[nica]

I’m researching the purchase of a base library of typefaces for a graphic designer. Nothing fancy just a few hundred fonts that any graphic designer should have in their typeface library.

The typefaces will be used for the creation of brochures, small magazines and adds. I went to Adobe but they only offer OpenType fonts and my designer wants TrueType fonts in her experience these have worked better for her.

Any suggestions on where to purchase TrueType typeface libraries and OpenType vs. TrueType typefaces.

[KeriVit]

True Type is so "OLD School". They can cause numerous problems too. OpenType is cross platform and much more reliable. Go with the fonts of the future if you are going to purchase now. Why buy a technology that is 15 years old?

[nica]

The graphic designer suggested TrueType and there is also the issue of "will they work well with Quark?". The price for FontFolio from Adobe is $9000 for 2200 typefaces. I don't think they need that many but it's that or purchase them individually which is not going to happen.

[himself]

Originally posted by nica:
The graphic designer suggested TrueType and there is also the issue of "will they work well with Quark?". The price for FontFolio from Adobe is $9000 for 2200 typefaces. I don't think they need that many but it's that or purchase them individually which is not going to happen.

OpenType does not work with Quark. Or rather, Quark does not work with OpenType. At least, not yet. InDesign handles OpenType, and OpenType fonts have tons of features that typosetters and graphic designers won't know how they got along without.

But, if the choice is between fonts compatible with Quark, TT is probably the only option right now, and also Type 1 fonts if there is no other alternative.

[normdzn]

Hi Y'all,

Well, I just purchased "Mac Fonts" for OSX and let me tell you that unless you are a desktop publisher and not a graphic designer you will find this collection of fonts not very impressive. The collection boasts of 1000 fonts of which only a handful I could see myself using. They are TT fonts by the way for $30. Hope this helps.

[himself]

Originally posted by normdzn:
Hi Y'all,

Well, I just purchased "Mac Fonts" for OSX and let me tell you that unless you are a desktop publisher and not a graphic designer you will find this collection of fonts not very impressive. The collection boasts of 1000 fonts of which only a handful I could see myself using. They are TT fonts by the way for $30. Hope this helps.

To be honest, I can get by with about 8-10 basic fonts, regardless of the project. As it is, there are about 25 fonts I use on a regular basis, and the [2,000 or so] others are pretty much "just in case" fonts. As it is, a designer shouldn't rely on the typeface to carry a composition, the composition should stand on its own. Every now and then, those "j.i.c." fonts do come in handy, however.

[godzookie2k]

I disagree, I think the typeface is pretty goddamn important to a layout, composition or not. You could have the best balanced composition in the world but if its laid out in critter, it aint going very far.

That being said, I too probably use only about 15 different typefaces 99% of the time. I really should get some more range in my diet.

[nica]

I have been reading The Elements of Typographic Style by Robert Bringhurst he writes that composition and typefaces make your design.

I’m suggesting to the designer a few typeface libraries to choose from whether the purchasing department approves it or not is yet to be seen.

ITC 1500 library
http://www.itcfonts.com/fonts/1500_library.asp

The LinoType ITC library
http://www.linotype.com/6-2274-6/linotypeitc.html

or the ITC Designer Collection 200 and then purchase typefaces as needed
http://www.itcfonts.com/fonts/itcdesigner-coll.asp

[art_director]

Originally posted by himself:
To be honest, I can get by with about 8-10 basic fonts, regardless of the project. As it is, there are about 25 fonts I use on a regular basis, and the [2,000 or so] others are pretty much "just in case" fonts. As it is, a designer shouldn't rely on the typeface to carry a composition, the composition should stand on its own. Every now and then, those "j.i.c." fonts do come in handy, however.

If you only have a hammer all your problems begin to look like nails.

Type faces should be selected for their relevance to a project, not because it's what a designer / art director fancies at the moment.

It is short sighted and a disservice to your clients to shoe horn their communications into your select list of fonts.

Fred Woodward of Rollingtone Magazine once said something like:

"There are thousands of type faces out there. They all have their specific purpose and my goal to use them all."

That's not the exact quote but it gets the idea across.

Getting stuck on a favorite type face is easy to do. We've all done it and it's one of the biggest mistakes young people make. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen a junior's book and most every ad has the same face...uggh...

Switch it up, gang. Pick what's best for the job.

[jamiep]

Industry standard on a day to day basis is really still Postscript. Opentype is great, but in all actuality, we still have to face the fact that many people in this industry are still working in os 9 with Quark 4. Stick to what the masses have. Type 1 fonts are tried and true for 20+ years.

If you're a student, keep in mind that you can buy the Adobe Fontfolio 9 (postscript type 1 edition) from most campus bookstores for around $120.

[himself]

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
I disagree, I think the typeface is pretty goddamn important to a layout, composition or not. You could have the best balanced composition in the world but if its laid out in critter, it aint going very far.

That being said, I too probably use only about 15 different typefaces 99% of the time. I really should get some more range in my diet.

Did I ever say that the typeface is not important to the composition?

Well, let me clarify my comment...
Of course the typeface is important to the composition, but it shouldn't be a prop for it. All too often I see designers creating poorly executed compositions with funky typefaces, as if that were all that was needed to make it "great." A great, well thought-out composition can be recognized by a decent designer aside from the typeface used.

A skilled designer ought to be able to create a decent composition with just about any typeface, be it from Helvetica Neue, Minion, or even Critter. Just the same, a hack can create a sh!t-stained monstrosity with those same faces. The point is, the typeface used should receive as much thought and consideration as the form that the composition will take.

If you only have a hammer all your problems begin to look like nails.

Type faces should be selected for their relevance to a project, not because it's what a designer / art director fancies at the moment.

It is short sighted and a disservice to your clients to shoe horn their communications into your select list of fonts.

Are you saying that any given font should be used simply because it exists? If so, I don't agree with that (wouldn't happen to use Critter often, do you?). I agree that typefaces should be chosen based on relevance, but I've found a short list of classic fonts that are extremely versatile, and designed well enough to be relevant to a wide range messages. The key is, once it is understood the range of general messages that can be possibly communicated (and there is limited number), it can be seen how a few standard typefaces can support that message (or, suppress it, or remain neutral, if that is what is called for). Those 8-10 fonts I use most frequently tend to cover that range of messages quite well. That doesn't mean that no other font outside of my "select list," as you call it, is ever to be loaded into my system. The thousands of other fonts out there can play a role in fine tuning a message, but they are, more often than not, unsuitable as foundation. I recognize dozens of beautiful fonts not in my "list" that I can use whenever it is appropriate. I just like to be careful not to overuse some of the fonts that aren't as "durable."

So it is not that I only have a hammer, but that I don't have 20 different kinds of hammers (or drills, or saws, or any other tool you would like to use to extend this metaphor) in my collection when only two or three will do.

P.S.: funny how quickly these threads go OT nowadays, ain't it?

[art_director]

Originally posted by himself:
Are you saying that any given font should be used simply because it exists? If so, I don't agree with that (wouldn't happen to use Critter often, do you?). I agree that typefaces should be chosen based on relevance, but I've found a short list of classic fonts that are extremely versatile, and designed well enough to be relevant to a wide range messages. The key is, once it is understood the range of general messages that can be possibly communicated (and there is limited number), it can be seen how a few standard typefaces can support that message (or, suppress it, or remain neutral, if that is what is called for). Those 8-10 fonts I use most frequently tend to cover that range of messages quite well. That doesn't mean that no other font outside of my "select list," as you call it, is ever to be loaded into my system. The thousands of other fonts out there can play a role in fine tuning a message, but they are, more often than not, unsuitable as foundation. I recognize dozens of beautiful fonts not in my "list" that I can use whenever it is appropriate. I just like to be careful not to overuse some of the fonts that aren't as "durable."

So it is not that I only have a hammer, but that I don't have 20 different kinds of hammers (or drills, or saws, or any other tool you would like to use to extend this metaphor) in my collection when only two or three will do.

Read what you quoted from my post. I stated my point clearly:

Type faces should be selected for their relevance to a project...


Having a select list of fonts always used – whether three or twenty-three – is the hallmark of a hack. And to suggest that so few fonts can convey every client's message is short sighted. Many art directors and designers make this mistake. The good ones learn to move away from their fear of using other fonts – and let's be straight, it is a fear.


Now back to your question directed at my post...

I quoted Fred Woodward of Rolling Stone Magazine – who happens to be among the most talented designers of our time. To back that statement I direct you to the articles written about him in Communication Arts, Print, How and the numerous design books highlighting his work. Some of the award shows that recognize his abilities include the One Show, the Art Directors Annual, Communication Arts, Print, Graphis, DNAD, Archive Magazine, etc.

He (meaning Fred Woodward) said:

"There are thousands of type faces out there. They all have their specific purpose and my goal to use them all."

It's a simple, true statement – all fonts do have a place. They can be appropriate choices for certain jobs. Yes, even Critter.

The point is that if you use Trade Gothic, Franklin Gothic, Helvetica Neue, Hoefler Text, Champion, Berling, Univers, and a few others as the primary font for every job you do you're a talentless hack. Yes, I said a HACK.

We have a responsibility to best communicate our clients' messages, to build their brands. Not to use the fonts we're comfortable with all the time. That's not good or responsible design. That's a joke.

So, since you argue for the validity of this special font list, why not share it with us? What are the magic fonts that communicate this versatile range of messages? Post 'em.

To be honest you sound like a young designer so you deserve some slack. But to suggest that twenty fonts can be used as the backbone for every message is ignorant and untrue.

[jamiep]

A Hack? Then this hack gets Art Directors Club of New York, Canada and London for being a hack. This hack is featured in the ADCC's Type Annual and AR100.

I tend to use: Interstate, Century, Franklin Gothic, Adobe Caslon, Corporate, Minion, Mrs. Eaves and Gotham for many of my projects and I'm doing just fine.

Are you a hack if mostly spec Cougar as an uncoated sheet and EuroArt as your coated sheet? "There are thousands of papers out there, and it's my dream to try them all." — get a life.
Are you a hack if you regularly set type 10 on 12 in a three column grid?

It's a wonderful paradigm to want to find a use for typefaces like HotDog and Hobo, but come on, lets look at this realistically: Most clients aren't Rolling Stone. Rolling stone is wonderful, but when I design something for The Centre for Geriatric Care, I think I'll stick to my traditionals.

You point out a terrific goal, but c'mon — come back down to earth fancypants. Most jobs end up using the same typefaces, and each having their own personalities. Stop quoting the greats and start thinking realistically, yourself.

[art_director]

jamiep:

You're right, to suggest one is a hack based upon this is not correct. However, limiting your type face choices to so few is short sighted.

Sure, Hobo and Critter are not suitable for most projects. But then starting with Franklin Gothic for every job isn't terribly creative, now is it?

Like yourself I've had work in most of the shows you list and more. I've written articles and have been interviewed for others. I've also judged shows. And, coming from that perspective and experience, I believe a varied diet of typefaces is best. And I believe they should be selected based upon the brands they represent and the projects at hand.

Seven years ago, when I worked at a mid-sized shop, we had a number of clients who used the same typeface for their communications – Futura. We, as an agency, adopted the graphic standards of these companies when we won the accounts. It totally blew. Every job was the same family of faces. We put together presentations to all the clients that demonstrated what we were seeing as an agency – the fact that they needed to define their own unique personalities and altering their typographic standards was integral to the argument. Every one of them bought into the idea and, to this day, they have our type selections as part and parcel of their brand identity.

That, my friend, is what we as professional art directors and designers should always be concious of. Sticking to a handful of faces because we're comfortable with them is irresponsible brand stewardship. Every brand is unique and thus the communication(s) for them should reflect their position in the marketplace.

You said: "Rolling stone is wonderful, but when I design something for The Centre for Geriatric Care, I think I'll stick to my traditionals."

So you'll shoehorn their materials into your convenience? Not terribly professional.


You also said: "Stop quoting the greats and start thinking realistically, yourself."

That quote WAS thinking realistically. Ignoring it is not. I added Woodward's words because they're true – it's good advice. I try to live by it and my clients appreciate the effort.


Example: Last week I worked on five campaigns for a multinational business to business account. When I looked through the trade pubs I noticed the same typeface being used for most of the compeition: Franklin Gothic. EVERY PLAYER IN THE SAME CATEGORY. So I set out to create different looks and feels via, among other things, type faces. My client and her boss were so excited that they called me after the meeting and thanked me for helping them to see beyond the status quo.

In the end they rewarded me with a big chunk of their work – taking it away from Agency X which is a well-known, top-tier ad agency. Now I'm not saying it was solely because of the type selections, but, that was called out by the client and they appreciated the suggestions.


Type faces are as much a part of a brand as the color, the logo and the graphic language. To deny that is a mistake. To make them all the same is a bigger mistake.

I should add that how the faces are handled can also set them apart. That does not change the need to match a face to the brand.

[jamiep]

Good reply, man. High-five.

[himself]

Originally posted by art_director:
Read what you quoted from my post. I stated my point clearly:

...snip

To be honest you sound like a young designer so you deserve some slack. But to suggest that twenty fonts can be used as the backbone for every message is ignorant and untrue.

So now I'm a (young) talentless hack? ok. You're making so many assumptions about me and my practices that I wonder how you can ever clear your head long enough to craft a cohesive concept for your clients. Then again, I don't make those kinds of assumptions.

It sounds to me you're talking more about fashion than design. As you quoted from Woodward, there is a place for every typeface that has been made. I can live with that. That doesn't mean that each of those typefaces should be used, simply because they are there. If it is appropriate, then yes, but otherwise, no.

We all know (or should know) who Woodward is. You don't have to quote him twice (please stop swinging from his nuts). If Woodward wants to make use of every typeface in existence, more power to him. I don't share that objective. I did state (which you seem to have overlooked) that my font selection is not limited strictly to those fonts in my "list." Please read the post again until you retain those points that you make your false assumptions on, or ask a question on the points you're sure of. Just don't make any more erroneous assumptions. There is no "fear" of using a new or different typeface. You should recognize that not every typeface out there is suitable as the foundation of a composition. A lot of them are perfect for accent or peripheral touches, and that is what I use them for.

If you were to look at the work of Wolfgang Weingart, or Ivan Chermayeff, or Armin Hofmann (and too many others to mention -- and I don't like name dropping), you would see that it is indeed possible and practical to create outstanding and unique compositions with what you would probably consider mundane typefaces. It is a cop-out and a misconception to say that the more fonts you have, the better you are as a designer (which seems to be the implication of your comments). That, to me, sounds like a designer who has run out of ideas and uses fonts as a crutch. Having and using an extensive set of fonts won't make you a master of, or even skilled in, typography. The creativity comes in with what you do with the typeface (or the color, or imagery, or the structure of the format), it doesn't end with the typeface you choose.

[jamiep]

Originally posted by himself:
You don't have to quote him twice (please stop swinging from his nuts).

Now THAT'S funny. lol.

[art_director]

Originally posted by himself:


So now I'm a (young) talentless hack? ok.

I already addressed my earlier statement.

Originally posted by himself:


It sounds to me you're talking more about fashion than design. As you quoted from Woodward, there is a place for every typeface that has been made. I can live with that. That doesn't mean that each of those typefaces should be used, simply because they are there. If it is appropriate, then yes, but otherwise, no.

Simply sharing the words of a wise designer.

Originally posted by himself:


You should recognize that not every typeface out there is suitable as the foundation of a composition. A lot of them are perfect for accent or peripheral touches, and that is what I use them for.

Every typeface can be the primary font in a design – the foundation as you say. Only your imagination can limit their use. To suggest that only certain faces are suited for the job is not correct.

Originally posted by himself:


... you would see that it is indeed possible and practical to create outstanding and unique compositions with what you would probably consider mundane typefaces. It is a cop-out and a misconception to say that the more fonts you have, the better you are as a designer (which seems to be the implication of your comments).

Don't put words in my mouth. Volume of fonts does not make a person a good designer. However, knowing how to use typefaces appropriate to a job does. Mind you, the definition of a good designer does not end there.

I was not speaking of mundane type, I was speaking of appropriate selections. I do not consider any type face to be mundane. They're all different and they all have personalities. They should be recognized as such and used accordingly.

In the earlier days of advertising and design there were a limited number of faces available to designers. At that time it was proven that many interesting treatments can be made from a few -- to your point.

That was then, this is now.

With the introduction of the computer to our business and the explosion of type choices available -- many from small foundries (ie. Chank Diesel) we have greater typographic choice and freedom than ever before. If we are to advance the ball of design we must not ignore that fact. We must embrace it and push ourselves rather than regurgitating what those before us have accomplished. In a sense, that's Woodward's point and he's right.

[Randman]

I think everyone is thinking of what they do and applying that to everyone else. Different jobs need different tools. For example, in my work as a newspaper designer, there's usually a very small number of fonts available for usage, consistency being one of the goals.
Doing more of an art director role for magazines, there's much more flexibility in what fonts can be used and in what manner.

Which basically means that there's no one correct answer.

Rather than asking such a broad question, perhaps the original poster could be more specific as to what he (or she) wants to accomplish.

[jamiep]

The End.

[art_director]

Randman:

Good points but I think the conversation was a bit more global – talking of design as a whole rather than editorial in specific.


---


jamiep:

Have you tired of the debate?

[siMac]

Originally posted by jamiep:
many people in this industry are still working in os 9 with Quark 4. Stick to what the masses have.

AAARRRGGHHHHH! NO, GODDAMMIT!

Baaaa, baaaa!

[art_director]

OS 9?
Quark 4?

I'm in Minneapolis. We're among the premier print towns in the nation. Most every shop and business here has migrated to OS X. Most use Q v.6 but some have switched to ID CS. There are others who use both Q and ID.

We, as a community, do not represent what's happening around the nation. It's interesting to hear that many are using OS 9. My out of town clients have all switched to OS X with half using Q and half using ID.

Anyone else think it's time to establish some standards?

[Randman]

Originally posted by art_director:
Anyone else think it's time to establish some standards?

Yeah, good luck with that.

[art_director]

I know but one can dream...

[art_director]

It's like building production files – no two places do it the same.

Before I began freelancing I worked for a number of agencies. In my freelance career even more. No two of those shops build files in a consistent fashion yet all of them insist they're doing it the "right way."

Ha.

[jamiep]

Originally posted by art_director:
OS 9?
Quark 4?

I'm in Minneapolis. We're among the premier print towns in the nation. Most every shop and business here has migrated to OS X. Most use Q v.6 but some have switched to ID CS. There are others who use both Q and ID.

We, as a community, do not represent what's happening around the nation. It's interesting to hear that many are using OS 9. My out of town clients have all switched to OS X with half using Q and half using ID.

Anyone else think it's time to establish some standards?

Our studio is all os x, quark 4 and some migration to indesign cs, but i can't go a week without getting a quark 4 file from someone, or having someone ask for me to save something down to xpress 4. It's not going anywhere for a while...

[iMOTOR]

Let us not forget the fact that typefaces like Times, Century, Hoefler, etc have been popular for decades simply because they're easy to read. I agree that designers should use any font necessary to reflect the diversity of the project, but I see many designs where a funky font was used to distract from the lack of tension in the design. You don't just throw a funky font in for the sake of being different, you have to know what you are doing.


art_director:

would you expect someone to read a single paragraph set in a rope font?

[Randman]

Originally posted by iMOTOR:
You don't just throw a funky font in for the sake of being different, you have to know what you are doing.

Ah, if only more designers followed that.

[art_director]

Originally posted by iMOTOR:
art_director:

would you expect someone to read a single paragraph set in a rope font?

Hyperbole. I will say that if a piece were being designed for a specific audience with a tolerance for type, then possibly. Examples: AIGA posters, paper samples mailers, etc. Now if you're doing a piece targetng AARP members Times would be a suitable bet, eh?

Again, I say use the right font for the job. Pretty simple, realy.

[Randman]

Really.

[art_director]

Really.

[normdzn]

Hi Y'all,

Speaking about ID CS vs. Quark 6, any preference?

Anyways, after much debate and having discussions with vendors we figured that our office needed to keep up with the fast pace of moving technology and upgrade the to OSX and leave our precious (sentimental reasons...sniff, sniff) OS9 Classic environment . I do believe that most designers including myself (my peers, at least) have moved on from OS9 to OSX but were concerned about sacrificing production time for time learning a new system and compatibility issues with freelancers and printers. It was seamless...

Change is good.

[art_director]

Originally posted by normdzn:
Hi Y'all,

Speaking about ID CS vs. Quark 6, any preference?

Anyways, after much debate and having discussions with vendors we figured that our office needed to keep up with the fast pace of moving technology and upgrade the to OSX and leave our precious (sentimental reasons...sniff, sniff) OS9 Classic environment . I do believe that most designers including myself (my peers, at least) have moved on from OS9 to OSX but were concerned about sacrificing production time for time learning a new system and compatibility issues with freelancers and printers. It was seamless...

Change is good.

You may have just asked for more response than you ever dreamed of. The Q vs. ID debate is among the more heated battles facing humanity.

I shall sit on the sidelines and snicker to myself. Good luck.

[siMac]

Originally posted by normdzn:
We figured that our office needed to keep up with the fast pace of moving technology and upgrade the to OSX

Hate to break it to you but you're not keeping up. 'Keeping up' would have been making the switch a couple of years ago - what you're doing is 'catching up'.

Nice of you to join us though. Oh, and use ID, QX (not 'QE') is a dinosaur.

[Randman]

Quark is a dinosaur but lots of companies have too much invested in licenses to drop it for ID.

[siMac]

Originally posted by Randman:
Quark is a dinosaur but lots of companies have too much invested in licenses to drop it for ID.

That's what makes the Creative Suite such brilliant marketing - these companies almost certainly already have Illustrator and Photoshop, in which case they already have InDesign too.

No extra expense incurred.

[Randman]

Originally posted by siMac:
No extra expense incurred.

For the application, no. But in a practical sense, a large company will incur costs. I know of quite a few still using OS9 and Quark 5 (though 4 was still the best of the bunch).

[art_director]

Originally posted by Randman:
For the application, no. But in a practical sense, a large company will incur costs. I know of quite a few still using OS9 and Quark 5 (though 4 was still the best of the bunch).

Quark 5,,,and I thought I was the only person on planet earth suckered into buying that piece of sheet.

[siMac]

Originally posted by Randman:
For the application, no. But in a practical sense, a large company will incur costs.

That may be true, but those short term 'teething' costs will be outweighed by long term benefits in productivity, and cheaper upgrade costs in the future.

[art_director]

Originally posted by siMac:
That may be true, but those short term 'teething' costs will be outweighed by long term benefits in productivity, and cheaper upgrade costs in the future.

Even with the extra costs associated with retraining staff on the app shift I believe you're right. Assuming, of course, you are successful in persuading your vendors to make the transition. Wise vendors will follow your lead. Unwise vendors will look for replacement clients.

[siMac]

Confucious, he say:
Wise vendors will follow your lead. Unwise vendors will look for replacement clients.

[PiperH]

with due respect to all the above, I'd say any properly trained graphic designer will ask for a decent selection of fonts, anything upwards of 30 families, but the tricky question is compatibility.

Ask the people who will be imaging the files onto film or plate whether they suggest postscript or true type or open type fonts. I'll be interested to know the result - I thought postscript still ruled but maybe I'm out of date.


As for hammers and all problems looking like nails, I'm not sure what it means but I like the sound of it. I'm going to use the phrase at a party to impress someone. If it falls flat I'll acknowledge the source otherwise I'll just look wisely into the distance.

[nica]

I talked to a print rep a couple of days ago and he suggested to go with OpenType typefaces from Adobe. He noted that Quark does OpenType but only partially (does not have Unicode support until ver. 7).

I asked him if he had to buy typefaces which type he would buy? He responded OpenType without doubt the quality is there and you eliminate the cross platform issues.

Maybe some of the posters above should open a new discussion topic like “if you where on an island doing design what typefaces would you take with you?”

[art_director]

Originally posted by nica:
“if you where on an island doing design what typefaces would you take with you?”

lovely.

[Randman]

Originally posted by nica:
“if you where on an island doing design what typefaces would you take with you?”

A dictionary would be one thing to take.

[RGB]

I simply have to deal with a shortage of usable fonts where I work. As a student-run college newspaper, funding isn't exactly easy to come by. As such, so are good font libraries. The newsies' reliance on some OS 9 software has kept the advertising side back with it, along with usage of Quark 4. This limits us even further.

We're finally moving the advertising side ahead to OS X, but the paper will still be assembled in Quark 4.

When I took over as creative manager this semester I pointed out our limited font selection as one of the greatest roadblocks toward actual creative output. Especially when dealing with Quark, the same 8-10 fonts were being used on almost every ad. I hope to have a much larger library purchased by the end of the semester, as large as possible given funding, but until then I feel like my hands are tied. Quite frustrating.

[Randman]

As a college newspaper, you should restrict yourself to a handful of fonts. Overusage of colors, screens, etchouts and fonts are the hallmark of many a budding journalist. And in the newspaper world, that spells a-m-a-t-e-u-r.

As much as possible, try and separate the ad fonts from the editorial ones, but consistency, readability and more consistency and readability is what you should be striving for.

[RGB]

Originally posted by Randman:
As a college newspaper, you should restrict yourself to a handful of fonts. Overusage of colors, screens, etchouts and fonts are the hallmark of many a budding journalist. And in the newspaper world, that spells a-m-a-t-e-u-r.

As much as possible, try and separate the ad fonts from the editorial ones, but consistency, readability and more consistency and readability is what you should be striving for.

News side has their fonts picked out, those don't change on a day to day basis. Our ads are completely separate.

[andi*pandi]

A) you get what you pay for, $30 CDs are usually full of badly kerned knockoffs of better typefaces;

and B) no pre-press dept likes dealing with TT fonts for imaging.

Perhaps she meant Postscript?

there are also usually some free adobe fonts included with the suite... is that still true?