Der FontMeister Has Left the Building

Mark

I'd seen this as well. Is there any word though that FOG itself might fall into Der FontMeisters hands? or that there might be an upgrade? I suspect FOG could still give FL a run for its money if it was kicked up. I still find it so much more easier to use than FL.

I haven't heard that, but there was a curious post by Bill Troop yesterday on the [T-D] list implying that he has a FOG 5 beta. Somebody asked where he got it, but he hasn't responded (at least publicly).

I don't really know, but I suspect this may not be a recent thing, maybe something that Macromedia abandonned some years ago.

Go Jim go! I love that guy.

BTW, the Fog5 beta is ancient, and not much better than 4.

hhp

'tanks for the vote of confidence! I am trying to respond to all the queries ASAP but suffice it to say that I am a pit-bull when I want to be and FOG will rise from the ashes or be cloned by my mysterious team of coders!

While we are all holding our breath as to what Der FontMeister will do next. We could use his site as a hangout to plan total domination of der font world!

Watch the FontMeister blog on my site for more clues as they unfold!

Regards,
Jimmy G.
Der FontMeister

Jim--Who's going to be running the old FOG support forum in your absence? Will it be dropped?

Traffic on the FOG newsgroup is pretty low, mainly populated my griping (and that of others) about how shamefully Macromedia has neglected the once-great but now aging app.

I've cross posted flames in the Freehand, Flash and Dreamweaver newsgroups just to create some unpleasant noise about it. I suspect the executives at Macromedia would like FOG to just quietly die and go away like X-Res, Extreme3D and other "dead" Macromedia apps. Macromedia only seems interested in webby stuff, particularly when one notices how BAD Freehand has gotten in its last couple versions.

If the FontMeister or any worthy developer can bring FOG back to life I will cheer for it. Version 4.1.5 still works for a lot of uses. But there are a few things here and there FOG could improve, and it blow FontLab into the weeds.

Bobby, I think you don't realize how powerful FontLab has become. Fog would have to develop an armada of industrial-strength fans to blow it anywhere.

hhp

Hrant

This is true but FOG does have a strong user base. A viable upgrade would put it back in competition. FontLab may be all over the place right now but it has only been relatively recently that the Mac version was of any use. FL is also initially difficult to comprehend as there is no tutorial presence and the manual, while comprehensive, is not well structured as a teaching tool.

Doesn't this smell like the InDesign vs. Quark story?

I'm familiar with FontLab and the additional features it boasts above Fontographer. Still, I don't like it. The interface is clunky, the documenation stinks and it just doesn't feel like a vector drawing program. At least that is one thing on the side of FOG and why I still use it.

I suppose if/when I need to create fonts in OpenType format, then I'll just have to buy a copy of FL. But I'm not going to buy until forced into it. I would much rather see another developer buy the rights to Fontographer and turn it into a much better font design tool.

I have been using FontLab for almost ten years. It has always been better than Fontographer. It has always generated better quality fonts. It has always done a better job of actually implementing the font specifications. Fontographer never even got its Type 1 hinting implementation correct. Even if you prefer the Fontographer drawing tools and even if you are not yet making OpenType fonts (although you should be), you should still purchase FontLab in order to do your final font mastering. Frankly, despite its widespread use and Macromedia's marketing, Fontographer has always been an amateur tool. The fact that fonts generated from Fontographer work at all says more about the leniency of ATM and PS rips than it does about the quality of Fontographer. The widespread use of Fontographer encouraged font makers to be sloppy software developers.

Well, I've been attempting to get my cousin who works on the Flash team at MM (he also worked on Dreamweaver and xRes, incidentally) to encourage the brass to sell whatever remains of Fontographer to FontLab, but until that day happens, it shall remain in purgatory.

I agree with you John.
I was a Fontographer user for many years, until I discovered FontLab. (Actually, Zuzana told me about it; she had a PC set up in her studio in order to use FontLab. I jumped on FL when it came out for Mac.) When I first got FL, I was a bit daunted and uncomfortable with it, and continued to use Fontographer as my importing/tweaking tool, then I would take the fonts through FontLab for hinting and generation.

Since the release of FL45 there is no reason to use Fontographer any more. The software suffers from Quark Syndrome: too long in the world without an upgrade. As a result, those who know how to use the software can use it in their sleep, while new software applications turbo-leapfrog into the position of technical dominance. the question for users becomes this: get on the learning curve, or stick with what you know.

In technical aspects, FontLab is kilometres and kilometres ahead of Fontographer. The font info dialogues in FontLab may frighten the Fontographer user as they are so detailed. The difference between the two apps is like the difference between a minivan and a jet fighter. (No points for guessing which is which.)

Best,
c

Fontographer 3.5 was in many respects a decent app, and RoboFog still has a few advantages over FontLab in terms of scripting ease-of-use. (I learned Python from RF, so maybe I'll always be biased.) But the primary reason for Fog's widepread adoption, in my opinion, was its bundling with the Macromedia Graphics Suite in the mid-90s. Everyone who bought Freehand got Fog for free. I'd be curious to know how many t.ca readers got started using the bundled version of Fog 4.1.

I ended up with two legal copies of FOG because of that bundle. I originally bought FOG when it was first released directly from Altsys through a promotion for Fontastic owners. (Fontastic was their bitmap font editor.) FOG 1.0 was actually the first Bézier editing tool I ever used. Neither Illustrator or Freehand had been released yet. (I can't remember if Cricket Draw had a Bézier tool, but that was also later.)

I'm not holding my breath for any rebirth of FOG. Although I'm still using FOG mostly, I'm sure I'll get used to FL the more I use it. BitFonter's pretty cool, though. I had no problem learning it, but that's probably because bitmap fonts are not as complex as outline fonts. Oh, and it's way more powerful than Fontastic for any of you hold-outs still using it. ;-)

I have been remiss in not visiting this forum more often. All that has been said about the shortcomings of Fontographer in this thread is the Gospel truth.

I now do FOG support for FontLab Ltd. and they are actively working on an upgrade as promised.

I still contend that FOG has a place in the world (especially after it is upgraded) as an intro to the digital type world.

No matter how advanced FontLab may be let us remember that Sumner Stone (Stone Sans), Lloyd Young (GE Logo, etc.,) Gunnlager Briem (BriemScript), Robert Bringhurst (Elements of Typographic Style) as well as many others ---have used FOG to develop their designs.

And most of the rest of us have as well. My point is not that FOG is better than x, y or z BUT that we must not enhance a certain caste mentality of what it takes to be a typographer and how glad we are to be using only the best tool.

Lloyd Young barely knows how to use a computer (in his words to me) and Gunnlager Briem has told me that he keeps forgetting technical details. Men like this don't need a better digital tool because their designs speak for themselves.

In all the talk of which is the better tool -let's not forget our pedigree! And let's not belabor new typographers with this extra burden which only serves to stifle their creativity as they listen to us debate the issue.

I would hate to think that a newbie would worry over which tool before he/she begins a work of art. Let them not be encumbered by our advice until they have their feet wet in forming the glyphs and especially spacing them.

Can't they worry about CE encoding or OpenType later? You will say that I am mis-leading them but I will say you are confusing them and I'll bet you won't meet anyone who has talked to more of them than I have as they send me these beautiful beziers and ask me why the digital step is so confusing.

Do you REALLY mean to say that it is a necessity for a newbie to be thrown into custom encoding, hinting, OpenType, scripting, etc. when they all they know is they have a cool idea and want to get started. Please don't use the word amateur in a disparaging way since we all were once amateurs. If FOG is for amateurs then what is so wrong with that? Must they perform Python scripting and digital signatures before they are even out of diapers?

Perhaps FOG can continue to serve as the doorway for the timid, introspective creative types who don't want to be told it has to be done a cetain way with only certain software?

I know y'all have a heart somewhere deep down inside but let's try to how it more as we remember where we came from and try to smooth the path for those who follow.

Contrary opinions are invited and totally welcome!

Regards,
Jimmy G.
Der FontMeister
http://www.supportandmore.com
http://fontographer.blogspot.com/

Jimmy G

Good to see the blog. The one good thing going for FAB is that it has somewhat short circuited all the free web font junk. I don't see that a problem with an updated FOG. I'm not a type designer, just a lowly letterpress printer, but have relied on FOG for years to configure digital fonts correctly for the process. Have figured out FAB as well, I think (despite the inscrutable manual) but it just isn't the same.

Gerald
fellow blogger
http://TypeRoad.blogspot.com

Jimmy,
okay, many people dismissed Fontographer.
But what has the Gospel to do with it?

Fontographer was not "for amateurs". Who's said it? I almost never used it. I always used Fontstudio: exaggerately buggy, but in a class of his own, but only a few cared when it was discontinued.
Jon Barnbrook, Jeremy Tankard, Neville Brody, Bo Berndal, and many other loved Fontstudio and gave it up sadly. So what?

And don't get me started about Freehand...

Gospel truth is taken to mean "as true as the Gospel" - thus I mean to say that those who have pointed out the weaknesses of FOG are verily true in their assessment.

The thread above has a post where one is quoted as saying, "Fontographer has always been an amateur tool..."

My point is there's nothing wrong with FOG being the entry point for these bright-eyed amateurs.

As far as the "so what" factor, I dunno, perhaps this means the conversation or my contribution is not of interest to you?

I was trying to inject the idea that we should not forget where we came from and that we should not make things any harder for amateurs by giving them the impression that all their creativity is for naught unless they use a particular tool.

Thus -I'm not sure whether you are saying, "So what?" to my premise or to the fading away of Fontographer and/or Font Studio.

Regards,
Jimmy G.
Der FontMeister
http://www.supportandmore.com
http://fontographer.blogspot.com/

If FOG had continued to be developed I'm sure it would by now be just as "complex" as FontLab has become - at least you would have to hope so!

Surely FOG is only capable of being described as "entry level" not because it was conceived of as that but because its development stopped in 1996! It seems strange to be making such a virtue out of FOG's prematurely arrested development.

In a way FOG is achieving new life within the new FontLab Studio. By FontLab's own admission, Studio 5 is a response to the demand of type professionals (especially type designers) to bring together in one application the best and most popular features of FOG, FontStudio and FontLab v1-4.

>>>It seems strange to be making such a virtue out of FOG’s prematurely arrested development.

Didn't mean to twist it this way... all I am really saying is there is nothing wrong with newbies using it to break into the font world...

:-)

Regards,
Jimmy G.
Der FontMeister
http://www.supportandmore.com
http://fontographer.blogspot.com/

I'd like to go on record with the following:

I've used fontographer and fontlab and I use them for different things. For Actually Designing Something, I use Fontographer. Its drawing tools and path manipulation systems are vastly easier to use and much more intuitive than fontlab. However: the output of Fontlab is superior and certainly much more up-to-date than Fog (esp. vis a vis OpenType, etc.)

So: I think the reasoned and more mature approach is not to say "FL rocks, FOG is old and sucky" or "FOG rulez, and FL is a bloated POS", but more to look at the strengths of each and the value of both.

simply: FOG is easier to use. I *don't* like its hinting or kerning, but *THAT'S OK*. That's why Fontlab is there! Fontlab is vastly more powerful in terms of output. So: I use the strengths: I design in FOG, output in FL. And I value them both: together, I am much more productive than with just one of them alone.

best regards,

HW

Full Disclosure: I was also on the fontographer support team (from 1995 - 1998) and helped Jim get rolling with that application way back when. I presently teach graphic design at NJCU. One of the classes I teach is a basic lettering and type design class. They use edged pens for 4 weeks, a variety of tools (markers, pencils, pens, spraypaint, twigs, etc.) for 3 weeks and then spend 8 weeks learning about type using computers. We use TypeTool to output simple fonts. I hope to upgrade the classroom to Fontographer when it comes out, as Fontlab would have these kids *completely lost*. If by some WEIRD chance one of them gets the "type design bug", I point them at the FOG / Fontlab combo for FOG's superior drawing tools and FL's superior output options. Sure: it costs more, and it lines the pockets of Fontlab - BUT: the combination is a superior workflow than either stand-alone product provides.