![]() the very differing widths of the letter shapes in this illustration: I guess the sizing of a particular text string can change considerably with a "designed" font variant - which raises a separate complication for LrC watermarking.Ĭonsider e.g. some typefaces mentioned, such as Book Antiqua, should have all needed variants present as standard. While some faces mentioned (such as Papyrus or Segoe Script) can IMO be expected problematic to override to italic (since there is no 'Papyrus Italic' font file while Segoe Script has only got 'Regular' and 'Bold'). Some more typographically scrupulous software will simply not show any "faux" version. When a proper font file is not present, a "faux" sloped / thickened version is fudged instead and usually that looks awful. In most software - MS Word or whatever - you can assign any typeface you like an italic override, bold or both. But such-and such Light, or Book, or Script is separately grouped and will not necessarily 'know' what best to use when the user asks for a Bold option. Similarly the basic form of each typeface design is considered such-and such Regular (even if it does not say so), and will group with a corresponding Bold, Italic and Bold Italic typically. ![]() A handwriting style font is already in some senses "italic". Especially with more unusual looking ones - including script faces - no "italicised" form may have been intended by their designer. ![]() Just a side comment here: it is a good idea to check which typefaces even have any "designed" italic (or bold, or bold italic) variant installed as a font file. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |