Re: [PPLetterpress] dowding, for p.f.
- At 3:34 PM -0700 2002-11-03, Brian Molanphy wrote:
>peter, i looked at 'optical alignment of the ends of lines', p.70 of theHi Brian
>1995 hartley & marks ed. what is the problem? -brian
Well, I should be more specific. I was looking at p 49, the setting of initial letters, but p 70 shows the same problems...
The problem being that he claims to correct the problem, but does not succeed.
the example on p 49 is particularly bad, and would be more apparent if the heavy dotted line was not there.
Although he states the principle of optical alignment, the examples do not show it. On p 49 it's so obvious that it shouldn't require elaboration, on p70, with smaller type, it's not as apparent, but the second setting of "The Golden Eagle" (qv) has an unmistakable, if subtle, lean to the left. The 'uncorrected' first setting leans right, but it is arguably more structurally sound.
Optical alignment can only be done by looking at the result of the adjustment.
Applying the principle as a mechanical rule -- "An O G or C (etc) must be bumped into the margin to compensate"--only leads one to ignore the result, having been satisfied with "Applying the Rule"
Here's the page, as given, but with the rules removed (p 49)...
Here's my corrected version of p 49 (on the far right) and page 70.
(click to enlarge, again on the image in the 'slide show' for full size)
In each case, the examples from the book are at the left, my version on the far right.
In both examples, look at the negative space created along the margins by the left edge of the initials...
Look at the area covered by each initial, and consider whether the center of gravity of this 'column' of letters is vertical, or in danger of collapse.
In both examples, I would rather see the uncorrected version (far left) than the one which presumes to do what it does not!
Just my 2 cents...
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 09:08:36 -0600
>> From: Peter Fraterdeus <peterf@...>
>> Subject: Re: More reading...
>> At 9:32 AM -0500 2002-11-02, Katie Harper wrote:
>> >I agree with Kathy: one can't have too many books about typography.
>> >on the subject, we mustn't forget Geoffrey Dowding's excellent slim
>> >Finer Points in the Spacing and Arranging of Type,
>> Ah, be careful with Mr. Dowding.
>> His arrangements are actually very poor.
>> In any case, do as he says, not as he does.
>> Check out the page on 'optical alignment of margins' and see if you can
>> determine the problem. These are visual problems, and have to be solved
>> visually, not mechanically.
> > ...__________