Re: Liquid Light

Peter Marshall (petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk)
Sat, 23 Nov 96 18:05 GMT0

In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961123004159.3908D-100000@panix2.panix.com>

<< And I suspect that
if you think you wouldn't have had a problem 10 years ago you have
romanticized your youth. >>

Judy

I just thought - and my feelings are confirmed by your over vigourous and
continuing protest - that you were going way over the top on this one. To put
it in some perspective, the body text print is considerably larger than that
in one photographic magazine I regularly read (normally without glasses!)
larger than that in many larger circulation magazines - for example Wired.
This is a more or less random look at the two publications currently on my
desk!

I find that the fineness of the lettering actually aids legibility, though in
some light a blacker text would be preferable. I probably would find it
difficult to read this book in the darkroom!

The book is attractively designed and packs a lot of information and
inspiration into a smallish and therefore affordable volume. I'd have liked
the captions larger, but to me this is a minor inconvenience.

Obviously if you need different lenses for each eye the cheap solution I
suggested won't work. I assume they can be used in conjunction with contact
lenses though.

My close sight has deteriorated rather rapidly over the last couple of years,
though still acute at anything over about 15 inches. In part this is age, in
part probably too much working at bad computer screens.

However this is neither a list for typographers or opticians. Further
prolongation of this thread would seem to me irrelevant.

Peter Marshall

On Fixing Shadows, Dragonfire and elsewhere:
http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ds8s/
Family Pictures & Gay Pride: http://www.dragonfire.net/~gallery/
and: http://www.speltlib.demon.co.uk/