1

I just purchased this font and I seemed to notice it looks very different to one of the samples they provide. I did a side by side comparison of their sample and me entering the text on photoshop and I think the difference is quite strong. I have gone through the text rendering options on photoshop and neither come close to what I'm seeing in the sample.

Here's the comparison: (font sample above, my text below.)

Font sample above, my text below.

What would you guys suggest I do to get as close a match as the one in the sample?

| improve this question | | | | |
  • Just so it's clear, you're comparing live text in Photoshop to an Image on the web, correct? It's not live HTML text on the web is it? – Scott Dec 27 '17 at 21:24
  • What is the name of the typeface? Also, does it have optical sizes? It looks like the upper sample is text or caption, and your rendering is subheader or display. – Pepe Ochoa Dec 28 '17 at 0:50
  • To elaborate and support Scott's comment: I think your type sample is rendered at a different resolution. The image is probably rendered at maybe 2 to 4 times the size and then downsampled to the size in the image, and you are probably setting the type to match the image. This just means that pixel-alignment error has a bigger impact. "Render larger and then downsample" is, essentially, 2x anti-alaising. – Yorik Dec 28 '17 at 18:04
  • @Scott, yes it's live text on photoshop to an image on the web. – dkg Dec 28 '17 at 22:19
  • @PepeOchoa Surveyor by Hoefler – dkg Dec 28 '17 at 22:19
2

Is your kerning set to Optical? If so, I would suggest setting it to 0 or Metrics.

Otherwise, I would probably have to increase the tracking until they look alike.

enter image description here

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • Thanks for the answer. I think I might not have been clear enough about the differences between both texts. The one on top seems smoother and even slightly bolder with very uniform stroke sizes. While the one on the bottom looks much more jagged and there's a higher contrast between strokes. – dkg Dec 27 '17 at 20:31
  • Ah yes. My first inclination was the anti-aliasing mode ("Smooth" in the screenshot above), but you had mentioned that was something you tried. I will say that the top text is definitely a gray color while the bottom text is black, and that may well be throwing off comparisons of boldness/contrast. The stroke jaggedness is likely due to compression artifacting if the top text is pulled from the web. – Nick Combs Dec 28 '17 at 18:57
1

I found that using the "Text" version of the font, and downsampling it, I could get a much more accurate representation of the text:

enter image description here

Thanks everyone!

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • Precisely, Surveyor have at least 3 optical sizes and ScreenSmart and Office versions. – Pepe Ochoa Dec 28 '17 at 22:41
0

Let's look your rows closer and adjusted to same greyscale:

enter image description here

Tracking and kerning has been discussed in another answer, but there's one pixel differences in rasterizing. Possible reasons:

  • in Photoshop there are anti-aliasing options which give radically different results in low resolution
  • rasterized in different software (some software can allow subpixel placement in the pixel grid and use different rasterization algorithm)
  • low resolution rasterizing use hinting and that can theoretically be different in different formats of the same font
  • fonts are developed - is the version exactly same?

Here's a random screenshot in Photoshop. Two texts use different antialiasing methods, otherwise they are same.

enter image description here

I do not believe you get exactly the same result as the sample in resolution this low if they are rasterized in different software.

| improve this answer | | | | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.