>From: "Hrant H Papazian" <[log in to unmask]>
> But the materials are not really the same.
No, but as typographers we're still (on the whole) dealing in the
arrangement of black text on white paper -- is that too limiting? -- as a
> Which makes me ask: how much sense does it make to
> try to reproduce something so faithfully?
Well, if you're going to reproduce something (Caslon for instance) why do it
unfaithfully? Why have a Caslon that's less than the original. Why use
Bodoni or Baskerville when they're NOT Bodoni or Baskerville? There are
plenty of versions of Caslon which weren't faithful to the original, but I
don't think they've stood the test of time well. The original has.
It seems to have been new technology (composition matrix making,
photosetting, digital) that's pushed forward these unfaithful revivals,
because they're easy to market and classify; but I don't see why we
shouldn't go in the opposite direction, and get the technology to do what we
want it to do ... in my case, an accurate facsimile cutting of real Caslon.
> I don't mean to be confrontational
You're not. It's good to have a chance to discuss the issue.
>I'm just wondering if you can change my mind! :-)
I hope that you won't change mine.