#300 DPI Optima?
10 messages in this thread
So the $189 question is: for 300 dpi work, should I get Adobe Optima or
Bitstream Zapf Humanist?
TTT
Tom:
For my money, I'd say buy neither and pick another face.
The basic problem is that Optima is just too subtle to render properly at
300 dpi. The Adobe font has two masters on it — one for low resolution,
which doesn't even look like Optima to me — and a better one for high
resolution.
It's just one of those sad facts of life that some faces aren't suitable
for low resolution work.
–jon
Jon,
I agree that Optima is too subtle to render properly at 300 dpi; but I
still prefer it to other san serif faces I've had experience with at 300
dpi. I'd be the first to admit that my experience is limited. Are there san
serif faces you prefer at low resolution? I'd be interested in
hearing/reading your suggestions.
Beth Ann –
Try the Univers family. It takes low-res as well as Helvetica without being
nearly as hackneyed or boring.
…mm
Mike,
Looking at Univers in *Font & Function*, I can see that it's an
improvement over Helvetica, but I still can't say that it does much for me.
But perhaps I'm expecting too much from a sans serif which reproduces well
at 300 dpi.
Beth Ann:
Someone suggested Univers. I also like Trade Gothic (although the Adobe
kerning pairs really need to be added to to do justice to that face).
If you don't need a full family with condensed weights, check out Lucida
Sans. The face was specifically designed for low-resolution devices and
holds up well. I also like it a lot better than Stone Sans, which is
another face optimized for 300 dpi. The Stone family does, however, include
Stone Informal, which, although a serif face, might work well in places
you'd like to use Optima (which, although technically a sans serif face,
really has a serif feel to it — many typeshops include Optima under its
serif list).
–jon
Jon,
Thanks for the information. Who puts out Trade Gothic? Is it similar to
ITC Franklin Gothic? I have a problem in that I don't have a PostSript
printer; I'm using ATM and a DeskWriter for 300 dpi output. I like Lucida
Sans, but both it and Stone Sans look too informal for my needs in this
case. I suppose that elegance may be too much to ask for in a sans serif
face at 300 dpi, but~
Peace,
Beth Ann
In fact, Jon, Optima is too subtle to even render decently at the 668dpi of
the APS-5's I used to run. It took a Lino 202 running "superfonts" at about
1800dpi to do the face justice on a digital machine.
…mm
Mike:
Zapf said he felt nobody had ever created a decent digital rendering of
Optima and would only order it from hot metal typehouses when he used it.
Guess that puts us cold type people in our place.
–jon
p.s. I'm just putting together a letter to Lino about all sorts of type
irregularities in their CORA fonts. One problem with all this new
technology, is that all the manufacturers are rushing out their libraries
without always taking the time to do it right. Just had a job bounce
because a customer was unhappy about a flat spot in the bowl of a
lower-case "e" in Rockwell. On a scale of world crisises, I know that falls
a bit down the list, but it's annoying none the less.
Tom: let me say it again. You're not going to find a decent 300 dpi Optima.
You'll be wasting your money, no matter what the price. Since you are
concerned with type quality, my advice is just forget it and look for
something else. Sorry, that's the way it goes.