MacInTouch Amazon link...
Channels
Products
Serif/Affinity is having a 30%-off sale on all its already inexpensive products, so it's a good opportunity to grab one/some, if you haven't yet – $35 for a truly professional Mac (or Windows) product is hard to beat.
A belated "thank you" for sharing the news about the Affinity sale: I already owned a license to Publisher, and now I have licenses to Designer and Photo. I also bought the very impressive hardcover Designer and Photo Workbooks before the sale ended. I haven't been this excited to sit down to learn new software tools methodically in quite a while. I assume there will be bumps and glitches as I dive more deeply into the material, but I feel a nostalgic hint of how I felt when I first laid hands on early versions of Freehand and Photoshop.
 


Just another data point to add to the conversation. I use InDesign CS6 to produce a 16-page newspaper for our county's annual Fall Festival. I just tried the freebie version of IDMarkz to see if it would work for migrating to Affinity Publisher, and it did not translate well - bits and pieces were missing or in the wrong place. On a whim, I tried using Publisher to directly open a print-ready PDF exported from InDesign, and it actually seems to have come in fairly complete and correct.
 


I haven't been this excited to sit down to learn new software tools methodically in quite a while. ...I feel a nostalgic hint of how I felt when I first laid hands on early versions of Freehand and Photoshop.
This pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about Affinity, both in terms of their software and their approach to user education. Now if they would only make the workbook for Publisher. They told me it was coming. I just hope it's still on track – and doesn't take as long as Publisher itself. There's a spot on my bookshelf longing to be filled!
 


Just another data point to add to the conversation. I use InDesign CS6 to produce a 16-page newspaper for our county's annual Fall Festival. I just tried the freebie version of IDMarkz to see if it would work for migrating to Affinity Publisher, and it did not translate well - bits and pieces were missing or in the wrong place. On a whim, I tried using Publisher to directly open a print-ready PDF exported from InDesign, and it actually seems to have come in fairly complete and correct.
The freebie version of IDMarkz does not convert to IDML, but it does generate a preview. The IDML conversion is superior to the generated previews, however. The non-IDML conversions (PDF, EPS, PNG, JPG, GIF) generate their output from the previews, so those outputs are the same as the preview. But, the IDML conversion bypasses the preview and is generated directly from the source file.

The IDML conversion engine is the same as used in MarkzTools2, which was released in 2016. We've had 4 years of user feedback to improve conversions from INDD to IDML. Even being 4 years old, we still do get reports of issues that we work to fix promptly.

On the other hand, this is the first release of the preview engine. So, consequently, we are still finding some more obvious preview errors, which we are fixing as we get reports and example files.

Stembridge, I can do a sample conversion for you if you want to supply me with an InDesign file that is representative of your work. I'd also appreciate it if you could supply us with any files that are having preview issues, so we can resolve those problems right away.

You can upload to Trouble Ticket – put a note about talking to Eddie Aguirre about getting a sample conversion done.
 


Stembridge, I can do a sample conversion for you if you want to supply me with an InDesign file that is representative of your work. I'd also appreciate it if you could supply us with any files that are having preview issues, so we can resolve those problems right away. You can upload to Trouble Ticket – put a note about talking to Eddie Aguirre about getting a sample conversion done.
Thanks, I’ll do just that in the next day or so.
 



Eddie - I attempted to upload my files, but your web site isn't working right, and I was unable to send them.
I responded to your support request, but I think the problem was that since your file was so large, you needed to click the link for large files. I look forward to getting back to you as soon as you have a chance to give the upload a second try.
 


Just found a public beta for Affinity Publisher 1.8 that is "supporting" *.idml import. Haven't had much chance to play with it, but here is a link to the forum message (with a link to the download):

Affinity Publisher beta 1.8

The download link is up in the "header" of the message. I missed it at first. The beta only works if you have the release installed already.
 


Thanks for the heads up, Will Blume - I'll have to give this a try. I should have added a followup from my earlier posts that Eddie responded indicating the issue I was seeing was likely related to a Publisher IDML import error related to the EPS images in my file. The dev notes for the 1.8 beta mention a fix related to imported EPS data.
 


Whoops, here goes another kick in the head for Adobe CC users.
Adobe said:
Photoshop to end support for PostScript Type 1 fonts

Adobe Photoshop will cease support of PostScript Type 1 fonts in 2021. At that time, PostScript Type 1 fonts will no longer be listed in Photoshop's Font menu.
This legacy format, created by Adobe in the mid-1980s during the early days of desktop publishing, is already unsupported in major software applications, open-source libraries, and mobile platforms. The time has now come to sunset support in Photoshop, allowing us to better focus on innovative new typographic efforts as we look to the future.

It’s our goal to provide users with enough advance notice to make any required changes to affected documents. The successor to Type 1, OpenType was released in 2000 and offers significant typographic advantages. Adobe offers thousands of OpenType fonts through its Adobe Fonts service, which is included with a Creative Cloud membership.
 


The dev notes for the 1.8 beta mention a fix related to imported EPS data.
Another followup: exporting my InDesign CS6 file to IDML and then opening with Publisher 1.8 beta still results in missing or relocated EPS images.

From earlier testing, I was able to successfully open a print-ready PDF with the released version of Publisher.
 


Whoops, here goes another kick in the head for Adobe CC users.
... Adobe offers thousands of OpenType fonts through its Adobe Fonts service, which is included with a Creative Cloud membership.
The way the release reads, it looks like we may have to rent our fonts from Adobe on a monthly basis, like we do with their software.

I'm even more thankful for Affinity Publisher and really hope it catches on with agencies and printers.
 


Just found a public beta for Affinity Publisher 1.8 that is "supporting" *.idml import. Haven't had much chance to play with it, but here is a link to the forum message (with a link to the download): Affinity Publisher beta 1.8. The download link is up in the "header" of the message. I missed it at first. The beta only works if you have the release installed already.
That's been out at least a few weeks. I can confirm that the 1.8 beta opens InDesign IMDL files. I primarily deal with ad and magazine page layouts. In my quick and limited testing, I was very impressed with the results. This should be a big deal when 1.8 comes out of beta.
 


Whoops, here goes another kick in the head for Adobe CC users.
Wow. It seems like they need to actively add software in order to make Type-1 fonts stop working.

As far as I know (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), most applications don't know about or care what the font format is. They get a list of fonts from the operating system (whether it is Mac, Windows or Linux) and use standard OS calls to render text using those fonts. The OS is solely responsible for doing the rendering, and therefore determining what font formats are supported.

Unless Photoshop is directly rendering the fonts on its own (bypassing the OS altogether), they would need to be actively blocking Type-1 font support (by filtering the list provided by the OS). Maybe that's what they're doing, but it still seems pretty strange to me.
 


Wow. It seems like they need to actively add software in order to make Type-1 fonts stop working. As far as I know (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), most applications don't know about or care what the font format is. They get a list of fonts from the operating system (whether it is Mac, Windows or Linux) and use standard OS calls to render text using those fonts. The OS is solely responsible for doing the rendering, and therefore determining what font formats are supported. Unless Photoshop is directly rendering the fonts on its own (bypassing the OS altogether), they would need to be actively blocking Type-1 font support (by filtering the list provided by the OS). Maybe that's what they're doing, but it still seems pretty strange to me.
It wouldn't surprise me if, particularly in Photoshop, they did their own rendering. After all, they did the original rendering (legacy code?). If so, commonly used features like text conversion to bitmap in Photoshop could get messed up, I suppose?

But, if they wanted to go out of their way to alienate this client, they just did it again. The Affinity suite is looking promising. As soon as the Catalina mail issues resolve here, Adobe gets pushed out to a bootable Mojave partition for occasional historical reference. I am not investing any more of my time with it.
 


I bought this application some years back and have used it to convert some of my Type 1 fonts to OpenType:
FontGear Inc. said:
FontXChange
FontXChange converts fonts between common font formats, including OpenType (PS), Web Fonts (WOFF), PostScript Type 1, and TrueType for both Macintosh and Windows.
It seems to work correctly, but I am no longer actively producing content for print, so I can’t be sure that there would never be issues with that. Can anyone verify that there are no gotchas with printing?
 




... Unless Photoshop is directly rendering the fonts on its own (bypassing the OS altogether), they would need to be actively blocking Type-1 font support (by filtering the list provided by the OS). ...
Adobe has to do their own font rendering so their documents are as cross-platform compatible as possible. Windows and macOS render on-screen fonts differently. Of course, differences in displays, resolutions, et al also affect on-screen rendering.

Bottom line: given a Photoshop file with text layers, a PDF saved on macOS and then on Windows (with identical settings) should be nearly identical.
 


Windows and macOS render on-screen fonts differently.
This was most noticeable when Safari for Windows came out, because it used Apple's font rendering algorithms on Windows – you could directly compare the same web page in Safari and Internet Explorer. People were wondering why Safari's fonts looked fuzzier.

It was due to a difference in philosophy, as Joel Spolsky explained:
Joel Spolsky said:
Font smoothing, anti-aliasing, and sub-pixel rendering
  • Apple generally believes that the goal of the algorithm should be to preserve the design of the typeface as much as possible, even at the cost of a little bit of blurriness.
  • Microsoft generally believes that the shape of each letter should be hammered into pixel boundaries to prevent blur and improve readability, even at the cost of not being true to the typeface.
Retina displays render this moot.

#fonts
 


The way the release reads, it looks like we may have to rent our fonts from Adobe on a monthly basis, like we do with their software. I'm even more thankful for Affinity Publisher and really hope it catches on with agencies and printers.
Or we'll have to buy new OTF versions of those older fonts. Assuming they exist. Affinity Publisher supports OpenType, True Type, and Type 1. Not to mention every Mac OS back to OS X 10.9.
 


I bought this application some years back and have used it to convert some of my Type 1 fonts to OpenType:
It seems to work correctly, but I am no longer actively producing content for print, so I can’t be sure that there would never be issues with that. Can anyone verify that there are no gotchas with printing?
I purchased my copy some 10+ years back. My font library consists of about 10,000 fonts, a good portion of which were Type 1 PostScript, from having even earlier purchased Adobe Font Folio for a ridiculous amount of money.

FontXChange was at version 2.x at the time. It converted all of my TrueType and PostScript fonts to OpenType and they are still in use today. If memory serves me right, I believe some of the Type 3 PostScript fonts did not get converted correctly.

Most of the work I do ends up on the press, traditional or digital.

I have had to replace a few fonts since, but in my opinion, more from being corrupted rather than from defective conversion. I haven’t found any cause to upgrade to version 5.x.
 


I purchased my copy some 10+ years back. My font library consists of about 10,000 fonts, a good portion of which were Type 1 PostScript, from having even earlier purchased Adobe Font Folio for a ridiculous amount of money.
FontXChange was at version 2.x at the time. It converted all of my TrueType and PostScript fonts to OpenType and they are still in use today. If memory serves me right, I believe some of the Type 3 PostScript fonts did not get converted correctly.
Open Type is just a wrapper and TTF and Type1 fonts are embedded in the wrapper. I wonder what that does to Open Type (Type1) fonts in the upcoming Photoshop?
 


Open Type is just a wrapper and TTF and Type1 fonts are embedded in the wrapper.
Type 1 fonts are not natively included in OpenType.
Wikipedia said:
PostScript fonts
PostScript glyph data can be embedded in OpenType font files, but OpenType fonts are not limited to using PostScript outlines. PostScript outlines in OpenType fonts are encoded in the Type2 Compact Font Format (CFF).
Thomas W. Phinney worked at Adobe in 2002, when he wrote the following article:
Thomas W. Phinney said:
TrueType, PostScript Type 1, & OpenType: What’s the Difference?.
... OpenType puts either PostScript or TrueType outlines in a font, with tables including the current TrueType tables and additional tables for advanced typographic features. Non-technical people might think of it as a common “wrapper” based on the existing TrueType structure.
... The representation of Type 1 font software in an OpenType font uses Adobe’s Compact Font Format (CFF) with Type 2 charstrings ...
 


I have a different problem: I have too many fonts in my fonts menus in my usual applications (Word, the Adobe apps, etc.), and I can't turn them off.

I've used FontBook to go through the fonts to disable them, and FontBook says that, indeed, the fonts are disabled. After a restart, FontBook says that the fonts are still disabled. But they show up on the Word and Adobe menus.

I use a few fonts routinely, a few more occasionally, a few rarely, and most not at all.

And don't get me started on all the foreign language fonts that I know for a fact I'll never use and that Apple insists can't be disabled.

What am I doing wrong?
 


I have a different problem: I have too many fonts in my fonts menus in my usual applications (Word, the Adobe apps, etc.), and I can't turn them off.
I've used FontBook to go through the fonts to disable them, and FontBook says that, indeed, the fonts are disabled. After a restart, FontBook says that the fonts are still disabled. But they show up on the Word and Adobe menus. ... What am I doing wrong?
Each individual Microsoft Office 2016/2019 application contains the Microsoft set of fonts within the application in the Applications folder.

This was originally done in preparation for making the individual Office applications available via the Mac App Store (which they are now). However, it means the fonts are always on in the Office applications.

I believe you can go into the bundles and manually delete the fonts, but I'm not sure if this has any impact on the running of the applications or the ability to update them (which is important due to inherent security risks of using Microsoft Office applications).

I believe Adobe's font menu (cache) is built/checked by the CC suite applications on any launch of their applications. They also store fonts in weird/non-standard locations. This font menu/cache often gets out of synch with the OS fonts. It might also be doing things in the (Creative) Cloud with fonts and listing stuff that's available (via the Cloud).

You could try clearing font caches after making your FontBook changes to help with the Adobe menu. There are multiple ways of doing this, so DuckDuckGo (web searching) is your friend. If you're running macOS 10.12 or earlier, there is also the excellent FontNuke.
 


Each individual Microsoft Office 2016/2019 application contains the Microsoft set of fonts within the application in the Applications folder.
To be fair to Adobe, it's worth mentioning that Microsoft Office dropped support for Type 1 PostScript fonts with the release of Office 2016.

It's been clear for many years that Type 1 fonts were on their way out. Adobe stopped developing new Type 1 fonts just over twenty years ago and has been urging people to move on to newer fonts for at least fifteen years.

I have a large collection of Type 1 fonts, so I'm certainly not happy to see support for them disappearing from important applications, but I really can't complain that Adobe has "rushed" to retire them.
 



259 TrueType fonts within my copy of Word 2016. At least a third of them are greeting-card-granny rubbish. Small wonder these apps are so sluggish, even on a good CPU.
Someone should test if there's any relationship between the amount of internally-installed fonts within a Microsoft app and "sluggishness." Any takers?
 


I just downloaded the demo, which is dated March 9, 2013.
I just purchased their FontXchange/FontDoctor bundle. When I clicked the emailed download link it took me to download links with expired certificates. Same experience w/ Safari and Firefox, couldn't find anyway to trust the certificates. If that was the case, it would have been nice to have known before I paid, not before I tried to download... :-(

I called the (800) number on their website which went straight to a message saying the message box was full. Not a good feeling...
 


I have a different problem: I have too many fonts in my fonts menus in my usual applications (Word, the Adobe apps, etc.), and I can't turn them off.
Graham is correct regarding proprietary handling of fonts by recent versions of Office and Adobe Creative Cloud apps. I recall mention of Adobe tucking a small set of fonts into areas not accessed by Font Book or third party font management apps. These are to support the application's interface, menus and default stylesheets etc. I believe Myriad and Minion are among that set.

All the other free/bundled fonts provided with Adobe apps are usually installed into the /Library/Fonts folder. Older versions of Office also dropped fonts into that folder. You can safely move all the fonts found in /Library/Fonts and ~/Library/Fonts out of those folders which will deactivate them. Clear font caches afterward with Font Doctor, FontNuke, Onyx, TinkerTool System or other such tool. Finally circle back to Font Book to verify there are no more stray/unwanted fonts.
 


I just purchased their FontXchange/FontDoctor bundle. When I clicked the emailed download link it took me to download links with expired certificates. Same experience w/ Safari and Firefox, couldn't find any way to trust the certificates. ...
I did finally find how to override trust certificates in both browsers (and successfully download), but it has gotten less obvious in both. If I hadn't known it was once doable, I wouldn't have kept looking. (Maybe I shouldn't have, remains to be seen... :-}
 


I believe you can go into the bundles and manually delete the fonts, but I'm not sure if this has any impact on the running of the applications or the ability to update them (which is important due to inherent security risks of using Microsoft Office applications).
Thanks. I researched that and found a few threads at the Microsoft support site in which people who had tried that found that Word crashed on startup; the only solution was a complete re-install. As I get older, I become more pain-intolerant, so I'm not going to take the chance :-)

I get that the fonts were embedded so that Microsoft could sell Office at the App Store -- but why not just use Apple's fonts and standard way of calling them? Sure, Windows is different, but one would think that just a touch extra amount of work would lead to a better Mac experience.

Or, we need a third-party solution, but alas, I bet there's no market for that.
 



I get that the fonts were embedded so that Microsoft could sell Office at the App Store -- but why not just use Apple's fonts and standard way of calling them? Sure, Windows is different, but one would think that just a touch extra amount of work would lead to a better Mac experience.
Several things are going on here, some of which we may not be privvy to, e.g. licensing deals for the distribution of fonts with Microsoft Office. One specific thing is that Microsoft has their own software to draw their windows on the display, even in macOS – as Ric has pointed out, this is for better cross-platform visual compatibility. Another specific thing is that some of the Microsoft versions of the fonts are actually better than the ones Apple provide! So replacing the Apple version of the fonts with the Microsoft versions will give you a better "experience."

I'm not sure of the differences on the very latest, current versions, but a few years back when I consulted for a publishing company, a very knowledgable person about fonts (his knowledge went back to the original metal hand-typesetting of letters), was doing an analysis of all the fonts that came with macOS, Microsoft Office, and Adobe software so that we could build the best standard set of fonts that would be on all their company's Mac installations. He discovered that many of the Microsoft versions were better typographically, with better ligatures, glyphs, character sets, etc, or even just plain visually!

Your milage may vary.
 


For those who haven’t noticed:

On Windows, Microsoft substitutes the 13 standard Postscript typefaces for their ‘proprietary ones‘ at print (i.e. Helvetica for Arial, Times Roman for New Times Roman, and so forth), unless you specify font downloading during printing. So when you print, you still get [to play] Guess What You Get because of the font substitution instead of WYSIWYG. Insofar as I’m concerned, Microsoft’s typefaces are still just a licensing fee dodge from Microsoft. When I use Microsoft products on Windows, I always turn off font substation and font downloading to prevent the issue.

With regard to changing platforms, I‘ve found MS Office products' on-screen appearance (layout, etc.) to be highly dependent on the version of Office, the version of Windows, and the selected default printer. Problems are not relieved by using Microsoft fonts on either Windows or Mac.

In my former shipping store/printing business, I hated when someone sent me the Word, Powerpoint, or other document to print in their native formats. Unless they were in-store to review the on-screen appearance with my store’s Windows and MS Office installations, I would ask them to generate a PDF and send them instructions on how to do so using either Windows/MS Office’s built in export capability or by using cutePDF Writer.

Note: I always produced Acrobat PDF files and uploaded them to the printers, not printing by Windows printer drivers. The software package for the printers was designed to use and manipulate PDF file to correctly replicate colors, collate, bind, preview, etc. Saved ink and click charges that way.
 



On Windows, Microsoft substitutes the 13 standard Postscript typefaces for their ‘proprietary ones‘ at print (i.e. Helvetica for Arial, Times Roman for New Times Roman, and so forth), unless you specify font downloading during printing. So when you print, you still get [to play] Guess What You Get because of the font substitution instead of WYSIWYG.
Please give more details. This is confusing me in several ways.

First, aren't we long past the days of "screen fonts" and "printer fonts" in Windows?

Second, isn't the font substitution printer-dependent? For example, if you're printing via PostScript to a PostScript printer, and the printer has built-in (raster) PostScript fonts, then the presumption used to be that printer's fonts were higher resolution than what Windows had; therefore, the printer would substitute it. Does this still happen, and is it just for the PostScript drivers? What about when printing to a PCL printer?

Third, I've seen evidence before that Windows, and Microsoft Word in particular, is actually WYPIWYS: What you print is what you see. That is, Word changes the on-screen formatting to match the font metrics of the current printer. You could see the Word document change just by selecting a different printer, even though you haven't touched the document at all.

That's also the explanation for a weird Word symptom: your document is displayed as monospace even though you're using proportional fonts. That happens when you accidently change the current printer to one that only supports monospace characters, such as the Line Printer. Since the printer only supports monospace, Word changes the displayed document to also be monospace: WYPIWYS.
 


Kurt Lang is a photo retoucher and prepress specialist who keeps up on fonts with regard to macOS, Apple apps, Microsoft Office, Adobe apps and much more. Each time after I upgrade macOS, I refer to his Font Management for macOS guide. His most recent version is dated January 10, 2020.
Warning: It's a lot of information, so go slowly.
Thank you! I was trying to remember this guy for referencing here, and both my memory and my bookmarks betrayed me. Type nerds to the rescue!
 


Kurt Lang is a photo retoucher and prepress specialist who keeps up on fonts with regard to macOS, Apple apps, Microsoft Office, Adobe apps and much more. Each time after I upgrade macOS, I refer to his Font Management for macOS guide. His most recent version is dated January 10, 2020.
Warning: It's a lot of information, so go slowly.
That is a treasure trove of information. A big thank you (and contribution) to Mr. Lang.
 


Amazon disclaimer:
"As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases."

Latest posts