For some exciting fonts, I like Chank, http://chank.com/
A few are free, but the for-pay fonts are fairly priced.
I have also never had an issue with any of his fonts being poorly-written, corrupt or even having display problems.
LOL, I got a kick out of the salesy wording on that page: "Adobe Type continues that tradition with font offerings that match our vast knowledge of typography, layout, and design with typefaces known for precision, elegance, and broad language support."
Vast indeed. As in "vast like the void of outer space".
To this day a lot of people see how well the Adobe-Clean web font works on these very pages.
Note the way italicized words seem to run into the non-italicized words following (Mac users apparently sometimes see less of this).
Screen grab of what I see of the above sentence:
IE9. I know, not a very popular browser.
Clearly the font face you're seeing is quite different than the one I'm seeing. For one thing, the italicized words are less slanted in your screen grab.
It looks for me as it looks for you in FireFox. But this just demonstrates the "vast" knowledge Adobe has in both font management and web development that something like a quarter of the world's users will be seeing this page rendered poorly.
Yes, Adobe DOES have a lot of experience with Type and fonts.
However, like many others, I am not sure that their forums are a good example of great Type. No argument from me there. I think that the forums Design Team (not the Support Team), could do better.
Thank you Bill I appreciate your help! I'm somewhat computer illiterate. If you could tell me please, when I'm in Photoshop how do I add those fonts from the site you recommended?
Sent from my iPhone
The fonts are Installed into your System. That exact process will vary, by your OS. For most Windows OS's, it is most easily done from Control Panel>Fonts>File>Add New Font. When properly installed into the system, then when you launch PS (or most other programs), it will survey the installed fonts, and make them available. Note: PS (and some other Adobe programs) are very sensitive to fonts. They need to be correctly written, not corrupt, and such that they can be displayed by the program.
Of course, what Firefox is displaying in my screen shot is not the "Adobe Clean" font at all. Just look at the lower-case 'g' in 'following'.
Right. So that's so far (by my count) THREE different ways this company of vast knowledge is displaying their own font (or not) on their own web pages, and we're not even talking about how it looks different in the editor than when it's posted.
P.S., sorry for sidetracking your thread a bit, Barb. But I didn't want you to be baffled by the "brilliance" of Adobe's font knowledge.
Thank you so much for your time. I know there are fonts there in the system. Before I have other photoshop programs. Yet, I must say I still have a learning curve. I had better "script" fonts with CS4, and can't seem
to figure out how to add any new ones. Brushes are easy to append. Who should I contact for help. I hate to bother anyone that doesn't get paid for this endeavor.
Barb (email@example.com) slow but surely trying.
Barb, just add the fonts to your system in the normal way fonts are added to the system. Photoshop and every other application will then see them.
You haven't said what system that is (Mac or PC), but if it's PC, in the Control Panel is a Fonts entry. Just open that, then drag downloaded font files (e.g., the files ending with .fon, .ttf, .otf, etc.) into it. Windows will confirm it's installing the font. Then restart Photoshop and use the font.
I assume the Mac process of installing fonts is similar.
Thank you so much, that makes more sense to me. Again thanks.
I dabble in wedding photography, but mostly seniors and children. Are you by any chance aware of any book publishers that are decent?
I have been using My Publisher. Not real happy with the price, but think they have reasonable quality. Are you making any photo books?
Or are aware of some out there I might try?
Sounds like you have the font issues under control.
As for the "script fonts," that do not seem to be around anymore, have you changed your OS, or your computer? If not, have you cleaned up your computer, and maybe deleted those fonts?
When it comes to fonts, I am always on the lookout for ones that will fit into Projects that I am doing, and over the decades, have collected a bunch, and I mean a REAL bunch.
I do several things, to help me with them. First, I usually only have about 300 - 350 fonts installed on the computer, at any one time. That helps with computer resources, and also keeps things simple. I use a font manager (Extensis Suitcase in my instance), to help me manage my fonts. It, like many font managers, allows me to create Font Sets, and can install/uninstall those on the fly. I create them by the type of font, by Project, by clients, etc.. Then, if I start work for Client A, I just load their Font Set. Then, I place my fonts into separate folders, such as PS Fonts, TTFonts, OTFonts, and all under a root folder, Fonts (note: NOT the Windows Font folder). I will make backups onto Data DVD's, so that if I change my computer, or OS, I have all those fonts ready to go. As I paid dearly for most, I do not wish to loose them.
Good luck, and wish that I had a book printer rec. for you. I feel that others will.
I can't recommend anyone from personal experience. My one stand-out experience with a (mass-produced) book of images was with my collaborative book of astrophotography called Star Vistas published by Springer and they kind of botched the job, making all the images come out muddy and dark (and forcing me to skip the paper review because they were late), so I wouldn't recommend them to anyone.
A photographer friend of mine not long ago sent me a high-end photo book that looked extraordinary.. Ah, here it is. But there's no info about who printed it in the book itself, just his own work.
Pages are full bleed, thick card stock and glossy, and the color is great. The thing just exudes quality, and I don't think it was cheap.
Unfortunately I've just reviewed his eMails to me, and nowhere did he mention who printed it, so I've eMailed him for the info. When he returns a response I'll pass it along here.
Noel, IE is rendering your regular font with a skew instead of using the true italic.
Seems right, but could it possibly be that the "true italic" from Adobe is being shown in Firefox and Safari using different faces entirely (noting the descender on the 'g' characters as captured in 3 different browsers above)?
Some of these things can say bad things about Adobe's web design and some could say bad things about their font design. I'm not sure any particular division is off the hook.
It's the same as gener7's FireFox result on Windows and is Adobe Clean.
So Adobe, with their vast knowledge of fonts, has created a font family that changes descender shape entirely (of the 'g' at least) between the Normal and Italic styles, then chose to use that font in the online public face of their company.
Did I mention the vastness of outer space?
Barb, my friend Ed who created the most excellent photo book hasn't gotten back to me yet.
It's uncommon but not unique for the regular 'g' and italic 'g' to be double-storey and single-storey, respectively. And it's uncommon but not unique for a sans-serif 'g' to be double-storey.
For what it's worth, I find Adobe Clean to be highly legible and the contrasting 'g's do not trouble me.
I respect your opinion, even though I don't happen to agree with it.
I'm sorry, but to me two different descender styles just say "lazy/mediocre font designer". If it's happened with other fonts then there have been other lazy designers as well. Note also the lower case 'a' and the inconsistent slant within the punctuation characters.
I might more share your opinion that it is legible if Adobe could figure out how to actually make it display properly, noting that it's failing in is a browser that has no problems with fonts in general, and actually pretty much leads the way in subpixel rendering accuracy. Oh, and IE is presently used in 1/4 of the computers on the planet.
I guess I can understand that Adobe, with their interest in design, could feel that their pages should look and feel unique to them, BUT...
As with so much they do lately the dynamic web font loading technology is unfinished and just doesn't work quite right. If the tech doesn't work right in Internet Explorer in hundreds of millions of computers, whose fault is it that Adobe chooses to move forward with its use anyway?
I think it's particularly ironic that in this case the skewed Normal style actually makes inline italicized words seem more consistent than if the actual font were rendered.
A comedy of errors for sure.
It's not about whether I like it so much as whether it actually works. I'd probably have overlooked the gg aa inconsistencies entirely if not for the utter failure in the Typekit technology. How long have these forums been using this technology that doesn't actually work? I pointed this issue out to the forum management quite a while back.
But thanks for the link.
Open source, eh? So a reasonable designer could go in and fix problems such as letters that simply don't fit in the same family?
Doesn't have to. Adobe Clean is not sold, nor offered for sale or download.
Nor apparently was it up to close scrutiny by exectutives who would be deciding whether to use it to define their corporate image.
Europe, Middle East and Africa