[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking.

Baren Digest                Sunday, 10 May 1998        Volume 03 : Number 151

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dan Wasserman <dwasser@slam.org>
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 08:33:27 -0700
Subject: [Baren 726] Images on Net 

Ray et al.:

The greatest control of image apearence on the widest range of set-ups
is provided by using GIF rather than JPEG format despite the former
having far less resolution (8bit vs. 24bit) and in most cases taking
more file size. What one does is convert the image to *index color*
using a *Netscape Safe look-up table*... the result is grainy because
the colors are dithered into the 214 *Netscape Safe* colors and the GIF
compression is impared by the interuption of pixel rows by the dither
but the image can be expected to display as you then see it on anything
except a 16 color (4bit) PC monitor.  If anyone actualy wants more info
on this I can e-mail them a Photoshop look-up table or they can search
the net for the *Bandwidth Conservation Society* and *Netscape Safe
Colors*.

~dan

------------------------------

From: Matthew.W.Brown@VALLEY.NET (Matthew W Brown)
Date: 09 May 98 10:33:30 EDT
Subject: [Baren 727] Editions, etc. 

Julio, On your stain: You say "cooking" but actually heat is not involved, no?

Ray et al,
	On this business of editioning: I agree with Dave that the nature of a 
print edition is something that needs to come from the printmaker. For better
or worse I have had the following experience:
    I don't (and can't) print an entire edition all at once (etchers and many
other printmakers I know of with the exception of silkscreen printmakers
sometimes take years to complete an edition).
	There are inevitably variations in 'printing sessions', so I date my
prints by month and year to be able to distinguish these 'batches'.
	Sometimes there are minor changes I will make even after prints are out
on the gallery wall, in people's homes, etc.  I just can't justify making a
print the way I started if I have subsequently learned a more subtle 'bokashi', 
a darker blue on one block, etc., will improve it.
	If I go and make significant changes I call this a second state, etc.,
and this is a new edition. The MFA in Boston has developed a definition of
states and editions that puts the edition within the state; changes in colors,
printing changes occur within a state, significant changes in the block(s) or
plate(s) make for a new state.
	The whole question is not an easy matter, and, in some sense, seems
part of the art of the print, for it seems to involve the prints' relationship
to our legal, commercial world. Gary's point about not letting the concern
stifle the progress of creativity is, I feel, right in the heart of the
question. To give an idea of the scope of this question, there is an older
established printmaker here in N.E. (his name escapes me at the moment)  who is
working on some kind of organization promoting the issuing of 'birth
certificates' for prints (all part of the battle with 'limited edition'
mechanical reproduction).

 Dave wrote: "My point is that the experimentation takes place at the proofing
stage, not at the editioning stage.  And proofing isn't something that can be
easily done in one afternoon.  Make some samples, stick 'em up on your
wall with some thumbtacks, and see how they look as the days go by.  If
my own experience is anything to go by, you will _very soon_ start to
notice many ways in which they can be improved. "

	 I agree with this whole-heartedly, but would like to add that the
intimate hand-involved nature of hanga printing makes me always want to
experiment 'just a little bit', always. Never is the proportion of pigment to
paste to water exactly (in a machine sense) the same in any two impressions, so
it seems to me experiment is somewhat innate to the process (within, of course,
some very focused bounds, as in the case of more experienced printmakers, like
some of those living over in Japan!)
	On web images:
JPEG or GIF it may make a difference what you start with: an up-town way to
start  is to get a good slide made (perhaps professionally), send it off to get
it put on a CD rather than using a scanner, and then go with Photoshop from
there. 

Matt

------------------------------

From: jimandkatemundie@juno.com (James G Mundie)
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 15:48:37 -0400
Subject: [Baren 728] Ray's editioning questions 

Ray wrote:
>If I... print 10 on Hosho and 10 on... BFK, do I have... two editions of 10?
>If I [altered the block] and printed 10 more, do I have a new edition?

	In the strictest terms the answer to both of these questions is
"yes." Any variable within a run of prints constitutes a new edition, or at
least a variation on that edition [more below].  The whole idea behind
the "edition" is that each of the prints in the edition is identical (or
as nearly identical as possible) to every other print in the edition.  A
print on mulberry and one on an etching-style paper have different
characteristics; they are entirely different animals although they
utilize the same printing matrix.  
	There is absolutely nothing wrong with either altering the block
or adding additional blocks to rework a print, as it then becomes a new
image.  There are several approaches to indicating your varying
intentions.  If one wished to print more copies of a "closed" edition (as
I have been on occasion), one would usually indicate this subsequent
edition (essentially a re-strike) as "1/10 ii" or "1:10 ii" to indicate that 
this is the second edition.  If one had altered the block and considered it 
to be a second state, one might indicate the print as "1/10, state ii/ii" etc.  
Another possibility is the indication "1/10 v.e.", meaning "varied edition".  
I've known some to use this when hand-coloring to note that the prints-- 
although the artist considered them to be of the same edition-- were not 
identical. What becomes tricky with that situation is the distinction 
between what is a varied edition and what are individual monoprints (a 
unique print involving a reprintable matrix).  
	None of this takes into account the whole notion of artist's
proofs ("AP"), printer's proofs, working proofs ("WP"), and final proof
("BAT").  I was once told it was customary for an artist to retain
artist's proofs equal in number to ten percent of the total edition.  So,
with any given edition, there are these "phantom" prints floating around.
On (rare!) occasions in which I've sold out an entire edition, I have
been able to sell a few artist's proofs as well.  
	Collectors, in my experience, tend to be very conscious of
edition sizes.  Some seem to care deeply (why I'm not quite sure) that
_their_ print is from very early in the edition.  It becomes a sort of
status issue for them.  I once had a gentleman interested in buying one
of my prints, but he would only accept the first print in the edition. 
When I explained to him politely that the first print had already been
sold, he marched off in a huff.  In my case, my editions tend to be tiny
(averaging 20, but sometimes as low as 5), and some collectors seem to be
attracted to the scarcity.  I'd rather they were interested in the image
for itself, but there are worse ways to make a buck.
	
>After reviewing the prints, I am not happy...
	If you aren't satisfied with the result, keep working on it until
you are happy and then edition it.  I'm a bit of a perfectionist myself
and cannot stand to let a print leave my hands that doesn't feel
finished.  This doesn't happen so much with my woodcuts, but when I work
on intaglio prints, I might proof twenty or thirty times with innumerable
variations before I'm satisfied that the image is ready to edition.  Take
all the time you need.  In all likelihood, the print will be around much
longer than you will, so you may as well make sure that each print
represents your best possible work so that future generations can say ,
"Damn, that Ray Esposito knew what he was doing!"
	Some of my early printmaking attempts were utterly ghastly and I
wouldn't want anyone to see them now, but I used them to learn how to
improve my technique and style.  This is a hands-on learn-by-doing (and
often frustrating) craft, and you needn't feel the rush to put out what
you feel is an inferior product.
	In the meantime, you may want to content yourself with open-ended
editions, so that you aren't restricted to printing only 10 or a 1000 of
your "better" prints.    

Sla/n go fo/ill,
James Mundie, Philadelphia USA

------------------------------

From: Jean Eger <jeaneger@LanMinds.Com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 00:52:07 -0700
Subject: [Baren 729] Re: Baren Digest V3 #150 

Dear Baren People,
According to my professors at San Francisco State U., an edition is all exactly the 
same, including same paper.  A new edition would be made on a different paper or 
with different colors.  Then if you rework the plate, you can make another edition, etc.
Apparently Degas worked this way and knew how to make money.  I  label the editions 
and states so that there is no misunderstanding by the buyer.  There are lots of nifty 
labels, including E.V. (stands for Edition Varies), S.P. (state proof), A.P. (Artist's 
Proof), P.P. (Printer's Proof), B.A.T. (bon a tirer, which is the model for the rest of the 
edition), and so on. I'd be interested if you have heard of any more.

So far, it's a moot point, because I haven't sold anything yet, at my sidwalk stand.  In 
12 hours of sitting (and reading, an unexpected bonus for an sidwalk booth), I have 
made two possible trades and one possible donation to a charitable institution!
However, I've seen a lot of old friends, and read half of Murder In The Cathedral by 
T.S. Eliot and the first five pages of E.S. Lumsden's The Art of Etching.

Sincerely,
Jean Eger

------------------------------

End of Baren Digest V3 #151
***************************