So, for those who are used to an Oldstyle - Transitional - Modern spectrum for serifed typefaces, with Slab on the side....
How do you classify Cambria?
The stress is vertical, or so close as to be imperceptibly different. But the contrast is quite mild, and the serifs are massively bracketed. I am inclined to say that it has elements of oldstyle and modern so it ends up being: (1) transitional...-ish; and (2) a fine exemplar of the problems of type classification.
0
Comments
So long as the details of one classification are grafted to the rhythm and proportion of another, the spacing still defines it function.
@Wes Adams Yes, if one relies on axis of stress alone (note: I am not saying that is unreasonable, just not my preference), “modern” for sure. The caps are a bit condensed, so they cease to be a reliable disambiguator between modern and old style proportions. The low contrast makes it seem not so much a modern to me—because I think of higher contrast being a feature of .
After sleeping on it and thinking more, I am thinking the best thing to do for purposes of the job at hand is just to describe these variables, and downplay classification.
I think this type has a strong relationship to the original Cheltenham, which has similar stroke contrast and serif structure. Cheltenham is classified as an oldstyle (its original name was Boston Oldstyle), and I don’t see any reason why Cambria should not be classified in that category, which is pretty broad.
To my eye, Cambria has a kind of studied anonymity. That’s not necessarily a bad characteristic, though in this case it feels extreme to the point of unpleasantness. The terminals of the a, f, and especially r are clumsy and look as if they weren’t fully worked out. The lowercase is somewhat narrow, but the caps are even more so. The lowercase s looks expansive compared to the capital, which leaves me thinking that the type was edited by a committee.
No love here.
Scott: I agree that it is rather like Cheltenham in most of the serifs, although Cambria's chiseled terminals (on a, r, f and s) contrast rather strongly with Chelt's rounded terminals. But although Cheltenham may have once had “oldstyle” in its name, that does not make it an old style typeface from a classification POV. The vertical stress pretty much rules that out, in my opinion. Cambria’s cap proportions are not particularly old style either, being condensed more than classical (and Cheltenham itself having pretty even, modern cap proportions). That said, I suspect our disagreement on this may be emblematic of why it is troublesome to classify.
It’s important to consider how a style would scale optically.
A subset of characters in Cambria Math do scale optically, but only in a downward direction.
"Serif, low contrast, vertical stress, open aperture, high superness"
(I'd like to add a "superness" parameter to describe the blockiness of the O shape. The idea comes from Lp space.)
At the time displaying serif fonts with ClearType at text sizes 0f 11-14 pixel per EM, worked best with low contrast designs. But these look dull at large sizes and in print, and do not combine very well with Sans. The design brief seemed to ask for high contrast. The hinting turns Cambria into almost a slab serif at the small ppm's. In the large sizes it has high contrast.
Of course a true Display version may have lighter vertical hairlines and serifs and somewhat more elegant proportions.
And I can’t object that you essentially agree that it is transitional...-ish.
Candara (taste aside), on the contrary has subtleties which probably would render more nicely if used in print.
Constantia: great "a".
Calibri: I'm always tempted to scoff at it, but it's a decent workhorse.