PDA

View Full Version : Font Identification Again


dthomsen8
03-19-2006, 08:45 AM
What fonts are used in the attached image?

This is an imbedded image from MS Word, so it is entirely possible that WordArt might have been involved with the shadowing of 'FCA" in this image. I would also like to identify the script below the "FCA" but the sans serif font on the right is of less concern to me.

Norbert
03-19-2006, 09:50 AM
What fonts are used in the attached image?

I would also like to identify the script below the "FCA" but the sans serif font on the right is of less concern to me.

The "FCA" logo uses a Humanist sans serif face, most likely Gill Sans Bold. The outline and drop shadow are just simple menu options.

The brush script below is... well, Brush Script (http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/linotype/brush-script/) literally.

ktinkel
03-19-2006, 09:51 AM
What fonts are used in the attached image? Gill Sans Bold and Brush Script.

I tested it — see image.

ktinkel
03-19-2006, 10:07 AM
Norbert — any chance you know what Not quite Cheltenham (http://www.desktoppublishingforum.com/bb/showthread.php?t=2129) is? It doesn’t even ring a bell with me.

Merci :)

dthomsen8
03-19-2006, 12:28 PM
The "FCA" logo uses a Humanist sans serif face, most likely Gill Sans Bold. The outline and drop shadow are just simple menu options.
Are the outline and drop shadow menu options in MS Word, or what software?

My starting point is an image, but someone else sent me the MS Word document, so I don't know how they did it. I would rather learn the techniques myself than ask them how, though.

ktinkel
03-19-2006, 12:52 PM
Are the outline and drop shadow menu options in MS Word, or what software?

My starting point is an image, but someone else sent me the MS Word document, so I don't know how they did it. I would rather learn the techniques myself than ask them how, though.I don’t know whether MS Word supports these as menu options, but if you have any software capable of layering type you can easily produce the drop shadow you see.

Set the type on a panel of the right background color, copy it, and place the copy on top of the first, a bit up and to the left; change its color to white, and there you are.

I am not sure, but suspect a program like Irfanview might be usable for this.

iamback
03-19-2006, 01:20 PM
Gill Sans Bold and Brush Script.

I tested it — see image.Brush script seems the same to me (but i can't se any details in the original) but the 'FCA' is definitely a different font - look at the ends of the 'C'! The A is slightly different, too, but the C is actually quite different.

dthomsen8
03-19-2006, 01:50 PM
I don’t know whether MS Word supports these as menu options, but if you have any software capable of layering type you can easily produce the drop shadow you see.

Set the type on a panel of the right background color, copy it, and place the copy on top of the first, a bit up and to the left; change its color to white, and there you are.

I am not sure, but suspect a program like Irfanview might be usable for this.

I am sure that it can be done with Paint Shop Pro. I have PSP 6 and 8, and a book on PSP 7.

dthomsen8
03-19-2006, 01:54 PM
Gill Sans Bold and Brush Script.

I tested it — see image.

It turns out that I have the whole family of Gill Sans on my Windows98SE computer, so I installed it on the WinXPpro for free. I am reluctant to buy Brush Script, but I can change to a different font for the version of this logo that I create. I have a variety of other script fonts, and several font CD collections, too.

ktinkel
03-19-2006, 01:54 PM
… the 'FCA' is definitely a different font - look at the ends of the 'C'! The A is slightly different, too, but the C is actually quite different.Perhaps so, but to me it looks close enough. There are many renderings of Gill Sans — from Monotype, Bitstream, URW, and others — which could account for slight differences.

And I actually think his sample has a black outline around the characters (in addition to the drop shadow), which might account for it. Take a look at this version — any closer?

ktinkel
03-19-2006, 02:29 PM
I am sure that it can be done with Paint Shop Pro. I have PSP 6 and 8, and a book on PSP 7.You may also need to add a 1px black stroke to the white FCA. See my second sample, in a message replying to Marjolein in this thread.

iamback
03-20-2006, 12:22 AM
Perhaps so, but to me it looks close enough. There are many renderings of Gill Sans — from Monotype, Bitstream, URW, and others — which could account for slight differences.

And I actually think his sample has a black outline around the characters (in addition to the drop shadow), which might account for it. Take a look at this version — any closer?It does look close to me - but no, the added outline doesn't make any differernce as I was already taking that into account. To me it looks close but not the same font:

I made a little drawing to highlight the differences: red lines indicate the major difference in the Cs
green lines indicate differences in stroke thickness (with the A strokes actually tapering upward in David's example)
purple dotted line indicates the difference in width/openness between the As

Now I can imagine the last two differences could be due to the first font having been used as a bold face, or maybe horizontally stretched (just like the brush text seems condensed compared to yours) - but that doesn't really explain the difference indicated by the purple dotted line for me. But the difference in the Cs is an actual lettershape difference. (Though, as indicated before, I think the A is different, too - not just condensed or stretched.)

Either a different foundry actually changed the shape of Gill in this way, or it's a different font altogether.

ktinkel
03-20-2006, 06:39 AM
It does look close to me - but no, the added outline doesn't make any differernce as I was already taking that into account. To me it looks close but not the same font
Either a different foundry actually changed the shape of Gill in this way, or it's a different font altogether.You may be right — that it is a different font. Gill Sans spawned hundreds of children and the differences are slight, especially in the caps.

Foundries do alter outlines, for various reasons that might include incompetence or an uninformed concern for the constraints of copyright. The changes you note do not seem particularly likely, however.

However, Gill Sans is widely disseminated on Windows machines; most of its descendents are not. If it is not “the” face, David could certainly get away with using it. ;)

iamback
03-20-2006, 09:25 AM
You may be right — that it is a different font. Gill Sans spawned hundreds of children and the differences are slight, especially in the caps.
(...)
However, Gill Sans is widely disseminated on Windows machines; most of its descendents are not. If it is not “the” face, David could certainly get away with using it. ;)Of course - especially since he got away with fooling you :p

I do have some Gill Sans on my machine: a family of Gill Sans MT (the bold comes closest but doesn't seem quite bold enough) and Gill Sans Ultra Bold and Gill Sans Ultra Bold Condensed, also from Monotype according to the font info; interestingly the latter two do show the angled cut offs on the C but none of the Gill Sans MT do - they're like what you showed with a straight line cut off.

Hmmm - maybe there is an Gill Sans MT Extra Bold? Ultra Bold is far too bold but does have the angled cutoffs on the C, Bold does not but doesn't look quite bold enough. Is there something in-between (that I don't have)?

Still, I went through all my sans serif fonts and nothing comes closer than the Gill Sans MT Bold. Although Humanist 521 Bold BT seems just as close (for these three characters only, of course); or even better the Extra Bold variant of that.

Gerry Kowarsky
03-20-2006, 09:26 AM
It turns out that I have the whole family of Gill Sans on my Windows98SE computer, so I installed it on the WinXPpro for free. I am reluctant to buy Brush Script, but I can change to a different font for the version of this logo that I create. I have a variety of other script fonts, and several font CD collections, too.

You may have Brush Script MT (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/font.aspx?FID=51&FNAME=Brush+Script+MT+Italic&FVER=1.52) somewhere, too. It has been bundled with a number of Microsoft products, including several versions of Office and Publisher.

iamback
03-20-2006, 09:30 AM
You may have Brush Script MT (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/font.aspx?FID=51&FNAME=Brush+Script+MT+Italic&FVER=1.52) somewhere, too. It has been bundled with a number of Microsoft products, including several versions of Office and Publisher.I have Office 2000 installed here - but don't have Brush Script MT (alas).

ktinkel
03-20-2006, 09:42 AM
I have Office 2000 installed here - but don't have Brush Script MT (alas).I got a copy with Office 2004. You probably just missed it.

Gerry Kowarsky
03-20-2006, 11:01 AM
I have Office 2000 installed here - but don't have Brush Script MT (alas).

Look on the second CD for this file: \OFFCD2_1.CAB\brushsci.ttf

ktinkel
03-20-2006, 11:17 AM
Of course - especially since he got away with fooling you :p Maybe. I still think it is probably Gill Sans, in part because of its ubiquity. People who create logo art in MS Word tend not to buy fonts. But I do have one other idea: Myriad Bold. It’s still not identical, but take a look.

I do have some Gill Sans on my machine: a family of Gill Sans MT … maybe there is an Gill Sans MT Extra Bold? …

Although Humanist 521 Bold BT seems just as close (for these three characters only, of course); or even better the Extra Bold variant of that.Humanist 521 is Gill Sans. Or rather, it is Bitstream’s knockoff of the font, which was created by Eric Gill in 1928 (or so), in collaboration with the drawing office staff at Monotype U.K. And yes, there is a Gill Sans XBold, but the versions I have (Monotype, Bitstream, URW) all show the defects you point to in your diagram.

iamback
03-20-2006, 12:09 PM
Maybe. I still think it is probably Gill Sans, in part because of its ubiquity. People who create logo art in MS Word tend not to buy fonts. But I do have one other idea: Myriad Bold. It’s still not identical, but take a look.If that's the one in your attachment then yes - that's a lot closer! There's the diagonal cutoff on the C and the opening of the A is narrower, too (with the drop shadows causing no blue visible in the top hole - as in the original sample but unlike your Gill Sans sample). I don't have Myriad in any flavor but if it comes with the same version of Office the as Brush Script, then I'd say it's quite likely!

Humanist 521 is Gill Sans. Or rather, it is Bitstream’s knockoff of the font, which was created by Eric Gill in 1928 (or so), in collaboration with the drawing office staff at Monotype U.K.Ha, no wonder it looked so similar to me. ;)

And yes, there is a Gill Sans XBold, but the versions I have (Monotype, Bitstream, URW) all show the defects you point to in your diagram.Oh well, that was just in inspired guess...

iamback
03-20-2006, 12:25 PM
Look on the second CD for this file: \OFFCD2_1.CAB\brushsci.ttfWell, duh! Yes, it's on there - but I actually do have it installed (like all the other fonts n that .cab) - I had fooled myself by filtering for 'sans' only when looking for a match for the capitals and forgot to turn that off (I rarely use the filters). Thanks :)

ktinkel
03-20-2006, 12:54 PM
If that's the one in your attachment then yes - that's a lot closer! There's the diagonal cutoff on the C and the opening of the A is narrower, too (with the drop shadows causing no blue visible in the top hole - as in the original sample but unlike your Gill Sans sample). I don't have Myriad in any flavor but if it comes with the same version of Office the as Brush Script, then I'd say it's quite likely!There’s the rub: So far as I know, no Adobe font has ever shipped with Office, and Myriad is an Adobe design (and no one has cloned it that I have ever heard of).

Gerry Kowarsky
03-20-2006, 11:07 PM
Glad to help.

Gerry Kowarsky
03-21-2006, 07:37 AM
So far as I know, no Adobe font has ever shipped with Office, and Myriad is an Adobe design.

The closest approach to that I can think of is the bundling of Minion Web (Roman only) with a previous version of Internet Explorer.

ktinkel
03-21-2006, 08:15 AM
The closest approach to that I can think of is the bundling of Minion Web (Roman only) with a previous version of Internet Explorer.But no Myriad? Myriad Web is an even closer match (than standard Myriad) to the original.

I redid the logo in Myriad Web, which is a tad wider than the regular Myriad, and for good measure did the small type as well, in both fonts. I do believe now that Myriad Web was used for this. Take a look.

There is even a hint of that tell-tale swelling of the back arc of the C. And in the small type, that typical Myriad PA kerning. The numbers are right to, and spaced the same.

I think David is planning to do something else for his site redo, but I need to know, darn it!

iamback
03-21-2006, 08:56 AM
I think David is planning to do something else for his site redo, but I need to know, darn it!I think he's sitting back,staring at the screen, with a rather stunned look on his face! :p

Michael Rowley
03-21-2006, 09:00 AM
KT:

But no Myriad? Myriad Web is an even closer match (than standard Myriad) to the original

I've never heard of Myriad Web, and Minion Web is apparently unobtainable now (it was a TTF font issued with IE 4). I'm interested, because both Myriad and Minion are my 'standard' fonts, despite my being a confirmed Word user.

ktinkel
03-21-2006, 09:09 AM
I think he's sitting back,staring at the screen, with a rather stunned look on his face! :pCould be, could be.

But this discussion clarifies the difficulty of sorting through the many, many humanist sans serif faces, most of which did not exist 20 or 30 years ago. Gill was a lonely pioneer; Frutiger sparked the gusher.

iamback
03-21-2006, 09:49 AM
But this discussion clarifies the difficulty of sorting through the many, many humanist sans serif faces, most of which did not exist 20 or 30 years ago. Gill was a lonely pioneer; Frutiger sparked the gusher.The difficulty is amply illustrated here. But this discussion also made me realize that when you don't know what particular font was used, in identifying it it might help to trace who made the logo, and what tools they had available - give how many fonts end up on systems because they are bundled with an application. Of course the person may not be traceable either but if someone is, (s)he might remember the available tools, if not the font.

Anyway, I agree that your Myriad Web is the closest match so far.

Gerry Kowarsky
03-21-2006, 03:10 PM
KT:

But no Myriad? Myriad Web is an even closer match (than standard Myriad) to the original

I've never heard of Myriad Web, and Minion Web is apparently unobtainable now (it was a TTF font issued with IE 4). I'm interested, because both Myriad and Minion are my 'standard' fonts, despite my being a confirmed Word user.

The original Web Type Package, Adobe's first TrueType offering, was replaced by WebType Pro (http://store.adobe.com/type/browser/P/P_1507.html):
This collection features 12 Adobe Original fonts in TrueType flavored OpenType format, optimized for easy on-screen viewing. Note: Mac OS users require OS X and OS X native applications to use these fonts.
The contents of the package are:

Caflisch Script Web Pro Regular
Giddyup Web Pro Regular
Mezz Web Pro Bold
Minion Web Pro Regular, Italic and Bold
Myriad Web Pro Regular, Italic and Bold

Myriad Web Pro Condensed and Condensed Italic

Penumbra Web Pro Regular

Michael Rowley
03-21-2006, 03:50 PM
Gerry:

Thanks for the information: I don't think Web Pro was out when I was looking for Minion Web.