In relation to this answer on Skeptics, how are the kerning pairs of contemporary reproductions/versions of metal type derived? Can one expect, say, Times New Roman in a computer typeface (by Monotype themselves) to match the kerning details of some Monotype metal type of Times New Roman? Or, was there no way in the 1960s to automate kerning (in the sense of getting reproducible results, as that answer is also claiming--at least at "large" sizes)?

  • 1
    I don't think you need to evaluate kerning: the premise in that answer is pretty wrong. The fact is: a sign of that size would easily have been made using any so-called normal type, a photo enlarger, and a silkscreen. Hand-painted signs in the 50s were also very common and very cheap and the guys who did it were pretty great at it. I also noted when that was question was posted that the OP asserts signage like that would be expensive. It would not be
    – Yorik
    Feb 8 at 18:46
  • Looks like there has been some rather heavy handed digital restoration on the image shared by the OP in that question. The original is available from Getty Images. The man in the pic is Cecil Williamson, taken by Randall Harper, dated 1956. Also the original image is not as sharp, and there are chips out of the lettering.
    – Billy Kerr
    Feb 8 at 21:50
  • @BillyKerr Yeah, that's what I concluded in my answer on Skeptics. Apparently that's not enough for some people, though, they've decided the Getty version is just a better forgery, and are determined to find some tiny clue 🤷🏻‍♀️
    – IMSoP
    Feb 8 at 23:05
  • @IMSoP - you can't convince conspiracy theorists that their theories are wrong. There would really be only one way to prove them wrong - to get access to the original photographic negative. Also in the 50's there was no digital editing - something these conspiracy mongers always fail to realise. There was photo editing and retouching of course, but it was done manually in the darkroom when making a print. Photoshop wasn't released until the 90's.
    – Billy Kerr
    Feb 9 at 9:02
  • @Yorik: if the enlarger-silkscreen method was used, then it makes sense to ask if you'd get the exact same kerning with metal [or whatever] type [was used] back then. IDK what you mean by "so-called normal type". Feb 9 at 9:53


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.