1Vaudois
I am new here, so it is possible I am retreading old ground despite my best efforts, or perhaps just asking a question born of a more general ignorance than I am aware of.
That said, the question I have is this:
When I read that an FS edition has wood engravings by so-and-so, or aquatints by such-and-such, I am not to understand that the illustrations were printed from wood or metal masters as opposed to reproduced from such masters photomechanically by offset lithography, am I?
I know from reading on this site that letterpress was standard and, despite frequent use of photosetting since, to a lesser still remains FS practice for type, but I have no sense of corresponding illustrative practice.
Also, obviously digital methods are part and parcel these days even in the production of the original artwork, but in that case is the subsequent process CTP or CTF?
Any insight would be much appreciated.
That said, the question I have is this:
When I read that an FS edition has wood engravings by so-and-so, or aquatints by such-and-such, I am not to understand that the illustrations were printed from wood or metal masters as opposed to reproduced from such masters photomechanically by offset lithography, am I?
I know from reading on this site that letterpress was standard and, despite frequent use of photosetting since, to a lesser still remains FS practice for type, but I have no sense of corresponding illustrative practice.
Also, obviously digital methods are part and parcel these days even in the production of the original artwork, but in that case is the subsequent process CTP or CTF?
Any insight would be much appreciated.
2abysswalker
>1 Vaudois: depends on the book in question, but very few recent Folio books are printed directly from wood.
Older volumes I'm less certain about. I'd check the info in Folio 75 if you have questions about specific releases:
https://www.foliosociety.com/folio75
Older volumes I'm less certain about. I'd check the info in Folio 75 if you have questions about specific releases:
https://www.foliosociety.com/folio75
3Vaudois
>2 abysswalker: Appreciate the reply.
Few or none? I suspect that it has always been photomechanical.
I've been through Folio 75, but overall it doesn't provide sufficient detail for what I'm after here.
Few or none? I suspect that it has always been photomechanical.
I've been through Folio 75, but overall it doesn't provide sufficient detail for what I'm after here.
4Jayked
As mentioned in another thread, John Buckland Wright produced copper plate engravings for a number of early FS editions -- Iliad, Odyssey, Decameron -- which were reproduced by Collotype by the Chiswick Press, which specialised in them. Buckland Wright was highly critical of their work, but in the end accepted that direct printing from the plates was too costly to be feasible. (see Introduction to Sensuous Lines, p.19).
Fleece Press, which produces limited editions featuring woodcut artists, does not routinely print directly from the block. They do add that feature at a higher price to a small number of copies where hand prints directly from the block are tipped in. Not only is the process time consuming and labour-intensive, being done by a single person on a vintage machine, but a wood block eventually deteriorates through use. As in letterpress printing, the first few takes are better than those subsequent.
It may be that some LE Folios were done direct, though FS is coy about saying so. For a couple of the under-appreciated WW1 series, a note states that the illustrations were done under the direct supervision of the artist. A rummage through old FS blogs might give more detail.
Fleece Press, which produces limited editions featuring woodcut artists, does not routinely print directly from the block. They do add that feature at a higher price to a small number of copies where hand prints directly from the block are tipped in. Not only is the process time consuming and labour-intensive, being done by a single person on a vintage machine, but a wood block eventually deteriorates through use. As in letterpress printing, the first few takes are better than those subsequent.
It may be that some LE Folios were done direct, though FS is coy about saying so. For a couple of the under-appreciated WW1 series, a note states that the illustrations were done under the direct supervision of the artist. A rummage through old FS blogs might give more detail.
5Vaudois
>4 Jayked: Thanks - that's very helpful indeed.
I see now that Buckland-Wright produced engravings in wood (Shelley), copper (Homer), and scraperboard (Brooke), as well as aquatints (Boccaccio), while Chiswick produced a range of collotypes and lithographs as well as typesetting for FS.
It is very suggestive of at best sparing direct use of masters. Not surprising, given deterioration, &c., and so cost, as you note, but, though less distracting than 'plates improved by digital means' or 'photographed digitally' in the notes for some later issues, it is a reminder of what collecting such books for their illustrations largely amounts to. Pine's Horace or le Mire's Ovid they are not.
(I should maybe add that I have the Buckland-Wright Decameron and the digitally improved Detmold Arabian Nights and am very fond of both.)
I see now that Buckland-Wright produced engravings in wood (Shelley), copper (Homer), and scraperboard (Brooke), as well as aquatints (Boccaccio), while Chiswick produced a range of collotypes and lithographs as well as typesetting for FS.
It is very suggestive of at best sparing direct use of masters. Not surprising, given deterioration, &c., and so cost, as you note, but, though less distracting than 'plates improved by digital means' or 'photographed digitally' in the notes for some later issues, it is a reminder of what collecting such books for their illustrations largely amounts to. Pine's Horace or le Mire's Ovid they are not.
(I should maybe add that I have the Buckland-Wright Decameron and the digitally improved Detmold Arabian Nights and am very fond of both.)
6Jayked
>5 Vaudois:
From Ravilious: Engravings, Greenwood, Wood Lea Press, p. 199.
"The illustration above shows a recent impression from the block and serves as part of the evidence that Curwen rarely printed from the wood: the electros they had made were easily cleared, preserving the wood block from damage and saving the engraver from the tedious task of clearing a block."
Curwen had printed for a number of quality publishers prior to WW2, so FS wasn't alone in using this method.
When judging their early output it's important to remember that post-war it was extremely difficult to obtain quality materials -- even newsprint was rationed for several years. Buckland Wright was dealing with Christopher Sandford, who had previously taken over the Golden Cockerel Press from Robert Gibbings, who had lived from hand to mouth throughout the thirties. Despite its stellar reputation, GC had been forced to alter page sizes, use less than optimal materials, because of poor sales. Ravilious, the illustrator of choice, had to accept fees below the contracted rate, and as a gesture of goodwill did some work free of charge. To found a publishing house such as FS in those circumstances was quite courageous.
From Ravilious: Engravings, Greenwood, Wood Lea Press, p. 199.
"The illustration above shows a recent impression from the block and serves as part of the evidence that Curwen rarely printed from the wood: the electros they had made were easily cleared, preserving the wood block from damage and saving the engraver from the tedious task of clearing a block."
Curwen had printed for a number of quality publishers prior to WW2, so FS wasn't alone in using this method.
When judging their early output it's important to remember that post-war it was extremely difficult to obtain quality materials -- even newsprint was rationed for several years. Buckland Wright was dealing with Christopher Sandford, who had previously taken over the Golden Cockerel Press from Robert Gibbings, who had lived from hand to mouth throughout the thirties. Despite its stellar reputation, GC had been forced to alter page sizes, use less than optimal materials, because of poor sales. Ravilious, the illustrator of choice, had to accept fees below the contracted rate, and as a gesture of goodwill did some work free of charge. To found a publishing house such as FS in those circumstances was quite courageous.
7Vaudois
>6 Jayked: If I understand, for my purposes the key word from the quoted passage is 'electros', i.e. this was not photomechanical. Prints from original wood masters might very well be an unrealistic expectation under the circumstances you describe, but in any case collotyping and relief halftone, by contrast to printing from electrotype plates, are photomechanical processes.
It is a different matter if you are reproducing watercolours, for example. Here photomechanical is presumably an appropriate way to proceed. However, as far as I can make out, the Detmold 'colour plates' that have been 'digitally improved' in the FS 1999 edition seem not even to be prints from halftone plates, as those from which they appear to have been printed in the original 1924 Hodder and Stoughton edition, but prints from scans of those halftone prints. (I say 'seem' and 'appear' because I am inferring, quite possibly incorrectly. I get mixed impressions under limited magnification.)
If Buckland Wright was unhappy with collotyping his copper engravings and aquatints, how might Detmold have reacted to the prospect of digital scans of halftone prints of his watercolours? Not well, I think, and quite rightly.
Be that as it may, any objection on these grounds is incidental. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of what it is I am in fact looking at when faced with the illustrations of this or that edition. Folio 75 may well tell me they are 'illustrations engraved on copper', but the page in front of me is hardly likely to have been printed from any such thing except at who knows - I certainly do not, and it strikes me as something I ought to be able to discover - how many removes.
It is a different matter if you are reproducing watercolours, for example. Here photomechanical is presumably an appropriate way to proceed. However, as far as I can make out, the Detmold 'colour plates' that have been 'digitally improved' in the FS 1999 edition seem not even to be prints from halftone plates, as those from which they appear to have been printed in the original 1924 Hodder and Stoughton edition, but prints from scans of those halftone prints. (I say 'seem' and 'appear' because I am inferring, quite possibly incorrectly. I get mixed impressions under limited magnification.)
If Buckland Wright was unhappy with collotyping his copper engravings and aquatints, how might Detmold have reacted to the prospect of digital scans of halftone prints of his watercolours? Not well, I think, and quite rightly.
Be that as it may, any objection on these grounds is incidental. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of what it is I am in fact looking at when faced with the illustrations of this or that edition. Folio 75 may well tell me they are 'illustrations engraved on copper', but the page in front of me is hardly likely to have been printed from any such thing except at who knows - I certainly do not, and it strikes me as something I ought to be able to discover - how many removes.
