technique, could help unlock some of the secrets hidden in these seminal sources.
*I had the pleasure of leafing through a Baskerville Aesop today, at Serendipity Books in Berkeley. Only $475 too!
I had said the true shape of the metal, but want to take that back. The shape of the metal is but one truth, and arguably not the one closest to the intent of the type designer or printer. Metal type is designed for an environment in which there is always gain on the press; the fact that better quality presswork often meant less gain does not mean that the designer’s intent would have been satisfied by a perfectly sharp and gainless reproduction of the metal shapes.
What I would like to claim, instead, is that this averaging procedure produces an image that is very nearly as clear as a high-res capture of the shape of the metal. A straight-up average is going to be a bit blurred, largely because it’s impossible to totally get rid of misregistration errors. But, that said, the very low noise of the result image lends itself well to sharpening (or, for an extremely sophisticated practitioner, deconvolution). I’m playing with this now, and the initial results are fascinating indeed. You can actually see the body of the metal being surrounded by the ink gain.
So yes, I would stand behind the claim that this averaging technique is an analytical tool of unsurpassed power. Further, that these images are arguably better than either going to the metal or choosing individual impressions if one’s goal is creating a faithful reproduction. Whether there’s any artistic or design merit in doing so is another question altogether, and I’m heartened to see the debate over it.
That sounds really interesting... it reminds me of a program I created in my neural networks class a few years back. It analyzed (b/w) pictures of human faces and was able to isolate the eyes and save them separately, and with more training the program got more and more efficient. I would assume that good OCR programs use neural nets to analyze glyphs... but there might be other ways to do it as well. Thanks for the info!
>then your vitriol against revivalism has certainly subsided,
My politics:
Think globally, act locally — that means local culture providing meaningful, profitable work for people everywhere, work which expresses the diversity of culture, engaged with today’s issues. Typographic culture falls far short of that: the typefaces most people in the West use were designed long ago and/or far away, provided by trans-national corporations. There is a role for continuity with the past, but it’s overdone.
I hope that’s not vitriolic.
>what do you think about type designers whose oeuvre is 90% revivals?
I’m not into finger-pointing at individuals, only at TNCs, which are like public institutions.
I’ve argued, on other Typophile threads, that revival is not type design, because it’s taking credit for someone else’s work. But it’s not a black and white issue, there are many shades of originality.
I don’t think I’ve eased up on my cause, after all I’m onto Raph’s case here. But I have nothing against the guy, it’s just a philosophical discussion. He made certain statements about “truth” which I contested, hence the debate — no vitriol.
>further, that these images are arguably better than either going to the metal or choosing individual impressions if one’s goal is creating a faithful reproduction. Whether there’s any artistic or design merit in doing so is another question altogether,
This approach: scientific analysis accurate, art marginalized as a gloss.
It’s not possible to separate the art and technology so neatly. The question of what is faithful is a question of design belief.
For instance, there is a quality of sharpness which would be apparent in an individual impression, which the average is not faithful to.
The scientific assumption is that what can be accomplished with a bit of technology is better than what can’t.
>”Anybody who intends to generate randomness by arithmetic means is, of course, in a state of sin.”
I said unpredictable, not random. A database that constantly changes from day to day is unpredictable, because one cannot predict the future. The appearance of the Twin font, driven by the weather in Minneapolis, is something that von Neumann would have approved as being truly random.
> You can actually see the body of the metal being surrounded by the ink gain.
This is really interesting to me - could you elaborate?
> revival is not type design
Got it.
> The question of what is faithful is a question of design belief.
This approach: art (expressing myself) is what counts, scientific analysis (or just plain thought, really) an impediment. That’s not Design. Fear of analysis, minimization of technique, these things prevent progress. In a way, shunning analysis is a form of revival, that of ideas, approaches! That is most certainly not type design. This field is littered with people who really don’t have the intellectual stamina and curiosity to exceed the styles -but also ideas- of the past.
> there is a quality of sharpness which would be apparent in an
> individual impression, which the average is not faithful to.
I don’t think you understand what Raph is doing.
Averaging isn’t necessarily blurry.
Are you perhaps simply seeing in this the things you need to reject it/analysis?
That’s not what I had in mind. I’m talking about what I do, which is commercial type design, where the art and design involved are hand-eye-mind skills. This is what I’m opposing to a revival that leans heavily on automated techniques.
I was thinking more of Petr von Blokland’s statement “What can be automated will be automated, what cannot be automated is design.” That defines the disputed territory. I don’t like to see subtle design skills replaced by crude technology. It’s all very well to tout averaging as a great new tool, but the averaging idea is not new. I believe Adobe Garamond for one, uses it.
Automated averaging, used as a design platform, is a blunt and facile instrument. As an analytical tool, it really doesn’t help the (re)designer understand the typeface in the way that looking at a variety of instances and drawing one’s own composite does.
>Averaging isn’t necessarily blurry.
Well, I said it wasn’t sharp. Usually sharp is contrasted with blurry, but in the case of averaging type outlines, what one ends up with is not a blur, but a hard edged blob. It’s not blurry, but it’s not sharp, because it has soft corners.
>I don’t think you understand what Raph is doing.
>Are you perhaps simply seeing in this the things you need to reject it/analysis?
Please, lay off the ad hominen comments.
I’m out of this thread.
> This is what I’m opposing to a revival that leans heavily on automated techniques.
But that’s because of your opposition to literal revivals.
You’re confusing the separation between the intent and the methods.
> “... what cannot be automated is design.”
That glosses over the difference between Art and Design that I’m trying to address; the difference between self-expression and serving others. The former hates analysis, the latter requires it. Considering everything else I’ve read you write, I suspect that’s the crux of your rejection of Raph’s effort. All I’m trying to do is understand, everything, yes using personal contexts too. And I do this to improve myself... I need that badly! I’d like to understand why people hate/love the things they do, and make the fonts they do, sort of like reverse-engineering*, and grasping what’s in their heads is a crucial key. And I think there’s a strong parallel here with revivalism: if you get an idea of what the old dead guy was thinking (which is most apparent in the sorts, not the sloppy printing of them) you will do a much better job.
* “Yucky engineers! All they do is ruin our precious painti... I mean typefaces!” ;-)
> I don’t like to see subtle design skills replaced by crude technology.
But this isn’t about that. Anybody making a revival should be interested in the original. And this technology helps in that. It’s really quite obvious. It doesn’t replace, it guides, that’s all. Think of it as an astrolabe.
> the averaging idea is not new.
Well of course it isn’t. Nobody is saying that. Raph’s work however is a quantum leap.
> it really doesn’t help the (re)designer understand the typeface
?!
And what does, shrooms?
> It’s not blurry, but it’s not sharp, because it has soft corners.
Repeat: I don’t think you’re undestanding the technology, and the way to best apply it.
> lay off the ad hominen comments.
?
It was a question! Just answer it (if you like). Please explain to me what I don’t understand about your stance. Assuming you are interested in defending your views (where a tiny bit of self-doubt would help too), as opposed to merely stating them.
I was afraid you’d pull a whine-and-split... How is my questioning more insulting than “revival is not type design”? You have shades? I’m Mister Shades! :-) As much as I don’t have much of a taste for revivalism (and it’s quite sad that you’re trying your darnest to make sure not to appear to be agreeing with me on that), I embrace its utility: it puts bread on the table (repeating the past/present always does) and it’s a form of celebration (and society needs that); but just as important is theory/progress, and this is an area where controlling one’s fear of technology is crucial.
>“Yucky engineers! All they do is ruin our precious painti… I mean typefaces!” ;-)
Is this designist comment really necessary?
Why should I continue with this thread if you’re going to fill it with macho “humour”?
>How is my questioning more insulting than “revival is not type design”?
It wasn’t questioning.
In the first place, you said I don’t understand what Raph is doing.
Then you suggested I’m seeing things in it that aren’t there.
I’m not prepared to continue the discussion after being forced into that kind of corner.
“Revival is not type design” is not a personal comment, it’s a statement of fact. For instance, Hnaffe is the designer of Christian Gothic, not Raph.
> Why should I continue with this thread if you’re going to fill it with macho “humour”?
Macho? I’m not macho. Unless you think you’re a pansy. I don’t think you are. And I would think you prefer humor to insults. I’m trying to work with you here; but I’m not a cyberpsychotherapist; I could never answer that question for you.
> you said I don’t understand what Raph is doing.
A certain aspect of it, yes. You clearly understand the gist of it, and it seems that this is enough to prevent you from trying to understand the details, due to what seems to be an aversion to Analysis?
> “Revival is not type design” is not a personal comment, it’s a statement of fact.
Raph:
> However, it would be a lot harder to argue that this
> form should be considered historically significant.
As Peter hints, revivalism is complex.
I would ask: Who is the font for? Other type designers? Quite unlikely. What is for example THE Baskerville for the contemporary user? Is it JB’s original? No way - virtually nobody has seen that. I would argue that it is more the impression that people have accumulated over time (a lot like what Nick wrote in another thread) from all the Baskervilles they’ve seen. So for example take the “a” in Monotype’s Baskerville. I find it quite ugly; I would never make that on my own. And John Hudson has argued (on the ATypI list) that it’s not necessarily the historic form. But really, it doesn’t matter: it’s what people know, and my commission is to provide something archetypical. So my revival will have that ugliness (just not exactly the same). To me, that’s good design.
>You clearly understand the gist of it, and it seems that this is enough to prevent you from trying to understand to details, due to what seems to be an aversion to Analysis?
Hrant, this is the crux of the ad hominen idea that was in the other thread recently.
You shouldn’t pursue an argument by saying that the other fellow doesn’t understand the topic and you do.
>Macho? I’m not macho.
I didn’t say you were macho. I said it was a macho comment.
As are your frequent quips about “artistes” expressing themselves.
>Unless you think you’re a pansy. I don’t think you are.
“Revival is not type design” is not a personal comment, it’s a statement of fact.
Nick, I beg to differ. It’s simply your opinion.
First, revivalists are never given a complete Adobe character set. Foundry types almost universally never include daggers; section marks; braces; commercial ats; math operators; currency symbols other than those of the country in which the bodies were cast; or oe and ae dipthongs, eths, thorns or German double-esses. In order to include those characters in a font, they have to be designed.
Second, most revivalists credit their sources, when they are known: no one is trying to hoodwink anyone here. As I have stated before, the whole idea behind revivalism is to make typographic resources available to a computerized world which heretofore existed only as metal type or handlettering on a page. You might not consider the process to be creative, but it is transformational, and it requires patience, judgment and an eye for design.
> You shouldn’t pursue an argument by saying that the
> other fellow doesn’t understand the topic and you do.
Pursue an argument? I’m communicating my view that you’re missing something - and I just said you understand the gist of it just fine - the details however are important. Are you listening to the communications, or just blasting a deeper trench?
> I didn’t say you were macho. I said it was a macho comment.
But I said it. It came from my head. There you go again compartmentalizing things, removing context. Although you didn’t do me that favor when I once wrote “that makes you sound stupid”. (You see, Nick, it won’t work - not with me.)
> As are your frequent quips about “artistes” expressing themselves.
Well, I think they’re a problem. Would you rather I dispense with the humor? I doubt it. Would you rather I shut up? Well, of course. But that ain’t gonna happen.
> That’s not my idea of a compliment.
Fortunately, I’m not out to compliment you.
Some of your fonts sometimes though, yes.
There is a distinction between someone coming up with the idea for a typeface, and realizing it in some form or other, and someone else building on that idea.
The originator designs the basic pattern of a typeface, and subsequent adapters and revivalists follow that. Following a design is not designing, it’s interpreting. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not design.
Bob Dylan never wrote any guitar solos for “All Along the Watchtower”, but that doesn’t make Jimi Hendrix the composer.
Nick, I would humbly suggest that the word “design” has a certain meaning to you; unfortunately, your meaning is not the only meaning the word can have . I would also suggest that you check out the Oxford English Dictionary, the ultimate reference source for the English language, to see exactly how many other possible meanings the word has, very few of which agree with you. If you cannot, for a moment, accept the fact that there may be other valid definitions of the creative process, I would further suggest that you lay off the nose candy, or whatever else it is that gives you the idea that your words carry the same authority as, say, the Ten Commandments.
1 a. a preliminary plan or sketch for the making or production of a building, machine, garment, etc.
b. a scheme of lines or shapes forming a pattern or decoration.
c. a plan, purpose, or intention.
4a The general arrangement or layout of a product.
b. an established version of a product.”
Nick Shinn’s distinction between a design and various interpretations does seem to have a basis in the dictionary meaning. Of course, the distinction between a design and an interpretation or realization of it is not a sharp one.
I think Christian gothic follows a singular, complex (though definable in simple terms) basic pattern, and it can be effectively discerned and described with the help of Gerrit Noordzij’s type-descriptive protocols. An understanding—and faithful digitization—of Christian gothic might benefit as much—if not more—from viewing the letterforms through Noordzijian glasses as it will form mechanical averaging. The basic pattern might be less shakely a product of the historically retro(pro)jective imagination than a putative set of Fleishmannian ideas on readability.
>I would further suggest that you lay off the nose candy, or whatever else it is that gives you the idea that your words carry the same authority as, say, the Ten Commandments.
Oldnick, I thought you rejected that sort of personal attack.
Nick, I’m sorry the topic of Is-Revival-Design came up on this thread (Hrant’s to blame), because Raph has quite rightly said he is digitizing the face, not designing it.
>The basic pattern might be less shakely a product of the historically retro(pro)jective imagination than a putative set of Fleishmannian ideas on readability.
That makes a lot of sense. But it is still a face with spotty color. For instance, “e-n” and “e-r” don’t have the same space between them. Maybe what it needs in the digital domain is either some fancy kerning, or alternate forms (courtesy of OpenType). I can’t accept that the poor color is a Fleischmannian necessity.
Yes, it’s all my fault. Even the part about you trying to hide your disdain for the oeuvre of many accomplished type designers, including some you’ve recently colluded with in attacking me. It’s all my fault! Grab your pitchforks and torches!!
> But it is still a face with spotty color. For instance,
> “e-n” and “e-r” don’t have the same space between them.
Does anybody literally-revive spacing, at the micro level?! Besides Justin Howes I mean. Maybe they should? But you certainly can’t think so.
> fancy kerning
Fancy?
Why would it need more than good basic spacing and simple kerning?
> I can’t accept that the poor color is a Fleischmannian necessity.
Wait, I don’t get it. Are you saying that Fleischmann’s work has poor color? At the font level?
And what does that have to do with this again?
—
BTW, I’m glad you changed your mind about leaving.
Oldnick, I thought you rejected that sort of personal attack.
William, my words were very carefully chosen and they were not an attack on Nick, only his definition of “creativity.” I am not dissing the man, just challenging some of his mistaken notions, which is what lively discussions are supposed to be about.
Unless one possesses the power to say “Let there be light” and light does indeed come into being where it did not exist before, nothing a human being does is creative. Rather, if a mere mortal “creates” something new and unique, it is merely an act of synthesis, building on what came before. And nowhere is this fact more true than in the area of typeface design. The basic rules of letterforms are fixed: the design of an A, no matter how unique, must suggest, unequivocally, an archetypal A to the viewer of same, or the design is utter worthless.
Equally, unless one is prepared to state—also unequivocally—that any nuances one may devise for an alphabet have never, in the entire history of mankind, ever been conceived of before (which statement must, by necessity, proceed from Divine omniscience), then one cannot legitimately claim to be a “creator,” when lesser mortals (here read, mere revivalists) are not.
Finally, Nick: enough of the Hrant bashing. I believe that Hrant would be the first to admit that, at times in the past, he has gotten a little edgy and insulting, but...I believe that, within this particular forum, he has been restrained and has offered a lot of constructive criticism and helpful insight. You don’t have to cut the guy any slack: just give him his due.
>Equally, unless one is prepared to state—also unequivocally—that any nuances one may devise for an alphabet have never, in the entire history of mankind, ever been conceived of before
Now YOU’re sounding Hestonian, Nick.
It’s not about nuances. It’s about resolving a unique set of design principles.
But as a matter of fact, I have devised quite a few never-before conceived nuances.
Not that they necessarily have any great typographic value, but they are original.
>trying to hide your disdain for the oeuvre of many accomplished type designers,
Sorry, is my disdain showing? But really, I don’t understand why you’d think I have disdain for people who do revivals. There’s plenty to admire. Sure, I respect original typefaces more, but everyone has their preferences, that doesn’t mean they detest what they don’t adore. Also, while I occasionally deplore the general state of affairs (the glass half empty part of it), I’m not going to point fingers at anyone (except of course font bundlers), least of all indie foundry designers. When I say “revival is not design”, my purpose is to respect the original designer of a typeface — not to insult the revivalist, but to question their (or a third party’s) use of the term “designer” for the bezier-wrangling.
>Does anybody literally-revive spacing,
Look at the pairs I mentioned: the extra serif on the foot of the “r” means that “e_n” will create more of a hole in text than “e_r”. This could be solved by kerning, or by a contextual alternate form of e with a longer tail.
>Are you saying that Fleischmann’s work has poor color?
No, but if Christian Gothic has a divergence of letterforms, for Fleischmannian reasons, that’s problematic (as is often the case when diverging from the norms of centiuries) for text colour.
> I have devised quite a few never-before conceived nuances.
1) You don’t know that.
2) Nuances are such a small part of type design, at least in terms of progress. Think more about the structures. But to do that you need... analysis! Not mere expression.
3) Nuances can exist just in the “simple” act of revival too.
> is my disdain showing?
Not any more. It used to. You seem a lot more careful now. Maybe it’s part of becoming mainstream?
> This could be solved by kerning
Well sure (if the whole is tight enough). I was wondering about your “fancy”... How many pairs do you typically define for let’s say basic Latin?
> if Christian Gothic has a divergence of
> letterforms, for Fleischmannian reasons
What are these reasons, exactly? I hope you’re not sticking with the view that he was an Emigre-style designer. That would be a reason for his descendants to get pissed. :-)
> that’s problematic (as is often the case when diverging
> from the norms of centiuries) for text colour.
No, structural divergence (the important, interesting stuff) does not preclude even color.
I’m going to gently disagree with Nick on a number of points.
First, I believe my averaging technique does produce sharp results, both in the sense of edge acuity and curvature at corners. Keep in mind we’re looking at a 14pt glyph here; on a typical 96dpi screen, that means we’re looking at 25x magnification, or 50x for the last image I posted.
Second, your e_r vs. e_n argument doesn’t convince me that there’s a color problem, for two reasons. For one, note that the left serif of the ’r’ is shorter than the left serif of the ’n’, so the stroke is closer in (the distance between the right tip of the ’e’ and the left serif is pretty much the same). That, in turn, balances the perception of greater space due to the lack of a projecting lower left serif on the ’n’.
Also, ideal spacing for a printed page may well not be ideal spacing for an enlargement viewed on screen. I’ve proposed before that as size increases, gaps become relatively more important, and distances between stems relatively less. So even if e_n still looks a bit gappy to you, that perception may go away completely at actual printed size.
There are significant differences between the various sizes of this font, and these differences have a definite impact on color. I very deliberately chose the 14pt size, mostly because I liked its color best. One of the most important tasks facing a “digitizing interpreter” (or whatever term seems most appropriate) is to choose between the various sources available. There’s an unhealthy tendency, I think, to seek out large sizes for their sharpness and robustness to printing variations. The averaging technique has the potential to change this balance, and more clearly reveal the cool stuff going on in the smaller sizes.
You can actually see the body of the metal being surrounded by the ink gain.
This is really interesting to me - could you elaborate?
You should be to see this fairly clearly in the last image I posted. In particular, at about 5 o’clock, at the thinnest part of the stroke, you should be able to see a dark-gray stripe nestled inside a blacker outline. I believe the dark-gray is actually a good image of the metal, while the outline is composed of ink spread. If so, hopefully I can unlock one of the last mysteries in my quest to understand ATF’s optical scaling, to wit the relative contribution to thickening from the pantograph and the ink spread on printing. I’m looking forward to getting some time to refine my techniques so I can capture even clearer images - the ones I’ve posted here are still a bit murkier than I’d like, especially for visualizing these more subtle aspects.
In any case, hopefully we can dispense with much of the flamewar on this thread, as I am indeed not making any particular claims to creativity. The main reasons I’m doing this font are to learn more, and to refine my tools. I feel good about the progress on those goals even if this font is never used for anything other than the nameplate on the front door of my new apartment.
>> I have devised quite a few never-before conceived nuances.
>1) You don’t know that.
Yes I do. Admittedly I haven’t seen every font ever made, but I feel reasonably sure that I would have come across certain things if they had been done previously. Such as an oldstyle italic monowidth unicase font, for instance. (A structural concept, but one requiring considerable nuancing to execute.)
>You seem a lot more careful now.
Hopefully one learns from one’s mistakes. Type designers can be extremely sensitive to even the most objectively couched analysis, which coming from a peer can seem a bit high and mighty.
>I was wondering about your “fancy”
Just the idea that an e_n kern might be useful.
>structural divergence (the important, interesting stuff) does not preclude even color.
Well, that’s the big challenge, isn’t it.
Raph:
>sharp results, both in the sense of edge acuity and curvature at corners.
I don’t see that. In the original scan there are a number of sharp features, even at the low resolution. It may be uncertain as to which are parts of the design and which are artefacts (and averaging would differentiate), but nonetheless, there is a quality of sporadic sharpness (aka sparkle?) to the individual impression, which disappears in the average.
Also, consider that the quality of different pieces of type will vary, both in mint condition and through varying wear. An average is less than top quality. In the same way, certain imprssions will be “sweeter” than others, due to slight variations in paper and inking. Again, the average dulls the best quality, and it is up to the discriminating eye to discern what is best.
The e_r vs. e_n space: the absence of a lower left serif on the ’n” creates a baseline opening between the letters, so although the fit is slightly tighter, it allows contigual white space to interupt the x-height’s evenness.
>So even if e_n still looks a bit gappy to you, that perception may go away completely at actual printed size.
I’ve designed many text faces, and took that into account.
>my quest to understand ATF’s optical scaling
Why don’t you work with a face where you also have access to the metal type? Then you could compare that with the impression, rather than deduce it.
>hopefully we can dispense with much of the flamewar
I apologize for inadverently flaming you, as a result of my ongoing headbutting with Hrant. What you’re doing is fascinating, and creative, and throws a number of philosophical design issues into the spotlight.
...as a matter of fact, I have devised quite a few never-before conceived nuances.
I am utterly flabbergasted. That statement is, at the very least, rather provincial and narrow-minded, although “pompous,” “self-serving” and “incredibly arrogant” work well, too. And, please notice that these comments are directed at the statement, nor the stater.
Nick, you continue to confuse fact and opinion. You are welcome to state your opinions, but please do not elevate them to the status of irrefutable truth, especially when the strongest case you can make for the statements is, “Because I say so.”
As difficult for you as it may be, you have to come to terms with the old saw that there are few things really new under the sun. The wheel was a marvelous invention, but it was not without precedent in the natural world. Similarly, there were anthills before there were pyramids, water droplets before there were telescopes, and supernovas before there were atomic bombs.
I do not believe that anyone else here is belittling the kind of type design you pursue—in fact, I believe you have received praise for it from some unlikely quarters. So, please, don’t belittle the kind of type design that other people pursue, simply because it doesn’t fit your opinion of what a type designer should do.
>So, please, don’t belittle the kind of type design that other people pursue, simply because it doesn’t fit your opinion of what a type designer should do.
Nick, I’m not belittling anybody, brush that chip off your shoulder.
You’re criticizing me for daring to claim some originality for some of my work.
The onus is not on me to prove originality, but on you to disprove it.
“The proof of a hypothesis is failing to disprove it.’ (Popper)
So I challenge you, show me another oldstyle italic monowidth unicase font (Panoptica Italic).
>And, please notice that these comments are directed at the statement, nor the stater.
Who are you kidding?
>there are few things really new under the sun.
Nonsense. There are new inventions all the time, including typefaces.
The principle that separates a collection of reused parts from an amalgam that becomes something new is that of emergence, where the whole is smarter than the sum of the parts:
The onus is not on me to prove originality, but on you to disprove it.
Nick, Sir Karl Popper notwithstanding, with an attitude like that, you might want to consider a side career in civil litigation. I understand that it’s far more lucrative than type design.
...show me another oldstyle italic monowidth unicase font (Panoptica Italic.
You win: in the face of your monumental and unprecedented accomplishments, who am I—a lesser mortal (and a bottom-feeding revivalist, to boot)—to question your authority?
Emergence, synergy, same difference: they both describe a synthetic process, not a creative one.
Nick Shinn, the quote from Popper is not completely accurate, though the spirit is right. Popper would say that failure to refute is the best test or “corroboration” of a theory. He held that proof, in the strict sense, is only possible in mathematics. Scientific theories always are open to refutation and modification by new evidence.
OldNick, I am baffled by your view that my earlier quote from you is not a personal attack on Nick Shinn. And I can’t see anything in Nick S’s comments that implies that he has God-like powers.
I do see ad hominem arguments coming from Hrant, but this is expected, as Hrant has defended them as legitimate.
But I am quite surprised to see them coming from you, as you started a thread about proper discussion rules. I have taught introductory university courses on logic, so I am aware of the issues here. Of course I am not claiming any special authority on these matters, and can be wrong and often have been.
Well yes, type design is a synthetic endeavor, but I believe it can occasionally be creative and original, even if you don’t.
Not wanting to provoke further personal sarcastic remarks, let’s just agree to differ.
Not wanting to provoke further personal sarcastic remarks, let’s just agree to differ.
That’s fine with me, and please forgive the sarcasm: it was an unfortunate lapse, but at least it proved effective in gaining the concession it sought, namely: you have your opinions, I have mine, and each is entitled to his own.
William, I think these forums benefit immensely from the insights and background you provide, and I am pleased to have learned a few things from them along the way. Thank you.
They have to get over it.
That’s one difference between a craftsman and an artist.
> Well, that’s the big challenge, isn’t it.
No, not really. A much bigger challenge is to find the limits of even color (no matter if the structures are conventional or innovative).
> the quality of different pieces of type will vary
Sure, but that’s the best that can be done. If one had access to the original punches, that would be even better, but that’s pretty rare.
> the average dulls the best quality
You’re not paying attention. The average provides information as to what the original was, then you can decide what to do with it. Especially considering that offset printing is so regular, it’s pretty artificial to fake things the way you’re proposing.
> I’ve designed many text faces
Our definitions of “text face” vary. (Was that Western enough?)
> Why don’t you work with a face where you also have access to the metal type?
Obviously because:
1) He likes this one.
2) His averaging technique gets you 90% there.
> What you’re doing is fascinating, and creative, and
Useful. To a craftsman.
> The onus is not on me to prove originality, but on you to disprove it.
This is not a court of law, but one of public opinion.
More than making claims, you need to know your limits.
> Who are you kidding?
The same people you were trying to?
> a side career in civil litigation.
In England.
> I do see ad hominem arguments coming from Hrant
And what we see from you again is stirring trouble, as an excuse to constantly remind us of how Typophile should be just like you think it should. Let it be - give up your cherished Control. Work on the content.
> I have taught introductory university courses on logic
Just don’t teach one about behavior in a heterogenous society, please.
—
You know what’s the most comical though? Somebody who refutes Analysis but wants to apply The Scientific Principle to defend his work.
The core of this argument directly concerns the textbook struggle between Art and Design, between expression and function, between the self and others. It will never end.
This topic of ’original work’ vs. ’nothing new under the sun’ has come up before & with similar results - some lean one way & some another. Nobody is willing to be absolutist about it when pressed. Not even old nick. It’s a question of attitude. Some of us think that artistes are prima donnas & some folks think they can be if they want to. Personally - I want. Without the hope of making something better - why try? Even with a revival. Want to tell me how to do it better? Great. That’s what I am here for. To learn as much as possible.
Even though this thread has been overly rancourous - (nose candy? good golly.) - I have still learned a lot from the arguement. Thank you. Really.
This thread has only sporadically dealt with Ralph’s work. I think it’s interesting and probably useful. But the best proof of that will come when it is applied to a face. Then we will see for ourselves how useful this technique was for Ralph.
Hrant, you say: “The core of this argument directly concerns the textbook struggle between Art and Design, between expression and function, between the self and others.” I want to ask, which argument? The one about averaging? Can it truly be said the the choice for or against averaging is tantamount to a binary choice between the self and others. And what about the flow of personal jabs, sarcasm and more. How do they fit on this scale of the struggle between the self and others? (I say this with some hesitation, because every posting, this one included, lies somewhere on that spectrum.)
Aren’t you running the risk of forcing a considerable range of mostly ad hoc* opinions into two too sharply segregated and ’occupational ethically’ or ’occupational honourability’ loaded boxes?
It seems to me this encourages a jaded habit of listening, an ecology of misrepresentation, a hermeneutics of suspicion and an unnecessary balkanization of typecultural subcultures.
Not shooting; surely not the same as making a smaller target?
>That’s one difference between a craftsman and an artist.
Have pity on the thin-skinned artisan.
>A much bigger challenge is to find the limits of even color.
We’ve been there, done that — ITC and Typsettra faces of the 1970s, generally considered too grey, today.
>You’re not paying attention.
No, you’re not paying attention.
>Our definitions of “text face” vary.
My definition: when I design a typeface, unless it’s specifically a display face, I test prototypes in text settings to refine the color. I look at the fonts in sizes from 6 to 14 pt, in different column widths, ragged and justified, tight and open leading. On a couple of newspaper fonts, I’ve tested prototypes on newsprint. As I said, I’ve designed many text faces: Beaufort, Bodoni Egyptian, Brown, Fontesque Text, Goodchild, Merlin, Oneleigh, Paradigm, Shinn Sans, Richler, Worldwide. All these fonts come with sidebearings wide enough, and apertures open enough, for text setting. Some of them turned out with better text colour than others, obviously, and Merlin is a bit of a stretch as a text face (the Italic is better than the roman, actually), but they were all designed primarily as text faces. Your definition?
>Obviously because:
Mindreading again?
>Useful. To a craftsman.
Therefore, all those who make fonts.
>The same people you were trying to?
I’m not making personal sarcastic remarks and passing them off as fair comment.
>In England.
More of a US thing.
>stirring trouble
From you, ha!
>Somebody who refutes Analysis
Huh? I offer a critique of an anaytical method, and you respond with “You don’t understand.” Take a look at Raph’s raw scan side-by-side with his averaged outcome: the quality of sharpness has gone missing. This issue is not especially obvious in the “S”, but in the joint of the “n”, where the hairline joins the main stem, it will be quite problematic.
>the textbook struggle between Art and Design, between expression and function, between the self and others.
I wish you’d stop laying this “art/expression/selfish” trip on me. I’m assessing the technical aspects of this font, and Raph’s averaging technique, from my experience as a type designer/craftsman, making fonts that I sell for a living, which the people who buy use to set type. The dichotomy that interests me is between handcraft and automation, and where the boundary falls.
Nick, you say: “The dichotomy that interests me is between handcraft and automation”. Bringing my previous remarks about dichotomies into the handcraft / automation arena: Isn’t your problem with averaging that it averages, not that is automated? Posterizing could solve the indistinctness_of_the_countour problem. This might be a useful starting point for autotracing, but this wouldn’t necessarily preculude craft decisions about normalizing brezier curves and the rest. Such normalization, if that is the best word for it, would occur probably in conversation with the actual range of impressions, including its outliers and relevant similar features in role-architecturally similar components as much as in conversation with the averaged item.
> But the best proof of that will come when it is applied to a face.
I agree, although I would caution against the term “proof”. Since this is not a science, some people will always see what they want. Like the pen in Legato.
> Can it truly be said the the choice for or against averaging
> is tantamount to a binary choice between the self and others.
No, humans are not binary. But concepts are “pure”. We’re each always in the middle, along different points on the “axes” of opposites. A person’s aversion to or admiration for Raph’s technique is an aspect of the argument of Art versus Design. And the reason to address the pure extremes is that I think it’s the only way to understand the middle.
> Not shooting; surely not the same as making a smaller target?
I don’t know, Nick, what else to call avoidance of direct questions, and answers that don’t tell the whole picture, or sometimes not even the central point?
The way not to be a target is not to feel like one; or maybe not to want to be one...
> We’ve been there, done that — ITC and Typsettra faces
> of the 1970s, generally considered too grey, today.
We haven’t done jack. Admitting that some fonts are too gray only tells us there’s an issue. Yippee. Introducing variance in typographic color for aesthetic effect (color hooliganism?) is child’s play. I’m talking about function here.
We have no idea what we’re doing. We don’t even grasp Familiarity!! Have we “arrived”? Laughable. We’ve only arrived at a mundane, crass place. Let’s leave.
> I’ve designed many text faces
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it, Nick.
Also: almost anybody can make a text face imitatively. When you know a model works, because it has for so long, aping it to arrive at yet another text face is... not type design? :-)
> I offer a critique of an anaytical method
That was not critique, that was rejection.
And you do it all the time; just like you did with Larson.
> Merlin is a bit of a stretch as a text face
Riiight.
I can’t wait to see Eunoia-Text used for a book.
> Your definition?
I’m working on it. No actually, I’m working on the fonts, not the definition. But I do know when I see one that isn’t.
> Therefore, all those who make fonts.
To different degrees, yes. Each of us has both the artist and the craftsman in him. It becomes a matter of honesty, and selflessness. Somebody who’s a readability relativist is closer to the Art end of the axis than somebody who spends years reasearching and thinking about the very real mechanics of human cognition.
BTW, are you now saying that Raph’s technique is useful to all those who make fonts? If you were making a literal revival (even if you’d probably have to be commissioned to do so) and you had it freely available to you, would you use it?
> the quality of sharpness has gone missing.
I think you’re seeing what you want to see.
> I wish you’d stop laying this “art/expression/selfish” trip on me.
And I wish you’d shed your aversion to technique.
Now what?
> making fonts that I sell for a living
Which is opposed to progress. Don’t worry, I do it too - we’re all human. The difference is some of us admit it.
> The dichotomy that interests me is between handcraft
> and automation, and where the boundary falls.
> I agree, although I would caution against the term “proof”. Since this is not a science, some people will always see what they want. Like the pen in Legato
Maybe I meant proof as in a smoke proof. :-) Certainly not as in a scientific proof ( which is also subject to revisting after all and is just a prepondernace of current evidence). I just mean the evidence to know if it has value isn’t all there yet. And when it is it’s up to each of us to judge or to hold off & continue being skeptically interested & maybe hopeful. What is being discussed now is a technique. I just mean trhat the value of that technique can be judged later on by it’s resulting product. Via Ralph in this case. Or maybe via sombody else later.
I got cited for sarcasm, and it was a fair cop. It isn’t pretty when you do it, either.
If you’re really harbor such animosity toward Hrant, might I suggest that, at next year’s TypeCon, you two arrange a Steel Cage Death Match, “pro” wrestling style, no holds barred. The winner could probably retire comfortable on the proceeds from ticket sales.
>If you’re really harbor such animosity toward Hrant
Sorry, I’m not into hate.
It’s just a forum, and we wouldn’t keep dancing if we didn’t enjoy each other’s company.
>BTW, are you now saying that Raph’s technique is useful to all those who make fonts? If you were making a literal revival (even if you’d probably have to be commissioned to do so) and you had it freely available to you, would you use it?
I mean useful in principle. I can’t go beyond that, as the tool is still in development. It might be something that I could use in the future, but I can’t say how. New tools aren’t always used for their intended purposes.
At the moment, I’m working on a revival, but taking a quite opposite approach. I’ve scanned and traced glyphs in the past, but the method I’m now using is a magnifying glass to look at the printed image, and bezier-drawing the glyphs “by eye”. Right brain analysis.
I’m now using is a magnifying glass to look at the printed image, and bezier-drawing the glyphs “by eye”.
just curious... is this the first time you’ve used this method?
and oldnick, there’s a much more interesting challenge outstanding between nick and hrant: some of us are waiting to see what will become of Eunoia Text.
I don’t think it is novel at all… that is how many revive old letterforms. Again it has to do with whether you want to reuse old forms exactly as they might have been, or if you want to capture their idea and use that in a previously unseen manner.
How Nick Shinn interprets old type is probably much more interesting for font users than getting old glyphs mapped to a keyboard driver would be.
It’s the first time I’ve used a magnifying glass, and it’s the first time I’ve made an “exact” facsimile. (From a 12 pt text setting in an 1869 book.)
My previous revivals were more interpretative, and my source material was much larger, from specimen books usually.
Yes. The last typeface I drew/wrote on paper and then scanned was Oneleigh, 1998. (except for Panoptica script). However, I often work out design ideas with pen and paper, without scanning these investigative sketches.
Isn’t the conscious introduction of “uncertainty” artificial?
The first outline font I made was a process of looking closely (no magnifying glass) at a classic Armenian metal face, and recreating the forms directly in bezier... on a grid! A slanted grid!! Needless to say, it came out like crap. The two reasons for this [process] were that: I didn’t know that I didn’t have the talent to do it, and didn’t know the dark side of the grid; and that I didn’t have a scanner. But it wasn’t artificial. Not using available tools though is too... artsy :-) for me.
BTW, do you have a photo of two guys banging harps?
Sorry, I should have used the correct term, “loupe”.
Well, “loupe” certainly doesn’t conjure up visions of deerstalker hats and calabash pipes in the same way that “magnifying glass” does, but that’s not really the point. I inferred, and I believe you implied, that there is something unique in the method you have chosen to undertake this project which sets it apart from the methods of other revivalists. I am fairly confident that even those revivalists who scan and autotrace their character have to draw the missing characters and subject them to the same conversion process as their “found” characters, so that all of the characters in their fonts retain the same rough edges. In the process, they too are using their eyes and their hands. So, your approach is unique because...?
Nick, you have an impressive body of work which speaks for itself: you don’t need to prove anything. So, please, quit trying.
>Isn’t your problem with averaging that it averages, not that is automated? Posterizing could solve the indistinctness_of_the_countour problem.
No, that would change (opposite of sharp) blurry to (opposite of sharp) smooth. Still not sharp.
My general awareness of averaging is that it highlights certain information at the expense of other information. For instance, if you average an 80-10-90 triangle and a 10-80-90 triangle, you end up with a 45-45-90 triangle, losing the quality of sharpness.
Hrant:
>Isn’t the conscious introduction of “uncertainty” artificial?
That’s what I’m saying: the inherent uncertainty of averaging (a refined form of guesswork) is artificial. It creates a slightly vague simulacrum of the original. Drawing a purposeful interpretation is more “genuine”.
>Not using available tools though is too… artsy :-) for me.
I wouldn’t say that a selected use of more traditional techniques is peculiarly artsy, because a lot of modern artists have abandoned the traditional tools, these last 30 or so years. Also, drawing was a technique used by all designers, including engineers, as Michael Harvey pointed out in his talk at TypeCon2004.
I think not using the available tools (very different than using an imperfect tool - as all tools are however) is a lot like those cheesy “weathered” fonts.
>I believe you implied, that there is something unique in the method you have chosen to undertake this project
Huh?. In response to Hrant’s question of whether I would use Raph’s averager, I just described how I was doing a revival at the moment in a somewhat opposite fashion. You’re the one that said it was novel, and then Dan said it was how many people did it.
>Nick, you have an impressive body of work which speaks for itself:
Thanks, your work is pretty cool too. I particularly like all the bizarre letterforms, that’s an interest we share.
>you don’t need to prove anything. So, please, quit trying.
Nick, I’m hesitant to talk about my work for fear of grandstanding, but I post to Typophile a lot, so I think it’s OK to mention it once in a while, particularly if someone asks me about it.
>you don’t need to prove anything. So, please, quit trying.
Is it the icon that’s bothering you? I would ask the artist to redo it with a slightly less imperious expression, but I need that to bolster my ego for taking on Hrant.
Nick wrote: This issue is not especially obvious in the “S”, but in the joint of the “n”, where the hairline joins the main stem, it will be quite problematic.
I don’t think the image fully supports this assertion. Ink does tend to pool a bit at such joins, but that is the nature of letterpress printing. In any case, you can fairly clearly see that it’s ink rather than metal in this image, because the ink is imaged darker than the adjacent metal impression.
I don’t know what you’re able to see here, but to me it’s as if I were seeing images from the Hubble Space Telescope for the first time, and some of the people around me were saying, “but the atmospheric variation is part of the experience of viewing stars. Would you deny the romance embodied in “twinkle twinkle little star” in your embrace of cold space-based telescopes?” Screw that. My goal is to see what’s going on as clearly as possible, and it’s clear to me that the averaging technique is useful for that.
>My goal is to see what’s going on as clearly as possible, and it’s clear to me that the averaging technique is useful for that.
Looking at what was there ’clearly’ may or may not be best served by your technique. Cool as it is. And it is cool I think! Very cool. After you post more stuff more folks may be convinced. I am about half way there. I might still rather look at 30 or 300 specimens on paper & judge what I think is best in them... or by looking directly at metal if I had it. Clearly you have something there. If it’s the metal I don’t know. Even if it isn’t showing the metal it might be a great tool anyway for other reasons.
But then, what happens AFTER your find or develop a clear reference. If you have an absolutely ideal reference set - with punches even; still, you still have to decide if you are going to be slavishly litteral to whatever source or reinterpret using whatever technique of hand or mind. No matter what tools or techniques you use you still have to make some judgements about the digitization. And no matter your intentions some elements your chosen process will impact the results even if it’s only because it shapes or influences your thought. Those two things will both influence the product. This is the part that I still find most interesting.
Speaking of which, how do you plan to use your averaged & processed image? Will you import into illustrator & draw a vector over it so you can see your greyscale image?
What is your intent for that line? Do you want to get the metal & then let a little ink into your outline? Like in the joint of the n? Or is it the technique of finding the metal hidden in the impressions that is dearer to you?
What would anybody else do? I understand the idea of looking for the spirit of the thing - but let’s say you have a perfect metal specimen plus lots of impressions - Then what? Nick S, you say you are drawing by eye - I can imagine it causes you to look more closely at shapes & be less rote in your construction. Sort of like doing a ’Countour Drawing’ of a nude figure in art school. It forces you to be more deliberate - not looking down at the paper. I am I intuiting what your up to there? Hrant- what’s your technique? Dan? Old Nick?
I’m seeing what I anticipated, which is that while the technique is excellent along the main stretches, it is not much help at sharp corners — the top left and right corners, the bottom right corner, and the inside joint. At these points interpretation is required, and that interpretation will determine much of the character of the revival.
To continue your analogy of the Hubble: If one is familiar with metal type, one has already been to the stars, and knows what they look like. So one is able to filter out the haze when looking at them from afar.
Eben: well said. It’s waay cool, but what happens next, and how does this change that?
>am I intuiting what your up to there?
Sort of. I went to the loupe because on this particular face I wasn’t having much success with other techniques. I’ve long believed that a metal-to-digital, letterpress-to-offset revival is about (re)creating an effect, so there’s lots of scope for how you do it.
Raph, I alluded to this earlier, and I’m still wondering: have you tried to penetrate the ’ductal logic’ underlying the Christian Gothic letterforms? That is, doing the ’frontal arithmatic”.
a jaded habit of listening, an ecology of misrepresentation, a hermeneutics of suspicion and an unnecessary balkanization of typecultural subcultures...outliers and relevant similar features in role-architecturally similar components...ductal logic...frontal arithmatic (sic)
Peter,
You have made several comments in this forum that I have found rather puzzling; perhaps others have, perhaps not—I can only speak for myself. In any event, may I suggest that erudition which elucidates is always welcome and appreciated, whereas erudition which obfuscates doesn’t really contribute a lot. In other words: fewer three-dollar words, a little more clarity.
15.Feb.2005 1.59pm
I remembered that H
15.Feb.2005 4.23pm
OK, there's something in the IN specimen book (1990).
From page 134:
"Arthur Christian, directeur de l'Imprimerie nationale et bibliophile, demande en 1900
5.Jul.2005 1.40pm
Hrant,
Yes, if you could scan the page(s) from the Imprimerie specimen book, that would be great. I’m working from the 16pt from the “Debuts de L’Imprimerie en France” book mentioned above (have no idea how I mistranscribed it as “Origines”). It has a fairly complete set of sorts, but is missing miniscule w and magiscule X (or, possibly, I overlooked their occurrences).
And thanks for pointing me to the IN specimen book; I wasn’t aware of it. It’s high on my want list now.
Also, if people are really curious to see my work-in-progress, ask and I’ll post. I’m kinda excited about this one.
5.Jul.2005 3.29pm
Avec plaisir:
(664Kb) http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/gothique.gif
It’s 600dpi, and cleaned up -carefully- to reduce filesize & get rid of the stuff on the back of the page. This is (almost) the best I could do - the repro in the book isn’t so hot.
> have no idea how I mistranscribed it as “Origines”
Well, that is the title of a predecessor to the 1905 edition...
—
So you’re doing a literal revival? Like you’re not going to improve that “g”? It looks like a “y” that’s a bit too happy to see its righthand glyph...
hhp
6.Jul.2005 12.46pm
Thanks. I was hoping it was a more complete showing, but at having all the sizes is helpful. I see that what they have listed as a “14” is what I’ve measured as 16. Sigh, one of these days I’ll actually learn to measure ancient sizes.
So you’re doing a literal revival? Like you’re not going to improve that “g”?
What I’ve drawn so far is quite literal, but I do plan on improving some of the glyphs. The cap “T”, for example, reads too much like an “E”. I’m not yet convinced I need to redo the “g”, though. It’s perfectly legible, and is a very distinctive feature of the font. It’s also historically grounded, having the same shape as in Collard Mansion’s 1484 Ovid Metamorphoses (arguably a more direct influence on this font than Gutenberg; in particular, the final letter variations are almost a direct match). [plate 22 in Morison and Day]
What would you suggest bastardizing it to?
6.Jul.2005 12.55pm
> one of these days I’ll actually learn to measure ancient sizes.
1) I don’t think there’s a reliable way anyway. The talus (internal leading) can be anything, even negative, like if there’s kerns at the bottom of the descenders of a script face - and it doesn’t even have to be a script face: I remember seeing smaller sizes of some Baskerville with a “g” that extended below the Em! (Or maybe it was Palatino.)
2) Don’t forget to account for Didot versus Postscript points.
> What would you suggest bastardizing it to?
I’d just make the top of the “g” more integral, not so slapped on. But only if it’s not a literal revival... in which case I might not stop at the “g”.
hhp
6.Jul.2005 1.14pm
in which case I might not stop at the “g”
the beauty of OpenType: alternates.
6.Jul.2005 3.58pm
Raph, I’m really curious about the letter “s”. Would you change that at all or leave it as is?
7.Jul.2005 3.33am
This is a dodgy face — it’s a dog’s breakfast with colour issues.
The way it is here, the designer probably figured he had a good balance of disparate elements (“goth remix”, as Hrant put it), so normalizing problem characters kind of defeats the whole purpose of the font.
Raph, why not do your own remix from a selection of old fonts?
10.Jul.2005 7.21pm
Nick: can I quote you in the marketing materials for the font? More seriously, I’m digitizing this because I think it makes an interesting statement, and given the resurgence in blackletter faces, I think it may well find niches in certain designs. I find it more readable than most blackletters, good enough for medium-length runs of text.
hrant (re size): yes, the talus of this font is especially confusing because the cap “V” has an ascender that vastly exceeds the normal ascent, so much so that it could almost collide with the previous line’s descender. Indeed, in one of the larger sizes (I think 16/18 but haven’t measured it carefully) you get the feeling that the compositor adjusted the line breaks to avoid just such a collision.
andigrl: actually, in the clip I posted, all the “s” glyphs happen to be final, so you’re seeing only that form of teh letter. The other form is far more standard. I’ll post three images of it here for your your amusement.
First, a raw scan (normalized for contrast) of one instance. This is a 2400 dpi scan, so it’s about 467 ppem. The printing quality is fairly good for 100-year old letterpress, but of course you can see plenty of paper texture and a bit of uneven ink spread.
Second, I averaged together dozens of instances to form a composite image. I believe this image reveals very nearly the true shape of the metal. You can see a slight lightening of the interior of the letter on corners, indicating that some instances are chipped. This lightening always happens on fragile parts of letters, and the degree of lightening corresponds to the probability of damage. Similarly, the zone of ink spread is a light-gray blur emanating from the body of the letter.
Last, my digitization. You can see that I followed the original shape quite literally, even to the point of different rounding radii for the different corners. I may want to replace some of these rounded corners with sharp ones, but I also don’t want to change the character of the font too much. In particular, at large sizes I find a mixture of soft and sharp corners to be unappealing.
11.Jul.2005 5.08am
>Nick: can I quote you in the marketing materials for the font?
Yes, for a small licensing fee.
>I averaged together dozens of instances to form a composite image. I believe this image reveals very nearly the true shape of the metal.
That’s like averaging all the portrait shots in a photo shoot and saying that the composite best captures the subject. An interesting modern art idea, intellectually intriguing but dull in practice. There are always one or two shots that stand out, capturing the presence of the subject, far more attractive than the others, or a composite of them can ever be.
It’s also like digitally remastering an old music recording by averaging transcriptions from vinyl. It would be better to work from the original masters, or snip the hiss and clicks. You can keep them as a featured artefact (Portishead, Founders Caslon), but averaging them just creates soft noise.
With letterpress typography neither the type (“the true[?] shape of the metal”) nor an average of impressions reveals the nature of the endeavor: there is an optimum printing. The question is, what is it? That’s open to critical interpretation (how much bite, how much ink, etc.) What was the type founder’s intent? What did he consider the best impression? Was there something that he was aiming for with the typeface that he was never able to achieve in letterpress, that may be possible digitally? I suspect he would have opted for more sharpness, rather than less.
Repurposing a typeface by digitizing invlolves a critical attitude, a value judgement. The “averaging” method is one such judgement as to what is appropriate, but it is non-commital, a statement too fuzzy to be disproved. Not the same as the truth.
Ultimately there is no truth, only design.
11.Jul.2005 8.49am
> Yes, for a small licensing fee.
Yes, and don’t forget to memorize the EULA verbatim.
> That’s like averaging all the portrait shots in a photo shoot
No, because a metal sort is not a person.
If the point is to make a literal revival, and when you don’t have access to the original metal (plus access to a way to actually print with it in an “intended” way) Raph’s method is supremely useful*, sort of because it removes printing variance. This, even (in fact especially) if the printing at hand was done in a way that the original designer didn’t want (not that all of them were sophisticated enough to worry about that) because the “average” form is still something more than nothing that you can work from, to interpret further.
* It won’t be long before it gets a lot more attention. Raph, send it to APHA for one.
hhp
11.Jul.2005 9.32am
Whether it’s a good idea to average an image seems like a really pleasantly complicated question. On the one hand you could be seeking an average because you want to find out what it is - just curious - or because you think that it is meaningful on an artistic level in an of itself. Maybe valid... Maybe.
You also might want to use it as Hrant said, as the base to jump off from. That seems fairly viable to me. But my intuition is that if you are not careful a blurry image may lead to soft blurry thinking. Not that it has to be that way - but the averaging could be a way of letting a process be a substitute for looking & thinking. A dubious & weak substitute. It might well be a good tool - I can’t say - I haven’t tried it. But it does seem like it could be a kind of crutch you don’t need getting in the way of the real job at hand.
I think that is probably why Nick was suggesting that a new remix might be a better route. Making your own would require a more direct & less automatic relationship with the shapes.
Being really litteral in your revival might be best served by picking an specific imprint to use & improve from ( plus some altrenates to think about ) gives you a more specific outline to develop reactions to - more specific aspects, more personality or character to like or dislike - and to make conscious decisions about.
And picking a specific instance ( or several one at a time ) also brings you face to face with the issue of ink/imprint/paper VS screen raster & laserprinting & other modern printing/output. There have been many Threads here on Typophile that talk about the relationship. The book ’ Counterpunch : making type in the sixteenth century, designing typefaces now ’ by Fred Smeijers has a great section in which talks about the way that laserprinters and other modern printing differ from metal print and what he regards as the mistakes that were made when classic faces were digitized. If you are making a revival it seems like this issue aught maybe; to be issue #1. Do you aready know about these issues? Am I preaching to the choir?
Hrant, What is APHA?
I hope your project goes well. This face has a ton of personality & verve. I think thats why I worry about averaging. It think that verve might be lost in the process.
11.Jul.2005 1.07pm
http://www.printinghistory.org/
They recently had a article by Kay Amert about computer-aided letterform analysis; but Raph’s stuff puts that firmly in the shade.
hhp
11.Jul.2005 1.59pm
In re-reading all this I have to admit I think that Nick is probably right about where the excitement is - in the value judgement.
Hrant - do you say this based on what is posted here or with additional material. I looked for your reference - This is as far as I could get without interlibrary loan’s help -
“How many times have APHA members compared two typefaces, thought them similar (if not identical), and felt at a loss to prove it? Such a problem was faced by Kay Amert, Professor and Director of the Typography Laboratory at the University of Iowa, when she examined the types used by two French printers: Simon de Colines and Robert Estienne. She perceived an eerie likeness when before her lay two books: the former’s La Dissection and the latter’s Georgics-like poem La Coltivatione. A bit of a mystic, she cracked the problem in a dream in which the gestalt of a single letter floated before her computer screen; and, lo, superimposition became the answer. By bit-mapping a particular letter from one page in vertical lines and its equivalent from the other in horizontals, she saw consonance where they created a cross-hatch and differences where single lines extended beyond the cross-hatchings. When she presented still another comparison, some grew impatient to learn her views as to why there should be such differences: punch modifications? re-cuttings? variations in inking? make-ready? paper-dampening? But Professor Amert held that such questions called for other seminars and that her purpose was to recommend – to serious type-history scholars – the computer as an aid in addressing problems which have plagued them for centuries. - - Greer Allen”
That thing - no? What do you think make’s ralph’s analysis better? The part about the ’broken/weaker’ bits?
Anyway - I have noticed that there is always a groupo of folk who hold that systems & analysis don’t help the design of letterforms much or at all; and those that think they can be of service. Hrant, I think you Ralph & I belong in the second group as I see it. But I have to admit that even as I seek out systems ( Like DeGroots’ letterform weight model) I remain slightly skeptical of them too and I think that’s prudent even healthy - don’t you?
11.Jul.2005 1.59pm
This is an interesting bastard of a mix (the original, not Raph’s methods…). Looking at the sample in the top post, I’m struck by three things.
1. That lowercase g has a top that is so Schwabacher.
2. But that L is almost a Civilité
3. The type seems to have no real rhythm of shapes or internal elements, the way that most “blackletters” do…
The art nouveau era was symbolized by a number of attempt to reform blackletter by mixing it with itself or with foreign styles. To my knowledge, none of the attempts “worked”*
Raph’s find doesn’t either, but it could always revived it anyway. (I don’t know what a user could use it for… the typeface didn’t successfully capture any contextual spirit in its own time, either.)
Call me a designer, but I think that the exact (or as close to exact as possible) recreation of someone else’s intent is totally boring. Put those outlines where YOU think they should go. It isn’t really important where the typefounder put them, I think. This face is not that “good” anyway. If you approach it more from a “designists” point of you, you might actually improve upon the past, rather than just recreate it.**
* After the second world war, some designers—mostly in Germany—had figured out a way to make blackletter work again, and it was not any of the art nouveau methods. Their method was The Pen. Of course many art nouveau forms were formed by the pen, too, but not with “consistency.” Those 1920s faces were more legible, even if Hrant doesn’t like pen-based forms.
**Not everything that existed in the past deserves to be revived, just because it happened to have been created once. In the end, you seem to be reviving this because you like it. But if people had “liked” this face, then it would already be with us in digital form. Show all of those nay-sayers what they were missing by finally making this design work! Its old forms will mostly likely make people think, “you know, maybe there was a reason that this had gone so long without having been revived…”
__
www.typeoff.de
11.Jul.2005 2.27pm
>No, because a metal sort is not a person.
That’s why I said “like”, and also mentioned another analogy, old recordings.
No analogy is exact, or else it wouldn’t be an analogy.
The analogy is valid: there is a variance of instances in a photo portrait session, just as there is a variance in letterpress type impressions of the same character in a sort. The point is that in a session of “shots” or “instances” where the image is variable, there is always going to be an image capture that is truer than others, and hence also truer than an average. That’s the way people see things.
It is not a scientific truth, but a subjective truth: the discriminating eye of an art director chooses the “selects” for a magazine, and the discriminating eye of the type designer should likewise make its decision. That is the responsibility of design. Averaging is a cop-out.
Having said that, I do find certain kinds of averaging fascinating, but in those cases there is some edge to the procedure, for instance the musical work of Brian Whitman, where he mines massive databases. The equivalent in typography would be a blackletter mix-font that averages every font keyworded “blackletter” at Myfonts.
11.Jul.2005 2.38pm
> if people had “liked” this face, then it would already be with us in digital form.
I think that’s too simple.
> there is a variance of instances in a photo portrait session
Because a human face is a dynamic, organic, living thing.
A metal sort however is a static thing, consicously designed. It’s a lifeless lump.
> Averaging is a cop-out.
No, in this case averaging is a tool, a useful one, because it shows you what some other designer did, in a way otherwise inaccessible. Other designers had a brain too. But, again, this is only if you’re doing a literal revival. Which makes me ask: why don’t you go ahead and state a broader belief of yours: that revivalism is a cop-out?
> The equivalent in typography would be a blackletter mix-font
> that averages every font keyworded “blackletter” at Myfonts.
Fortunately though the 90s are over. Whew.
hhp
11.Jul.2005 3.46pm
>A metal sort however is a static thing, consicously designed. It’s a lifeless lump.
But the process of letterpress printing introduces all kinds of unpredictable effects, due to things like varying wear of different pieces of type which represent the same letter, variance of inking, variance of pressure, and variance of paper stock. So how is one to know which is the “true” impression, any more than one is to know which photo captures the “true” personality of the sitter?
>No, in this case averaging is a tool, a useful one,
I agree, it can be useful, but it has to be a starting point, or a stepping stone, not the destination (or almost-destination)
>why don’t you go ahead and state a broader belief of yours: that revivalism is a cop-out?
That’s not my belief. My belief is, and has always been, that revivals have their place in contemporary typography. I have done many revivals, and am working on one at the moment, actually.
What I have argued against is the suffocating dominance of revivals and old typefaces in our type culture.
>Fortunately though the 90s are over.
Generative art that uses algorithms to mine databases is a more recent idea, derived from Google, perhaps, which coincided with the millennium.
Brian Whitman:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~bwhitman
A similar “algorithmically driven” openness to unpredictability of form is present in LettError’s work, e.g. Beowolf and the Twin typeface.
11.Jul.2005 5.30pm
> But the process of letterpress printing introduces all kinds of unpredictable effects
Which is exactly what Raph’s process nicely removes. That’s its -obvious- value.
> any more than one is to know which photo captures the “true” personality of the sitter?
Obviously no photo can ever capture anybody’s personality. But the shape of a piece of metal is on a qualitatively different different plane of definition. That’s why the analogy is more confusing than insightful.
> it has to be a starting point, or a stepping stone, not the destination
If you’re making a literal revival, it’s more like a cornerstone.
> Generative art that uses algorithms to mine databases is a more recent idea
Yes, Art. Not Design.
> A similar “algorithmically driven” openness to unpredictability of form
“Anybody who intends to generate randomness by arithmetic means is, of course, in a state of sin.”
- Johnny von Neumann
BTW, I can call him “Johnny” because his student was my teacher. :-)
hhp
11.Jul.2005 6.34pm
Raph,
Could I ask you how you averaged several different s’s into one composite image? Did you do it in Photoshop, or is it some mathematical process that is way over my head?
I’m excited to see how the type will turn out!
Thanks!
11.Jul.2005 8.04pm
Coming back to the revivalism angle:
> My belief is, and has always been
Ah yes, Perfection.
> I have done many revivals, and am working on one at the moment, actually.
> What I have argued against is the suffocating dominance of revivals and old
> typefaces in our type culture.
If you’re talking about commissions, that’s entirely different. Being paid to explicitly do something is partly excusable (if still somewhat of a cop-out; but we’re all human). However, free-wheelingly contributing to the “suffocating dominance” is a major cop-out, no?
Also, I wonder, what do you think about type designers whose oeuvre is 90% revivals?
Maybe your thoughts on revivalism have indeed not changed since the Paleozoic; but if not, then your vitriol against revivalism has certainly subsided, just in the past half a decade or so! Wow. But why?
hhp
11.Jul.2005 11.30pm
Antiphrasis: it’s certainly possible to do it in Photoshop (I used Gimp myself), but tedious to the extreme in quantity. Thus, I hacked up some code to segment, classify, and blend automatically. The particular run that resulted in this “s” image was taken from a half dozen pages, contained about 10,000 total glyph impressions, and took several hours of computer time to crank through. If motivated, I could probably make the tools an order of magnitude or two faster, but even so it’s a huge improvement over doing it all by hand.
Nick said, there is a variance in letterpress type impressions of the same character in a sort.. Yes, and that is simply not the case with standard digital type. (you could have a font with lots of alternates, perhaps even randomly selected, to simulate the flavor of letterpress, but that would be a whole other ball of wax).
Hrant and I had some email exchanges about Baskerville* specimens a few months back, and I pointed out an “a” impression that looked quite garaldish (garaldean?). If I were doing a Baskerville revival, it would be tempting to use this particular impression as a model. However, it would be a lot harder to argue that this form should be considered historically significant. I do think that the averaging technique, could help unlock some of the secrets hidden in these seminal sources.
*I had the pleasure of leafing through a Baskerville Aesop today, at Serendipity Books in Berkeley. Only $475 too!
I had said the true shape of the metal, but want to take that back. The shape of the metal is but one truth, and arguably not the one closest to the intent of the type designer or printer. Metal type is designed for an environment in which there is always gain on the press; the fact that better quality presswork often meant less gain does not mean that the designer’s intent would have been satisfied by a perfectly sharp and gainless reproduction of the metal shapes.
What I would like to claim, instead, is that this averaging procedure produces an image that is very nearly as clear as a high-res capture of the shape of the metal. A straight-up average is going to be a bit blurred, largely because it’s impossible to totally get rid of misregistration errors. But, that said, the very low noise of the result image lends itself well to sharpening (or, for an extremely sophisticated practitioner, deconvolution). I’m playing with this now, and the initial results are fascinating indeed. You can actually see the body of the metal being surrounded by the ink gain.
So yes, I would stand behind the claim that this averaging technique is an analytical tool of unsurpassed power. Further, that these images are arguably better than either going to the metal or choosing individual impressions if one’s goal is creating a faithful reproduction. Whether there’s any artistic or design merit in doing so is another question altogether, and I’m heartened to see the debate over it.
12.Jul.2005 12.39am
Raph,
That sounds really interesting... it reminds me of a program I created in my neural networks class a few years back. It analyzed (b/w) pictures of human faces and was able to isolate the eyes and save them separately, and with more training the program got more and more efficient. I would assume that good OCR programs use neural nets to analyze glyphs... but there might be other ways to do it as well. Thanks for the info!
12.Jul.2005 4.24am
>then your vitriol against revivalism has certainly subsided,
My politics:
Think globally, act locally — that means local culture providing meaningful, profitable work for people everywhere, work which expresses the diversity of culture, engaged with today’s issues. Typographic culture falls far short of that: the typefaces most people in the West use were designed long ago and/or far away, provided by trans-national corporations. There is a role for continuity with the past, but it’s overdone.
I hope that’s not vitriolic.
>what do you think about type designers whose oeuvre is 90% revivals?
I’m not into finger-pointing at individuals, only at TNCs, which are like public institutions.
I’ve argued, on other Typophile threads, that revival is not type design, because it’s taking credit for someone else’s work. But it’s not a black and white issue, there are many shades of originality.
I don’t think I’ve eased up on my cause, after all I’m onto Raph’s case here. But I have nothing against the guy, it’s just a philosophical discussion. He made certain statements about “truth” which I contested, hence the debate — no vitriol.
12.Jul.2005 5.21am
>further, that these images are arguably better than either going to the metal or choosing individual impressions if one’s goal is creating a faithful reproduction. Whether there’s any artistic or design merit in doing so is another question altogether,
This approach: scientific analysis accurate, art marginalized as a gloss.
It’s not possible to separate the art and technology so neatly. The question of what is faithful is a question of design belief.
For instance, there is a quality of sharpness which would be apparent in an individual impression, which the average is not faithful to.
The scientific assumption is that what can be accomplished with a bit of technology is better than what can’t.
>”Anybody who intends to generate randomness by arithmetic means is, of course, in a state of sin.”
I said unpredictable, not random. A database that constantly changes from day to day is unpredictable, because one cannot predict the future. The appearance of the Twin font, driven by the weather in Minneapolis, is something that von Neumann would have approved as being truly random.
12.Jul.2005 8.23am
> You can actually see the body of the metal being surrounded by the ink gain.
This is really interesting to me - could you elaborate?
> revival is not type design
Got it.
> The question of what is faithful is a question of design belief.
This approach: art (expressing myself) is what counts, scientific analysis (or just plain thought, really) an impediment. That’s not Design. Fear of analysis, minimization of technique, these things prevent progress. In a way, shunning analysis is a form of revival, that of ideas, approaches! That is most certainly not type design. This field is littered with people who really don’t have the intellectual stamina and curiosity to exceed the styles -but also ideas- of the past.
> there is a quality of sharpness which would be apparent in an
> individual impression, which the average is not faithful to.
I don’t think you understand what Raph is doing.
Averaging isn’t necessarily blurry.
Are you perhaps simply seeing in this the things you need to reject it/analysis?
> The appearance of the Twin font
I was talking about Beowulf.
hhp
12.Jul.2005 9.45am
>This approach: art (expressing myself)...
That’s not what I had in mind. I’m talking about what I do, which is commercial type design, where the art and design involved are hand-eye-mind skills. This is what I’m opposing to a revival that leans heavily on automated techniques.
I was thinking more of Petr von Blokland’s statement “What can be automated will be automated, what cannot be automated is design.” That defines the disputed territory. I don’t like to see subtle design skills replaced by crude technology. It’s all very well to tout averaging as a great new tool, but the averaging idea is not new. I believe Adobe Garamond for one, uses it.
Automated averaging, used as a design platform, is a blunt and facile instrument. As an analytical tool, it really doesn’t help the (re)designer understand the typeface in the way that looking at a variety of instances and drawing one’s own composite does.
>Averaging isn’t necessarily blurry.
Well, I said it wasn’t sharp. Usually sharp is contrasted with blurry, but in the case of averaging type outlines, what one ends up with is not a blur, but a hard edged blob. It’s not blurry, but it’s not sharp, because it has soft corners.
>I don’t think you understand what Raph is doing.
>Are you perhaps simply seeing in this the things you need to reject it/analysis?
Please, lay off the ad hominen comments.
I’m out of this thread.
12.Jul.2005 10.43am
> This is what I’m opposing to a revival that leans heavily on automated techniques.
But that’s because of your opposition to literal revivals.
You’re confusing the separation between the intent and the methods.
> “... what cannot be automated is design.”
That glosses over the difference between Art and Design that I’m trying to address; the difference between self-expression and serving others. The former hates analysis, the latter requires it. Considering everything else I’ve read you write, I suspect that’s the crux of your rejection of Raph’s effort. All I’m trying to do is understand, everything, yes using personal contexts too. And I do this to improve myself... I need that badly! I’d like to understand why people hate/love the things they do, and make the fonts they do, sort of like reverse-engineering*, and grasping what’s in their heads is a crucial key. And I think there’s a strong parallel here with revivalism: if you get an idea of what the old dead guy was thinking (which is most apparent in the sorts, not the sloppy printing of them) you will do a much better job.
* “Yucky engineers! All they do is ruin our precious painti... I mean typefaces!” ;-)
> I don’t like to see subtle design skills replaced by crude technology.
But this isn’t about that. Anybody making a revival should be interested in the original. And this technology helps in that. It’s really quite obvious. It doesn’t replace, it guides, that’s all. Think of it as an astrolabe.
> the averaging idea is not new.
Well of course it isn’t. Nobody is saying that. Raph’s work however is a quantum leap.
> it really doesn’t help the (re)designer understand the typeface
?!
And what does, shrooms?
> It’s not blurry, but it’s not sharp, because it has soft corners.
Repeat: I don’t think you’re undestanding the technology, and the way to best apply it.
> lay off the ad hominen comments.
?
It was a question! Just answer it (if you like). Please explain to me what I don’t understand about your stance. Assuming you are interested in defending your views (where a tiny bit of self-doubt would help too), as opposed to merely stating them.
I was afraid you’d pull a whine-and-split... How is my questioning more insulting than “revival is not type design”? You have shades? I’m Mister Shades! :-) As much as I don’t have much of a taste for revivalism (and it’s quite sad that you’re trying your darnest to make sure not to appear to be agreeing with me on that), I embrace its utility: it puts bread on the table (repeating the past/present always does) and it’s a form of celebration (and society needs that); but just as important is theory/progress, and this is an area where controlling one’s fear of technology is crucial.
hhp
12.Jul.2005 12.06pm
>“Yucky engineers! All they do is ruin our precious painti… I mean typefaces!” ;-)
Is this designist comment really necessary?
Why should I continue with this thread if you’re going to fill it with macho “humour”?
>How is my questioning more insulting than “revival is not type design”?
It wasn’t questioning.
In the first place, you said I don’t understand what Raph is doing.
Then you suggested I’m seeing things in it that aren’t there.
I’m not prepared to continue the discussion after being forced into that kind of corner.
“Revival is not type design” is not a personal comment, it’s a statement of fact. For instance, Hnaffe is the designer of Christian Gothic, not Raph.
12.Jul.2005 12.28pm
> Why should I continue with this thread if you’re going to fill it with macho “humour”?
Macho? I’m not macho. Unless you think you’re a pansy. I don’t think you are. And I would think you prefer humor to insults. I’m trying to work with you here; but I’m not a cyberpsychotherapist; I could never answer that question for you.
> you said I don’t understand what Raph is doing.
A certain aspect of it, yes. You clearly understand the gist of it, and it seems that this is enough to prevent you from trying to understand the details, due to what seems to be an aversion to Analysis?
> “Revival is not type design” is not a personal comment, it’s a statement of fact.
Huh, and I thought there were shades.
hhp
12.Jul.2005 12.39pm
Raph:
> However, it would be a lot harder to argue that this
> form should be considered historically significant.
As Peter hints, revivalism is complex.
I would ask: Who is the font for? Other type designers? Quite unlikely. What is for example THE Baskerville for the contemporary user? Is it JB’s original? No way - virtually nobody has seen that. I would argue that it is more the impression that people have accumulated over time (a lot like what Nick wrote in another thread) from all the Baskervilles they’ve seen. So for example take the “a” in Monotype’s Baskerville. I find it quite ugly; I would never make that on my own. And John Hudson has argued (on the ATypI list) that it’s not necessarily the historic form. But really, it doesn’t matter: it’s what people know, and my commission is to provide something archetypical. So my revival will have that ugliness (just not exactly the same). To me, that’s good design.
hhp
12.Jul.2005 12.46pm
>You clearly understand the gist of it, and it seems that this is enough to prevent you from trying to understand to details, due to what seems to be an aversion to Analysis?
Hrant, this is the crux of the ad hominen idea that was in the other thread recently.
You shouldn’t pursue an argument by saying that the other fellow doesn’t understand the topic and you do.
>Macho? I’m not macho.
I didn’t say you were macho. I said it was a macho comment.
As are your frequent quips about “artistes” expressing themselves.
>Unless you think you’re a pansy. I don’t think you are.
That’s not my idea of a compliment.
12.Jul.2005 12.59pm
“Revival is not type design” is not a personal comment, it’s a statement of fact.
Nick, I beg to differ. It’s simply your opinion.
First, revivalists are never given a complete Adobe character set. Foundry types almost universally never include daggers; section marks; braces; commercial ats; math operators; currency symbols other than those of the country in which the bodies were cast; or oe and ae dipthongs, eths, thorns or German double-esses. In order to include those characters in a font, they have to be designed.
Second, most revivalists credit their sources, when they are known: no one is trying to hoodwink anyone here. As I have stated before, the whole idea behind revivalism is to make typographic resources available to a computerized world which heretofore existed only as metal type or handlettering on a page. You might not consider the process to be creative, but it is transformational, and it requires patience, judgment and an eye for design.
12.Jul.2005 1.01pm
> You shouldn’t pursue an argument by saying that the
> other fellow doesn’t understand the topic and you do.
Pursue an argument? I’m communicating my view that you’re missing something - and I just said you understand the gist of it just fine - the details however are important. Are you listening to the communications, or just blasting a deeper trench?
> I didn’t say you were macho. I said it was a macho comment.
But I said it. It came from my head. There you go again compartmentalizing things, removing context. Although you didn’t do me that favor when I once wrote “that makes you sound stupid”. (You see, Nick, it won’t work - not with me.)
> As are your frequent quips about “artistes” expressing themselves.
Well, I think they’re a problem. Would you rather I dispense with the humor? I doubt it. Would you rather I shut up? Well, of course. But that ain’t gonna happen.
> That’s not my idea of a compliment.
Fortunately, I’m not out to compliment you.
Some of your fonts sometimes though, yes.
hhp
12.Jul.2005 2.13pm
> It’s simply your opinion.
No, it’s what the word “design” means.
There is a distinction between someone coming up with the idea for a typeface, and realizing it in some form or other, and someone else building on that idea.
The originator designs the basic pattern of a typeface, and subsequent adapters and revivalists follow that. Following a design is not designing, it’s interpreting. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not design.
Bob Dylan never wrote any guitar solos for “All Along the Watchtower”, but that doesn’t make Jimi Hendrix the composer.
12.Jul.2005 2.17pm
> The originator designs the basic pattern of a typeface
You speak of a mythical beast, which exists only in some people’s imaginations.
It should be obvious that such “origination” is merely an illusion.
hhp
12.Jul.2005 2.37pm
>It should be obvious that such “origination” is merely an illusion.
Either you see it, or you don’t.
12.Jul.2005 3.02pm
No, it’s what the word “design” means.
Nick, I would humbly suggest that the word “design” has a certain meaning to you; unfortunately, your meaning is not the only meaning the word can have . I would also suggest that you check out the Oxford English Dictionary, the ultimate reference source for the English language, to see exactly how many other possible meanings the word has, very few of which agree with you. If you cannot, for a moment, accept the fact that there may be other valid definitions of the creative process, I would further suggest that you lay off the nose candy, or whatever else it is that gives you the idea that your words carry the same authority as, say, the Ten Commandments.
12.Jul.2005 3.24pm
Concise Oxford English Dictionary
“Design:
1 a. a preliminary plan or sketch for the making or production of a building, machine, garment, etc.
b. a scheme of lines or shapes forming a pattern or decoration.
c. a plan, purpose, or intention.
4a The general arrangement or layout of a product.
b. an established version of a product.”
Nick Shinn’s distinction between a design and various interpretations does seem to have a basis in the dictionary meaning. Of course, the distinction between a design and an interpretation or realization of it is not a sharp one.
12.Jul.2005 3.25pm
I think Christian gothic follows a singular, complex (though definable in simple terms) basic pattern, and it can be effectively discerned and described with the help of Gerrit Noordzij’s type-descriptive protocols. An understanding—and faithful digitization—of Christian gothic might benefit as much—if not more—from viewing the letterforms through Noordzijian glasses as it will form mechanical averaging. The basic pattern might be less shakely a product of the historically retro(pro)jective imagination than a putative set of Fleishmannian ideas on readability.
12.Jul.2005 3.32pm
>I would further suggest that you lay off the nose candy, or whatever else it is that gives you the idea that your words carry the same authority as, say, the Ten Commandments.
Oldnick, I thought you rejected that sort of personal attack.
12.Jul.2005 4.02pm
William, please maintain focus on the content. (Was that Western enough?)
hhp
12.Jul.2005 4.06pm
Nick, I’m sorry the topic of Is-Revival-Design came up on this thread (Hrant’s to blame), because Raph has quite rightly said he is digitizing the face, not designing it.
>The basic pattern might be less shakely a product of the historically retro(pro)jective imagination than a putative set of Fleishmannian ideas on readability.
That makes a lot of sense. But it is still a face with spotty color. For instance, “e-n” and “e-r” don’t have the same space between them. Maybe what it needs in the digital domain is either some fancy kerning, or alternate forms (courtesy of OpenType). I can’t accept that the poor color is a Fleischmannian necessity.
12.Jul.2005 4.18pm
Yes, it’s all my fault. Even the part about you trying to hide your disdain for the oeuvre of many accomplished type designers, including some you’ve recently colluded with in attacking me. It’s all my fault! Grab your pitchforks and torches!!
> But it is still a face with spotty color. For instance,
> “e-n” and “e-r” don’t have the same space between them.
Does anybody literally-revive spacing, at the micro level?! Besides Justin Howes I mean. Maybe they should? But you certainly can’t think so.
> fancy kerning
Fancy?
Why would it need more than good basic spacing and simple kerning?
> I can’t accept that the poor color is a Fleischmannian necessity.
Wait, I don’t get it. Are you saying that Fleischmann’s work has poor color? At the font level?
And what does that have to do with this again?
—
BTW, I’m glad you changed your mind about leaving.
hhp
12.Jul.2005 4.26pm
Oldnick, I thought you rejected that sort of personal attack.
William, my words were very carefully chosen and they were not an attack on Nick, only his definition of “creativity.” I am not dissing the man, just challenging some of his mistaken notions, which is what lively discussions are supposed to be about.
Unless one possesses the power to say “Let there be light” and light does indeed come into being where it did not exist before, nothing a human being does is creative. Rather, if a mere mortal “creates” something new and unique, it is merely an act of synthesis, building on what came before. And nowhere is this fact more true than in the area of typeface design. The basic rules of letterforms are fixed: the design of an A, no matter how unique, must suggest, unequivocally, an archetypal A to the viewer of same, or the design is utter worthless.
Equally, unless one is prepared to state—also unequivocally—that any nuances one may devise for an alphabet have never, in the entire history of mankind, ever been conceived of before (which statement must, by necessity, proceed from Divine omniscience), then one cannot legitimately claim to be a “creator,” when lesser mortals (here read, mere revivalists) are not.
Finally, Nick: enough of the Hrant bashing. I believe that Hrant would be the first to admit that, at times in the past, he has gotten a little edgy and insulting, but...I believe that, within this particular forum, he has been restrained and has offered a lot of constructive criticism and helpful insight. You don’t have to cut the guy any slack: just give him his due.
12.Jul.2005 6.02pm
>Equally, unless one is prepared to state—also unequivocally—that any nuances one may devise for an alphabet have never, in the entire history of mankind, ever been conceived of before
Now YOU’re sounding Hestonian, Nick.
It’s not about nuances. It’s about resolving a unique set of design principles.
But as a matter of fact, I have devised quite a few never-before conceived nuances.
Not that they necessarily have any great typographic value, but they are original.
>trying to hide your disdain for the oeuvre of many accomplished type designers,
Sorry, is my disdain showing? But really, I don’t understand why you’d think I have disdain for people who do revivals. There’s plenty to admire. Sure, I respect original typefaces more, but everyone has their preferences, that doesn’t mean they detest what they don’t adore. Also, while I occasionally deplore the general state of affairs (the glass half empty part of it), I’m not going to point fingers at anyone (except of course font bundlers), least of all indie foundry designers. When I say “revival is not design”, my purpose is to respect the original designer of a typeface — not to insult the revivalist, but to question their (or a third party’s) use of the term “designer” for the bezier-wrangling.
>Does anybody literally-revive spacing,
Look at the pairs I mentioned: the extra serif on the foot of the “r” means that “e_n” will create more of a hole in text than “e_r”. This could be solved by kerning, or by a contextual alternate form of e with a longer tail.
>Are you saying that Fleischmann’s work has poor color?
No, but if Christian Gothic has a divergence of letterforms, for Fleischmannian reasons, that’s problematic (as is often the case when diverging from the norms of centiuries) for text colour.
12.Jul.2005 7.39pm
> I have devised quite a few never-before conceived nuances.
1) You don’t know that.
2) Nuances are such a small part of type design, at least in terms of progress. Think more about the structures. But to do that you need... analysis! Not mere expression.
3) Nuances can exist just in the “simple” act of revival too.
> is my disdain showing?
Not any more. It used to. You seem a lot more careful now. Maybe it’s part of becoming mainstream?
> This could be solved by kerning
Well sure (if the whole is tight enough). I was wondering about your “fancy”... How many pairs do you typically define for let’s say basic Latin?
> if Christian Gothic has a divergence of
> letterforms, for Fleischmannian reasons
What are these reasons, exactly? I hope you’re not sticking with the view that he was an Emigre-style designer. That would be a reason for his descendants to get pissed. :-)
> that’s problematic (as is often the case when diverging
> from the norms of centiuries) for text colour.
No, structural divergence (the important, interesting stuff) does not preclude even color.
hhp
12.Jul.2005 10.38pm
I’m going to gently disagree with Nick on a number of points.
First, I believe my averaging technique does produce sharp results, both in the sense of edge acuity and curvature at corners. Keep in mind we’re looking at a 14pt glyph here; on a typical 96dpi screen, that means we’re looking at 25x magnification, or 50x for the last image I posted.
Second, your e_r vs. e_n argument doesn’t convince me that there’s a color problem, for two reasons. For one, note that the left serif of the ’r’ is shorter than the left serif of the ’n’, so the stroke is closer in (the distance between the right tip of the ’e’ and the left serif is pretty much the same). That, in turn, balances the perception of greater space due to the lack of a projecting lower left serif on the ’n’.
Also, ideal spacing for a printed page may well not be ideal spacing for an enlargement viewed on screen. I’ve proposed before that as size increases, gaps become relatively more important, and distances between stems relatively less. So even if e_n still looks a bit gappy to you, that perception may go away completely at actual printed size.
There are significant differences between the various sizes of this font, and these differences have a definite impact on color. I very deliberately chose the 14pt size, mostly because I liked its color best. One of the most important tasks facing a “digitizing interpreter” (or whatever term seems most appropriate) is to choose between the various sources available. There’s an unhealthy tendency, I think, to seek out large sizes for their sharpness and robustness to printing variations. The averaging technique has the potential to change this balance, and more clearly reveal the cool stuff going on in the smaller sizes.
You can actually see the body of the metal being surrounded by the ink gain.
This is really interesting to me - could you elaborate?
You should be to see this fairly clearly in the last image I posted. In particular, at about 5 o’clock, at the thinnest part of the stroke, you should be able to see a dark-gray stripe nestled inside a blacker outline. I believe the dark-gray is actually a good image of the metal, while the outline is composed of ink spread. If so, hopefully I can unlock one of the last mysteries in my quest to understand ATF’s optical scaling, to wit the relative contribution to thickening from the pantograph and the ink spread on printing. I’m looking forward to getting some time to refine my techniques so I can capture even clearer images - the ones I’ve posted here are still a bit murkier than I’d like, especially for visualizing these more subtle aspects.
In any case, hopefully we can dispense with much of the flamewar on this thread, as I am indeed not making any particular claims to creativity. The main reasons I’m doing this font are to learn more, and to refine my tools. I feel good about the progress on those goals even if this font is never used for anything other than the nameplate on the front door of my new apartment.
13.Jul.2005 4.37am
Hrant:
>> I have devised quite a few never-before conceived nuances.
>1) You don’t know that.
Yes I do. Admittedly I haven’t seen every font ever made, but I feel reasonably sure that I would have come across certain things if they had been done previously. Such as an oldstyle italic monowidth unicase font, for instance. (A structural concept, but one requiring considerable nuancing to execute.)
>You seem a lot more careful now.
Hopefully one learns from one’s mistakes. Type designers can be extremely sensitive to even the most objectively couched analysis, which coming from a peer can seem a bit high and mighty.
>I was wondering about your “fancy”
Just the idea that an e_n kern might be useful.
>structural divergence (the important, interesting stuff) does not preclude even color.
Well, that’s the big challenge, isn’t it.
Raph:
>sharp results, both in the sense of edge acuity and curvature at corners.
I don’t see that. In the original scan there are a number of sharp features, even at the low resolution. It may be uncertain as to which are parts of the design and which are artefacts (and averaging would differentiate), but nonetheless, there is a quality of sporadic sharpness (aka sparkle?) to the individual impression, which disappears in the average.
Also, consider that the quality of different pieces of type will vary, both in mint condition and through varying wear. An average is less than top quality. In the same way, certain imprssions will be “sweeter” than others, due to slight variations in paper and inking. Again, the average dulls the best quality, and it is up to the discriminating eye to discern what is best.
The e_r vs. e_n space: the absence of a lower left serif on the ’n” creates a baseline opening between the letters, so although the fit is slightly tighter, it allows contigual white space to interupt the x-height’s evenness.
>So even if e_n still looks a bit gappy to you, that perception may go away completely at actual printed size.
I’ve designed many text faces, and took that into account.
>my quest to understand ATF’s optical scaling
Why don’t you work with a face where you also have access to the metal type? Then you could compare that with the impression, rather than deduce it.
>hopefully we can dispense with much of the flamewar
I apologize for inadverently flaming you, as a result of my ongoing headbutting with Hrant. What you’re doing is fascinating, and creative, and throws a number of philosophical design issues into the spotlight.
13.Jul.2005 4.44am
...as a matter of fact, I have devised quite a few never-before conceived nuances.
I am utterly flabbergasted. That statement is, at the very least, rather provincial and narrow-minded, although “pompous,” “self-serving” and “incredibly arrogant” work well, too. And, please notice that these comments are directed at the statement, nor the stater.
Nick, you continue to confuse fact and opinion. You are welcome to state your opinions, but please do not elevate them to the status of irrefutable truth, especially when the strongest case you can make for the statements is, “Because I say so.”
As difficult for you as it may be, you have to come to terms with the old saw that there are few things really new under the sun. The wheel was a marvelous invention, but it was not without precedent in the natural world. Similarly, there were anthills before there were pyramids, water droplets before there were telescopes, and supernovas before there were atomic bombs.
I do not believe that anyone else here is belittling the kind of type design you pursue—in fact, I believe you have received praise for it from some unlikely quarters. So, please, don’t belittle the kind of type design that other people pursue, simply because it doesn’t fit your opinion of what a type designer should do.
13.Jul.2005 5.24am
>So, please, don’t belittle the kind of type design that other people pursue, simply because it doesn’t fit your opinion of what a type designer should do.
Nick, I’m not belittling anybody, brush that chip off your shoulder.
You’re criticizing me for daring to claim some originality for some of my work.
The onus is not on me to prove originality, but on you to disprove it.
“The proof of a hypothesis is failing to disprove it.’ (Popper)
So I challenge you, show me another oldstyle italic monowidth unicase font (Panoptica Italic).
>And, please notice that these comments are directed at the statement, nor the stater.
Who are you kidding?
>there are few things really new under the sun.
Nonsense. There are new inventions all the time, including typefaces.
The principle that separates a collection of reused parts from an amalgam that becomes something new is that of emergence, where the whole is smarter than the sum of the parts:
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Emergence
13.Jul.2005 5.55am
The onus is not on me to prove originality, but on you to disprove it.
Nick, Sir Karl Popper notwithstanding, with an attitude like that, you might want to consider a side career in civil litigation. I understand that it’s far more lucrative than type design.
...show me another oldstyle italic monowidth unicase font (Panoptica Italic.
You win: in the face of your monumental and unprecedented accomplishments, who am I—a lesser mortal (and a bottom-feeding revivalist, to boot)—to question your authority?
Emergence, synergy, same difference: they both describe a synthetic process, not a creative one.
13.Jul.2005 6.38am
Nick Shinn, the quote from Popper is not completely accurate, though the spirit is right. Popper would say that failure to refute is the best test or “corroboration” of a theory. He held that proof, in the strict sense, is only possible in mathematics. Scientific theories always are open to refutation and modification by new evidence.
OldNick, I am baffled by your view that my earlier quote from you is not a personal attack on Nick Shinn. And I can’t see anything in Nick S’s comments that implies that he has God-like powers.
I do see ad hominem arguments coming from Hrant, but this is expected, as Hrant has defended them as legitimate.
But I am quite surprised to see them coming from you, as you started a thread about proper discussion rules. I have taught introductory university courses on logic, so I am aware of the issues here. Of course I am not claiming any special authority on these matters, and can be wrong and often have been.
13.Jul.2005 7.19am
>a synthetic process, not a creative one
Well yes, type design is a synthetic endeavor, but I believe it can occasionally be creative and original, even if you don’t.
Not wanting to provoke further personal sarcastic remarks, let’s just agree to differ.
13.Jul.2005 8.27am
Not wanting to provoke further personal sarcastic remarks, let’s just agree to differ.
That’s fine with me, and please forgive the sarcasm: it was an unfortunate lapse, but at least it proved effective in gaining the concession it sought, namely: you have your opinions, I have mine, and each is entitled to his own.
William, I think these forums benefit immensely from the insights and background you provide, and I am pleased to have learned a few things from them along the way. Thank you.
13.Jul.2005 8.35am
> Hopefully one learns from one’s mistakes.
Or refines one’s dodging skills.
> Type designers can be extremely sensitive
They have to get over it.
That’s one difference between a craftsman and an artist.
> Well, that’s the big challenge, isn’t it.
No, not really. A much bigger challenge is to find the limits of even color (no matter if the structures are conventional or innovative).
> the quality of different pieces of type will vary
Sure, but that’s the best that can be done. If one had access to the original punches, that would be even better, but that’s pretty rare.
> the average dulls the best quality
You’re not paying attention. The average provides information as to what the original was, then you can decide what to do with it. Especially considering that offset printing is so regular, it’s pretty artificial to fake things the way you’re proposing.
> I’ve designed many text faces
Our definitions of “text face” vary. (Was that Western enough?)
> Why don’t you work with a face where you also have access to the metal type?
Obviously because:
1) He likes this one.
2) His averaging technique gets you 90% there.
> What you’re doing is fascinating, and creative, and
Useful. To a craftsman.
> The onus is not on me to prove originality, but on you to disprove it.
This is not a court of law, but one of public opinion.
More than making claims, you need to know your limits.
> Who are you kidding?
The same people you were trying to?
> a side career in civil litigation.
In England.
> I do see ad hominem arguments coming from Hrant
And what we see from you again is stirring trouble, as an excuse to constantly remind us of how Typophile should be just like you think it should. Let it be - give up your cherished Control. Work on the content.
> I have taught introductory university courses on logic
Just don’t teach one about behavior in a heterogenous society, please.
—
You know what’s the most comical though? Somebody who refutes Analysis but wants to apply The Scientific Principle to defend his work.
The core of this argument directly concerns the textbook struggle between Art and Design, between expression and function, between the self and others. It will never end.
hhp
13.Jul.2005 8.41am
This topic of ’original work’ vs. ’nothing new under the sun’ has come up before & with similar results - some lean one way & some another. Nobody is willing to be absolutist about it when pressed. Not even old nick. It’s a question of attitude. Some of us think that artistes are prima donnas & some folks think they can be if they want to. Personally - I want. Without the hope of making something better - why try? Even with a revival. Want to tell me how to do it better? Great. That’s what I am here for. To learn as much as possible.
Even though this thread has been overly rancourous - (nose candy? good golly.) - I have still learned a lot from the arguement. Thank you. Really.
This thread has only sporadically dealt with Ralph’s work. I think it’s interesting and probably useful. But the best proof of that will come when it is applied to a face. Then we will see for ourselves how useful this technique was for Ralph.
13.Jul.2005 9.52am
>give up your cherished Control
Hrant, I am happy when I can control myself. I do not suffer from any delusions that I can control Typophile, and I have no wish to do so in any case.
I have a long standing wish to see less rancor on this wonderful site, but have concluded that it isn’t going to happen.
13.Jul.2005 9.54am
Hrant, you say: “The core of this argument directly concerns the textbook struggle between Art and Design, between expression and function, between the self and others.” I want to ask, which argument? The one about averaging? Can it truly be said the the choice for or against averaging is tantamount to a binary choice between the self and others. And what about the flow of personal jabs, sarcasm and more. How do they fit on this scale of the struggle between the self and others? (I say this with some hesitation, because every posting, this one included, lies somewhere on that spectrum.)
Aren’t you running the risk of forcing a considerable range of mostly ad hoc* opinions into two too sharply segregated and ’occupational ethically’ or ’occupational honourability’ loaded boxes?
It seems to me this encourages a jaded habit of listening, an ecology of misrepresentation, a hermeneutics of suspicion and an unnecessary balkanization of typecultural subcultures.
13.Jul.2005 9.59am
>Or refines one’s dodging skills.
Not shooting; surely not the same as making a smaller target?
>That’s one difference between a craftsman and an artist.
Have pity on the thin-skinned artisan.
>A much bigger challenge is to find the limits of even color.
We’ve been there, done that — ITC and Typsettra faces of the 1970s, generally considered too grey, today.
>You’re not paying attention.
No, you’re not paying attention.
>Our definitions of “text face” vary.
My definition: when I design a typeface, unless it’s specifically a display face, I test prototypes in text settings to refine the color. I look at the fonts in sizes from 6 to 14 pt, in different column widths, ragged and justified, tight and open leading. On a couple of newspaper fonts, I’ve tested prototypes on newsprint. As I said, I’ve designed many text faces: Beaufort, Bodoni Egyptian, Brown, Fontesque Text, Goodchild, Merlin, Oneleigh, Paradigm, Shinn Sans, Richler, Worldwide. All these fonts come with sidebearings wide enough, and apertures open enough, for text setting. Some of them turned out with better text colour than others, obviously, and Merlin is a bit of a stretch as a text face (the Italic is better than the roman, actually), but they were all designed primarily as text faces. Your definition?
>Obviously because:
Mindreading again?
>Useful. To a craftsman.
Therefore, all those who make fonts.
>The same people you were trying to?
I’m not making personal sarcastic remarks and passing them off as fair comment.
>In England.
More of a US thing.
>stirring trouble
From you, ha!
>Somebody who refutes Analysis
Huh? I offer a critique of an anaytical method, and you respond with “You don’t understand.” Take a look at Raph’s raw scan side-by-side with his averaged outcome: the quality of sharpness has gone missing. This issue is not especially obvious in the “S”, but in the joint of the “n”, where the hairline joins the main stem, it will be quite problematic.
>the textbook struggle between Art and Design, between expression and function, between the self and others.
I wish you’d stop laying this “art/expression/selfish” trip on me. I’m assessing the technical aspects of this font, and Raph’s averaging technique, from my experience as a type designer/craftsman, making fonts that I sell for a living, which the people who buy use to set type. The dichotomy that interests me is between handcraft and automation, and where the boundary falls.
13.Jul.2005 10.32am
Nick, you say: “The dichotomy that interests me is between handcraft and automation”. Bringing my previous remarks about dichotomies into the handcraft / automation arena: Isn’t your problem with averaging that it averages, not that is automated? Posterizing could solve the indistinctness_of_the_countour problem. This might be a useful starting point for autotracing, but this wouldn’t necessarily preculude craft decisions about normalizing brezier curves and the rest. Such normalization, if that is the best word for it, would occur probably in conversation with the actual range of impressions, including its outliers and relevant similar features in role-architecturally similar components as much as in conversation with the averaged item.
13.Jul.2005 10.38am
> But the best proof of that will come when it is applied to a face.
I agree, although I would caution against the term “proof”. Since this is not a science, some people will always see what they want. Like the pen in Legato.
> Can it truly be said the the choice for or against averaging
> is tantamount to a binary choice between the self and others.
No, humans are not binary. But concepts are “pure”. We’re each always in the middle, along different points on the “axes” of opposites. A person’s aversion to or admiration for Raph’s technique is an aspect of the argument of Art versus Design. And the reason to address the pure extremes is that I think it’s the only way to understand the middle.
> Not shooting; surely not the same as making a smaller target?
I don’t know, Nick, what else to call avoidance of direct questions, and answers that don’t tell the whole picture, or sometimes not even the central point?
The way not to be a target is not to feel like one; or maybe not to want to be one...
> We’ve been there, done that — ITC and Typsettra faces
> of the 1970s, generally considered too grey, today.
We haven’t done jack. Admitting that some fonts are too gray only tells us there’s an issue. Yippee. Introducing variance in typographic color for aesthetic effect (color hooliganism?) is child’s play. I’m talking about function here.
We have no idea what we’re doing. We don’t even grasp Familiarity!! Have we “arrived”? Laughable. We’ve only arrived at a mundane, crass place. Let’s leave.
> I’ve designed many text faces
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it, Nick.
Also: almost anybody can make a text face imitatively. When you know a model works, because it has for so long, aping it to arrive at yet another text face is... not type design? :-)
> I offer a critique of an anaytical method
That was not critique, that was rejection.
And you do it all the time; just like you did with Larson.
> Merlin is a bit of a stretch as a text face
Riiight.
I can’t wait to see Eunoia-Text used for a book.
> Your definition?
I’m working on it. No actually, I’m working on the fonts, not the definition. But I do know when I see one that isn’t.
> Therefore, all those who make fonts.
To different degrees, yes. Each of us has both the artist and the craftsman in him. It becomes a matter of honesty, and selflessness. Somebody who’s a readability relativist is closer to the Art end of the axis than somebody who spends years reasearching and thinking about the very real mechanics of human cognition.
BTW, are you now saying that Raph’s technique is useful to all those who make fonts? If you were making a literal revival (even if you’d probably have to be commissioned to do so) and you had it freely available to you, would you use it?
> the quality of sharpness has gone missing.
I think you’re seeing what you want to see.
> I wish you’d stop laying this “art/expression/selfish” trip on me.
And I wish you’d shed your aversion to technique.
Now what?
> making fonts that I sell for a living
Which is opposed to progress. Don’t worry, I do it too - we’re all human. The difference is some of us admit it.
> The dichotomy that interests me is between handcraft
> and automation, and where the boundary falls.
Worry more about the mind than the hand.
hhp
13.Jul.2005 11.26am
> I agree, although I would caution against the term “proof”. Since this is not a science, some people will always see what they want. Like the pen in Legato
Maybe I meant proof as in a smoke proof. :-) Certainly not as in a scientific proof ( which is also subject to revisting after all and is just a prepondernace of current evidence). I just mean the evidence to know if it has value isn’t all there yet. And when it is it’s up to each of us to judge or to hold off & continue being skeptically interested & maybe hopeful. What is being discussed now is a technique. I just mean trhat the value of that technique can be judged later on by it’s resulting product. Via Ralph in this case. Or maybe via sombody else later.
13.Jul.2005 5.17pm
>Worry more about the mind than the hand.
Thank-you for those words of wisdom, great guru.
14.Jul.2005 5.57am
Nick,
I got cited for sarcasm, and it was a fair cop. It isn’t pretty when you do it, either.
If you’re really harbor such animosity toward Hrant, might I suggest that, at next year’s TypeCon, you two arrange a Steel Cage Death Match, “pro” wrestling style, no holds barred. The winner could probably retire comfortable on the proceeds from ticket sales.
14.Jul.2005 8.09am
>If you’re really harbor such animosity toward Hrant
Sorry, I’m not into hate.
It’s just a forum, and we wouldn’t keep dancing if we didn’t enjoy each other’s company.
>BTW, are you now saying that Raph’s technique is useful to all those who make fonts? If you were making a literal revival (even if you’d probably have to be commissioned to do so) and you had it freely available to you, would you use it?
I mean useful in principle. I can’t go beyond that, as the tool is still in development. It might be something that I could use in the future, but I can’t say how. New tools aren’t always used for their intended purposes.
At the moment, I’m working on a revival, but taking a quite opposite approach. I’ve scanned and traced glyphs in the past, but the method I’m now using is a magnifying glass to look at the printed image, and bezier-drawing the glyphs “by eye”. Right brain analysis.
14.Jul.2005 8.14am
I’m now using is a magnifying glass to look at the printed image, and bezier-drawing the glyphs “by eye”.
just curious... is this the first time you’ve used this method?
and oldnick, there’s a much more interesting challenge outstanding between nick and hrant: some of us are waiting to see what will become of Eunoia Text.
14.Jul.2005 9.07am
...we wouldn’t keep dancing if we didn’t enjoy each other’s company.
Forgive me: I can be a little dense at time. Here, I thought I was watching Ail and Frazer, when all along it’s been George and Martha.
I’m now using...a magnifying glass to look at the printed image, and bezier-drawing the glyphs “by eye”.
I suppose there’s just enough neo-Ludditism in that particular approach to revivalism to qualify it as novel.
14.Jul.2005 9.22am
I don’t think it is novel at all… that is how many revive old letterforms. Again it has to do with whether you want to reuse old forms exactly as they might have been, or if you want to capture their idea and use that in a previously unseen manner.
How Nick Shinn interprets old type is probably much more interesting for font users than getting old glyphs mapped to a keyboard driver would be.
__
www.typeoff.de
14.Jul.2005 9.37am
> George and Martha
Just remember, I’m the macho one.
hhp
14.Jul.2005 10.06am
How Nick Shinn interprets old type is probably much more interesting for font users than getting old glyphs mapped to a keyboard driver would be.
I am sure that’s true; it’s the “magnifying glass” thing I find quaint.
Just remember, I’m the macho one.
There was never a doubt in my mind...
14.Jul.2005 10.11am
>is this the first time you’ve used this method?
It’s the first time I’ve used a magnifying glass, and it’s the first time I’ve made an “exact” facsimile. (From a 12 pt text setting in an 1869 book.)
My previous revivals were more interpretative, and my source material was much larger, from specimen books usually.
>I’m the macho one.
Take your pick.
http://members.tripod.com/~npaulette/fredgene.htm
http://www.xs4all.nl/~junglist/id55.htm
14.Jul.2005 10.16am
>it’s the “magnifying glass” thing I find quaint.
Sorry, I should have used the correct term, “loupe”.
14.Jul.2005 10.23am
bezier-drawing the glyphs “by eye”
do you usually draw directly on the computer?
14.Jul.2005 10.33am
>do you usually draw directly on the computer?
Yes. The last typeface I drew/wrote on paper and then scanned was Oneleigh, 1998. (except for Panoptica script). However, I often work out design ideas with pen and paper, without scanning these investigative sketches.
14.Jul.2005 10.53am
Isn’t the conscious introduction of “uncertainty” artificial?
The first outline font I made was a process of looking closely (no magnifying glass) at a classic Armenian metal face, and recreating the forms directly in bezier... on a grid! A slanted grid!! Needless to say, it came out like crap. The two reasons for this [process] were that: I didn’t know that I didn’t have the talent to do it, and didn’t know the dark side of the grid; and that I didn’t have a scanner. But it wasn’t artificial. Not using available tools though is too... artsy :-) for me.
BTW, do you have a photo of two guys banging harps?
hhp
14.Jul.2005 11.46am
Sorry, I should have used the correct term, “loupe”.
Well, “loupe” certainly doesn’t conjure up visions of deerstalker hats and calabash pipes in the same way that “magnifying glass” does, but that’s not really the point. I inferred, and I believe you implied, that there is something unique in the method you have chosen to undertake this project which sets it apart from the methods of other revivalists. I am fairly confident that even those revivalists who scan and autotrace their character have to draw the missing characters and subject them to the same conversion process as their “found” characters, so that all of the characters in their fonts retain the same rough edges. In the process, they too are using their eyes and their hands. So, your approach is unique because...?
Nick, you have an impressive body of work which speaks for itself: you don’t need to prove anything. So, please, quit trying.
14.Jul.2005 1.24pm
Peter:
>Isn’t your problem with averaging that it averages, not that is automated? Posterizing could solve the indistinctness_of_the_countour problem.
No, that would change (opposite of sharp) blurry to (opposite of sharp) smooth. Still not sharp.
My general awareness of averaging is that it highlights certain information at the expense of other information. For instance, if you average an 80-10-90 triangle and a 10-80-90 triangle, you end up with a 45-45-90 triangle, losing the quality of sharpness.
Hrant:
>Isn’t the conscious introduction of “uncertainty” artificial?
That’s what I’m saying: the inherent uncertainty of averaging (a refined form of guesswork) is artificial. It creates a slightly vague simulacrum of the original. Drawing a purposeful interpretation is more “genuine”.
>Not using available tools though is too… artsy :-) for me.
I wouldn’t say that a selected use of more traditional techniques is peculiarly artsy, because a lot of modern artists have abandoned the traditional tools, these last 30 or so years. Also, drawing was a technique used by all designers, including engineers, as Michael Harvey pointed out in his talk at TypeCon2004.
14.Jul.2005 1.40pm
I think not using the available tools (very different than using an imperfect tool - as all tools are however) is a lot like those cheesy “weathered” fonts.
hhp
14.Jul.2005 1.58pm
>I believe you implied, that there is something unique in the method you have chosen to undertake this project
Huh?. In response to Hrant’s question of whether I would use Raph’s averager, I just described how I was doing a revival at the moment in a somewhat opposite fashion. You’re the one that said it was novel, and then Dan said it was how many people did it.
>Nick, you have an impressive body of work which speaks for itself:
Thanks, your work is pretty cool too. I particularly like all the bizarre letterforms, that’s an interest we share.
>you don’t need to prove anything. So, please, quit trying.
Nick, I’m hesitant to talk about my work for fear of grandstanding, but I post to Typophile a lot, so I think it’s OK to mention it once in a while, particularly if someone asks me about it.
14.Jul.2005 2.14pm
>I think not using the available tools ... is a lot like those cheesy “weathered” fonts.
I don’t understand what you mean by available. Surely a loupe is just as available as a scanner?
14.Jul.2005 2.19pm
Purposefully introducing “infidelity” is... not type design? :-)
hhp
14.Jul.2005 2.23pm
>you don’t need to prove anything. So, please, quit trying.
Is it the icon that’s bothering you? I would ask the artist to redo it with a slightly less imperious expression, but I need that to bolster my ego for taking on Hrant.
14.Jul.2005 5.14pm
”...but I need that to bolster my ego for taking on Hrant.”
LOL!!!
ChrisL
14.Jul.2005 10.35pm
Nick wrote: This issue is not especially obvious in the “S”, but in the joint of the “n”, where the hairline joins the main stem, it will be quite problematic.
I don’t think the image fully supports this assertion. Ink does tend to pool a bit at such joins, but that is the nature of letterpress printing. In any case, you can fairly clearly see that it’s ink rather than metal in this image, because the ink is imaged darker than the adjacent metal impression.
I don’t know what you’re able to see here, but to me it’s as if I were seeing images from the Hubble Space Telescope for the first time, and some of the people around me were saying, “but the atmospheric variation is part of the experience of viewing stars. Would you deny the romance embodied in “twinkle twinkle little star” in your embrace of cold space-based telescopes?” Screw that. My goal is to see what’s going on as clearly as possible, and it’s clear to me that the averaging technique is useful for that.
15.Jul.2005 12.10am
>My goal is to see what’s going on as clearly as possible, and it’s clear to me that the averaging technique is useful for that.
Looking at what was there ’clearly’ may or may not be best served by your technique. Cool as it is. And it is cool I think! Very cool. After you post more stuff more folks may be convinced. I am about half way there. I might still rather look at 30 or 300 specimens on paper & judge what I think is best in them... or by looking directly at metal if I had it. Clearly you have something there. If it’s the metal I don’t know. Even if it isn’t showing the metal it might be a great tool anyway for other reasons.
But then, what happens AFTER your find or develop a clear reference. If you have an absolutely ideal reference set - with punches even; still, you still have to decide if you are going to be slavishly litteral to whatever source or reinterpret using whatever technique of hand or mind. No matter what tools or techniques you use you still have to make some judgements about the digitization. And no matter your intentions some elements your chosen process will impact the results even if it’s only because it shapes or influences your thought. Those two things will both influence the product. This is the part that I still find most interesting.
Speaking of which, how do you plan to use your averaged & processed image? Will you import into illustrator & draw a vector over it so you can see your greyscale image?
What is your intent for that line? Do you want to get the metal & then let a little ink into your outline? Like in the joint of the n? Or is it the technique of finding the metal hidden in the impressions that is dearer to you?
What would anybody else do? I understand the idea of looking for the spirit of the thing - but let’s say you have a perfect metal specimen plus lots of impressions - Then what? Nick S, you say you are drawing by eye - I can imagine it causes you to look more closely at shapes & be less rote in your construction. Sort of like doing a ’Countour Drawing’ of a nude figure in art school. It forces you to be more deliberate - not looking down at the paper. I am I intuiting what your up to there? Hrant- what’s your technique? Dan? Old Nick?
Spill some more beans please. :-)
15.Jul.2005 4.23am
>I don’t know what you’re able to see here,
I’m seeing what I anticipated, which is that while the technique is excellent along the main stretches, it is not much help at sharp corners — the top left and right corners, the bottom right corner, and the inside joint. At these points interpretation is required, and that interpretation will determine much of the character of the revival.
To continue your analogy of the Hubble: If one is familiar with metal type, one has already been to the stars, and knows what they look like. So one is able to filter out the haze when looking at them from afar.
Eben: well said. It’s waay cool, but what happens next, and how does this change that?
>am I intuiting what your up to there?
Sort of. I went to the loupe because on this particular face I wasn’t having much success with other techniques. I’ve long believed that a metal-to-digital, letterpress-to-offset revival is about (re)creating an effect, so there’s lots of scope for how you do it.
15.Jul.2005 6.06am
Raph, I alluded to this earlier, and I’m still wondering: have you tried to penetrate the ’ductal logic’ underlying the Christian Gothic letterforms? That is, doing the ’frontal arithmatic”.
15.Jul.2005 7.18am
a jaded habit of listening, an ecology of misrepresentation, a hermeneutics of suspicion and an unnecessary balkanization of typecultural subcultures...outliers and relevant similar features in role-architecturally similar components...ductal logic...frontal arithmatic (sic)
Peter,
You have made several comments in this forum that I have found rather puzzling; perhaps others have, perhaps not—I can only speak for myself. In any event, may I suggest that erudition which elucidates is always welcome and appreciated, whereas erudition which obfuscates doesn’t really contribute a lot. In other words: fewer three-dollar words, a little more clarity.