New PHOTOGRAVURE BOOK Released 2/28/19

[davidkachel]

Just Released
New Book on Photogravure
http://davidkachel.com/wpNewDK/?pag...rNHUiNuNIwpewfqYatJ6HaudA-9VTC8uBcAjO6Tl8UT2w

 

[Bill Burk]

Your understated announcement carries an important message. The barriers to entry have come down!

Photopolymer platemaking material can be applied to photogravure.

Here's hoping your book becomes as highly regarded as Tim Rudman's Master Photographer's Toning Handbook!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would like to be able to preview a few pages before I part with my money. I've always wanted to get back into photogravure.

 

[Ian Grant]

David, I agree with Andrew a pre-view would be useful. I've no idea if the process would be something that would tempt me. So pros and cons of the process and why I or others might want to try using it as well.

I guess I'm saying sell us why Photogravure, or rather why you feel it's worthwhile.

Ian

 

[jtk]

Conventional copper plate photogravure might be inherently more beautiful than typical "alt" efforts of most amateurs...is more collectable because non-photo-print collectors recognise what they are. Are there any reviews of the authors work? Will Google help?


Google did help: http://davidkachel.com/wpNewDK/?page_id=232

Excellent written clarity: that is a rarity among photographers.

Take a look at the beautiful photos he's posted.

 

[AgX]

Your understated announcement carries an important message. The barriers to entry have come down!
Photopolymer platemaking material can be applied to photogravure.

Is this really new?
It is the substitution of one etch resist by another, which is less toxic and in some versions more easy to apply, plus maybe another way that resist is exposed.

Resist not coated on the printing plate but applied as readymade foil. If this is digitally printed and plain exposed, the workflow already is beyond the scope of this thread.

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[jtk]

Is this really new?
It is the substitution of one etch resist by another, which is less toxic and in some versions more easy to apply, plus maybe another way that resist is exposed.

Resist not coated on the printing plate but applied as readymade foil. If this is digitally printed and plain exposed, the workflow already is beyond the scope of this thread.

Correct me if I am wrong.

OK...you both seem wrong.

The resist isn't applied to a "foil" and the product that's cited appears to be unavailable. But if I'm mistaken about availability, it would be good to know how it is available.

 

[Bill Burk]

I don’t think it’s new. I used to be “in charge” of the photopolymer platemaking department of a printing company.

The material the book recommends was easy to use and handle. I can see how it’s adaptable to what they’re talking about here. The stuff I used came in thick sheets ready to use. You lay a negative (and in this case a screen) and put the sandwich under glass in a vacuum frame to expose. Process by washing in water.

Traditional photogravure required a lot of steps that this material eliminates.

If I were to use it I would start with an analog negative. It’s my position that a digital negative would not be as good. “As good” being my own moral judgement, you make your own. Aesthetically photopolymer prints from digital or analog source would be indistinguishable from one another.

To know the difference you would have to be told.

Now, I don’t think the art collecting world will care about the analog/digital difference when value is determined by collectors.

But maybe they’ll sneer at the fact you didn’t sprinkle asphaltum on polished copper. Maybe they’ll sneer anyway because of who you are. At some point you’re to have to not care what anyone else thinks.

 

[koraks]

If I were to use it I would start with an analog negative

An analog positive was the route I considered after being unsatisfied with the digital positives I could get from my 3880. I never invested in a proper intaglio screen but decided to focus on other processes instead. I used the DK3 photopolymer mated onto PVC cards; the process worked quite alright. Direct to plate would have skipped the step of making a separate positive, but it was likely a hassle to get it to work with the DK3 film. Perhaps the material Kachel uses is superior in this respect.

 

[jtk]

I don’t think it’s new. I used to be “in charge” of the photopolymer platemaking department of a printing company.

The material the book recommends was easy to use and handle. I can see how it’s adaptable to what they’re talking about here. The stuff I used came in thick sheets ready to use. You lay a negative (and in this case a screen) and put the sandwich under glass in a vacuum frame to expose. Process by washing in water.

Traditional photogravure required a lot of steps that this material eliminates.

If I were to use it I would start with an analog negative. It’s my position that a digital negative would not be as good. “As good” being my own moral judgement, you make your own. Aesthetically photopolymer prints from digital or analog source would be indistinguishable from one another.

To know the difference you would have to be told.

Now, I don’t think the art collecting world will care about the analog/digital difference when value is determined by collectors.

But maybe they’ll sneer at the fact you didn’t sprinkle asphaltum on polished copper. Maybe they’ll sneer anyway because of who you are. At some point you’re to have to not care what anyone else thinks.

Careless use of that "you" invalidates your ideas, whatever they are in this instance.

"Sneer" is nasty and argumentative. What's the point?

I don't think that imagined "art collecting world" is as ignorant about print making as are people who buy photos at art fairs.

 

[jtk]

An analog positive was the route I considered after being unsatisfied with the digital positives I could get from my 3880. I never invested in a proper intaglio screen but decided to focus on other processes instead. I used the DK3 photopolymer mated onto PVC cards; the process worked quite alright. Direct to plate would have skipped the step of making a separate positive, but it was likely a hassle to get it to work with the DK3 film. Perhaps the material Kachel uses is superior in this respect.

I think you'll agree that the work Kachel shows on his personal website suggests that the "hassle" can pay off...beyond "quite alright."

Does his work seem "superior in this respect" to DK3?

http://davidkachel.com/wpNewDK/?page_id=232

One of the virtues of copper plate is it's ability to be worked (refined, retouched) by hand. I doubt that's effective with a plastic plate. Kachel hasn't addressed that, but it's always been important to artists that employ copper plate. And I don't think "intaglio screen" was/is commonly used by those photo-gravure artists, tho it was/is with roller-gravure (as became common with newspapers).

Kachel also addresses the concept of "archival" deep within his website.

 

[Bill Burk]

I should have said “I”

I like to see prints that are done a certain way. It’s a preference I occasionally disclose based on APUG/Photrio idea of what can be called “analog”. These photogravures can be done analog if so desired. Although the book is illustrated with hybrid work, I think we can continue to discuss it in the analog forum.

Next point regards whether I would value photogravure prints done the hard way with acid and metal, over the easy way with plastic and water. They would look the same so why should I care?

Again I claim prerogative to value the acid and metal over plastic and water if I want to. At first glance I didn’t think of that at all and I cheered on the book thinking the prints would be equally valuable. Now I am starting to think differently. I might perceive the print made following a procedure that entails harder work to have a higher value. I might change my mind, so I only ask that the artist tell me. I like to hold “opinion-independent” positions.

For example with letterpress I value handset type over Linotype, and even though you can make a photopolymer plate with text using the same font on a computer, I would still be happier to see the lead-based impression.

I might decide one day to let go this perception of value because lead and acid are bad for children who like to eat the fish they catch.

 

[koraks]

And I don't think "intaglio screen" was/is commonly used by those photo-gravure artists, tho it was/is with roller-gravure (as became common with newspapers).

A screen of some sort is needed for any intaglio process. With contemporary direct to plate processes, this is either a stochastic pattern overlay added manually during digital processing, or the (inkjet) printer's native dither is employed. With old-fashioned copper plate based on a gelatin/dichromate positive, an intaglio screen or aquatint/rosin screen is used. Whichever way it is done, some sort of screen is required in order to hold the ink.

Thanks for the link to Kachel's page, the work of people like Stieglitz and Curtis featured on the link is certainly inspiring.

Evidently, my remark on the process with DK3 working "quite alright" referred to my personal experience with it. I believed this to be quite clear from the context of my post.

Does his work seem "superior in this respect" to DK3?

As far as I can tell, Kachel uses ImagON HD which is quite similar to DK3 I understand. However, there are many ways to design a workflow using either of these materials and hence, the material used itself doesn't tell the complete story. They're both thin photopolymer films that are adhered to a suitable base material, used either as the intaglio itself, or as a resist for etching the support after which the photopolymer is washed off entirely. As I understand, Kachel, like myself, opted for the former.

 

[davidkachel]

Here's hoping your book becomes as highly regarded as Tim Rudman's Master Photographer's Toning Handbook!

Thank you for your kind comments. And you are correct, my goal is to bring the barrier WAY down. Cost is now a single digit percentage of copper plates and less than ten percent the cost of readymade plates.

 

[davidkachel]

I would like to be able to preview a few pages before I part with my money. I've always wanted to get back into photogravure.

Of course. Go to my web site (first post in this thread) and then to the contact page. Send me a message with your email address and mention that you want a sample.I will send it via email right away.

BTW, my apologies to everyone for the tardiness if these responses. For some reason, I receive no notice from photo about responses being posted.

 

[davidkachel]

David, I agree with Andrew a pre-view would be useful. I've no idea if the process would be something that would tempt me. So pros and cons of the process and why I or others might want to try using it as well.

I guess I'm saying sell us why Photogravure, or rather why you feel it's worthwhile.

Ian

See the above response for the sample.
As for selling you on Photogravure, that is easy. It is both the most permanent (no argument possible) and the most beautiful (one could argue for the platinum print and/or the carbon print, but that person would not be me) method for making a photographic print, in existence. It is the most versatile... any color your like, on any paper you like (some exceptions: toilet paper would not work out well). With this new approach it is much simpler and vastly less expensive. Less than a dollar a plate for ~5x7. And while it is still admittedly difficult to master it is absolutely worth the effort. I call the photogravure the "Stradivarius of Fine Art Photography".

 

[davidkachel]

An analog positive was the route I considered after being unsatisfied with the digital positives I could get from my 3880. I never invested in a proper intaglio screen but decided to focus on other processes instead. I used the DK3 photopolymer mated onto PVC cards; the process worked quite alright. Direct to plate would have skipped the step of making a separate positive, but it was likely a hassle to get it to work with the DK3 film. Perhaps the material Kachel uses is superior in this respect.

One of the things I do in the book is to expose the secrets. For example, there is no such thing as DK3. Likewise, there is no such thing as Imagon HD, etc., etc., etc. These are products that have been purchased in bulk by their sellers, stripped of all identifying material, given a fake name and sold to you at prices as high as 13 times their real cost. Imagon HD costs $3 per square foot in the US, more than that in Europe. The material I use cost me twenty-four cents per square foot and is decidedly superior to Imagon. I give you a half dozen options in the book, their REAL names and their REAL sellers, The secret keeping is over.
Also, with this approach, no screen is required. It is built into the direct-to-plate image and the image quality is simply exquisite.

 

[davidkachel]

As far as I can tell, Kachel uses ImagON HD which is quite similar to DK3 I understand. However, there are many ways to design a workflow using either of these materials and hence, the material used itself doesn't tell the complete story. They're both thin photopolymer films that are adhered to a suitable base material, used either as the intaglio itself, or as a resist for etching the support after which the photopolymer is washed off entirely. As I understand, Kachel, like myself, opted for the former.

I began five years ago with Imagon HD but have abandoned it. It is inferior to the other products I recommend in the book and costs up to 13 times as much. It is also fraudulent. There is no "Imagon HD". There is also no "DK3".(See above).

 

[koraks]

Which printers did you test this method with? And does the polymer material require any sizing or dubbing to make the ink adhere properly? You don't have to disclose any specific information; just a very generic response will satisfy my general curiosity - as I pointed out, I abandoned photogravure. Despite its merits, which I agree on, the process just doesn't appeal to me.