Okay, so this week I figured to write on something I read about in Robert Bringhurst’s most excellent book, The Elements of Typographic Style. Specifically, it mentions the caveat of using modern software to force a style from a font. Perhaps folly is a strong word, or not depending on your views of the matter at hand. Me? I am a bit of a purist about things (I still get annoyed that they updated the effects on Star Trek the original series).
I created an animated gif to show the striking differences between faux and real styles of italic and bold created in Photoshop. Indesign does not allow for this, but there is the option to skew type for italicized fakery. When I read about the difference between faking a style and using the actual font style I was amazed, and though the degree of difference varies from font to font, it is something I think we as designers should be aware of. The tools we use can do a many splendid things, but as it has been written: “With great power comes great responsibility”. Know the effects of tampering and then decide if it is necessary because a faux font not only looks different but it can alter the flow of text.
Along with mentioning the risk of font fakery, Bringhurst’s book is loaded with a plethora, a wealth even, of typographic information.
Cool Tony. I was having a conversation about this with a designer friend. I was never able to really analyze it the way that you managed to do here. Very helpful. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI may have to take a look at the book. This is a very interesting topic.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting, love the animated gifs that help show the differences in the fonts.
ReplyDeleteWow, those GIFs are great! We should try to spread it around the designer community, they're very illustrative. And the book sounds itneresting!
ReplyDeleteWow, this post is pretty neat. Your animations definitely prove your point: you can tell that they are faux, especially with letters like "y" that are different in italic and skewed. Although I do love to tamper with my fonts, I would never consider faking a style that is already available... What you said is true. They look forced and they are harder to read because the flow and distance of the letters have been altered. Although most people might not notice at first, it become apparent that something is off when you see it used. I agree that the purity of the font should be maintained because many of them are so classic.
ReplyDeleteSomeday I think I would really like to see your bookshelf! You have quite the variety of reference books for design. (and I want to buy them all from amazon, please stop me!)
ReplyDeleteGreat post! When I first started learning about type and font families, I didn't understand why we couldn't just alter the fonts we wanted to fit how we wanted them to look. As I learned more about type and how each one has its own characteristics, technical sizing, angles, etc. I now understand why typographers freak out when you free transform type instead of adjusting its styles or switching it altogether. It just does not fit into the same character family when you alter what has already been created.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
ReplyDeleteNina has it right, there are so many other fonts you can find to fit what your needs instead of being lazy and altering something that is already great the way it is.
ReplyDeleteThose gifs provide such a good explanation of your point.
ReplyDeleteI really like the gifs, made it clear exactly what you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteI love you use of the gifs in the post, I agree that this really helps to communicate your point.
ReplyDeleteGreat job on your gifs! I also feel that you did a great job on communication this issue we deal with regarding fonts.
ReplyDeleteNice use of animated gif. Really helps strengthen your argument to see exactly what you are talking about.
ReplyDelete