Re: Article Posted (RE: Sury & Misonne)
Wow, that was quick -- both Dave AND the mail. I think it arrived before something I mailed to 102nd Street. (OK, no comments please.)
As for "typos", et al -- I noticed several broken letters in the original, so that, for example, an "m" could come out looking like an "n," or a "u" like an "i." I was tempted to fix them, but reality was that the original type was verrrry small so that any handwork on my part would be a worse botch. (No magazine could get away with that size type today -- maybe then folks didn't actually get old enough for their eyes to go dim :-(...?)
If I'd taken the time to go to the local copy shop I could have enlarged the type by 15 or 20% which might have improved it enough to make up for the extra "generation." My machine, for reasons of its own devising, only enlarges to 141%, which doesn't fit on the page. (It reduces in several degrees.)
But I decided better to try the single generation, hope for the best, and get on with the rest of the Augean stables around here. I didn't notice anything that seemed to obscure meaning... (tho if it really obscured meaning I could have missed it...) OK enough sophistry... Thanks very much Dave. And thanks in advance to folks who will enlighten us further from their further findings...
In general the OCR software does a good job. It has some problems with numbers, so I manually edited some of them. Other than that, I haven't done much editing. Occassionally some character are mis-recognized but you can probably guess what the originals are. I haven't read through the article (the xerox or the converted file) myself. If you find some words that are not clear, please let me know, and I will check the xerox copy for you. I haven't done much formatting either. I am putting this up quickly so that those who are interested can check quickly. Eventually I might go back and do some formatting so that it would look nicer. The link is http://members.aol.com/fotodave/Articles/PhotographicReview.html Dave