Narrow/condensed: what's the difference?
Andrea
I would like to know what is the difference (if any) between "Narrow"
and "Condensed" faces. For instance, is Helvetica-Narrow the same as
Helvetica-Condensed? If not so, how do they differ?
Ciao,
Andrea
RSD99
or as a general case?
In the case of Helvetica:
Helvetica Narrow was a somewhat bastardized font brought about in the first Apple
LaserWriter printer in roughly 1985. Computer (and printer) memory was much smaller and
vastly more expensive in those days, and Helvetica Narrow was offered as a (somewhat)
stop-gap kluge to give the user another typeface without taking up too much of the
expensive ROM memory in the LaserWriter. It is simply Helvetica Normal scaled horizontally
... and it shows it's shortcomings in its appearance. As is with all things done in the
moment ... it refuses to die ... even though there are now quite nice condensed versions
of Helvetica available.
By contrast, Helvetica Condensed is a proper condensed face ... designed that way by the
foundry.
"Andrea" <and...@random.site.invalid> wrote in message
news:ptfq9.25466$RO.6...@twister1.libero.it...
Andrea
>Are you asking the question in relationship to the two Helvetica fonts you mentioned ...
>or as a general case?
I wanted to know if there is a general rule, and picked Helvetica as a
widespread example. Is it always true that "condensed" is designed
that way, while "narrow" is simply x-scaled?
Ciao,
Andrea
RSD99
was simply scaled in one axis! Helvetica Narrow is simply put ... a "bastardized"
typeface. What is amazing (to me) is that it was actually made by some very knowledgeable
typeface designers (Linotype/Adobe ... but probably at the insistence of Apple, the
original OEM).
"Andrea" <and...@random.site.invalid> wrote in message
news:sJiq9.26044$%M1.6...@twister2.libero.it...
RSD99
"Narrow" is not a normally used name for a typeface style. Condensed is.
Helvetica Narrow is the only "narrow" typeface that I know. What I know about that face
was posted above.
"RSD99" <rsdwla...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:Shjq9.9452$nb....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Andrea
>PS - I guess what I'm getting at is something like this:
>
>"Narrow" is not a normally used name for a typeface style. Condensed is.
This makes sense.
>Helvetica Narrow is the only "narrow" typeface that I know.
I know one: Arial Narrow. What a coincidence! Of all typefaces, it just
so happens that Arial, like Helvetica, is among the very few... ;-)
On the other hand, I have never heard about Arial Condensed.
Ciao,
Andrea
Character
Apostrophic Labs, some by Emigre (including the superfluous and redundant
BaseMono-NarrowThin), four different versions of Arial narrow (from Microsoft,
hp, Lotus, and Monotype), a couple from Digital Typeface Corp (e.g., Sans
Narrow), one from Font Bureau (AT) and lots of them from miscellaneous
clone-makers such as Bay Animation.
Found a total of about 200 "narrows", about 2000 "condensed", and 700 "thin".
- Character
RSD99
The same can probably be said about DTC's Sans Narrow. I'm also assuming that URW has a
"Narrow" face in their "Base 35" replacement set that they license to the
Linux/GIMP/TeX/FreeBSD kinds of organizations.
The others ... are very interesting. I've got to confess that I haven't really been
"paying that much attention" ...
"Character" <Ch...@cter.pictures> wrote in message news:3DA9CB15...@cter.pictures...
Character
Arial Condensed, Bold Condensed, Extra Bold Condensed, and Light Condensed.
They ALSO offer Arial Narrow, Bold, Bold Italic, and CE versions.
You can go fonts.com to see the differences.
Narrow is at
http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.asp?pid=205410
Condensed is at
http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.asp?pid=205442
Whatever differences exist appear to be design differences and not any
difference between definitions of Narrow or Condensed.
- Character
Dick Margulis
Character wrote:
> FWIW, I just did a local name search for "narrow" and found quite a few by
> Apostrophic Labs, some by Emigre (including the superfluous and redundant
> BaseMono-NarrowThin), four different versions of Arial narrow (from Microsoft,
> hp, Lotus, and Monotype), a couple from Digital Typeface Corp (e.g., Sans
> Narrow), one from Font Bureau (AT) and lots of them from miscellaneous
> clone-makers such as Bay Animation.
>
> Found a total of about 200 "narrows", about 2000 "condensed", and 700 "thin".
>
> - Character
Yabbut, "thin" is different. It is generally used to refer to stroke
thickness rather than set width. It's interesting that you found so many
"narrows," though. I wouldn't have guessed it, either, being more
familiar with the "condensed" nomenclature. Did you notice any pattern
in terms of one foundry using "narrow" and a different foundry using
"condensed" for fonts in the same family?
Character
Queen of Hearts:
"A word means exactly what I choose it to mean." (Probably mis-quoted but I'm
too lazy to look it up.)
- Character
Dick Margulis
Character
(You made me go and look it up!)
- Character
RSD99
and then there was the "Compressed" face ...
Andrea
wrote:
>Yes, there's a family of Arial Condensed, from Agfa/Monotype
>Arial Condensed, Bold Condensed, Extra Bold Condensed, and Light Condensed.
>They ALSO offer Arial Narrow, Bold, Bold Italic, and CE versions.
>
>You can go fonts.com to see the differences.
>Narrow is at
>http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.asp?pid=205410
>Condensed is at
>http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.asp?pid=205442
>
>Whatever differences exist appear to be design differences and not any
>difference between definitions of Narrow or Condensed.
Agreed. Thanks for clearing up this point.
Andrea
Apostrophe (')
"Dick Margulis" <marg...@fiam.net> wrote in message
news:3DA9CFE...@fiam.net...
>
> Yabbut, "thin" is different. It is generally used to refer to stroke
> thickness rather than set width. It's interesting that you found so many
> "narrows," though. I wouldn't have guessed it, either, being more
> familiar with the "condensed" nomenclature. Did you notice any pattern
> in terms of one foundry using "narrow" and a different foundry using
> "condensed" for fonts in the same family?
>
From a historical perspective, it of course seems that "Narrow" is the
modern nomenclature. At the lab, I know Graham likes using Narrow more than
Condensed.
I spoke about this with my girlfriend. She knows just bare basics about
type, but a lot about languages. She had an interesting perspective. Quoting
her verbatim: "Condensed sounds like something almost drastic was done to
the font; like squeezing to a degree, the sort of thing people do with the
middle handles around the text box in desktop publishing software. But
Narrow sounds like the font was just designed with narrow spacing, to give
more letters to the inch or something like that."
Alan
> I wanted to know if there is a general rule, and picked Helvetica as a
> widespread example. Is it always true that "condensed" is designed
> that way, while "narrow" is simply x-scaled?
Would that it were ... don't believe anything in a font's name. There
are many "italic" fonts that are simply the roman skewed by 15 or 20
degrees. Horrible. And some that are named "oblique" are real designed
italics. Adobe has a bunch of fonts (Centaur) designated "small caps"
which aren't at all, except for the roman, they're really
old-style-figures.
RSD99
In the "creative world," I don' think there really are any rules for that sort of thing
...
and if there were, many "creative types" would probably break them on purpose.
Character's quote "A word means exactly what I choose it to mean" is very appropriate in
this case.
"Alan" <7ibe...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:2a7ef8ef.02101...@posting.google.com...
tobias b koehler
> I would like to know what is the difference (if any) between "Narrow"
> and "Condensed" faces. For instance, is Helvetica-Narrow the same as
> Helvetica-Condensed? If not so, how do they differ?
And "compressed" is even narrower than condensed?
--
tobias benjamin köhler ____________________________ t...@uncia.de
_____<__ ______________ ______________ ______________ _________
('=====H=|H============H|H============H|H============H|H========
"o-o--o-o"-oo--------oo-"-oo--------oo-"-oo--------oo-"-oo------