cwulfman
commented
8 years ago This problem raises, again, the issue of how to scan page spreads. We've gone back and forth on this: on the one hand, treating each 'leaf' as a page, as with typical bound books, covers the vast majority of cases, and it creates consistent actual->virtual mappings for page turners, etc. On the other hand, it doesn't support fold-outs, tri-folds, two-page spreads, and other printing practices that do not respect the conventional page layouts. 291 is a particularly notable example of this. The magazine is printed, landscape, on a single sheet of paper, two sides, and tri-folded, resulting in 6 printed panels that may be juxtaposed in a variety of ways (1 page up, 2 pages up 2 ways, 3 pages up, etc.) As far as I know, there is no digital page viewer currently available that can simulate the folding and unfolding of such a structure, and scholars are annoyed by this deficiency. At some point, I believe, we decided that the best we could do was to unfold the issue completely and shoot both sides. This allows us to capture the appearance of the "page" as it was printed: that way we could satisfy art historians who want to see the spreads, and we could properly zone things like the de Zayas/Rhoades collaboration that prompted this ticket. So my question is, why did we go back to the single-page image sequence?
http://bluemountain.princeton.edu/bluemtn/cgi-bin/bluemtn?a=d&d=bmtnaao191505-01.2.2&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------
So the idea is that there is a 2 page M de Zayas image wrapped around two poems. We tried very hard in docworks but it doesn't seem to have respected the structure in that way.
Instead we got a master constituent with an image (for page 2) and two poems in it, and then the image for page 3 in a non-nested constituent (c006).
It just doesn't seem to be comfortable considering the image to be both pages, not sure that manual surgery can actually fix this problem.