All three of the technologies I have mentioned (sIFR, FLIR and @font-face) have their own place as far as production and design are concerned. sIFR might be considered the lesser of the three, with its lack of CSS inbuilt CSS integration and its dependence on a technology that seems a little unnecessary for static components.
 
@font-face will be strong in the world of web design for integration and dynamic content and is popping up more and more – but it is yet to cover all platforms. The copyright issue might be a concern to some so here’s some reassurance: there was recently a website that popped up that will host your font so you can include them in your own site – TypeFront is the latest example I’ve come across. TypeKit are a similar company who provide the fonts and host them on a subscription basis.
 
For those who are worried their @font-face does not display in a particular browser i.e. anything less than Firefox 3.0 there are alternatives. You can use browser conditional methods to embed FLIR rendering (or other) instead of @font-face where necessary or even use FLIR primarily as a cross browser alternative, with @font-face as a ‘fall back’ for those not using JavaScript. This site is a good example of such a method; try turning off JavaScript and look at the headers for a live demonstration.
 
At the moment it appears that FLIR might be your first choice when design is the key issue, seeing as it covers most ground as far as rendering and reliability is concerned, but remember that it is JavaScript dependent whereas @font-face isn’t. I believe the holy grail of font replacement technology (or rather font technology) a designer is looking for is something that is built in, easily formatted and visually pleasing.