Difference between Tekton and Tekton Pro?

[_Ariel_Walden_]

Hi,

I'm aware that Adobe's "Pro" designation means that the font contains all the necessary glyphs to set European languages. But that's not what I'm asking.

We have a client for whom we're preparing a book. We've been using Tekton Pro (Bold and Regular). We sent a PDF proof to the client and they say that they meant the old Tekton (not Pro--rather, the postscript version). I've tried to compare the two, but it's very difficult online.

My question is: is there a difference in the actual form of the letters between the old Tekton and Tekton Pro?

(In the case of Garamond and Garamond Premier Pro there is a significant difference between the shapes of some letters, for example.)

Thanks,
Ariel

[Neil_Keller]

Ariel,
>is there a difference in the actual form of the letters between the old Tekton and Tekton Pro?

Generally speaking, probably not. Although they are differently named and coded, in most cases when Adobe converted its PostScript library to OpenType, the metrics and glyphs were replicated, and in some cases additional glyphs added and "expert sets" or "alternates" combined. If a job was set originally in Tekton (PostScript Type 1), and converted to Tekton Pro, you might get some text reflow, so a careful proofing would be suggested.

What is your client's specific concern? If you submit proofs/final art as PDFs with fonts embedded, your client doesn't have to worry about this.
>In the case of Garamond and Garamond Premier Pro...

Which "Garamonds" are you comparing? There are many different cuts of Garamond, and Garamond-like fonts that look similar in design and construction, but are indeed different fonts. For example: ITC Garamond, Adobe Garamond, Garamond No. 1, 2, 3, etc., Garamond Premier Pro, Garamond Premiere Pro Opticals, ITC Garamond Handtooled, Simoncini Garamond, Stempel Garamond, Italian Garamond, Monotype Garamond, Berthold Garamond, Garamont, Old Claude, Augereau, Sabon...and that's just scratching the surface.

Neil

[_Ariel_Walden_]

Hi Neil,

As far as I understood, our firm's client's concern was that the font looked
different (reflow not being an issue in this case because it's used for a
main heading only).

Anyway, I went into the office (a rarity in these days of telecommuting) to
investigate. The outcome is that somehow or other one of the graphics people
managed to switch Tekton for some variant of Times. Good grief! No wonder
the client sounded concerned; I'm impressed that they managed to remain so
polite about it, actually.

I think you're right about there generally not being a difference between
the PS and Pro versions of Adobe fonts. I would be interested to hear more
insight into this point.

I seem to have three Adobe Garamond's on the computer. The old Adobe
Garamond PostScript and Adobe Garamond Pro: these two seem identical, and a
full alphabet also sets the same width.

On the other hand, Adobe Garamond Premier Pro seems to be essentially
different, though very similar, font. It sets differently, and unless I'm
imagining things, the x-height is slightly shorter, plus all the strokes
seem slight thicker.

This adds support to the theory that a regular Adobe PS font is identical to
its Pro namesake except for some added glyphs. Perhaps that is why Adobe
Garamond Premier was actually given a different name.

Regards,
Ariel

[_Dominic_Hurley_]

>This adds support to the theory that a regular Adobe PS font is identical to its Pro namesake except for some added glyphs.

Some do have tweaked metrics, so be wary of text reflow over many pages, and some do have major differences in glyph shapes. Compare the old Cronos Italic with the Cronos Pro Italic, where Robert Slimbach took the opportunity to do some redesign work (I actually prefer some of the original glyphs, but that's just me).

[_Dave_Saunders_]

Garamond Premier Pro is from Adobe, but it is not named Adobe Garamond Premier Pro.

Dave

[_Ariel_Walden_]

I stand corrected!

Anyway, thanks for the info. I'll be wary of these issues in future.

Ariel

[Thomas Phinney]

Yes, Garamond Premier is an entirely distinct typeface from Adobe Garamond.

As for differences between old Type 1 fonts and their OpenType counterparts, they are often minor. I have documented this at some length. See here:

http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/2005/12/type_1_to_opent.html

Cheers,

T