From: Bob Evans
Subject: Another Consideration in Digitizing Typefaces
Newsgroups: fa.typography
Date: 1999/06/08

After reading about dueling versions of Palatino for the past few days it got
me back to thinking about this idea, a bit rough but :

Some thoughts on *Ink* Squish and Digitizing Type.

Many fonts when digitized or converted to phototype  film did not take
into consideration the effect of *ink* spread when the original
letterpress type was printed. In checking through a number of fonts and
overlapping them on images I scanned from letterpress material I find
them to be thinner and even not shaped the same. Some of this was
designed in, while some of it was from working from the type design
drawings rather than the image it produced when printed. The digital
output should look like the printed product - not the perfection of the
tool used to print it. The printed type's *thickness* difference varies
by the *thickness* of the original - thick parts held more *ink* and
spread more (depending on the paperstock) than did thin parts. So *ink*
spread is proportional to the amount of *ink* on the type surface and
press pressure. What is the proper source for a digitized *font*?

What got me interested in this issue is that several years ago I bought
the entire Centaur family since I had always been a big fan. It always
looked a bit thin to me but back using my 300-dpi *laser printer* it
wasn't too bad.  About a year and a half ago I updated to a 600dpi
printer for my proofing and the Centaur looked even thinner. I am now
trying to figure out how to match my Centaur to what I see in the
original letterpress material I have in Centaur. I have also run tests
on Garamond and several other typefaces, same problems.

Another factor in *ink* spread (squish) was that it was not sharp and
regular.  The type of *ink* and the paper contributed to the final
effect. Years ago-say 1988-I had a printer tell me my 300 dpi laser
output would not be as sharp as his phototype setter. I agreed and told
him still not to reset the type in my layout, as I liked my 300-dpi
output just  ne. I didn't say what I was thinking which was pay for your
equipment with somebody else's money. A few years later Judith Sutcliffe
wrote an article for Aldus magazine about the issue called "In praise of
Imperfection". I still hand it out to my students (March/April 1990
Aldus Magazine, page 64). In it she says that we need to look to the
letterpress image rather than phototype or even laser for the epitome of
typographic beauty. "Much of what the design industry regards today as
beautiful is so perfect it is ultimately cold and lifeless" and then she
goes on to say that "perfection isn't always beautiful."

Techies tend to like technical perfection - but sometimes the "art" has
to be considered.  We just need to  gure out how to but the random
variations back into the contours that gave foundry type its warmth and
beauty. Creating a digital letterform that has "squish" is something I
have thought about for a number of years. Sometimes I have seen a quick
and dirty scan and autotraced *font* that is better than it should be -
because it has enough fine variation to start looking "printed" and not
too sharp, clean and dull.
.