PDA

View Full Version : Garamond with "ft" ligature


tas
07-19-2005, 11:50 AM
Forgive a newbie question: in quite a number of older German books, I find Garamond-like fonts with a ligature for the letters "ft." This looks really beautiful, and I wonder if any Garamond variety with this ligature is still available. Any hint would be appreciated.

Thanks

Thomas

Michael Rowley
07-19-2005, 12:41 PM
Thomas:

The ft ligature was found mainly among German Linotype etc. types, but it is not in the Unicode range of ligaments (U+FB00 to U+FB07), which includes only five 'f' ligatures. The ft ligature is however included in the Adobe Minion Open Type font, where it is at U+E09D, which is in the 'private use area', so the code is special to Adobe. If it is in Adobe Garamond OFT, it'll be there too. If you have Adobe's InDesign, you can find it in the 'alternates' (if it's there at all), but otherwise you'll have to call up glyph E09D; you can do that in Word, but I don't know what other programs allow you to insert any Unicode character.

Michael Rowley
07-19-2005, 12:49 PM
Thomas:

If it [the ft ligarure] is in Adobe Garamond OFT

It's not, I'm afraid. However, you may find it in someone else's recent Garamond or in an 'expert set'. Garamond expert set, anyone?

Stephen Owades
07-19-2005, 07:47 PM
Forgive a newbie question: in quite a number of older German books, I find Garamond-like fonts with a ligature for the letters "ft." This looks really beautiful, and I wonder if any Garamond variety with this ligature is still available. Any hint would be appreciated.

Thanks

Thomas
Adobe's new "Garamond Premier Pro" family includes ft ligatures. In the italics, there are some really unusual ligatures like as and is.

tas
07-20-2005, 02:06 AM
Michael, Stephen,

thanks so much for your swift replies, that was very helpful! I'll go and have a look at the new Adobe Garamond Premier Pro. It'd be the third Adobe Garamond that I buy, but hey, that's life... I would use the font with TeX, so writing a custom encoding and accessing the ligature via TeX's internal mechanism is not a problem.

All best

Thomas

Michael Rowley
07-20-2005, 01:36 PM
Stephen:

Adobe's new "Garamond Premier Pro" family

That's useful to know, Stephen, but where did you find it? I can't find Garamond Premium Pro on Adobe's site. Garamond Pro is the opposite of rich in ligatures.

donmcc
07-20-2005, 10:04 PM
Michael

It is one of the registration bonus options for upgrades to the CS2 Suite. I assume that is where Michael got his. I have heard in the Adobe forums that the font will be on the Adobe sight for sale once they get through handling all the bonus copies. (Maybe Thomas has a better idea on timing.)

Don McCahill

Michael Rowley
07-21-2005, 08:42 AM
Don:

It is one of the registration bonus options for upgrades to the CS2 Suite

Thanks for that information. Unfortunately, I've only got InDesign (v. 3), so haven't 'upgraded' to CS2.

tphinney
08-06-2005, 01:08 PM
Should be available in another week or so, if all goes well.

T

tas
10-08-2005, 03:57 AM
I'm resurrecting an old thread to report: I've bought Garamond Premier Pro, and it does not contain a ft-ligature---it contains two ft-ligatures, one where only the horizontal bars of f and t are joined and one where the ascenders are joined, too. The font is gorgeous and has lots of extra features and glyphs (such as cyrillic and a rather disappointing set of Greek Extended glyphs). Its size tends to be a bit smaller than the "normal" Adobe Garamond, and it looks a bit darker on the page. I'm using it with TeX and am very pleased by the results.

Best

Thomas

ktinkel
10-08-2005, 09:43 AM
I've bought Garamond Premier Pro, and it does not contain a ft-ligature---it contains two ft-ligatures, one where only the horizontal bars of f and t are joined and one where the ascenders are joined, too. The font is gorgeous …Thanks for the report. And glad you found what you needed.

Michael Rowley
10-08-2005, 12:41 PM
KT:

Thanks for the report

I suppose you had it already, if you have got the CS2 upgrade, and have added it to your list of 'Garamond' fonts. But apparently it is not just a version of Adobe Garamond with added ligatures etc. but a complete reworking; as the previous Adobe Garamond was much admired, how does the new version compare?

ktinkel
10-08-2005, 01:39 PM
I suppose you had it already, if you have got the CS2 upgrade, and have added it to your list of 'Garamond' fonts. But apparently it is not just a version of Adobe Garamond with added ligatures etc. but a complete reworking; as the previous Adobe Garamond was much admired, how does the new version compare?It is not Adobe Garamond — this is a new design.

There is also an Adobe Garamond Pro (http://store.adobe.com/type/browser/P/P_1703.html). The OT version takes advantage of OpenType’s advanced typographic capabilities, but it is distinct from Garamond Premier Pro (http://store.adobe.com/type/browser/P/P_1737.html), which is a separate design that intends to reflect differences in sizes of the original fonts.

In other words, it is more sophisticated, not just because of technology but because it tries to reflect the effect of size-modeling.

I have barely looked at it so cannot say how well they did, but it is certainly a worthwhile approach.

tphinney
10-08-2005, 01:57 PM
Garamond Premier is not a reworking of Adobe Garamond, but a completely different design. It does have three things in common with Adobe Garamond: it is based on the types of Claude Garamond, it was designed by Robert Slimbach, and it was released by Adobe.

Generally, Garamond Premier is much more closely based on its historical antecedents, more irregular, and more flavorful. It has a bit lower x-height. It is a beautiful typeface, which I use whenever and wherever I get the chance.

Cheers,

T

Michael Rowley
10-08-2005, 02:14 PM
KT:

It is not Adobe Garamond

That is why I said it was 'not just a version of Adobe Garamond'.

However, its name are 'Garamond Premier Pro' or 'Garamond Premier Pro Opticals' so is certainly one kind of Adobe Garamond; and you should note that it is the only latter that has variant fonts for different sizes.

If Garamond Premium appears a little darker, it would seem that Adobe have taken to heart claims that digital fonts in general appear weaker than their type metal predecessors.

ktinkel
10-08-2005, 02:28 PM
However, its name are 'Garamond Premier Pro' or 'Garamond Premier Pro Opticals' so is certainly one kind of Adobe Garamond …No. Adobe Garamond is one design. Garamond Premier is another.

They are as much related, really, as Garamond 3 is to ITC Garamond. Well, maybe closer than that.

Adobe Garamond and Garamond Pro were both designed by Rob Slimbach at Adobe and both names contain the word “Garamond” but they are separate designs (so you could call them both “Adobe garamonds” perhaps, but not kinds of Adobe Garamond).

fhaber
10-08-2005, 03:24 PM
It is indeed beautiful! And different, of course. Reminds me of the New Yorker font, in a less grotty moment. I'd love to see a print sample of it.

Speaking of that, this font ingrate has a question. With the decline of imagesetters, and the advent of laser printers that routinely output a clean, though sometimes spindly 1200dpi, what do professionals use for a quick looksee on paper? As in, what printer and what paper, if you're thinking of outputting to a. offset on bond or b. sleazoid calendared magazine stock.

Is this an ignorant question? I certainly can't judge a 12 pt. blown up on a glowing screen, but then I'm a total amachoor. KT? Anyone?

-f

{edit - yes, I know the New Yorker is a moth-eaten Caslon, and this is a Garamond, but I was trying to describe a feeling}

Michael Rowley
10-08-2005, 03:41 PM
KT:

Adobe Garamond is one design. Garamond Premier is another

Kathleen, I've never said or indicated that they weren't two different designs, but in asserting that they are not both attempts at recreating Garamond's own 'Garamond' and shouldn't be described as such I think you're quibbling. I grant you that one is Adobe's 'Adobe Garamond Pro' and the other is Adobe's 'Garamond Premier Pro'—I didn't realize that the genitive case was so significant!

ktinkel
10-08-2005, 05:08 PM
Garamond Premier is not a reworking of Adobe Garamond, but a completely different design.Thank you!

That is what I was trying to say, but clearly ineffectually! :)

Michael Rowley
10-09-2005, 04:23 PM
KT:

I suppose you had Adobe's Garamond Premier Pro already, if you have got the CS2 upgrade, and have added it to your list of 'Garamond' fonts. As Adobe Garamond was much admired, how does the new design compare with it?

I've taken particular care that the question is phrased suitably! (And I won't mention that Stempel Garamond is my favourite, at least, the original typemetal version.)

ktinkel
10-09-2005, 05:17 PM
Speaking of that, this font ingrate has a question. With the decline of imagesetters, and the advent of laser printers that routinely output a clean, though sometimes spindly 1200dpi, what do professionals use for a quick looksee on paper? As in, what printer and what paper, if you're thinking of outputting to a. offset on bond or b. sleazoid calendared magazine stock.

Is this an ignorant question? I certainly can't judge a 12 pt. blown up on a glowing screen, but then I'm a total amachoor. KT? Anyone?It is a great question. As Sumner Stone told a friend of mine, years ago, as advice to type designers: You must proof and test as close to the final output as possible. That means, the desired size at roughly 2400 dpi laser proofs for text types. Even better, take film from that and actually print.

(Sumner was the first type guy at Adobe, who oversaw development of the early Adobe original fonts; and then directed development of ITC Bodoni, with its several size-based versions. He designed Stone (Serif, Sans, Informal) and Stone Print, as well as Cycles, Arepo, and others. His slab serif is probably my favorite, or would be, if it had italics.)

It is clearly impossible to evaluate print fonts by viewing them on-screen, zoomed in. Not only do you not get a sense of the way they look in text, the large size distorts every aspect: weight, spacing, and fit.

Laser output is better than that. But before making big decisions, try to view text as output at high res.

yes, I know the New Yorker is a moth-eaten Caslon, and this is a Garamond, but I was trying to describe a feeling}I know what you mean. I recently sprang for the 8 DVD set of New Yorkers — every page from every issue from 1925 through the spring of this year. The very first thing that struck me (even looking at PDFs on-screen) is how incredible that Caslon looked in 1925. And how spindly and boring today’s New Yorker text type is. I was surprised, in fact.

ktinkel
10-09-2005, 05:19 PM
I suppose you had Adobe's Garamond Premier Pro already, if you have got the CS2 upgrade, and have added it to your list of 'Garamond' fonts. As Adobe Garamond was much admired, how does the new design compare with it?I wish I could say. But I have not even looked at Garamond Premier yet. (Life has been tugging me around, and I am way behind.)

(And I won't mention that Stempel Garamond is my favourite, at least, the original typemetal version.)I will keep that in mind!

tphinney
10-22-2005, 10:54 AM
...The font is gorgeous and has lots of extra features and glyphs (such as cyrillic and a rather disappointing set of Greek Extended glyphs).

Interesting. I think the lowercase Greek in Garamond Premier is perhaps the single most impressive thing about the typeface, from a type design perspective. I know that some Greek type experts agree (e.g. Gerry Leonidas). What did you find disappointing about the "set of Greek Extended glyphs"?

Cheers,

T

tas
10-22-2005, 01:40 PM
Interesting. I think the lowercase Greek in Garamond Premier is perhaps the single most impressive thing about the typeface, from a type design perspective. I know that some Greek type experts agree (e.g. Gerry Leonidas). What did you find disappointing about the "set of Greek Extended glyphs"?

Cheers,

T

Disclaimer: I'm not a professional type designer or typographer, but a professional Hellenist; I have to read (ancient) Greek text every day. With that in mind... What I find disappointing about the Greek font:

1. Some of the Greek letters have a very marked backward slant, e.g. the epsilon and the lambda; others are exactly upright (the rho and the theta), still others have a forward slant (gamma, alpha). The overall impression is too irregular, in my opinion.

2. The ascender of the lambda is exaggerated. It almost clashes/merges with accents on vowels preceding it.

3. the circumflex accent is too small (look at the combination of omega + circumflex), and it has a jagged form that is not in harmony with the rest of the font.

4. The proportions of the iota subscript are wrong: it is too short and too thick. It should resemble an iota, not some sort of accent.

5. Some characters have very fancy "ears" (look at the tau, the sigma, the kappa, the mu), others look almost like a sans font (phi, rho, the final sigma). Again, the overall effect is one of great irregularity.

6. The small alpha has, almost like the alpha in the Palatino font, a noticeable backward slant which looks very odd in certain combinations (alpha theta, for example).

Now I'm aware that the font is imitating Renaissance Greek hands and that there are historical antecedents for some of the features I criticize. Nevertheless, I can imagine having a couple of Greek words in this font, but never a longer stretch of text; the page looks just too "noisy" and nervous.

tphinney
10-23-2005, 05:19 PM
Thanks for the comments. I can understand your point of view now. And your comments on the iota subscript are interesting - I will take a look at that in the polytonic Greek I'm working on right now.

Cheers,

T