[scribus] Which font used in the logo - Armada Regular

[avox]

Henry Hartley wrote:
> 
> avox wrote:
> 
>>> And photos take only seconds or minutes to produce, while fonts
>>> take months or years.
> 
> You seem to be implying that photos are therefore easy to make and good
> photos are not really all that valuable as they took so little time to
> produce.  If that's not what you meant, my apologies but that's the way
> it sounded to me.  It's a common enough assumption but it's fairly
> disingenuous.  Would you say someone running a 100 meter dash in 9
> seconds would not be an amazing feat because it only took him 9 seconds.
> A good photographer spends a lot of time honing his or her skill and
> it's the whole package that is going into pricing.  Just because each
> individual photograph doesn't take a long time to produce doesn't mean
> anyone could produce it (in that or any amount of time).  Just sticking
> up for photographers.
> 

Well, value is in the eye of the beholder, and market prices only give a
crude
idea of an objects value.

My comment was more geared at how font designers earn their money. Once
a photographer has honed her skills, she can produce a larger variety of
photos
than a fontdesigner can produce different fonts in the same time.
Photographers
usually sell different photos to different people, while a successful
fontdesigner 
is able to sell the same font to many people. That's why it's a much larger
sacrifice for a fontdesigner to give away a quality font for free than for a 
photographer to give away a photo, IMHO.

/Andreas
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Which-font-used-in-the-logo---Armada-Regular-tp17446711p17496026.html
Sent from the Scribus New mailing list archive at Nabble.com.