ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries) (11/07/90)
Has anyone used the "Ellington" postscript font (Type 1) from Monotype on a 300 DPI laser printer? If so, how was the output quality at 10 - 14 points. On a similar note, does anyone have recommendations for Type 1 (ATM) fonts, in PC format, that look very good at 10-14pts on at 300 DPI? Thanks, Marc Ries (ries@venice.sedd.trw.com)
kibo@pawl.rpi.edu (James 'Kibo' Parry) (11/08/90)
In article <892@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> ries@venice.sedd.trw.com (Marc Ries) writes: >On a similar note, does anyone have recommendations for Type 1 (ATM) >fonts, in PC format, that look very good at 10-14pts on at 300 DPI? One of my favorites is Stone Serif (available in three weights, with italics--either from Adobe or Image Club). It's easy to read, has style (but not too much), and the third weight makes a great headline font. ("Regular" and "Semibold" are the right weight for 300dpi text, in my opinion; "Bold" is very heavy.) (There are also two other families in the Stone zone--Stone Informal, which is Stone Serif with the serifs shrunken or eliminated, and Stone Sans, which looks a lot like Gill Sans or Lucida Sans. I don't keep those families installed, as they're not useful to me.) Adobe's ITC Garamond and Goudy Oldstyle are both nice at 300dpi, because they'r a little lighter than your average font, I think (laser printers tend to darken things slightly at 300dpi.) ITC Garamond is also fairly wide with a big x-height (like most ITC fonts), which helps readability. It's more readable than most other Garamond variants, but it doesn't have as much personality. (Goudy Oldstyle has lots of personality--you might not like it if you don't like diamond-shaped "i" dots. Then again, that doesn't really show up at 12pt.) Some other Adobe fonts that I think look nice at 300dpi are Palatino (with its nice italics) and Optima (one of the more readable sans-serif fonts--letters like "e" tend not to stay open when you print Helvetica or Avant Garde at small sizes on a blotchy printer.) -- Kibo -- james "kibo" parry, 138 birch lane, scotia, ny 12302 <-- close to schenectady. kibo@rpi.edu / Kibology / All colors / Kibo is no userfe0n@rpitsmts.bitnet / is better! / are arbitrary. / ordinary bozo. Anything I say is my own opinion, which is always the opposite of Xibo's.
norman@d.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) (11/08/90)
From article <892@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM>, by ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries): > Has anyone used the "Ellington" postscript font (Type 1) from Monotype > on a 300 DPI laser printer? If so, how was the output quality at > 10 - 14 points. I've not tried it, but I can't imagine that this would work very well. Even at high resolutions, Ellington wants to break free of text sizes. To compound setting at text size with printing at 300 dpi is simply unfair. Norm -- Norman Graham <norman@a.cs.okstate.edu> {cbosgd,rutgers}!okstate!norman The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the state of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, OSU's Department of Computer Science, or of the writer himself.
glenn@huxley.huxley.bitstream.com (Glenn P. Parker) (11/08/90)
In article <6C$^32+@rpi.edu> kibo@pawl.rpi.edu (James 'Kibo' Parry) writes: > In article <892@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> ries@venice.sedd.trw.com (Marc Ries) writes: >> On a similar note, does anyone have recommendations for Type 1 (ATM) >> fonts, in PC format, that look very good at 10-14pts on at 300 DPI? > > One of my favorites is Stone Serif... I like the Stone family too, but I can't resist the urge to plug Bitstream's Charter, which (like Stone) was designed to look good at 300 dpi. -- Glenn P. Parker glenn@bitstream.com Bitstream, Inc. uunet!huxley!glenn 215 First Street BIX: parker Cambridge, MA 02142-1270
singer@apple.com (Dave Singer) (11/09/90)
In article <6C$^32+@rpi.edu> kibo@pawl.rpi.edu (James 'Kibo' Parry) writes: > Some other Adobe fonts that I think look nice at 300dpi are Palatino > (with its nice italics) and Optima (one of the more readable sans-serif > fonts--letters like "e" tend not to stay open when you print Helvetica > or Avant Garde at small sizes on a blotchy printer.) Many people feel that 300dpi printers do terrible things to Optima -- the gentle concave sections end up with a very obvious step in them, and much of the elegance and subtlety of the design is lost. Indeed, it is often quoted as the paradigmatic 'not-suited-for-300dpi' font. * * * * * To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags -- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).
clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong) (11/09/90)
By the way, dkletter, since Adobe is now distributing Monotype faces, will we be seeing Ellington in the Adobe library? Or will it remain a "Monotype exclusive"? --Kathy -- ........................................................................... : Kathy Strong : "Try our Hubble-Rita: just one shot, : : (Clouds moving slowly) : and everything's blurry" : : clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu : --El Arroyo : :..........................................................................:
jlister@slhisc.uucp (John Lister) (11/10/90)
In article <11175@goofy.Apple.COM> singer@apple.com (Dave Singer) writes: >In article <6C$^32+@rpi.edu> kibo@pawl.rpi.edu (James 'Kibo' Parry) writes: >> Some other Adobe fonts that I think look nice at 300dpi are Palatino >> (with its nice italics) and Optima ... > >Many people feel that 300dpi printers do terrible things to Optima ... >Indeed, it is often quoted as the paradigmatic 'not-suited-for-300dpi' font. In fact the people at Adobe seem to think so too. I don't have Adobe's Optima, but the Type 1 Postscript Font book says that Optima has two versions of the font, with the hinting differing so that it is possible to get "reasonable" output on 300dpi printers--for proofing purposes I assume. Typography is a very personal subject; what constitutes a good text/display typeface to one person may be anathema to another (see earlier postings about Ellington's usage at small sizes for example). I personally would like to set "War and Peace" in Arnold Bocklin--why have something difficult to read when you can make it impossible? :-) John Lister.