CR BT Dispr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's two versions. I am really not a fan of
> modern printing methods. They make photo
> reproduction a joke. Fine for viewing with the
> naked Mk1 Eyeball but terrible for research
> detail.That circle-dot averaging thing would
> be better replaced with a higher resolution
> dot-matrix printer I think.
I totally concur — but IIRC probably not practical for printing a few thousand books.
> Also a measured markup. I'm not sure this is
> the best example to style from as it's not any-
> where near the drawing standards you have
> found. Numbers appear to be 28" × 13" with
> about about 5" spacing and 10" above the deck
. . .
Perfect timing, CR -
Thank You! I was planning to re-read your earlier post and do some final tweaking to the alternate '5' today. IMHO, your numbers certainly look more elegant, so I'm continuing to work on mine mostly 'cause I haven't anything else to do that's anywhere near as interesting.
The tender in the original photo is definitely skewed a bit due to the camera angle
:
. . . so I did a quick-and-dirty de-skewing and stretched it a little
:
Like you said, it's a shame the dots are so coarse, but at least it gives us another look. I was tempted to make the angle where the neck of the '5' joins the 'bowl' concave like the 'nose' of the '4', so I'll do that for sure when I add a bit more wave to the top flag. I don't think I'll change the dimensions, though, as the 18×24 ratio seems to fit most of the other photos fairly well, and Dave can adjust things before cutting if necessary.
- El Abuelo Histœrico, Greengo y Curmudgeoño de los Locomoturas Viejos y Verdes,
aka Der Grossväterlich DünkelOlivGrünDampfKesselMantelLiebHabender