Serif font that is similar to Frutiger
nipy
(such as proposals and reports) we need to use a serif font, to make
the text more readable. We therefore need a font that has a similar
look and feel to Frutiger but that is a serif font. Also (see
http://tinyurl.com/blgem), we need the font to have an editable
embedding licence, and to either be free or very reasonably priced. Can
anyone suggest anything?
Armadillo
> Our brochures use Frutiger for body text, but in our longer documents
> (such as proposals and reports) we need to use a serif font, to make
> the text more readable. We therefore need a font that has a similar
> look and feel to Frutiger but that is a serif font. Also (see
Adobe Minon is a very good not too decorative typeface.
I sometimes check typefaces by the same designer. Adrian Frutiger has made at least one readable serif typeface Linotype Cntennial. Sample at http://store.adobe.com/type/browser/P/P_1353.html
> http://tinyurl.com/blgem), we need the font to have an editable
> embedding licence, and to either be free or very reasonably priced. Can
> anyone suggest anything?
Yes, there are a lot of free fonts available for download but if you want to use a font that will not let you down (technically) - buy it from Adobe.
Jukka
Stuart B. Henlis
"nipy" <mistr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120151244.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi Nipy,
Use Frutiger's Serifa family. It's the serifed version of Frutiger. Lino,
Adobe, and Bitstream carry it.
Stu
nipy
Do you or anyone else know of any free fonts that are available either
on their own or packaged with a graphics program, that are near enough
identical to Frutiger's Serifa family?
The problem is that we need an editable license and, being a small
company, we cannot afford to pay for one for those two fonts. But our
brochure uses Frutiger, so we would like to use something very similar
indeed in our Word documents; & people we send those to would sometimes
need to be able to edit them.
Lars Trebing
> Our brochures use Frutiger for body text, but in our longer documents
> (such as proposals and reports) we need to use a serif font, to make
> the text more readable.
Frutiger can be very readable even in body text. Maybe you should have a
look at font sizes, line spacing and column width.
--
Lars Trebing | http://www.ltrebing.de/ | mailto:ltre...@ltrebing.de
Lars Trebing
> Use Frutiger's Serifa family. It's the serifed version of Frutiger.
Serifa is not based on Frutiger but on Univers. By the way, slab serif
fonts are generally a bad choice for body text. Even though Serifa is
quite readable compared to other slab serif fonts, I would definitely
rather use Frutiger instead (or even use Frutiger for body text and
Serifa for headlines).
By the way, Frutiger goes very well with good old Times Roman (which is
definitely better for body text than Monotype's Times New Roman, by the
way), available on every PostScript setup. Sabon (and a few other
Garamond styles) look even better with Frutiger than Times, but finding
a free _and_ good version of it is not easy.
Lars Trebing
> [...] if you want to use a font that will not let you down
> (technically) - buy it from Adobe.
There are quite a few foundries whose fonts are (technically) comparable
to those from Adobe, sometimes even better. Bitstream, URW, Berthold,
FontFont are a few examples. Monotype's fonts are also technically very
good (and the screen fonts included in those are among the best on the
market), but most of them are more or less ugly. :) Anyway, screen fonts
are currently becoming quite obsolete while anti-aliasing technology has
even arrived on cell phones.
nipy
have looked at a preview before posting my last message, sorry.
I've looked at previews of Linotype Centennial and Adobe Minion, but
although attractive, they aren't as complimentary to Frutiger as I'd
like.
Any more ideas?
Dave
nipy
nearly as readable as good serif fonts in the context of 30 page plus
articles.
nipy
We *won't* be pairing Frutiger with the serif font we choose.
In brochures, mags, presentations, etc., we'll be pairing Barmeno-like
(Mellow?) headings with Frutiger-like (Humanist 777?) body text.
In Word documents we'll be pairing Barmeno-like headings with a serif
font that we'd like to look similar enough to Frutiger to give the
impression of some consistency so that we have consistent branding.
In the case of Linotype Centennial, the lower case letter "g", for
instance, could hardly look more different from the Frutiger "g".
Another example: the horizontal part of the lowercase letter "e" is
roughly half-way down the character in Frutiger but near the top of the
character in Minion.
Any more ideas would be very gratefully received.
Lars Trebing
> I've looked at previews of Linotype Centennial and Adobe Minion, but
> although attractive, they aren't as complimentary to Frutiger as I'd
> like.
I don't know how you define whether a font is complimentary to another
one or not, but if one thing is for sure, it's that fonts like Sabon and
Minion (which is very similar to Sabon) are the classic match for Frutiger.
How good a combination of two fonts works does not depend on how similar
they are. Well, OK, it does, but it's not as you think: Similar fonts
most often don't go well together at all (except of course if it's
different members of one font family, like Frutiger Light and Frutiger
Bold). A good combination needs a certain amount of contrast.
> Any more ideas?
As I already wrote: Times Roman (or Sabon or Minion, if you can afford
these).
nipy
have Frutiger and a serif font in the same document.
In all our documents, the headline font will be Barmeno.
In newsletters etc., the body font will be Frutiger.
In most Word documents, especially reports and proposals, the body font
will be a serif font, which, in order to create consistent branding,
should therefore have a similar quality to Frutiger.
Hope that clarifies it and that you have some more ideas.
Dave
Andreas Höfeld
> But Lars, I think you've misunderstood what we're doing. We won't ever
> have Frutiger and a serif font in the same document.
>
> In all our documents, the headline font will be Barmeno.
>
> In newsletters etc., the body font will be Frutiger.
>
> In most Word documents, especially reports and proposals, the body
> font will be a serif font, which, in order to create consistent
> branding, should therefore have a similar quality to Frutiger.
When in your (printed) documents your body text font is Frutiger,
why do you insist on a serif font for wordprocessor printouts
as a replacement for Frutiger with "similar quality"? Why not
a sans font when "similar quality to Frutiger" is among your
criteria?
Puzzled,
Andreas
nipy
why you will almost never see a novel with sans body text. And i'ts not
a matter of wordprocessing vs. non-wordprocessing: it's a matter of
document length. Worprocessed newletters will use sans body.
Non-wordprocessed long documents will use serif body.
Hope that helps
Dave
Andreas Höfeld
> Because the readability of sans fonts is poor in long documents.
Talking of readability: to quote what you reply to can
improve reading in usenet very much ;-)
> Thta's why you will almost never see a novel with sans body text. And
> i'ts not a matter of wordprocessing vs. non-wordprocessing: it's a
> matter of document length.
Urban legend of typography. IMHO the reason why you don't
print novels in a sans font is that we still associate sansserif
with the sober technical image of advertising, screen displays
and user manuals. I personally use Frutiger 55 with proper
linespacing for my speech manuscripts for its readability.
I wouldn't expect it in a novel for merely customary reasons.
It lacks the "poetry" of a Bodoni that is in my view much
less readable.
> Worprocessed newletters will use sans body.
> Non-wordprocessed long documents will use serif body.
So what I don't understand is why your desired serif font
should go with Frutiger. It should harmonize with Barmeno,
but that's an entirely different cup of tea.
> Hope that helps
Yep. Now it's unclear on a much higher level ;-)
Andreas
Lars Trebing
> In all our documents, the headline font will be Barmeno.
>
> In newsletters etc., the body font will be Frutiger.
Erm ... just to make sure: You use Barmeno (a humanist sans-serif font)
together with Frutiger (a humanist sans-serif font)? Well, now that is
what I call a poor combination. :) Again, Times will perfectly harmonize
with Barmeno (and for sure it will look better in this place than Frutiger).
Andreas Höfeld
> nipy wrote:
>
>> In all our documents, the headline font will be Barmeno.
>>
>> In newsletters etc., the body font will be Frutiger.
>
> Erm ... just to make sure: You use Barmeno (a humanist sans-serif
> font) together with Frutiger (a humanist sans-serif font)? Well, now
> that is
> what I call a poor combination. :)
I see Barmeno rather as a decorative font, nothing for body
text, even in flyers.
> Again, Times will perfectly
> harmonize with Barmeno (and for sure it will look better in this
> place than Frutiger).
I never understood the OP's point in looking for a font that
goes with Frutiger. But sometimes there comes a point when
I feel that arguing is pointless and resistance futile ;-)
Andreas
Lars Trebing
> I never understood the OP's point in looking for a font that goes
> with Frutiger. But sometimes there comes a point when I feel that
> arguing is pointless and resistance futile ;-)
Hmm ...
Yeah, that sounds somehow reasonable. :)
nipy
> should go with Frutiger. It should harmonize with Barmeno,
> but that's an entirely different cup of tea.
No it *shouldn't* go with Frutiger, it should go with Barmeno; but it
should *look quite similar to* Frutiger, because some of our documents
will have Frutiger body text, whereas other documents will have serif
body text, and we'd like a similar brand image in both types of
documents.
As for readability, I respect your opinion but I still think good serif
typefaces are more readable that sans for body text in long documents.
The serifs take your eye accross the page.
nipy
Unfortunately I had no input into which fonts were used in the brochure.
nipy
> text, even in flyers.
Yes, we will only be using Barmeno for headings, not for body.
> I never understood the OP's point in looking for a font that
> goes with Frutiger.
We aren't looking for a serif font that goes with Frutiger. We are
looking for a font that goes with Barmeno but looks similar to
Frutiger.
> I feel that arguing is pointless and resistance futile ;-)
It's not an argument I'm looking for, just your help. It seems from the
replies I've had that so far no-one has really understood the
requirement. Maybe I haven't described it very well? To reiterate, we
are looking for a font that goes with Barmeno but looks similar to
Frutiger. The reason is that some of our documents will contain sans
body text (which will be Frutiger or a look-alike); while other
documents will contain serif body text; and we therefore want the serif
and sans serif fonts to look similar, so that we have a fairly
consistent "look and feel" across all our documents.
1218
http://www.gnome.org/fonts/
or http://www.fryfonts.com/free-font/178
Verdana
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=34153&release_id=1
05355
some other collection
http://www.identifont.com/free-fonts.html
http://www.dafont.com/en/theme.php?cat=501
--
email disabled
Crofts Philip
คลิกที่ นี่ เพื่อเรียนรู้ผลลาวล่าสุดและความสนุกของเกมสล็อต! 📢🔗
✅ เข้าเว็บไซต์
http://bit.ly/3RPBnb1
✅ สมัครสมาชิก
http://bit.ly/3RPBnb1
✅ ติดต่อเรา
http://bit.ly/3RPBnb1
✅ รับโปรโมชั่น
http://bit.ly/3RPBnb1
หากคุณต้องการทดลองเล่นสล็อตฟรี คุณสามารถลองที่ เว็บไซต์นี้ และสนุกกับเกมสล็อตที่น่าตื่นเต้น! 🎰🍀
ไม่ว่าคุณจะสนใจหวยลาวหรือสล็อต เรามีสิ่งที่คุณต้องการ! 😃🎉