MT Fournier digital, I

konrad ritter
konrad ritter Posts: 204
in History of Typography
I have two questions about MT Fournier. I'll ask here one, and post the other under another category, where it belongs. 

I really like MTs version of Fournier. But, recently I took a closer look at its outlines, and I was struck by how irregular they are. For instance, here's the bottom half of the lowercase M:


And here's the FI ligature glyph. 



I was wondering, is this by design -- did Monotype mean to make them so unlike and irregular? Or is it just sloppy digitization? I saw some of that in old Berthold types, and I just assumes they were desperate to transfer things to digital before they'd go under. But, what gives, Monotype? 
Tagged:

Comments

  • George Thomas
    George Thomas Posts: 654
    edited June 2020
    sloppy digitization

    I have seen similar in fonts from other respected vendors. It's almost like they had anyone available, highly skilled or not, digitizing type so they could get them out the door quickest.


  • Craig Eliason
    Craig Eliason Posts: 1,452
    To play devil's advocate: do such inconsistencies lend a warm effect to the face, evoking hand-engraved and -punched fonts?
  • konrad ritter
    konrad ritter Posts: 204
    I don't particularly mind them. There's a chance they do just that. (I think Mr Blokland saw that, when he and his crew cut DTL Van den Keere). 

    I was just curious about whether it's intentional or sloppy. Purely theoretical interest. 
  • Gary Long
    Gary Long Posts: 6
    I love the appearance of Fournier when properly typeset in a book, especially on soft uncoated stock where ink spread gives it a bit more heft. I always assumed the inconsistencies were deliberate, to give it the face its character, but then I'm only familiar with the digital version. If it was sloppy digitization, then the result was a happy accident. It would be interesting to "fix" it and compare the typeset result.

Categories