Typophile - times vs plantin - Comments

I agree with gulliver: Adobe

mondoB — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:39:45 -0700

I agree with gulliver: Adobe Times Ten in OpenType is the biggest, best proportioned and snappiest Times on the market, and being able to shift globally to oldstyle figures makes it right for books too. It’s the only one with OSFs, as far as I know. But that’s if you have to use Times at all; it is, after all, the most over-exposed typeface on earth now.

The problem with Plantin is choosing between the light weight, which is too light for reliable use under 11 pt, or the regular weight, which is a little too black and clumps up. But I love the look and proportions for Plantin and always have. Depends on your point size and the paper. Plantin Light works with smooth or coated stock but not below 11pt. The toothier the stock the better the regular weight looks.

Be sure to buy your OpenType Plantin from Monotype...they have OSFs; Adobe’s OT does not.

Will Powers said: In metal

Eluard — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:21:29 -0700

Will Powers said: In metal Times, oldstyle figs and smalls were available, and even a long-descender version, which was splendid.

A great pity that this has not been digitalised — for many books this would be the one to use!

If you really are obliged to

gulliver — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:13:25 -0700

If you really are obliged to use Times, then I’d recommend using Adobe Times Ten, which has been designed, spaced, and otherwise optimized for smaller text sizes.

It’s the only Times to use for text, in my opinion, except for perhaps Times Europa, although that’s also a step or two removed from Times.

While I’m no huge fan of Times New Roman and its variants generally, I have seen the family used beautifully in some instances.

David Thometz

I have seen books printed in

somol — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:22:05 -0700

I have seen books printed in Times New Roman some 50 years ago which look really good. And I have seen many more contemporary books and magazines printed in Times New Roman that look disastrous. Is not there a big problem of lacking good digital transcription of Times New Roman ? What I would find absolutely unacceptable is setting book matter in one of those ugly Microsoft Times New Romans from Windows 98 era.. what, I am afraid, is often the case.

Peter S.

There is absolutely nothing

will powers — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:04:25 -0700

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Times for books. Never has been. It is a perfectly good face for books. As with all faces, one has to be careful about how it is used.

In metal Times, oldstyle figs and smalls were available, and even a long-descender version, which was splendid.

Today there are several “Times” versions to choose from, and when a typographer works out how a book is to look, and looks at all the versions and chooses the right one, a fine looking book can be made.

The thing most people don’t “want to stare at for long stretches of time” is poorly-set type. Do not decide against Times or any other typeface because it is overused. Choose typefaces that are right for the project. That’s the only criterion.

powers

Somehow I missed that Times

kentlew — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:42:46 -0700

Somehow I missed that Times Classic had already been overthrown. Hmm. The Times is dead; long live the Times.

About Times New Roman, (not

William Berkson — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:11:08 -0700

About Times New Roman, (not Times Modern!) I agree with Don. It may not be suitable for current Newspaper printing conditions, but it has been a great book face. True, it’s stale from being ubiquitous. All type designers—whoever designed it!—should be so lucky.

It’s also constantly wrongly used at full measure on letter paper, but that’s not its fault.

> I really can’t see any

Don McCahill — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:05:03 -0700

> I really can’t see any reason to use Times in a book other than to suggest office documents or a newspaper. It’s a very dull-looking face, and not the sort of thing most people want to stare at for long stretches of time. And the italic is sort of ugly.

I can’t agree with that. Times is a fine face for books. It is extremely readable (in the right size, measure, margins and leading). And ugliness of the italics is a designers opinion (with which I fail to agree). Many, many books (generally 20 years or more ago) were set in it, and I have never heard of people having trouble reading it “for long stretches of time.”

All that said, I will agree that the font is overused, and therefore would not use it unless forced to somehow. But it is not a poor font based on other merits.

Um, at the risk of faulty

William Berkson — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:54:09 -0700

Um, at the risk of faulty cut and paste again, here is about “Times Modern” from the Wikipedia:

“On 2006-11-20, Times newspaper unveiled Times Modern, as the successor of Times Classic.[9] Designed for improving legibility in smaller font sizes, it uses 45-degree angled bracket serifs. The font was published by Monotype as EF Times Modern. The font was designed by Research Studios, led by Ben Preston, Deputy Editor of The Times, in partnership with Neville Brody, former art director of The Face, and lead designer on Actuel, City Limits and Arena magazines. The design team included Ben Preston, David Driver, Mike Prowse, Chris Davalle, Kathleen Wyatt Research Studios: Neville Brody, Jon Hill, Luke Prowse.”

Since Dux = Luke Prowse drew Times Modern he was evidently indulging in a bit of wry inside humor that I totally didn’t get last night.

Mind you, I don’t know

kentlew — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:23:52 -0700

Mind you, I don’t know exactly what Dux means. Unless perhaps he meant to refer to Times Millennium. Isn’t that the other one that had a cloud over it?

>Times Modern. Ahh! Sorry.

William Berkson — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:17:37 -0700

>Times *Modern*.

Ahh! Sorry. Note to self: don’t post while falling asleep.

Bill — Dux referred to

kentlew — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:49:32 -0700

Bill —

Dux referred to Times *Modern*.

— K.

“Lord, save me from these

dux — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:28:35 -0700

“Lord, save me from these sailed and moored...”

Your cut + paste, paste + haste is much maligned, much inclined to hasty trace of one’s own thoughts’ space.

>No. Ok, I wrote: “the

William Berkson — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:16:41 -0700

>No.

Ok, I wrote:

“the whole question of who created Times New Roman is very much contested”

You wrote:

“the whole question of who created Times New Roman is very much contested”

Call me crazy, but those seem to me exactly the same. What’s the difference?

I prefaced my statement by mentioning one of the theories that is advocated and contested.

Um, isn’t that exactly

dux — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:04:47 -0700

Um, isn’t that exactly what I just wrote?

No.

Victor — poor Victor!

times vs plantin

jokemijn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:33:09 -0700

just a quick question. For a simple book design i am obliged to use times. I think Plantin would be a subtly better option. Is this just my opinion (caused by the over-use of times?) or do i actually get the thing right for once? The book needs a regular, an italic and a bold italic (possibly also smallcaps) in 10pt.

thanks for your response.