Analog Reproduction Work

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

In the age of scanners, it is an utterly indescribable feeling to reproduce printed work using high-contrast film! Yesterday I developped some Tech Pan I had used to copy prints from a woodcut novel by Lynd Ward, "Wild Pilgrimage."

The interesting thing is that the copy I borrowed from the library is not the usual repro edition: it is actually printed from the woodblocks. Most of the books by Ward in circulation right now are quality reproductions of prints, but some reading in his biography told me that for "Wild Pilgrimage," because it was produced during the Depression, they did not invest in a larger scale printing job, and printed directly from the blocks.

(More info on him:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2339/
http://www.bpib.com/lyndward.htm
Dead Link Removed)

I used my SMC Macro-Takumar 50mm on my Spotmatic F, bolted to my enlarger column (which has the standard tripod screw), and two photofloods on either sides. The setup was so shitty that the plastic of the wires started to fume after a few minutes, and I called it a night pretty quickly, and thereafter threw away my old lamp housings. But it gave enough light to work at f/8 or so, and I managed critical focussing with a magnifier on the eyepiece.

I exposed at EI 200, processed the TP in Dektol stock for 3mins, 5s inversions each 30s. I know you must be cringing at my depleting of the rare TP for non-pictorial work. Too bad. TP was meant to be used like that, and OMG, a gamma of 3.0 does give amazing results for woodcuts.

I've looked at the negative with my loupe, and every single notch in the woodblock is perfectly reproduced, every cross-hatching is sharp and well-delineated. There are no midtones to trouble the sharpness of the negative, no trace of blur, no trace of unequal focus. I have an analogue copy of the print that is about as close as could be from the original, and that will last!

I can't wait to blow these at 11x14.

 

[MikeSeb]

nice, but...

Not to sound like a schoolmarm here, but unless that book was in the public domain (ie, its copyright has expired), you have likely violated the copyright by duplicating those images.

As people who create original works, we should be particular about the unauthorized use of other artists' work.

Not impugning your motives here at all; I'm sure you didn't intend to rip the artist off, just make a copy for your personal enjoyment. But it's something to think about.

 

[jmdavis]

Not to sound like a schoolmarm here, but unless that book was in the public domain (ie, its copyright has expired), you have likely violated the copyright by duplicating those images.

As people who create original works, we should be particular about the unauthorized use of other artists' work.

Not impugning your motives here at all; I'm sure you didn't intend to rip the artist off, just make a copy for your personal enjoyment. But it's something to think about.

Before the Disney laws and the rush to protect Mickey Mouse, there existed a doctrine known as 'Fair Use." Granted this doctrine predated our litigious society, but copies of work for educational and non-commercial purposes did not and should not violate copyright in any way.

Mike Davis

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Not to sound like a schoolmarm here, but unless that book was in the public domain (ie, its copyright has expired), you have likely violated the copyright by duplicating those images.

As people who create original works, we should be particular about the unauthorized use of other artists' work.

Not impugning your motives here at all; I'm sure you didn't intend to rip the artist off, just make a copy for your personal enjoyment. But it's something to think about.

You don't have to worry yourself with my use of the negs, the last thing I want to do is to start an illegal poster operation.

Technically, what I did is equivalent to scanning or photocopying. I pay repro rights at my university (where I got the book), and they have both scanners and photocopiers available to the students. Were I interested by the illegit side of business, I would have used the scanner at 600 DPI. Easier to distribute, you see.

I would be a bit more careful before waving the red flag of copyright infringement if I were you. Have you never photocopied an article from the library for your own use?