Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

CoryM

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CoryM

  1. Gimmicky? There are many gimmicky typefaces of every sort, and I suspect some variable fonts will follow the same path. I have noticed that the demos of variable font capabilities often show the gimmick potential of variable fonts. However, there's nothing inherently gimmicky about variable fonts. I increasingly depend on them for dealing with tight space requirements or adjusting display-sized type, such as headlines, to achieve exactly the right balance of weights and widths. As someone with a self-described conservative outlook (on type and design, I suppose), variable fonts will enable you to fine-tune those classic typefaces to their best advantage for the job at hand.
  2. No, this is not the case, which I and others have repeatedly pointed out. I use variable fonts almost every day in various printed publications. An InDesign or Illustrator file will save variable fonts to PDF with no problems. I can, and have on many occasions, opened PDFs containing variable fonts in Illustrator and the fonts are still there and still editable. They haven't been converted to static fonts. They haven't been outlined, and they still function as variable fonts with adjustable axis. Now if you want to edit the PDF in an application that doesn't support variable fonts, such as Affinity Designer or Publisher, of course the variable fonts won't be editable, but that has nothing to do with the PDF — it's the result of the limitations of the editing software that doesn't support variable fonts. In addition, of course, the computer where any subsequent editing occurs must have the variable font installed, which isn't all that different from needing the locally installed .otf or .ttf font file when the file is edited.
  3. A Google date search tells me the page you referenced was published July 20, 2019. I suspect that's the reason. Much has happened in terms of Adobe's support of variable fonts in the last three years. The variable fonts displayed perfectly in the PDF I made. Just to be sure, I emailed the PDF to my Android tablet that has no variable fonts installed and opened it. The type displayed perfect there too. I had intentionally set the width and weight axis of the glyphs to be in between the variable fonts' static versions, the PDF carried those intermediate values over perfectly to my tablet. As I mentioned earlier, when I open the PDF in Illustrator, the variable fonts are there, have the right combination of width and weight axis, weren't outlined, and hadn't been converted into static fonts. Using Illustrator, I'm still able to adjust the width and width axis. That said, editing the variable text within Acrobat (which I almost never have a need to do) is a problem because Acrobat apparently doesn't directly support editing the variable fonts yet. However, it displays and embeds them without a problem. This thread has headed off on a tangent. The real point is that, for whatever reason, Serif has not incorporated variable font technology into their Affinity suite, which for some of us, makes using their products much less useful and is keeping us tethered to Adobe until they remedy the situation.
  4. To test it, I saved a page in the latest version of Illustrator to PDF. The page contained several variable fonts in various configurations of weight and width axis settings. It worked fine. Furthermore, I opened the PDF in Illustrator and the variable fonts were still there, still useable and hadn't been converted to outlines.
  5. Since most typeface designers use stepped interpolation to produce the intermediate weights and widths of static OTF and TTF font families, saving the development file to a variable font becomes a no-brainer for them. For this reason alone, variable fonts are not going away. As type designers create more type designs, the number of variable fonts accompanying those static font families will also grow. The variable font format is wholly mature and one that I find enormously useful. It's an increasingly critical part of my work as a designer. However, because so many printers have only a superficial familiarity with the format, I always ask new printers about their level of experience with variable fonts and if their RIPs can handle them. When I get a positive response from those printers, I've never had a problem. When I get a deer-in-the-headlights reaction from the printer, I'll typically choose another printer or convert the text to outlines before sending it. For me, Affinity's lack of support for variable fonts is a deal-killer. Sadly, the lack of support eliminates the Affinity applications from consideration in my workflow routines. I was an early adopter of the Affinity suite, and I loved the possibilities I saw in it. As the proliferation and use of variable fonts began to take off, it seemed obvious that Affinity would incorporate variable font and, also, non-Latin-based alphabet support into Version 2. Unfortunately, Serif/Affinity dropped the ball. Maybe in version 3, but that could be years away. In the mean time, it's back to Adobe.
  6. Without variable font support, I'll stick to Affinity's competitor that does offer it. All modern browsers support variable fonts, as does Affinity's big competitor. Affinity has added lots of new features — most of which I wasn't really needing. Affinity's 2.0's feature list mentions "Pro Font Support." Without support for variable fonts, it's font support is not only not pro-level, it's years behind. Lack of variable font support is a disappoint to the point of me almost getting angry. I was finally hoping to finally ditch my monthly subscription fee to the other company, but it seems that won't be happening yet. This is absolutely maddening for me.
  7. Thanks for the suggestions. I've tried them, but I'm getting the same results — ink densities upwards of 330% when analyzed in Adobe Acrobat. On test files, I've both assigned and not assigned various profiles in Photoshop. I've assigned the same ones at the document level. I've overridden and not overridden them on export to PDF. It's always the same no matter what — way high maximum densities in the PDF. The only thing that's seemed to make a difference is when I assign the IngramSpark profile upon export to PDF, which kicks everything back to under 240%, but that's not what I need.
  8. Thanks for responding. I was using U.S. Sheetfed Coated v2 in InDesign and exporting it to PDF using that profile from Affinity Publisher. I tried a couple of other profiles and got the same results — higher densities from the Publisher export than from InDesign. After posting my first message, I found a profile online made especially for IngramSpark (on-demand digital) to bring those maximum values down to under 240% and oddly, that worked when exporting from Publisher to PDF — all the values, according to Acrobat, were below 240%. The downside is that I only need to keep it a bit below 300 for sheetfed offset, which is how the book will be printed. It's late, I'm calling it quits for the evening — my brain is beginning to stall out. Maybe the morning will bring something obvious that I've missed. Thanks again.
  9. When Adobe PSD photos with deep, rich blacks are placed into Affinity Publisher then exported to press-ready PDF and subsequently opened in Acrobat, the maximum ink density readings are upwards of about 320 percent, which exceeds both the recommended density values for printing and the maximum density settings built into the photos. I thought this might be an issue with the density values I used while converting the photos from RGB to CMYK in Photoshop, so I checked. Nope. The density values were all under 300% as expected. Taking those same photos, placing them into InDesign and exporting as a press-ready PDF and opening in Acrobat, the ink density reading were, as expected, under 300%. I tried converting them to TIFFs and Affinity Photo files, but got exactly the same results — excessively high ink densities from Publisher but expected densities from InDesign as measured in Acrobat. On a whim, I lowered the density values in Photoshop to the minimum level of 200%, exported the photos, placed them in Publisher, exported to a PDF and read the ink density readings. Once again, the maximum density readings were over 300%. Using those same low ink density photos in InDesign and exporting to PDF resulted in the expected values in Acrobat. What is going on with this? Is Affinity Publisher somehow overriding or ignoring the maximum ink density settings in photos? Is Adobe Acrobat somehow misreading the ink densities in the PDFs exported from Affinity Publisher? I'm sort of suspecting that Publisher just isn't honoring the photo's maximum ink density settings, which to me, makes Publisher unusable. I hope I'm wrong. I have a 96-page full-color book with photos on every page scheduled to be printed next week, and I'm afraid to send them the PDF because of this problem. Anyone have any insight on this?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.