Project Faces by Adobe
Comments
-
This is so funny. The first postscript fonts, before Stone? The first Linotype fonts, before Griffith? The first letterpress, the first photo fonts, the first Kroy lettering gun, the first letraset, the first bitmaps, early web fonts, and early punctuation — were all too crude to be useful to some people. Every single one of whom, are now out of business, naturally.
0 -
Max Phillips said:It’s not a neat tool!
Why?
Because it begins with badly made basic forms and then adds weight to them with no way of correcting optical problems, like the dark vertices of the M. The output is too crude to be useful.
2 -
Wow. No way of correcting!?
Is the output stone? Wood? Metal? I can fix those.
Beziers, fuggetabout them once output.;) sure, the skeletons are rong, but how would you know when they are right, anyway, rhetorically of course.
0 -
Our reaction should be to make a tool that instead of producing new low quality fonts would allow to select the font the user wants based on the same or even more parameters. Large, collaborative databases of fonts could be made into a world wide directory so that we can all benefit from parametric type design.5
-
David, I meant that there was no way to make optical corrections within the app. And this purports to make ready-to-use font files, not raw material for hand editing in a font editor.
And, sure, this may lead to a better quality tool down the road, but the question was whether this was a great tool as is. Do you think it's a great tool as is?sure, the skeletons are rong, but how would you know when they are right, anyway, rhetorically of course.
Not sure I follow. By looking at them?
0 -
It was Edgar G. Dinkleweatee, who –after he found some bones in the yellow river deposition in his backyard– had the brilliant idea to use these as skeletons for apostrophes.
2 -
Looks like Edgar has been smokin' too many joints ;-)
1 -
Good point Max—I would therefore say that there are too many diagonals in the default skeleton here, and that something predominantly orthogonal (e.g. Futura Display) would be more appropriate.0
-
Our reaction should be to make a tool that instead of producing new low quality fonts would allow to select the font the user wants based on the same or even more parameters. Large, collaborative databases of fonts could be made into a world wide directory so that we can all benefit from parametric type design.
The Google Fonts directory already offers this mode of type selection in a basic form; on the left sidebar there are parametric sliders for weight, width and slant.0 -
"Bummer, there are no font families that match. Please try changing your criteria or hit the reset button:"
I had no idea filtering fonts by OS/2 meta data and presenting the results to users is parametric font styling. we are done, thanks to Dave.2 -
I feel like this could be useful mostly when you want to change an existing typeface at a very minuscule degree (i.e. ±2% letterform scaling; 5% slant for a typeface without italics). —But, we already get that in InDesign or Illustrator. Plus, we don’t know what kind of typeface could work with Project Faces. Maybe it’s just simple skeletons built into the thing, in which we have no way of controlling what the sliders are based on.
Or, I’m going to be very, very optimistic here, and say that Project Faces is Adobe’s preliminary educational effort for resurrecting MM.0 -
Adobe don't deserve much appreciation for this project mainly because it is basically a copy of Prototypo. But it is an interesting move of Adobe, and the dynamic of the development of the field is also interesting, now that Fontark, Prototypo and Adobe's faces are leading the parametric type design development.
I'm also surprised of the short-seeing of many pro type designers that "disqualify" such projects in early stages by pointing out missing features or control of this or that kind, most of the technical challenges can (if not already) be overcome quite easily and there's so much more that can be done in that respect.
The fundamental issue, that has been pointed here too, is the fact that good type design is a true (usable-)art work, and as such it can't be substituted with a cheap and/or quick solutions, and just as handy cameras didn't kill or damaged cinema and photography no one have a reason to fear for type-design, on the contrary... with more than two years of experience with Fontark I can say that it only increases the understanding and appreciation of type design by letting designers experience it and see how demanding it is even when most technical challenges removed. (and appreciation leads to respecting copyrights and paying for quality products).
When putting aside "moral" questions and fear for the future of type design(/ers) we're left with questions about the potential of these king of tools, who are they for and where can they get to? Wouldn't you like your work to be easier? Wouldn't you like not to be bothered with technical issues and focus on the artistic ones? (Which btw don't necessarily involved with deduction of understanding and skill, just see how lettering is flourishing lately), after all this is what technology is for.
1 -
Wouldn't you like not to be bothered with technical issues and focus on the artistic ones?
Absolutely. But the drawing of the alphabet is the part I don't need help with. Drawing the alphabet is the fun part of the job but only constitutes 10% of the work. The other 90% is what I'd like to have automated: creating classes, kerning, accents, weights, interpolation, obliques, OT features, cleaning up overlaps, welding ogoneks, ordinals, fractions, pointless math symbols. I'd be happy to let a machine do that stuff. Leave the fun 10% to me.
3 -
“Welding ogoneks” is part of drawing the alphabet. Just not the English alphabet.
Well, I think it’s fun, anyway. ;-)
2 -
Frode Bo Helland said:
I’m still waiting for parametric outlines, not midlines.
You must have missed it, Fontark introduced parametric outlines about a year ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qMrMytabUIRay Larabie said:Leave the fun 10% to me.
1 -
Frode Bo Helland said:If I send you a UFO, can you make it parametric?
0 -
Send it over, I will create it into the system and let you check it out and play with it. Only one weight is needed.
0 -
@Kent Lew I just did 336 ogonek welds today but yeah, I'll admit it: the first 20 or so were fun.4
-
Hah! 336 of *anything* that repetitive in one day would definitely stop being fun. ;-)
1 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 43 Introductions
- 3.7K Typeface Design
- 798 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 617 Type Business
- 444 Type Design Critiques
- 541 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 136 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 83 Technique and Theory
- 53 Lettering Critiques
- 483 Typography
- 301 History of Typography
- 114 Education
- 68 Resources
- 498 Announcements
- 79 Events
- 105 Job Postings
- 148 Type Releases
- 165 Miscellaneous News
- 269 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 116 Suggestions and Bug Reports