Strikethru: Typecast: "Like new"

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Typecast: "Like new"

18 comments:

Alex said...: I've been drafting ideas for an entirely type-writer-written blog to embrace this so-called Analog Revolution. I have started to get all the pieces together but I don't currently have a scanner. Hopefully father Christmas will bring me one.

I really like your posts, by the way.; November 24, 2009 3:26 AM
Joe V said...: Correction tape, and lots of it; that's my little secret.

And I don't see anything wrong with making visible the artifacts of the typing process (whether it's correction tape, White Out, or strikethrus); that's a big reason why we (I) typecast, so as to show off all the little elements of the typing process itself, both the good and the bad.

Actually, when I scan my typings, I like to ensure that the light and dark points of the scanner's histogram are up against both ends of the histogram envelop, and the middle point I lower to around 1.00, such that you can see a bit of paper texture, even the subtle bends in the paper. And this means that you can also see the outlines of the correction tape. But that's okay; it's just the artifacts of the process.; November 24, 2009 7:32 AM
Joe V said...: @Alex said: "I've been drafting ideas for an entirely type-writer-written blog to embrace this so-called Analog Revolution. I have started to get all the pieces together but I don't currently have a scanner. Hopefully father Christmas will bring me one.

If you have a DSLR or some such fancy camera with closeup capability, you can photograph your typings on a makeshift copy stand. Just light the document evenly from both sides (no shadows) and have the camera on like a tripod, with the head tilted forward so as to be pointing directly down onto the document. There may be a bit of barrel or pincushion distortion to the image if using a lens not designed for copy work, but that's okay; I get the same thing with my bifocals just looking at stuff.
;)

~Joe; November 24, 2009 7:36 AM
Julia Eff said...: Sometimes I'll sit down and write out part of what I want to say, then type it up, or use the White-Out tape (seriously the greatest invention known to mankind), or, if it's especially typo-addled, I retype it entirely. Because in making all these horrible typos I probably also goofed the margins or something.

@Joe @Alex: I have a Canon Powershot SX110IS and I just flip that baby to 'macro' and shoot away. I used to have a scanner, but we are currently apart, and my camera actually does a better job than the scanner ever did... Alex, all the typecasts on my blog have been done that way. As long as you have a decent camera, it's more than possible.; November 24, 2009 8:00 AM
Olivander said...: OT: Who else here suspects that Julia may be Neil Gaiman's little sister?; November 24, 2009 8:11 AM
Alex said...: @everyone. Thank you for those ideas, unfortunately the only cameras I have with me are 35mm; probably not the most effective way of doing things, though may add another level to the analog wonder. I'll find a way of doing it soon.

What is white out tape? In a old school stationary store a few years ago I found a pack of TipEx sheets that you place infront your typewriter hammers then re-type the letters over the top. They work very well and precicely.; November 24, 2009 12:38 PM
Mike Speegle said...: Bah. Typos are part of the Luddosphere's rugged charm. Embrace your typo's, Strikethru, and go ye forth under your namesake, yea I say unto you. Also: nice tapir.

Olivander: Yes.; November 24, 2009 2:29 PM
Strikethru said...: Alex,

Looking forward to a new typecasting blog. It's been awhile since a new typecaster has entered the fray. (What is a fray?)

M. Speegle, thank you for noticing the tapir in the middle of my typecast.

Joe, if you had to recommend a good starter camera (digital. I know. I KNOW. Sigh) for learning non-automatic camera functions, what would you recommend?; November 24, 2009 11:11 PM
mpclemens said...: I'm not named Joe, but I play one on TV. (What?)

The PowerShot line from Canon is typically rated highly in various Consumer-Reporting-type magazines. I bought mine a while back since it has a mix of manual and automatic features.

Most offer full automatic modes (portrait, landscape, maybe a night scene) but to learn about manual camera features, you'll want to find one that offers "shutter priority" and "aperture priority" modes. These let you manually adjust the other variable in exposure, and lets you do cool effects like long exposures for blurring motion or playing with lighting effects, or for opening up the aperture nice and wide to get things like the blurred-background effect called "bokeh"

Cameras offering manual features are maybe a touch pricier than those that are purely automatic, but the extra flexibility is worth it. You don't need a fancy high-end digital SLR camera to learn these techniques. In fact, using a digicam is a good way to learn, since you can judge the results instantly. And once you learn the principles, you can apply them to the film world.; November 25, 2009 10:16 AM
Julia Eff said...: @Olivander: What would make you think that? All I see in common here is we twitter a lot and have uncontrollable hair. And sweaters.

@Alex: This is white-out tape. There's no drying time, it's smooth, it's cheap, it's easy to use, it doesn't gum up the hitty bits...I can see no downsides to this product. And during October it comes in pink. Thus making it even more awesome.; November 25, 2009 10:55 AM
Olivander said...: I suggest a used "prosumer" camera. Once you get the hang of the functions, you're going to want to upgrade to something better anyway, so why spend a lot on a spanky-new digi? The Nikon Coolpix x700 series are good entry point cameras; they only lack the advantage of interchangeable lenses. (For an idea of image quality, everything on Machines of Loving Grace was shot with a Coolpix 8700.) They're lousy at indoor and low-light photography, though, with limited aperture and ISO flexibility, so I'd only recommend it as a starter camera.

I've seen a lot of Canon Rebels coming onto the market. Those are excellent, easy to use, full SLR cameras as well.

Check out Popular Photography's review archives to see how different cameras compare.

Whatever you get, if it has a fixed lens, look for a high optical zoom factor. "Optical zoom" is actual lens-produced zoom. "Digital zoom" imitates optical zoom by playing with the pixels, and the quality isn't as good.

And don't by anything from Brooklyn on eBay!; November 25, 2009 11:30 AM
Olivander said...: Julia, you don't think there's even a teeny resemblance?; November 25, 2009 11:31 AM
mpclemens said...: @Olivander: I'm finding that I don't use the zoom nearly as much as I originally planned to. Maybe this is due to my ownership of a pair of Yashica T4 (35mm film) cameras, but the tradeoff you make with a zoom is a smaller possible lens opening, which means you're more likely to need a flash.

I think Zoom is unavoidable on most digicams these days, just saying it's not a necessary feature for good photos. I far prefer and use the "macro" (close-up) setting.; November 25, 2009 11:49 AM
Julia Eff said...: @Olivander, perhaps. Maybe. If you squint at it really hard. And if I smiled. I'm sure there's a better lookalike for me out there, though, somebody with a similar level of hair-grease and unwashed-artist funk.; November 25, 2009 12:13 PM
Olivander said...: "but the tradeoff you make with a zoom is a smaller possible lens opening, which means you're more likely to need a flash."

Depends what you want to shoot. If you want to shoot portraits (or portrait-like shots), you'll want a higher focal length to eliminate distortion.

But what I was really trying to get at was, you want the zoom to be achieved more optically than digitally, whatever the zoom factor. If you've got two cameras both with 4x max zoom, but with one it's 4x optical and the other it's 2x optical + 2x digital, the 4x optical is the better choice.; November 25, 2009 2:37 PM
Nup said...: Strikethru - I recently got a Canon S90 which is a smallish manual digital camera. It allows you to do all of the manual functions even including focusing. That might be one to look into.; November 25, 2009 11:15 PM
Frank DeFreitas said...: For the pristine condition of many of the typewriters out there, I think back to the companies that would have either staff or outside contractors dedicated to maintenance. I remember machines being partially disassembled, and cleaned and lubricated regularly.

Plus, the last thing that most typists would do before leaving for the day would be to place a form-fitted cover on their machine. So a lot of credit goes to the users for taking care of them day-by-day as well.

Fortunately, they have passed down machines that function just as well today as they did when new. Not all, but a surprising number of them.; November 26, 2009 9:32 PM
Joe V said...: This has been an interesting discussion; I've been working the last several days and missed checking on updates.

Strikethru's question re: good starter digital cameras with non-automatic controls is a hard one to answer, because most of the starter cameras (so-called "point-and-shoots") are mostly fully automatic; and the ones with manual controls and interchangeable lenses (like dSLR's) are not inexpensive. And most inexpensive lenses (zoom or fixed) have maximum apertures that don't open up wide enough to enable hand held shooting indoors without flash; and the small-sensor digital point-n-shoots have too much sensor noise at high ISO speeds.

My recommendation is what I'm currently shooting, a Panasonic Lumix G1. It's a micro-four-thirds format camera (sensor size about 1/4 that of a 35mm frame, but much larger than a point-n-shoot), interchangeable lenses, and the ability to adapt older, manual focus lenses of various brands with the proper adapter ring. Prices are not cheap, more expensive than a point-n-shoot but cheaper than a higher-end dSLR; and Panasonic also has the GF1, which looks more like a rangefinder; and Olympus also makes a variation in the u4/3 format called the E-P1. If you can afford it, get the Panasonic Lumix 20mm-f/1.7 lens, and the Panasonic 14-45mm zoom is a pretty good starter kit lens too, but it only opens up to f/3.5.

Bottom line is that good cameras don't come cheap, and it seems the manufacturers refuse to make the one perfect camera that does it all for a cheap price (I'm not even sure there is such a thing).

I may also be missing out on some great point-n-shoot model that may be perfect for you, but I haven't been in the market for one, so haven't been looking. I hope this helps somewhat.

~Joe; November 27, 2009 7:20 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)