Member Ren… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 This topic was imported from the Typophile platform There are fonts that include R, I, B but no bold italic. There are mega font families (e.g., 33 fonts) that include shadow, outline, light, semi-bold, medium, yada, yada, yada, but no bold italic. What's with that? Link to comment
Member J W… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Where are you looking? Hardly know any typeface without a bold italic … Link to comment
Member Ren… Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 Because it is. Duh! I know that! But why? Or why should it be? Is it because some type designers think they know what's best for me? Link to comment
Member dan… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 No, it is because some type designers know what is best for their typefaces. In many cases, Bold Italic is just too much of a difference from the main face. Why emphasize text in Bold Italic when just a single level of emphasis (e.g., Bold, Italic, small caps, underlining, letterspacing, switching to a different typeface, etc.) would be enough? There are plenty of typefaces that have Bold Italics. If you want to use a Bold Italic, pick a typeface family that offers it. I don’t see why is should be a requirement, just because it is so commonplace. Link to comment
Member Ric… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I meant that bold italic is a bastard stepchild in itself, historically and design-wise, as Dan explains. Link to comment
Member Flo… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Sumner Stone chose to omit an accompanying Italic for some of his Bolds (or Semibolds), see Cycles, Arepo, SFPL. Link to comment
Member hra… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 And his Silica doesn't even have any Italic! Bravo. hhp Link to comment
Member hra… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Because it's the least useful of the four. But excluding it has become very old-fashioned. The only recent typeface that I remember not having a B-I (at least when first launched) is Whitman. hhp Link to comment
Member Ber… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Purists consider italics and roman to be different species… I find mixing them problematic too and prefer slanted forms in longer texts (and for all I care designers may call these italics). Link to comment
Member hra… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Do you mean like this?http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/nour&patria/dev/nour-latin.gif I would love to see Harrier used for an entire book one day. hhp Link to comment
Member Ber… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 To clarify: slanted instead of italic… for distant matter in roman. Link to comment
Member Ric… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 A previous discussion on the same topic: https://typography.guru/forums/topic/18029-forwarding Link to comment
Member Fro… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 The four core weights — Regular, Italic, Bold & Bold Italic — became a “standard” with MS Office, no? They had the b and the i and clicking both triggered the bi, so perhaps it is just plain lazyness? If you need the bi, you’re probably designing something so complex those four “core” styles wont do anyway. A medium/semibold, or a smaller optical size is much more useful. Link to comment
Member eli… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Why emphasize text in Bold Italic when just a single level of emphasis (e.g., Bold, Italic, small caps, underlining, letterspacing, switching to a different typeface, etc.) would be enough? One use-case where emphasis-within-emphasis comes particularly in handy is when titles appear in bold (say, a section heading named "Summer Blockbusters from Jaws to Independence Day"). Link to comment
Member Ren… Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 prefer slanted forms in longer texts (and for all I care designers may call these italics). Oops, is this bold italic? If designers want to eschew true cursive italic in favor of slanted Roman, why charge the same price for an oblique as for the Roman, when the difference is a few mouse clicks? Why shouldn't I just buy Roman and let my program create an oblique? Thanks, Craig, for the example. Apparently some folks need to know why there is a need for BI, although I wouldn't have thought so on Typophile. Link to comment
Member hra… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 A good slanted-Roman is never merely obliqued, not even in a sans. And you should pay more for a slanted-Roman because it does a better job. Just like you pay more for a designer who uses two fonts instead of five on a job. hhp Link to comment
Member Ren… Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 Delightful reply, Hrant. Would that this were always so: A good slanted-Roman is never merely obliqued, not even in a sans. I guess the key word is "good." When I see a merely obliqued Roman, I think "slothful." Link to comment
Member hra… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Same here. It's where Morison fell victim to his own dogma (and dragged a couple of otherwise good designers down with him). But making a traditional italic could also be seen as slothful, ideologically. Just because something takes a lot of time doesn't make it good. hhp Link to comment
Member Ren… Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 Just because something takes a lot of time doesn't make it good. So true—and it applies to everything from fonts to writing to music to parenting. And just because something is good doesn't mean that it doesn't take a lot of time. Hat tip to type designers who take the time to make type good. Link to comment
Member Aar… Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I bought the bold italic font of a family just the other day, for the reason Craig Eliason described. But I didn’t buy it months ago, when I only got the regular, italic, and bold fonts. I didn't need it until I needed it. Link to comment
Member Nic… Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 I usually include it, but sometimes it's just too much effort to draw. (Figgins Sans). Link to comment
Member qua… Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Historically, if you go 'way back, there was just one style of type in a given document. That style might have been blackletter, or it might have been Roman. I've seen printed books from the 20th Century (or maybe the 19th) that actually used blackletter for emphasis in a predominantly Roman text. Italics, when they first came along, thanks to Aldus Manutilus, were a way to print books more economically. Eventually, though, the use of italics for emphasis (as opposed to letterspacing for emphasis, a once-common practice) did become standardized. Boldface came along much later. Using blackletter, or a different Roman typeface with a heavier weight, for emphasis or headings preceded the design of bold weights of a given typeface. A very few typefaces later had bold italics designed for them, but this was generally regarded as a novelty. The frequent use of different levels of emphasis - italics, bold, small capitals - is generally deprecated, as good taste in typography has been generally regarded as that which is understated. Victorian posters, of course, are the extreme example of the opposite of this - and the needs of advertisers are one major reason why a few typefaces had a bold italic designed for them. Link to comment
Member hra… Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 > Italics, when they first came along, thanks to Aldus Manutilus, were a way to print books more economically. AFAIK this "classical" opinion has been debunked. I used to repeat that myself, but if you think about it it never made any sense to begin with (except for something like poetry). hhp Link to comment
Member Ber… Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Not more economically, but to imitate a much admired scribing style of the time. (At least that’s what my memory is from what I was taught and have read.) Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now