Computer Modern fonts ugly, can I replace them?
Thomas Okken
like to replace them. I would like to use Times instead of CM, and Courier
instead of Typewriter.
This replacement should be totally transparent (I don't want to have to hack
TeX files I get from elsewhere in order to print them with the new fonts),
so I guess I would have to replace the PK-Files I got with OzTeX.
Does anyone have a clue how to do this? A utility that can create PK files
from TrueType outlines or Type 1 PostScript fonts would be ideal.
Are there any snags I should be aware of (will mathematics continue to work)?
Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.
- Thomas (tho...@duteca.et.tudelft.nl)
Rainer Schoepf
The simplest way to do that in LaTeX is to switch to the New Font
Selection Scheme. Available from all the major archives.
--
Rainer Schoepf
Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum ,,Ich mag es nicht, wenn
fuer Informationstechnik Berlin sich die Dinge so frueh
Heilbronner Strasse 10 am Morgen schon so
D-1000 Berlin 31 dynamisch entwickeln!''
Federal Republic of Germany
<Sch...@sc.ZIB-Berlin.dbp.de> or <Sch...@sc.ZIB-Berlin.de>
Victor Eijkhout
>I find the standard Computer Modern fonts for TeX rather ugly, and I would
An attitude that I sympathise with. Look up volume I of 'the Art of
Computer Programming' for the typeface that Knuth tried to imitate,and
see that he failed. Even if he would have succeeded, Modern faces
are not very fashionable, nor readable, nor particularly
suitable for laserprinting. They stem from a period when printers
were intoxicated with their capabilities in printing extremely fine
lines on handmade paper. I saw a page printed by Bodoni himself
(the Bodoni type is the most typical modern type) and it was
marvellous. But you need at least 2500dpi to equal that, and
very good paper.
>like to replace them. I would like to use Times instead of CM, and Courier
>instead of Typewriter.
And this is a sentiment I don't sympathise with. Times is an efficient
typeface, but it is horribly overexposed, and what with the Macintosh
it has become almost synonymous for 'Desktop Publishing'.
Courier is about as much different from Times in character as you
can get. The combination is absolutely awful. So, by the way,
is combining Times with Helvetica. Doesn't make any sense at all.
>Does anyone have a clue how to do this? A utility that can create PK files
>from TrueType outlines or Type 1 PostScript fonts would be ideal.
Such a beast was described in Tugboat a while back. But if you
have a postscript printer you don't need PK's for the fonts at all.
You can simply use the built in fonts.
>Are there any snags I should be aware of (will mathematics continue to work)?
If you follow Rainer's suggestion and use the new font
selection scheme of LaTeX, everything will work fine.
If you want to do this in plain TeX you're in for a lot of
hacking.
Hm. I guess I could write an article for Tugboat about
my own font selection scheme. That can be used with Plain TeX
with minimal mods...
> - Thomas (tho...@duteca.et.tudelft.nl)
Victor.
PS Thomas, je kunt ook op de EARN discussielijst TeX-nl@hearn
terecht voor dit soort vragen. Je krijgt dan antwoord van mensen
die wat dichter bij je in de buurt zitten. Heeft zo z'n voordelen.
Scott Willingham
(Victor Eijkhout) writes:
>
>And this is a sentiment I don't sympathise with. Times is an efficient
>typeface, but it is horribly overexposed, and what with the Macintosh
>it has become almost synonymous for 'Desktop Publishing'.
>Courier is about as much different from Times in character as you
>can get. The combination is absolutely awful. So, by the way,
>is combining Times with Helvetica. Doesn't make any sense at all.
>
Could you please elaborate on why Times and Helvetica are a poor
combination? If the reason is not simply that serif and sans serif
fonts combine poorly, then could you recommend a suitable combination
using commonly available fonts?
Thanks,
Scott Willingham
Victor Eijkhout
I must say that I got carried away here a bit by my general dislike
of Helvetica. It is in my opinion a characterless typeface.
A watered down Futura, which I would greatly prefer if you
are going for a sterile look. If you want character in a serifless
face, take Gill Sans (which I'm using by the way as the displya
font in my upcoming book 'TeX by Topic').
Seriffed and serifless faces do go together excellently, for instnace
if the sans serif is used for headings, headers/footers, and similar
stuff (I also use it for the text in illustrations).
Helvetica seems to me a bit too much rounder than the Times Roman,
which makes the combination incongruous. Futura might be a better
choice, as might be Syntax, or some of the Univers faces. (Of univers
there are dozens of variants. The 45/46 and 55/56 series share
with Helvetica the rather broad character. Maybe the 57/58
(Monotype 690) would do nicely with Times.)
Victor.
Gerald Edgar
* It [Helvetica] is in my opinion a characterless typeface.
You would rather have a typeface that calls attention to itself?
--
Gerald A. Edgar Internet: ed...@mps.ohio-state.edu
Department of Mathematics Bitnet: EDGAR@OHSTPY
The Ohio State University telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office)
Columbus, OH 43210 -292-4975 (Math. Dept.) -292-1479 (Dept. Fax)
Victor Eijkhout
> * It [Helvetica] is in my opinion a characterless typeface.
>You would rather have a typeface that calls attention to itself?
Helvetica calls attention to itself by being completely spineless,
giving wet handshakes, have spittle dripping from the corners
of its mouth...
I can recognize a Gill Sans (upside down even!), a Times, and
a number of other faces. I greet them in recognition, and they
let me go on reading. For Helvetica its objectionable behaviour
keeps me from reading.
So far for the metaforical descriptions.
There is nothing against a typeface that has a character.
It's what you recognize, and you get clues from it. For instance,
Using Times for a bible or an art book would be inappropriate
because of its no-nonsense look (reinforced by its use, of course).
Computer Modern was a bad choice for Knuth's 3:16, which needed
really an old-face. Bembo, for instance, which would (like
Goudy Old Style) have been inappropriate for technical books.
Palatino has too many bells and whistles for prolonged reading,
but it is beautiful for short texts, just a few paragraphs.
In short, certain typefaces have a well-defined character which
determines where they can be used (of course, deviations from
this can still be possible, but you have to have a schooled
judgement to come up with them), and there is nothing against
that. What bothers me about Helvetica is precisely the lack
of defining character. It looks like a half-hearted attempt
to water down the very stark Futura.
Of course, as with Times, the Helvetica has been used too much.
There is no reason for using it, other than it is part of
the standard Postscript distribution. (For Times some more
compelling arguments exist.)
> Gerald A. Edgar
Victor.
Paul Barton-Davis
>Helvetica seems to me a bit too much rounder than the Times Roman,
>which makes the combination incongruous. Futura might be a better
>choice, as might be Syntax, or some of the Univers faces. (Of univers
>there are dozens of variants. The 45/46 and 55/56 series share
>with Helvetica the rather broad character. Maybe the 57/58
>(Monotype 690) would do nicely with Times.)
Excellent choice. I used this myself a couple of years ago, and it
really looks pretty good, or at least in so far as any sans face mixed
with something like Times can.
-- paul
--
"And I promised that I would forgive nothing, and change everything.
But this was before I became trapped in the habits & haunts of this world."
Angus Duggan
In article <1991Nov7.1...@csrd.uiuc.edu>, eijk...@sp2.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:
>
> I must say that I got carried away here a bit by my general dislike
> of Helvetica. It is in my opinion a characterless typeface.
> A watered down Futura, which I would greatly prefer if you
> are going for a sterile look. If you want character in a serifless
> face, take Gill Sans (which I'm using by the way as the displya
> font in my upcoming book 'TeX by Topic').
I couldn't agree more; I was *very* pleased to see that Gill Sans came with
our SPARCprinter, as well as a Bembo. Gill Sans is one of the nicer sans-serif
fonts that I have encountered so far. Unfortunately, Sun didn't supply an AFM
file with the printer software, so I had to create my own. Pity about the rest
of the SPARCprinter software, too.
> Helvetica seems to me a bit too much rounder than the Times Roman,
> which makes the combination incongruous.
I find that the variation in stroke width, chararacter width, and x-height is
what makes these fonts match badly, especially the latter. If the x-heights of
the sans and serifed face are similar, varying either of the stroke weight or
character width (within limits) looks good, but changing everything at the
same time is too discontinuous, and makes it difficult to read, IMHO.
You could stretch or shrink the fonts so that the x-heights matched, of
course, and I'm sure it would look a lot better, but it wouldn't be the same
font :-)
> Maybe the 57/58
> (Monotype 690) would do nicely with Times.)
Yes, try anything but Helvetica, please :-(
> Victor.
a.
--
Angus Duggan, Department of Computer Science, | I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam.
University of Edinburgh, JCMB, | JANET: aj...@uk.ac.ed.dcs
The King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, | VOICE: (UK) 031 650 5126
Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, Scotland. | OR: ajcd%dcs.ed...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
goath...@wkuvx1.bitnet
> tho...@duteca.et.tudelft.nl (Thomas Okken) writes:
>
>>like to replace them. I would like to use Times instead of CM, and Courier
>>instead of Typewriter.
>
> And this is a sentiment I don't sympathise with. Times is an efficient
> typeface, but it is horribly overexposed, and what with the Macintosh
> it has become almost synonymous for 'Desktop Publishing'.
I used TeX to publish a newsletter and used the Computer Modern fonts for it.
I had varying degrees of success with different laser printers (all 300 dpi),
but part of the reason I stuck with them is *because* their use made my
newsletter look different from all the others! Since everybody else in the
genre uses Times and Helvetica, at least mine stood out, even if the fonts
suffered some from 300 dpi.
Hunter
------
Hunter Goatley, VAX Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University
goath...@wkuvx1.bitnet, 502-745-5251
Victor Eijkhout
>I used TeX to publish a newsletter and used the Computer Modern fonts for it.
>I had varying degrees of success with different laser printers (all 300 dpi),
>but part of the reason I stuck with them is *because* their use made my
>newsletter look different from all the others! Since everybody else in the
>genre uses Times and Helvetica, at least mine stood out, even if the fonts
>suffered some from 300 dpi.
Had you spent a few bucks, you could have used any number of
typefaces more beautiful than CM, and different from both
CM, which is all but synonymous with TeX, and Times, which
is almost synonymous with DTP.
CM is really the most deplorable aspect of TeX. It is a typeface
that simply doesn't come out on 300dpi. In that respect Times is
very remarkable: it can stand almost any amount of abuse, is
terribly space efficient (but that was a conscious design goal
of it), and is still very readable.
For a newsletter you could for instance have used Zapf's Melior
(if you buy it from Bistream they call it Zapf Elliptical)
which is also compact, readable (even at small sizes; you can
use 8pt as a text face), and has a rather business-like look.
>Hunter
Victor.