I think what you are not getting is the script above, the “featured face’ is FF Pitu - and it is very different from what we would normally see in Typophile’s featured faces.
I hope that gets you to get that now - unless it is something else you don’t get ...
What a lovely, clever, new and useful (I hope) design!
I’d be curious to see how useful this design becomes to graphic designers. The comment I hear most from my GD and AD colleagues is that many new type designs are so full of personality, they don’t allow the designer to instill their personality in the work they are doing. So they don’t use them.
I think one thing we may all be agreeing on is we see this as logotype - a title for a book, a headline for a magazine, omg - the new Quaker Oats box... LOL
In this day and age, I don’t see why a typeface needs to have very broad usage to be worthwhile. In past times, when type used to be expensive and dependent on availability, it made sense for a typesetter to carry fonts that could go the distance. Today, fonts are quite cheap and very easily available. designers and art directors still have loads of faces to choose from with minimal personality—far MORE than they EVER did. There surely is room for more vertical market type in our quick-turnaround world. I rather like the new face and applaud his efforts for pushing the boundaries a bit. Nobody is saying this is a book face or a newspaper face but I can see ad copy and some magazine pull-quotes done in it.
Because of the low cost of type, I think what has happened is that graphic designers are using very expressive and sometimes extreme type where in the old metal era they would have used hand lettering.
So there is now a place for faces like this, which there wouldn’t have been in the old days. Or to put it another way, because there is nothing like this, it has a place!
Jackie, by “low cost” I meant compared to the metal days, pre-1960s. Not really low cost in relation to other type faces.
The lower cost of type in this sense I gather came in with the photo type you are referring to. And “low” really now means in comparison to what it would cost to hire a letterer to do the same job. I don’t know the going rates, but I am guessing that if you reuse the type at all, it would be cheaper than hiring a letterer.
No one has to remind me about how much cheaper type is today. I use to own Alphatype - every font was $30 and if it was a royalty font (ITC, BQ, TSI, etc.) it was an additional $30. So 4 weights with 4 counterparts = 240 plus 240 in royalties - $480 bucks.
And I felt horrible when I bought Illustrator years ago - and they “gaveaway” full families... no extra cost.
William - I may have a warped sense of humor - I was wondering if someone today had a typeshop - where would they catagorize the font? After all, every shop must be organized to get through the day... :-)
“So 4 weights with 4 counterparts = 240 plus 240 in royalties - $480 bucks.”
Remember the cost of living and wages of those days as well. Minimum wage was one dollar per hour and $480 would have been about a months pay for the average worker. New cars cost $2000 and a single family house was about $15,000. Oh, and gasoline was about 25 cents a gallon.
and Chris - those fonts only went into the hands of the professionals — and to use them you needed the correct equipment. My Alphatype fonts were coded only to be used on my Alphatype machine. Couldn’t even lend them to Marvin Kommel across the street...
And remember after the 1973 gas embargo when gas went up to 38.9 cents a gallon - outrage!
...The comment I hear most from my GD and AD colleagues is that many new type designs are so full of personality, they don’t allow the designer to instill their personality in the work they are doing. So they don’t use them.
Then they should design their own lettering and express their own personalities that way.
Making effective use of a beautiful face like Pitu isn’t a matter of instilling your own personality into anything, but finding the right material to use it on.
In the future everybody will be a type designer for fifteen minutes.
3.Jul.2008 2.45am
Han? Trying to understand...
Joel Santos // youremin
sound & visual
3.Jul.2008 5.07am
I was just going to start a thread abou this. It is a very interesting and refreshing face. It is new... I can see it replacing Bellevue soon...
It does have a strange kind of appeal to me - thank you for showing it to us...
3.Jul.2008 6.07am
still not geting it...
Joel Santos // youremin
sound & visual
3.Jul.2008 6.19am
Joel -
I think what you are not getting is the script above, the “featured face’ is FF Pitu - and it is very different from what we would normally see in Typophile’s featured faces.
I hope that gets you to get that now - unless it is something else you don’t get ...
3.Jul.2008 6.24am
OOOOH, that yes...
Joel Santos // youremin
sound & visual
3.Jul.2008 3.23pm
What a lovely, clever, new and useful (I hope) design!
I’d be curious to see how useful this design becomes to graphic designers. The comment I hear most from my GD and AD colleagues is that many new type designs are so full of personality, they don’t allow the designer to instill their personality in the work they are doing. So they don’t use them.
3.Jul.2008 4.34pm
I’m familiar with that philosophy, but still, I’d like to think there’s some space for a genuinely novel and spectacular display face.
3.Jul.2008 6.54pm
http://typophile.com/node/46990
3.Jul.2008 11.07pm
i,m with teminaldesign on this one to be straightup with ya mates. ugly presonality leaves no room for ugly design..
———————————-
Chopper Reid says “Harden the **** up”.
4.Jul.2008 7.25am
i agree it’s lovely. i could see using this for a band, cd, or related music packaging.
4.Jul.2008 10.35am
I find it lovely. I guess the uses are limited and the hair line causes straight envy ! Would work well for formal text in large sizes.
4.Jul.2008 10.56am
I think one thing we may all be agreeing on is we see this as logotype - a title for a book, a headline for a magazine, omg - the new Quaker Oats box... LOL
I couldn’t see setting a body copy in it at all.
4.Jul.2008 11.31am
In this day and age, I don’t see why a typeface needs to have very broad usage to be worthwhile. In past times, when type used to be expensive and dependent on availability, it made sense for a typesetter to carry fonts that could go the distance. Today, fonts are quite cheap and very easily available. designers and art directors still have loads of faces to choose from with minimal personality—far MORE than they EVER did. There surely is room for more vertical market type in our quick-turnaround world. I rather like the new face and applaud his efforts for pushing the boundaries a bit. Nobody is saying this is a book face or a newspaper face but I can see ad copy and some magazine pull-quotes done in it.
ChrisL
5.Jul.2008 4.01am
” I couldn’t see setting a body copy in it at all. “
It may work well for few lines of test, at double pica size. Or anything you want.
5.Jul.2008 7.50am
Very interesting point, Chris.
Because of the low cost of type, I think what has happened is that graphic designers are using very expressive and sometimes extreme type where in the old metal era they would have used hand lettering.
So there is now a place for faces like this, which there wouldn’t have been in the old days. Or to put it another way, because there is nothing like this, it has a place!
5.Jul.2008 8.11am
William - if this face was around in the old days - it could have been classified with the Typositor Display Faces - maybe under “script”
So today we can put it in our studios as “lost cost face”?
5.Jul.2008 8.21am
Jackie, by “low cost” I meant compared to the metal days, pre-1960s. Not really low cost in relation to other type faces.
The lower cost of type in this sense I gather came in with the photo type you are referring to. And “low” really now means in comparison to what it would cost to hire a letterer to do the same job. I don’t know the going rates, but I am guessing that if you reuse the type at all, it would be cheaper than hiring a letterer.
5.Jul.2008 8.58am
Well cheaper! Type today is extremely cheap.
ChrisL
5.Jul.2008 12.00pm
No one has to remind me about how much cheaper type is today. I use to own Alphatype - every font was $30 and if it was a royalty font (ITC, BQ, TSI, etc.) it was an additional $30. So 4 weights with 4 counterparts = 240 plus 240 in royalties - $480 bucks.
And I felt horrible when I bought Illustrator years ago - and they “gaveaway” full families... no extra cost.
William - I may have a warped sense of humor - I was wondering if someone today had a typeshop - where would they catagorize the font? After all, every shop must be organized to get through the day... :-)
5.Jul.2008 12.01pm
Ironic.
5.Jul.2008 12.20pm
“So 4 weights with 4 counterparts = 240 plus 240 in royalties - $480 bucks.”
Remember the cost of living and wages of those days as well. Minimum wage was one dollar per hour and $480 would have been about a months pay for the average worker. New cars cost $2000 and a single family house was about $15,000. Oh, and gasoline was about 25 cents a gallon.
ChrisL
5.Jul.2008 3.38pm
and Chris - those fonts only went into the hands of the professionals — and to use them you needed the correct equipment. My Alphatype fonts were coded only to be used on my Alphatype machine. Couldn’t even lend them to Marvin Kommel across the street...
And remember after the 1973 gas embargo when gas went up to 38.9 cents a gallon - outrage!
5.Jul.2008 8.21pm
I am ready to sing the Archie Bunker “All in the Family” theme song now :-)
ChrisL
6.Jul.2008 12.06am
...The comment I hear most from my GD and AD colleagues is that many new type designs are so full of personality, they don’t allow the designer to instill their personality in the work they are doing. So they don’t use them.
Then they should design their own lettering and express their own personalities that way.
Making effective use of a beautiful face like Pitu isn’t a matter of instilling your own personality into anything, but finding the right material to use it on.
In the future everybody will be a type designer for fifteen minutes.
j a m e s
6.Jul.2008 9.53am
It’s a lovely typeface. Better on words with round letters than square ones (then it can be a bit vampiry). I love it in the title of this thread.