Emigre's New Tribute Inspires
Downer Discourse on Semantics

Tribute reminds me a bit of Mrs. Eaves, especially the caps. The roman version is absolutely incredible. I really see it as the next Mrs. Eaves (or Filosofia) for Graphic Designers. The italics are a big let down, they seem no different than any Garamond italic, and that's not a good thing (for my taste, of course.)

Haven't had time to read John's writing, but it looks very interesting.

I'm not particularly impressed by Tribute. Of course it's very good but Frank did a breathtaking work with Dalliance (and Amplifier before that) so I guess I was expecting more.
Anyway, with all the banal things we have around today is great indeed.

Indeed, JD piece is very interesting, and any type designers will wonder in which categories his typefaces will be put in Mr Downer list!

Anyway, the new typeface looks strange to my eyes. JD use the words "caricature, homage, alchemy, and fanciful reinterpretation", yes something like that, it seems that he never wanted to came to a critic of the design itself, and we can understand him, when we know the quality of JD's Iowan Old Style...

I just add that Tribute looks a 19th century interpretation of Garalde rather than today interpretation. I refer to that period because generally, those versions transform the oblique axis of the Garaldes to vertical axis of the time -- generally due to the lack of reference of the writing structure behind Garaldes. Its the main characterisc of Tribute. Then the JD's words came again: "caricature, homage, alchemy, and fanciful reinterpretation".

To me Tribute is basically a quirky Aldine, so I personally didn't go crazy when I saw it (and feel that its genesis relies a bit too much or "artistic license"). But I can see how it fits very nicely into [what I think is] Emigre's new strategy. It certainly seems to be a usable text face (the only other one being Eidetic -- or Mrs Eaves using InDesign's optical spacing), although I'd have to see that lc "g" in action before deciding for sure.

As for Downer's piece, I think it makes some very good points (although it borders on pedantism in spots, and polemics in others), and a welcome overture on the topic.

The four things I would add:
1) As in the categorizations of type designs as well, it's important to remember that very often a font will not fall nicely into one slot (as Downer himself says about Tribute). For example I just finished reading Argetsinger's exhaustive (in fact in places gratuitously exhausting) review of Adobe Garamond in issue number 27 (1992) of the APHA Journal (finally!), and it's clear that even with such faithful intentions the results do contain a lot of Slimbach himself.
2) It would be very (maybe more) interesting to discuss what it is that motivates designers (some of them) to make revivals. This is a practical issue that relates to economics, personal talent, etc. What does it mean on a personal level?
3) I wouldn't lump "Revivals/Recuttings/Reclamations".
4) It would have been highly useful to give examples of each category.

As for Iowan OldStyle, MyFonts says it was "modeled after earlier revivals of Jenson and Griffo typefaces", while the Bitstream site says (in part) "related to earlier, 20th-century American interpretations of Italian Renaissance types" -- both of which might have been authored (at least in part) by people besides Downer, admittedly. But where does it really fit in Downer's own scheme? And what does enlarging Jenson's x-height achieve? What is the motivation? Is it the same as what ITC did in the 70s?

Also see the wonderful "revivalism" article (under "thoughts")

hhp

BTW:
Downer writes "digital type is not metal type", but actually with photopolymer technology the biggest difference -- in terms of reproduction -- between metal and digital is effectively breached.

hhp

[Warning: this is off-topic]

Sorry Hrant, I have to disagree with the bit about photopolymer type. And it ain't because I like the whole Martha Stewart "it's all so crafty and unique" approach.

In order to get sculpt a letterpress letterform so that you print in a desired way using letterpress techniques, there are things you do to the face because you know how letterpress will work. The smoke proof of your punch will only give you a clue as to how it will print letterpress.

Digital type is designed with a different printing method (modern photo-driven or even digital printing) in mind and takes into account different issues. This all, of course, revolves around inktraps and all that shit.

Whatever specific medium (letterpress, screen, photolithography) we use to transfer our type from our hands/eyes/minds to readers will leave traces of its flaws in the end result. The most extreme example of this is, of course, the screen which tears our type down to bits. But the flaws are different even between photo-based media and letterpress. A good typeface should, imho, take all this into account.

The old faces had no choice but to take letterpress into account in their designs. The designers were working in that paradigm. Today we have multiple output devices to consider and design accordingly.

All this is to say that, you can take Adobe Garamond, put it into McType and letterpress it. But it ain't the same as using type designed for letterpress process.

The difference may be subtle. The difference may not matter to the client. The difference may not be desirable for some aesthetic reason (though anyone who has seen, for example, Gill Sans in the Monotype version for letterpress will agree I'm sure, that the letterpess version is much superior).

But to say that the differences are not there is incorrect. Letterpress printing is more than just sinking letters into the page to a perceivable depth.

Photopolymer is an inexpensive way to achieve Martha-Stewart-ness. And that may be appropriate for some projects.

With much respect,
g

Gahlord, you're right -- I certainly didn't mean that you can take a canned digital face, print it photopolymer/letterpress and expect to get what the old guys did.

But what I am saying is that -- if you design (digitally) specifically for letterpress -- taking into account everything about the medium (as you point out), then you can simulate anything -- basically because physically the output process is the same. Howes's Caslon comes to mind here.

As for the merits/demerits of photopolymer specifically, I've heard that in the beginning it was cheesy, but now it's really become more than fine, but there are of course some hold-outs. I'm taking a letterpress class at ArtCenter, under Gerald Lange, who's been doing letterpress for almost 30 years, and now he totally swears by photopolymer -- according to him it's harder to get the best results with it (tolerances are much lower), but if you know what you're doing you can totally match metal. On my end I don't know enough to be able to tell if there's a difference, but in terms of crispness (the major complaint, no?) I saw a sample of seriously overimpressed 4 point type (too Martha-Stewardsy for anybody serious about letterpress -- but essentially a good test) using photopolymer, and it was totally sharp. Plus if you get to know Gerald, you can tell he's not about saving money/effort -- so I believe him.

hhp

Gerald Lange is a great printer & typesetter, Hrant -- you are lucky to have him as a teacher. I, myself, have never printed from photopolymer; I print pretty regularly from digitally-set type and art, but I have always had magnesium dies made and mounted typehigh for printing. Right now I'm in the middle of a project that will be printed next week by Coriander Reisbord (a really wonderful binder and printer based in the Bay Area) who will be giving a real seriously deep impression to the type -- not my choice nor hers, necessarily, but something that the client wanted. I take negatives to a local engraver and they give me back a mounted die a few hours later -- magic -- and not expensive. letter size piece of art -- actually 4 jobs ganged together -- about $75, including mounting, tax, wood base & rush charge. Sorry to hijack the thread like this, but how does photopolymer compare to magnesium or zinc in terms of A) cost and B) life? Doesn't photopolymer get pretty beat up by, say, platen printing? Or is the actual surface as strong as metal? I've noticed that a lot of my lead is building up some kind of oxide layer -- antimony maybe (can't remember what lead rust is)? I have tried oiling & sealing a lot of the old cuts but it once the damage is done it seems like there is nothing I can do for the pitting & scarring on the surface.

> you are lucky to have him as a teacher.

Thanks -- yeah, I do feel it! You can tell the stuff flows in him like blood -- his instruction is not forced, it's so natural. Plus he garnishes it so nicely with anecdotes! On the other hand, 14 weeks/sessions seems like way too little time. The good news is that you can go in whenever the lab is open: last night I went with my loupe and meter, gawking at some cool type, seeing if the 30 and 60 point were from the same drawings... Anal? That's my middle name! ;-)

> magnesium dies

What's that?

> something that the client wanted.

Yeah, classic.
Gerald told of the time he did some cards for J-Lo... Well, you can guess the rest of the colorful story.

> Doesn't photopolymer get pretty beat up by, say, platen printing?

Dunno. But what I do know is that I was using Monotype Joanna for my pilot project, and Gerald was dissing it saying that stuff -- even though it's metal -- wears out like putty.

Anyway, I know next to nothing about this (maybe Gerald will chime in), but from what I understand photopolymer needs to be protected from the sun or something -- not sure. On the plus side, I think you can actually print halftones, even smooth gradations, from photopolymer.

hhp

Since I've been invited to chime in…

Letterpress printing is more than just sinking letters into the page to a perceivable depth. Photopolymer is an inexpensive way to achieve Martha-Stewart-ness. And that may be appropriate for some projects.

Gahlord, yes, letterpress is more than just sinking letters into the page, but the photopolymer process is not "inexpensive" nor simply a "way to achieve Martha Stewart-ness." I certainly would not use it if it did not give me the results, equivalent to or better than, metal.

Sorry to hijack the thread like this, but how does photopolymer compare to magnesium or zinc in terms of A) cost and B) life? Doesn't photopolymer get pretty beat up by, say, platen printing? Or is the actual surface as strong as metal? I've noticed that a lot of my lead is building up some kind of oxide layer -- antimony maybe (can't remember what lead rust is)? I have tried oiling & sealing a lot of the old cuts but it once the damage is done it seems like there is nothing I can do for the pitting & scarring on the surface.

jlt, in terms of cost I suspect they are near equivalent. Photopolymer is quite resilient and actually has a better printing surface structure than photoengravings (magnesium or zinc) and is more receptive to ink. The main consideration is camera distortion with photoengravings as well as the unstable mounting base (in the case of mounting on wood). A different situation with photopolymer (apples and oranges). Photopolymer can take a lot of abuse and bounce back, whereas metal takes the hit and is gone. Photopolymer is promoted as being able to withstand one million impressions. Not exactly, but better than metal in this regard. Re: lead oxide. This is the "bad" lead. Corrosion to metal type is usually the result of sustained dampness (reaction to wood) or salt water or cigarette ash. Old photoengraving cuts, especially magnesium, need to be sealed with Vaseline. Magnesium also corrodes with a white crusty powder. If so, it is gone. In terms of longevity, photopolymer does not compare in this regard, very short storage life, a year or so if kept in sealed baggies. Keep your negs.

you are lucky to have him as a teacher.

Yes, he is.

Anal? That's my middle name! ;-)

Yes, it is. ;-)

Gerald told of the time he did some cards for J-Lo... Well, you can guess the rest of the colorful story.

Actually I only made the plates for my client (J-Lo's "people" were his client). And my client does the impression thing, it's the calling card for letterpress folks who cater to the demands of graphic designers (who could use a bit of education about their chosen field).

Interesting piece by John Downer...

Gahlord Dewald--

Letterpress printing is more than just sinking letters into the page to a perceivable depth. Photopolymer is an inexpensive way to achieve Martha-Stewart-ness. And that may be appropriate for some projects.

Gerald Lange--

Gahlord, yes, letterpress is more than just sinking letters into the page, but the photopolymer process is not "inexpensive" nor simply a "way to achieve Martha Stewart-ness." I certainly would not use it if it did not give me the results, equivalent to or better than, metal.

My above comment was dumb and unnecessary and I retract it. But I continue to maintain that the results of photopolymer and printing in metal are different. And I'm not willing to apply a quality level to either. Certainly my bias/prejudice is clear. But my main point is that there is a difference between the two. And we are all fortunate to choose when to use what kind of process. My snarky comment didn't serve my point well and I apologize for it.

And I should note that there is no doubt in my mind that the work you do meets with your own standards of quality as well as (and probably far in excess of) your clients.

Hrant Papazian--

But what I do know is that I was using Monotype Joanna for my pilot project, and Gerald was dissing it saying that stuff -- even though it's metal -- wears out like putty.

Yeah Monotype does wear out like putty. Foundry type is better. But I don't think it would hold up to the million impressions that photopolymer is claiming.

Over and out. Thank you for your contributions to my education. Sorry that we're so OT here.

Gahlord--

...But I continue to maintain that the results of photopolymer and printing in metal are different. And I'm not willing to apply a quality level to either. Certainly my bias/prejudice is clear. But my main point is that there is a difference between the two. And we are all fortunate to choose when to use what kind of process...

Yes, these are quite different processes and as such, cannot be judged in a comparative way. But the end is clearly the same, is it not? That would be, at the very least, the clarity of the letterform on the printed page. I would agree with your previous assessment of digital faces, they are clearly not meant for the letterpress process, there is no reason they should be. But there is at least one exception to this. DfTYPE's Rialto Pressa was designed specifically for letterpress and field-tested as such during the design process. There are several similar ad hoc projects in the works that I know of. Rialto Pressa does incorporate ink trapping. Interestingly, in the metal face that Hrant was describing above, which is European foundry, he has discovered similar ink trapping. There are several other means to configure digital type for letterpress but these usually require the use of font-editors or similar software.

...Yeah Monotype does wear out like putty. Foundry type is better. But I don't think it would hold up to the million impressions that photopolymer is claiming...

One of the problems letterpress printers have today is that Monotype is just about the only metal type available to them. Monotype is machine composition, the castings of which were not intended to be printed (it will invariably be quite worn out, depending upon the typeface, by its third reuse in printing). It was originally conceived as a reproduction surface from which stereotype mats (flongs?) would be made. The stereotype casting would be used for printing, not the Monotype. Monotype composition and casting, or course, outlived the stereotype technique. Monotype composition was a significant advancement (as a prepress device). You could almost compare it to the technology of digital type and page-layout programs in this regard. All of these printing techniques, photopolymer, metal foundry, Monotype, photoengravings, have differing qualities. But I will submit that in terms of compositional strategies, composition in page-layout programs is easily superior (in the right hands) to any other composition technology. While judicious handsetting with foundry type is certainly the model to emulate, its inherent limitations can be greatly transcended. And that is where photopolymer has the advantage, since any digital output can be rendered exactingly with photopolymer. This then, puts the onus on the quality of the prepress work and the proper configuration of the letterforms.

John Downer's essay is a masterpiece of evasion. I feel his pain at being asked to comment on such a self-evidently dreadful piece of design as the portetentously, pretentiously named "Tribute", and I admire his tact in not creating a category for pure junk or tush. There is no theory of modernism, post-modernism, or post-post-modernism, that can justify taking the Guyot types, which I think are amongst the most beautiful ever made, and giving them caps straight out of Century or Courier. "Tribute" represents bad thinking, bad art, bad craft, bad humor. Never were sense and sensibility less at hand than when this Frankenstein of a font was created and released. Never was it more appropriate to crack a tasteless joke about where a designer named Heine ought to put his misbegotten type.

Am I too severe? I think not. Guyot is one of the few ancient mother lodes worth mining. To treat it in this imbecilic, dysfunctional manner shows an appalling lack of integrity and intelligence on the part of the designer and the comnpany that released this 'font'. "Tribute" gives me a feeling not of functionality or beauty or art or craft or anything else -- except a bad case of indigestion. Yet it has a value, perhaps, in that it helps us to understand the depth of art, craft, and modernity that went into something so reviled as, say, ITC Souvenir.

What I find paradoxical in this is that a far more interesting treatment of the Guyot Roman has been released by Fred Nader a while back. Although it is obviously a quick sketch, quite inadequately conceptualized, it is miles ahead of "Tribute" in giving us some idea of how Guyot's forms and ideas might be brought up to date and made relevant for the present. Also interesting is Frank Blokland's use of the Guyot italic. This of course was suggested by van Krimpen, who at the end of his career asked himself whether his approach to italics was not entirely incorrect, and whether he might not have been better following the models of Guyot, had he only been familiar with them when he was young. The task van Krimpen poses to the generation to come is not at all easy. It is much harder to make a usable italic out of Guyot for 20th/21st century technology than it is to use one of the chancery models that were so successfully revived throughout the 20th century, most particularly by van Krimpen. The problem is that they sorted so ill with his romans; while the Guyot italics are much more harmonious with post-Aldine forms.

The prints of Guyot's types, especially by Day (who seemed to have a special genius for setting them) are quite a bit darker than we are accustomed to, and it may be that these types lose much of their vast impact when they are lightened.

I have tried on many occasions, and quite unsuccessfully, to do something with the italic. (In any case, I find the roman just as interesting, but there I am in a minority.) Frank Blokland succeeded best in getting the italic to work, I think, because he completely redrew it by hand, as he has told me. Even so, the result, though usable, has but a fraction of the impact of the historical prints.

Why is it, I wonder, when these ineffably handsome types are screaming of their beauty and functionality to all of us, has so little been done and worked from them?

I really hope some designer will really spend a couple of years getting his teeth into Guyot. It would be sad if a designer today looked at "Tribute" and said -- "well, it's not worth while doing another Guyot after that." It would be even worse if a contemporary designer supposed that Guyot's designs must somehow look like "Tribute". A much better idea can be gleaned from Blokland's interpretation of the italic and Nader's interpretation of the roman.

But all pales before the magnificent pages of the books Day printed in these types. If Emigre were to put up scans of some of these pages on their website, it would go some way towards repairing the appalling slander Guyot has suffered at their hands. One would think that a designer and a company setting out to do such a disservice to a defenseless historical figure might at least drop the attribution. After all, if the type has any value on its own terms, it ought to be able to stand without any reference to the hapless Guyot, oughtn't it?

So Bill, tell us what you really think.

Ah -- so humour is not yet dead in the type world?

Well, I could grade the responses...

Bill, I agree in some ways, but please don't exagerate to the point of causing too much animosity.

> John Downer's essay is a masterpiece of evasion.

In fact I have the highly distinct -- and even more ironic -- impression that Downer disdains the great bulk Emigre fonts! I myself do feel that way towards some of them, but do recognize the occasional gem in there, and also harbor a fair amount of hope for their future.

> it is miles ahead of "Tribute" in giving us some idea of how Guyot's forms and ideas might be brought up to date and made relevant for the present.

But that's not what Heine wanted to do in the first place. And it's not the only way to go.

> Why is it, I wonder, when these ineffably handsome types are screaming of their beauty and functionality to all of us, has so little been done and worked from them?

Simple: it doesn't have the mindshare, yet. Once the current historical wells dry up, the revivalists (or at least the reactionaries among them) will latch onto that too, don't worry... Look at all the attention Fleischmann is getting all of a sudden! But of course most of those revivals take away only his formal aesthetics, leaving his equally -- if not more -- important technique.

hhp

I really wish there were somewhere else we could continue the digital letterpress discussion. Is there a relevant thread somewhere? I feel bad hijacking this Downer thing.

But... to keep it hijacked...

GL--

Yes, these [photopolymer printing and metal printing] are quite different processes and as such, cannot be judged in a comparative way. But the end is clearly the same, is it not? That would be, at the very least, the clarity of the letterform on the printed page.

I can definitely agree that clarity of the letterform on the printed page is a goal. As it is with any type of printing. But the end-result is still different (as it is with any type of printing). Unfortunately for my case, that's as far as I'm able to bring it at this time as my experience in letterpress is limited (when I get a main floor office to load a Vandercook into perhaps I'll see how I feel).

GL--

There are several other means to configure digital type for letterpress but these usually require the use of font-editors or similar software.

I just re-read your interview over at New Series and I'm very much looking forward to getting my hands on the monograph and any other future writing you do on the subject. I do agree that the approach outlined there makes plenty of sense.

But if it isn't cheaper, the plates degrade rapidly, and it doesn't take less time, what exactly are the advantages of going photopolymer over metal? Increased typeface/design choices or just dwindling supply of foundry type? Or... boutiqueness?

GL--

One of the problems letterpress printers have today is that Monotype is just about the only metal type available to them.

Yeah I suppose I'm spoiled in that department. Dan Carr just got his foundry casters up and running. I'm not worried, for myself anyway, about running out of metal. Then again, the press I want is still buried in a back shed because I can't get it into my office. So...

GL--

All of these printing techniques, photopolymer, metal foundry, Monotype, photoengravings, have differing qualities. But I will submit that in terms of compositional strategies, composition in page-layout programs is easily superior (in the right hands) to any other composition technology. While judicious handsetting with foundry type is certainly the model to emulate, its inherent limitations can be greatly transcended.

What are the inherent limitations of hand setting?

Thank you very much, again, for continuing to contribute to this hijacked thread and/or declaring a new place for this conversation to take place.

>I really wish there were somewhere else we could continue the digital letterpress discussion.

Well... where else? (Don't mean to take away the readers off Typographica) :)

> what exactly are the advantages of going photopolymer over metal?

!
Compositional power; font availability; need more? Imagine for example the wonder of using a carefully chosen set of MM instances for letterpress.

--

Besides that very appropriate thread on SpeakUp, there is a Letterpress list (which I'm personally not on), as well as Photopolymer list (run by Gerald, which I am on).

hhp

Bill wrote:

a far more interesting treatment of the
Guyot Roman has been released by Fred Nader
a while back

Where can one see this?

GD--

What are the inherent limitations of hand setting?

Photopolymer also has a perfectly planar surface and is more receptive to ink.

GD--

Thank you very much, again, for continuing to contribute to this hijacked thread and/or declaring a new place for this conversation to take place…. I really wish there were somewhere else we could continue the digital letterpress discussion.

Both Armin and Hrant have suggested good alternatives.

Thanks for the kind words. I'm struggling along with the new Monograph but the article (Digital Type Foundries Respond to Letterpress: An Affinity by Design) that inspired the interview is now available through the Fine Press Book Association. Why isn't New Series listed in the reference sources here I wonder?

Gerald

Bill is quite right that my version of Guyot's roman (Day Roman, free download from apostrophiclab.com) is quite the casually conceptualized treatment. In fact, the text file included with the fonts actually details how the production of Day Roman came about in practically less than one day. Given that, I figure it would be safe for everyone to assume that my Day Roman was a casual experiment that, if I may say so myself, turned out to be quite successuful in accomplishing what I wanted it to accomplish.

I have all the respect in the world for Frank Blokland, but I happen to disagree with Bill on his treatment of Guyot's italic. Guyot should be treated as Guyot, and only Guyot. Trying to match Guyot's italic with another roman, VandenKeere or otherwise, is plain old wrong, historically as well as conceptually, no matter what Van Krimpen seems to have thought. Also, my disagreement with Bill on this point stems from the fact that observing font designers and their work for over the past decade or so has brought me to the conclusion that there are only four people on this planet who are actually capable of coming up with a great digitization of Guyot's types, and Blokland is not one of them. The four people are, alphabetically, Berlow, Carter, Troop and Unger. Hoefler and deGroot are runners-up, I suppose, but I think deGroot, who is one of my favourite type designers ever, doesn't have enough historical instinct, and Hoefler doesn't have a proficient enough mental bridge between history and technology. Not for Guyot's types.

Bill, as you can tell, you're on the short list. I like your passion about Guyot's work and I trust your sense of history and technology. If you really want to do something great with Guyot's types, you are welcome to use my data for the roman, and you can contact me if you want very good specimen sheets of Guyot's types.

Finally, thanks S. for pointing this thread out to me.

>you are welcome to use my data for the roman, and you can contact me if you want very good specimen sheets of Guyot's types

How could I refuse such a generous offer? Done!

Nader's digitization raises many interesting questions. One can see at once that there has been some truncation of the ascenders and descenders in order to make the type usable at 12 points. I would prefer to have the primary instance retain the original proportions, primarily so that one could realize the shape of the ineffably elegant g -- perhaps the most beautiful of all French g's until the time of Vafflard.

What actually is really interesting here, and what connects this discussion to the photopolymer discussion, is that the Nader Guyot is primarily an effort to realize in offset printing the optical effect of letterpress. The Nader type would not be a good candidate for letterpress, because it is already so dark. The choice of stem width I find particularly interesting. (Another thing I find interesting about Guyot is that his caps are not oppressiveliy heavy, and seem to require little correction.) This raises the vexing question of stem width in commercial types today -- they are always too thin, I think, because they are derived from masters which were intended to be used with potentially as much as 30% ink gain.

Regarding photopolymer, I had dismissed this years ago, based on the observation of people I knew who were working with it that the material was simply too soft. You could never, then, have achieved the literally razor sharp impressions that FAD Didot realized with Vafflard's types, to give but one example. If these problems have finally been corrected, I would be interested in the technology again. Has it finally got to the point where you can make a deep impression into heavy paper, such that the razor sharp thins are on the verge of disappearing, yet don't quite? (Note that in Vafflard's types, the very thinnest parts of the letters tend to be extremely small; the effect is subtle; they are not oppressively brilliant, and hard to read, as the in the later Didot types. As always, it is essential to see the original prints to understand the phenomenal optical effect of the early Didot printing.)

> deGroot ... doesn't have enough historical instinct

By the same token, he also has little historical baggage. Bill does, like so many others. And such baggage is anathema to progess.

> primarily so that one could realize the shape of the ineffably elegant g

Which is however exactly what a text font is not about! There can be no real text face design without a good understanding of readability.

> Has it finally got to the point where you can make a deep impression into heavy paper, such that the razor sharp thins are on the verge of disappearing, yet don't quite?

I have yet to compare photopolymer with traditional letterpress very closely, but from what I've seen so far, the former can indeed produce results that are really way too sharp - so I'm confident about it's capability.

--

BTW, in case any of you are tempted to launch a full-scale attack: please don't let your personal battle(s) run amock here.

You should know that Typographica is not shy about censoring destructive posts (not to mention blocking IPs), so before you waste your time writing up an elaborate attack, make sure you have no life otherwise.

hhp

There has been a transition in photopolymer since it was first developed in the early 1950s. For the last decade and a half, photopolymer has been made in sheet form, with back-exposure already built in. Sheet photopolymer is also water soluable. Earlier photopolymer was cut with a chemical mixture. The use of this relatively new technique, along with precision magnetic bases and modular platemaking machines, coincided with the growth of digital type and desktop publishing. Fine printers would previously not have used photopolymer or magnesium or zinc photoengravings to render type as they would have had to rely on photographic reproduction, which would have distorted the type to a degree that could not have made it comparable with metal type. This is no longer the case, and I would suggest, the reason photopolymer has provided a longevity to fine letterpress printing that could not have been realized only a short decade ago.

Gerald

There has been a transition in photopolymer since it was first developed in the early 1950s.

I think the last time I looked closely at photopolymer was in 1997. Do you really say there is no visible softening of the edges? I find that hard to believe. In any case, if the goal is to replicate fabulous metal printing, then one problem is that the digital masters available today are simply of not a high enough quality, by and large. The cost of producing a new typeface family in the metal days was astronomical by today's standards, and we simply do not have the level of quality control and expertise that was available to the great foundries of the golden era of the drawing room, let us say roughly from 1920 to 1940. There is, for example, no digital cut of Bembo which can approximate the beauty and fucntionality that you can still get out of the metal. So perhaps what needs to be explored is how the unique virtues of photopol can be deepened. My (somewhat clumsily expressed) point is that if you automatically think of photopol is a magic bullet that will let you reproduce all the glories of ancient letterpress printing, along with the convenience and versatility of digital typesetting, you are certain in the end to be disappointed.

All theoretical arguments aside, my larger point is simply this: suppose that your goal is to produce printing, today, at the highest level ever attained in the history of printing. Well, your best bet is probably a monotype, for the simple reason that, in the post-metal era, it is not ecomomically feasible to put together the large teams of experts who produced the great types of the drawing room era.

Suppose, for example, you wanted to print a book using 7 points, 11 points and 24 points for respectively footnotes, text and chapter headings. There is only a tiny handful of digital type families (of which I include none of the so-called optically scaled MMs or post-MMs from Adobe) that would approximate the quality of metal Bembo, Centaur, or Garamond, just to give a few popular examples. Your choices in monotype are still greater than your quality choices in digital! And this in the year 2003!

The argument I am trying to make is that photopolymer is limited not just by whatever technical defects it may or may not have in comparison to metal, but, far more seriously, by the fact that it requires digital type to feed it. And digital type is by and large badly manufactured and implemented compared to metal type.

And why? Primarily, economics. I don't see anything changing that. The money simply isn't there, to pay for the thousands of man hours that inevitably must go into a typeface that is perfectly optimized for just three or four sizes. It is beyond the capacity of any single worker to achieve this.

It is notable -- it is decisive! -- that such major types of the late 19th C/early 20th C as Morris's Golden and Rogers's Centaur, were cut in only one size. Centaur only made it into a family of many different sizes years after it was originally cut, when the full resources of Monotype were put at Rogers's disposal. Without those brilliant drawing room girls, and dozens of other experts, the miracle of Centaur, perfectly optimized from 6 points to 60 or so, could never have been achieved. Adobe Jenson does not even come close to performing the level of optimization at the standard set by metal Centaur throughout its size range. That is partly due to faulty aesthetics, but it is also due to the limitations of multiple master technology. Yet who, today, could possibly afford to make single, highly optimized instances of Centaur (or any other type, ancient, modern, or any other past or present type or type to come) in the size range of Centaur? It is economic reality, I think, and nothing else, which is forcing this poverty upon modern printing. Of course, to overcome these difficulties quite elegantly, you can print in only one size. But isn't that a laughable limitation indeed for our proud new millenium?

Bill

Incredible response. All I can say as a practicing printer, is that I do find photopolymer more than adequate as a "replacement" for metal, whatever that means to anyone. Also, I have to admit I cannot, as a practicing printer, share your enthusiasm for the Monotype productions of yore, no matter how well produced technically or historically significant. Nor, even as an old-school fart or traditionalist that I am oft perceived to be, do I share your dismissal of digital type. Is there a "poverty upon modern printing"? Bit irritating to have dedicated one's life to fine printing and then hear something like this. Might be worth looking forward rather than backward? Doesn't hurt to look backward mind you, but it ain't over yet.

Gerald

> your best bet is probably a monotype

With all its limitations?

> photopolymer is limited ... by the fact that it requires digital type to feed it.

Although I agree that most digital type sucks (more than most metal type), this is not a real limitation, for the simple reason that you can easily reproduce any metal original in digital (which doesn't mean that's generally a good idea).

In fact not only is it not a limitation, but the digital medium is certainly more powerful -- unless you're a hopelessly romantic luddite.

> It is beyond the capacity of any single worker to achieve this.

This is clearly wrong.

> limitations of multiple master technology.

No, the technology is fully capable (although now sadly deprecated). The ultimate problem is capitalism, which is directly opposed to cultural progress.

> It is economic reality

Which is exactly why one should look at type designers who do it for the love of the craft, to find true progress. The so-called "democratization" of type has two main effects:
1) There is more bad type.
2) There is more potential for culturally priceless, progressive type. We will increasingly see works that surpass all the stuff the old dead farts have done. This of course is highly inconvenient to those who claim there can be nothing new in type design - they will be left with their pants down.

I think it was Unger who said: the really good stuff is yet to come.

hhp

Is there a "poverty upon modern printing"? Bit irritating to have dedicated one's life to fine printing and then hear something like this. Might be worth looking forward rather than backward? Doesn't hurt to look backward mind you, but it ain't over yet

Yes. There is a poverty. And we gain nothing by not looking at that fact straight in the eye. Let's focus again on the econmomics and the history. The early history of the monotype is instructive. When Morison came on board, he was exceedingly reluctantly accepted. Monotype was making more than enough money producing more than enough types that more than satisfied the bulk of its market. It was a hugely successful company. Yet Morison got it to invest hugely in new and vastly superior type manufacture, and profits increased even more. Far more than anything else, Morison was a marketing genius, the like of which we have yet to see again. But he filled a historical/ecnomic vaccum which does not exist today.

Today, we are not in this kind of economic position. Today, we have all the types that 99.9% of the market demands, and we don't have anyone making any money at it. It is inconceivable that the kind of investment Morison caused to be made could ever occur again. Because of Ikarus, and its succeeding technologies, type that satisfies nearly everyone, and that is cheaply adaptable to nearly any future technology, has been drawn once and for all, and need never be drawn again.

There is nothing to fund the huge investment needed for new types on an aesthetic/technical level with the old monotypes.

Let me give a quick contemporary example: I was recently sent a book announcement, printed lavishly in a few sizes of metal Bembo. I almost wept at the optical perfection of each size. I could not reproduce that in photopol not because of the limitation of photopol, but because there is no digital font capable of approximating the Bembo range.

Those fonts don't exist in digital. Therefore, the monotype, in spite of its vast, ugly limitations, is still a more sophisticated and technically capable and -- for that matter -- truly modern device, for obtaining what I want to obtain: the ability to print in a perfectly graded range of different type sizes.

Those fonts could exist in digital -- or photo. But they don't. In fifty post-metal years, we have yet to see a single entity make a range of size sensitive types that can compare just with this one monotype metal family. It's not because people don't know how to do it, or couldn't figure out how to do it if necessary. It's because there isn't enough money to fund the manufacture -- and this in spite of the vastly cheaper manufacture of digital/photo as compared to metal. Yet as cheap as our contemporary processes are, we still do not have in the fine printing industry enough money to invest in fine type. Hasn't even Sumner Stone more or less abandoned, or at least drastically curtailed, his promising work in this direction?

There must be hundreds of photopol printers who would appreciate a perfectly graded visual type, comparable to the optical achievements of the best monotype or linotype work. But not one single type designer/type manufacturer has provided such a thing to this market. It is simply too expensive to produce.

Looking forward, I would say that photopol will always be at a disadvantage when it is compared to metal, or considered as a replacement for metal. I would say rather that it should be considered for its own unique characteristics.

The problem remains that I cannot today print in a range of well-optimized sizes without going to metal.

If I choose to use photopol, it should be not because I am trying to replicate metal. It should be because I am trying to do something else.

I think more than anything else that what I am trying to show here is that, ever since photo, and the single master, we have seen the rise of something that was hitherto inconceivable: a single designer working on a type family. This has become so commonplace that it is now assumed that all designers work basically alone and do not need anyone else to work with.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no designer today who can, alone, create the kind of sophisticated family that was routinely produced by Mono and Lino at their height. This kind of work requires a team, and not a small one. There aren't any shortcuts. But in type manufacture today, there is no way that we can afford to have a dozen or more people taking a year or two to produce a single typeface family.

Recently, Poetry Magazine received a bequest of $100 million, changing forever the face of one of the most impoverished elements of the printing industry. Type design would need a comparable investment in order to bring us up to date with the technical finesse of the mono/lino families. We are in a technological darkness today. We have not pro-gressed, we have re-gressed.

I'm not talking tradition here. I'm talking cold technological capability. Our contemporary types are simply less technologically capable than their forbears of 80 years ago. As there is no economic reason to produce fine type (by which I mean type as technically capable as a monotype family like Bembo or any other of that class), the only way it can be produced is by patronage.

So where is our patron? Shouldn't someone be trying to organize a foundation? If we haven't even -- as a group of people who care about fine type -- the focus to do that -- what can we do?

I've started moving my comments on the digital letterpress topic over to Speak Up.

g

> photopol will always be at a disadvantage when it is compared to metal

Never say "always"! Just give us a few more years. We're going to whup the old folks, with or without money.

Plus you're exagerating the relevance of optical scaling: there's more to typography than that -- in fact small text is not ideally readable anyway -- nobody sets (or should set) too much text in 6 point -- so the extra effort in reading fonts that are too light/narrow/tight for really small sizes is not such a huge tragedy*. In the end there are very many good digital fonts out there that can be used to set entirely decent works that don't rely heavily on multiple point sizes. Like most books!

* In addition, formal visual consistency is also exagerated: you could use one font for the text and a compatible (if not of exactly the same atmosphere) font for the footnotes and whatnot, where the latter is wider, darker, looser, etc.

Lastly, are you forgetting Howes's Founders Caslon?

> the only way it can be produced is by patronage.

Although I think setting up a foundation to find patronage is a very good idea, there is another way: type designers dedicated to the craft more than the pocketbook. There are some.

hhp

I'd like to add just one more thing on the issue of font critique. Font critique is above all not a casual or even a detailed look at your work by some expert who has (undoubtedly with great reluctance, artfully concealed) consented to comment on your work. Font critique must be done by a group of people who have a common economic interest in producing a great product. Otherwise, there is not -- there is never -- sufficient impetus to get down to what is really necessary in order to perfect a thing so diabolically complex as a typeface that consists of merely a hundred glyphs, much less anything more ambitious.

Bill, enough with the money angle.
People are first and foremost motivated by feeling.

hhp