Re: Photogravure question

Greg Schmitz wrote:

> I don't discount that it is possible to pull some very nice prints
> from photopolymer plates. I would question if any process should be
> called Gravure unless it is an intaglio printing process. Calling a
> process, which is not an intaglio process, "Photogravure" is
> misleading although calling it such would have some "retro" appeal
> (good marketing hook). If it is possible to use photopolymer plates
> so as to produce a plate that prints in the same manner as a Gravure
> plate then I will have no problem calling it a Gravure process;
> otherwise the terminology is just plain wrong.
>

Hi Greg,

there are some photo etching processes that use a film on copper plate that result in an etched copper plate, and are, therefor, gravure, but I agree that to call then "photogravure" is somewhat misleading. The term
"photogravure" was coined at a particular time in history to refer to a particular process, and the only reason to stretch the meaning of the term is to associate more contemporary processes with the older (and
more difficult) process. There are already plenty of suitable terms in use to describe various forms of contemporary photo-etching. It's kind of like calling ink-jet prints by other confusing terms.

J. Reisland
Received on Mon Nov 3 15:06:46 2003