See:
OpenType
TrueType
PostScript

i ran across those a few minutes ago. I read them, but still, I’m just curious to see what most people purchase and use.

> I am getting to the stage where i will soon be investing in typefaces to use as a designer

Try to stay away from Type 1 as much as possible. This is an old-old format (20+ years) that nowadays can’t deliver what is needed. OpenType (TT or CFF) — and TrueType to some extent —, is where you should put your money.

I get OpenType because it is compatible with both Windows and Mac. Postscript for Windows is different than Postscript for Mac and can’t be converted. TrueType is native to Windows, and can also work on Mac, but not as good as OpenType.

OpenType isn’t quite as bad as Stephen Cole’s pictures indicate. Unlike the Swiss Army knife, you can do real work with it, though like the Swiss Army knife, you do encounter situations where it’s limitations really get in the way.

I assume you aren’t asking the question “what’s the difference” from a technical point of view. From the practical point of view, you would have to make the decision based on what you actually do with type — what is now called the “workflow.”

At a deeper level, at some point you will likely have to change to the OpenType format. Type is software now, and what works depends on other software.

Nice point, Charles. The Army Knife metaphor was meant to show that OpenType is inherently more convenient because all the extras are in a single font file. But the metaphor also works for the cumbersome nature of a tool if the app doesn’t support it.

I would think that anyone buying fonts would have the tools to use them. Buy Open Type would be my suggestion.

peace

I would think that anyone buying fonts would have the tools to use them

Well, suppose you only typeset “American,” with an occasional use of “English.” In other words, the 255 characters available in a Type 1 font are all you need. Now Quark 6.X will do that, and has some features not currently available in any OT-savvy layout program.

Or, suppose you’re like me, and every two weeks or so, have to set texts that few OpenType fonts (currently) support — characters from Latin Extended A, for example. Or texts using quotation marks. Or footnotes, etc. It is a lot easier to re-work a Type 1 font than an OT font.

In my workshop are all the sizes of Phillips screwdrivers, not the one-size-rounds-the-slots-on-all of the Swiss Army knife. Also a 15-40 Clausing-Colechester lathe and an old Bridgeport milling machine. But even with the lathe & mill, there are still times when hand tools will do the job better. The same is true of type.

Charles - Do you use small caps, figure styles, or any display fonts?

The only reason not to use Opentype is if you don’t have software which can properly access all of the functionality. Other than that I don’t understand why anyone would stick with TT or PS.

Charles - Do you use small caps, figure styles, or any display fonts?

Sure. Also tabular oldstyle figures. But then we ran TeX out of a DOS box & could encode a Type 1 font any way we wanted. I’ll allow that doesn’t fit most users.

One reason to stick with Type 1 fonts might occur to you if you ever had to add some kerning to an existing OT font. And the bugs in IDCS2’s exception dictionary drive us crazy, esp. since they seem to be worse in CS3.

Having said all that, you pick your poison based on your needs, which I hope was my original point.

Tiffany

Your statement brings up a question? What to do with those tremendous libraries of PS1 and TT that have accumulated over the last two decades? Just re-invest in the same typeface/different format? Seems like a great waste of spent energy and resources (and money) to just ignore them. The type design industry is not “green”? Is there no concern? Just spend more?

A great many of these fonts have not been converted to OT and are not easily converted by the average user. I don’t know of any reliable batch converters on the market, and I have tried whatever has been put out there.

What say ye?

Gerald

Hi Gerald,

I guess I waaaaaay over-simplified.

In my mind I was writing for the person whom is now investing. If I were only now starting out and knew I’d be using applications that could use OT, I probably wouldn’t be licensing PS.

Of course, my library is still mostly PS and I don’t have the cash to upgrade all of them. In addition, I have to use the E-word. If a EULA doesn’t allow modifications, I won’t be the one to break that agreement and convert the typeface to OT, not without permission from the foundry.

Tiff was rightly answering the original question:

“i am here asking you guys what you normally buy. I am getting to the stage where i will soon be investing in typefaces”

My answer is still: If you’re setting text with Adobe CS apps or Quark 7, or cross-platform compatibility is important to you, I highly recommend investing in OpenType.

Tiffany

Thanks for your answer. My next question though has to do with the EULA thing. Better that you brought it up than I. When a foundry issues an EULA they are covering the typeface design as issued, are they not? There is no thought given to future formats I would assume? Isn’t modification particular to the typeface design and not the format?

And yes Stephen, I am deviating from the thread. This is an unusual thing on Typophile? Are these dangerous questions forbidden by the moderators?

Gerald

No problem at all. Just wanted to make sure wolfattack wasn’t getting confused by the deviation.

Stephen

Hopefully then, wolfattack will live up to his/her nomenclature.

Gerald

what format everyone seems to mostly buy

I market a typeface that is available in both TrueType/Type 1 and OpenType formats.

At one retailer, the OpenType version outsells the older format 3 or 4 to 1.
People are more inclined to buy a single OT font for $50, although some buy the package of older fonts, four weights for $99. Singles of the older format are not available at this retailer

At another retailer, hardly anybody buys the OT fonts for $50, they prefer the singles of the older formats for $39.

The typeface is a script with a lot of contextual alternates in the OT version.

Conclusions:
1. Price is a factor
2. Purchasers may not be getting an adequate explanation of the difference in features and value between the two options, and may be buying the format that is more prominently presented by the retailer.

As yet, no online retailers have a type tester that demo’s OT features in the manner of this panel in FontLab.

Gerald, many foundries do consider future versions. Many do not allow derivatives and/or modifications. Many also do not allow reverse engineering. I think these items separately or together protect the fonts. This assumes, of course, that those who license the font (software) to begin with respect the EULA.

Many do not allow derivatives and/or modifications

Sadly true. But Adobe does, and some foundries have changed their policies over the years. It depends on the license you have when you originally purchased the font. For instance, when I wanted to buy Scala from FontFont for a PC, It was only available for a Macintosh. “Just convert it,” they said. You won’t get that answer now.

In passing, I do have problems with some of my old fonts — like having to go down to the basement to find a machine that’ll take a 5.25-inch floppy disk —

When purchasing new fonts, I definitely would go for OpenType. Go go go :-))

Concerning all those old TT and PS fonts... well, I basically hope that apps and OSs will be downwards compatible as long as possible. Hey, I saw my Amiga go obsolete - I’m sure PostScript is gonna go soon, too. It was already an ugly surprise finding that some PS fonts did not make it from OS9 to OS10.

Nick’s approach is a very good one. I’m not sure how prevalent the practice is but I would think that offering “upgrades” in format might bring in more revenue for a foundry than simply offering new formats as if they were new designs. The conversion process is certainly not as labor intensive as the initial design release. If no features are added, and in many cases they are not, the upgrade price could be minor, if additional features are added, the upgrade price could reflect this. I doubt there would be much resistance if handled in such a manner, and I’d suspect there is more financial reward for the foundries.

Am I missing something?

Gerald

I think it might be an even split. Some foundries charge for upgrades others don’t. Most do as they do see what they are doing is a value add. I can appreciate that.

I think a lot also depends on how the different formats are positioned and marketed. Adobe invented Type 1, and co-developed OpenType, and 85%+ of our sales are in OpenType (we hit 85% a couple of years ago). But then again, we make the Type 1 versions harder to find on our web site.

For some background on the different formats, one could try this article I wrote:
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/TT%20PS%20OpenType.pdf

Cheers,

T

>I don’t know of any reliable batch converters
>on the market, and I have tried whatever has
>been put out there.

CrossFont seems to work for Type 1 ==> OT, but it doesn’t do ttf ==> OT. Is it unreliable?

Yes, it is not very reliable. It works, but can go bad.