The difference between a font and a typeface. Is there one?

[photosynthesize]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Define the difference between a font and a typeface? Is there one?

[Goran Soderstrom]

Font = Software
Typeface = Letters

[photosynthesize]

i don't agree. the word 'fount' has been used for a very long time when referring to typesetting.

[Goran Soderstrom]

Don't we live today? :)
No, of course I was generalizing but there is some truth in there I think.

A typeface can be drawings on a piece of paper, that can never a font be.

[metalfoot]

The typeface is the design and the font is the means of reproducing that design.

[Jos Buivenga]

Mark Simonson says here: “The physical embodiment of a collection of letters (whether it’s a case of metal pieces or a computer file) is a font. When referring to the design of the collection (the way it looks) you call it a typeface.”

[photosynthesize]

*rubs head confusedly* i reckon the terms have become interchangeable today.

[Florian Hardwig]

Too late to cast your vote, too early to read the results:
http://www.thomasphinney.com/2009/02/font-name/

[cerulean]

The Helvetica available from Adobe, Linotype, Monotype, and Letraset are all the same typeface, but different fonts. It's a clear but not very important distinction. In practice, I'm happy if I can stop laymen from using "font" to describe hand lettering ("He wrote a note on the chalkboard in a really big font." NO).

[John Hudson]

i reckon the terms have become interchangeable today.

They're interchangeable until you need to make a distinction. In practice, this means that for the typical user, they are interchangeable, while for type professionals they are more like to be used in a more precise and differentiated way. I need to be able to distinguish between a design and an implementation of that design in a particular technology. As you say, the word ‘fount’ has been around for a long time, but it has always referred specifically to a particular implementation of a typeface: formerly a tray of metal type at a particular size -- e.g. ‘a 10pt font of Times New Roman’ --, then to a set of Linotype matrices or a Monotype matrix case, then to a variety of glass and film negatives or positives, and most recently to software.

[Nachos]

True, with digital scalable lettering the distinction becomes less important. Prior to digital type a font was a complete set of characters of a certain weight and size i.e. 16pt Bodoni Bold, whereas Bodoni would be the Typeface.

[Thomas Phinney]

I'm well into writing up my survey results, but have a way to go yet before I'm done.

Unfortunately I'm traveling at the moment, and speaking at a conference tomorrow. But I should find time over the next few days to finish that up.

Cheers,

T

[megax]

Very simply put: A typeface is a set of one or more fonts.

Typeface = Parent;
Font = Child;

[Uli]

If your mother tongue is Dutch, German, French or Spanish, and you are asked for the equivalents of "font" and "typeface", what do you say?

Please fill in:

font:
Dutch:
German:
French:
Spanish:

typeface:
Dutch:
German:
French:
Spanish:

[daniele capo]

The problem is discussed in Robin Kinross, Unjustified texts

[mattmatthew]

I've always believed that -

Fonts are Typefaces generated specifically for digital use;

And that Typefaces were inclusive of all lettering designed to be used for mass production and/or consumption.

I could be wrong, though.

I seem to recall author Simon Loxley of Type: The Secret History of Letters writing that he also believed this to be the definition.

[ahaydnjones]

There is most definitely a stark difference between a Font and a Typeface as can be found here: http://blog.anthonyjones.biz/2009/01/typography-101-fonts-vs-typefaces/

[photosynthesize]

gah, the anthony jones blog contradicts what other people are saying e.g. nachos' post.

[Ad_Junkie_At_Large]

Font: A single cut from a type family (one point size). ex. Helvetica Bold 10pt

Typeface: The entire family (all sizes). ex. Helvetica

[phrostbyte64]

Thank you, Ad_Junkie_At_Large for the correct answer. Although, the point size is not really a deciding issue any more with digital format.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...from the Fontry

[photosynthesize]

wow, so we're saying every instance of a typeface is an individual font? helvetica bold 10pt, helvetica bold 11pt, helvetica bold 12pt etc?

[phrostbyte64]

Although, the point size is not really a deciding issue any more with digital format.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...from the Fontry

[photosynthesize]

so how do we know that you are correct, phrostbyte, and not anthony jones, who says the complete opposite?

[phrostbyte64]

Ask anyone who has ever used metal type. Personally, I can only tell you what the old guys say. That is what a font and typeface was. What is it now? Maybe Anthony Jones can redefine things as he see fit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...from the Fontry

[Dan Gayle]

Because he is.

It just so happens that most digital typefaces are designed for one font size, say, 12pt for text, 18pt for display. The fact that we scale them to whatever we want doesn't mean that it isn't one cut, or font. Each different weight is a different cut, or font. Each style is a different cut or font. The size isn't specified any more, but it is implied, even though we ignore it.

When you get into the optical sizes, then you even start to restore some more of the original meaning of a specific typeface cut for a specific size/weight/style. Garamond Premier Pro Light Italic DISPLAY, where DISPLAY is Adobe's way of saying 36pt or whatever.