RE: Article Posted (RE: Sury & Misonne)

[Dave S <fotodave@dsoemarko.us>]

Thanks, Judy. Actually I wasn't meaning to ask you to proof read. That would
be bothering you too much. Sorry about that.  :-)   

What I meant was if anyone is reading into all the details and found words
that s/he cannot understand, feel free to email me, and I will check the
"original" for you.

Most problems with scanning happen with letters like m, n, u. The software
sometimes recognizes the letters incorrectly but can be easily guessed. I
did find one number "12" got converted to "lz" which is not too bad to guess
either, but I made a correction for that.

It is sort of fun to read old articles. For example, to make the powder for
the process, the articles say you can scrap pastel with "pen kr ife." I
checked the article. It looks like it does say that, but I think it probably
means "pen knife." The author probably wrote the article by hand, and
perhaps the typsettor didn't understand the writing. But what is a "pen
knife?" I am guessing it must be something like what we call X-Acto knife
today if it is used for scrapping pastel to make powder. But that is just my
interpretation. Reading old articles (or any article) always involves some
interpretation.

And Judy, thanks for the "bonus" thing that you sent.   :-)


Dave  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 9:25 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Article Posted (RE: Sury & Misonne)
> 
> Judy wrote:
> 
> 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...
> 
> Dave wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
>