Also, on some newer computer systems, the fonts have the capability of being "smoothed" in the various software programs they use to create the Journal. This will often be accomplished with dithering of the font which will give it the soft edges that it appears to have. It makes it look better on a low resolution computer screen but it makes it look softer and out of focus when it's in print. It could be as simple as that. Regards, Rob McCall McCall Piano Service, LLC www.mccallpiano.com Murrieta, CA 951-698-1875 On Aug 13, 2010, at 11:46 , Ron Nossaman wrote: > > Hi Wally, > Yep, looks like they got someone young making font decisions in front of a 36" high resolution Mac monitor. Everyone's a graphic artist these days. > > I checked it out, and it's pretty dramatic and REALLY easy to fix for ALL subsequent printings. The font appears to be the same, and the same size, but the stroke is much lighter. The new version is kerned tighter (which may just be because of the stroke width), and the leading (between lines) is wider than the old version. That makes for a whole lot of white air in the type, which makes it fuzz into gray visually. You've got a legitimate gripe. > > Going back to a heavier stroke and wider kerning with the same font, will make it readable again. Going back to the old tighter leading (11 instead of 12 ) will compensate for the wider kerning and get back whatever was lost in line wrap and justification with the broader letters, so they'll still be able to print skinny Journals and not lose anything except the unreadability. > > Get the layout person a low resolution 13" monitor, and things till improve right away. > Ron N >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC