# Fonts look different compiled by latex vs. pdflatex

Why is my document pdf generated by pdflatex looks different from the one generated by latex+dvips+ps2pdf ? From the code below, i have tow different papers switch to the tow cited commands above :

\documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[francais]{babel}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{lipsum}
\author{M ROUAN SERIK}
\title{Article with \LaTeXe}
\fontfamily{cmr}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\section{Titled section}
\lipsum
\end{document}


Here's my pdffonts for the tow pdfs :
Pdflatex:

name                   type     encoding  emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------- ---------------- --- --- --- ---------
AMTRHA+SFRM1728        Type 1    Custom   yes yes no       4  0
DPTCLU+SFRM1200        Type 1    Custom   yes yes no       5  0
JVZRKA+CMMI12          Type 1    Builtin  yes yes no       6  0
UEWNID+SFBX1440        Type 1    Custom   yes yes no       7  0
FOVERL+SFRM1000        Type 1    Custom   yes yes no       8  0


latex+dvips+ps2pdf

name                                 type              encoding         emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------------- --- --- --- ---------
WVMUEH+SFRM1000                      Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no        16  0
ZHRBNN+SFBX1440                      Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      14  0
IMJWCD+CMMI12                        Type 1C           Custom           yes yes no      12  0
MDMSVR+SFRM1200                      Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      10  0
TWHNMT+SFRM1728                      Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no       8  0

• Select the code and press Ctrl+k to format as a code. Jan 29 '15 at 23:29
• Welcome to TeX.SX! I see no difference. Can you be more specific about what you find? Jan 29 '15 at 23:35
• When compiling with pdflatex and with latex+dvips+ps2pdf the tow documents are different ! Jan 29 '15 at 23:37
• If you compile the document i made with pdflatex and i do, we'll don't have the same result (quality of the pdf output) mine will be such with less contrast. I think that i have a problem with the updmap or something like that. Jan 29 '15 at 23:39
• @MehdiRouanSerik Aren't you simply getting bitmap fonts in one of them? Try to zoom in and see if the letters aren't pixelated.
– yo'
Jan 29 '15 at 23:51

TL;DR The latex method via ps2pdf embeds Type 1C (compressed) fonts, while pdftex embed Type 1 (the same, but not compressed). This doesn't answer why they would look different on your system; thus I would guess it is some feature of your particular setup (and therefore "too localized").

Apparently the pdftex engine by default embeds Type 1 fonts, while ps2pdf by default (at least in the latex->dvips toolchain) embeds Type 1C. That is the fundamental difference between your two files.

@egreg tells me that Type 1C is just a compacted version of Type 1, so it seems unlikely the PDF viewer would render it any differently. On an up-to-date TeXLive system, the two methods of producing this PDF file should look the same.

Here's the output of pdffonts for the file compiled with latex->dvips->ps2pdf:

name                                 type              emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ----------------- --- --- --- ---------
KWSWPX+SFRM1000                      Type 1C           yes yes no      16  0
OPEHBW+SFBX1440                      Type 1C           yes yes no      14  0
EWKLCD+CMMI12                        Type 1C           yes yes no      12  0
QLBMBF+SFRM1200                      Type 1C           yes yes no      10  0
HVWRQD+SFRM1728                      Type 1C           yes yes no       8  0


Here's the output from the file compiled with pdflatex:

name                                 type              emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ----------------- --- --- --- ---------
AMTRHA+SFRM1728                      Type 1            yes yes no       4  0
GSTIVC+SFRM1200                      Type 1            yes yes no       5  0
JVZRKA+CMMI12                        Type 1            yes yes no       6  0
UEWNID+SFBX1440                      Type 1            yes yes no       7  0
FOVERL+SFRM1000                      Type 1            yes yes no       8  0


(By the way, you don't need \fontfamily{cmr} since that's the default. But you might consider \usepackage{lmodern} instead.)

• Thnks, but the problem is that i can't get the same result with both commands not you ! Jan 29 '15 at 23:52
• @MehdiRouanSerik, different process to create a PDF could result in different files. No problem with this. Different ways to mix ingredients could produce different cakes (even both still are choco cakes). Jan 29 '15 at 23:58
• I have the same result as you except for the encoding ! Jan 30 '15 at 0:00
• Sorry i'am novice at stack, i should edit my questions i did'nt know this. Jan 30 '15 at 13:24
• As far as I know, the difference between Type 1 and Type 1C (where C stands for CFF, Compact Font Format) is just that the latter type is a compacted version of the former, taking less space. Jan 30 '15 at 14:21