Re: Photogravure with photopolymer

Luis Nadeau (awef6t@itchy.mi.net)
Sat, 30 Dec 1995 19:57:23 +0300

>In-Reply-To: <v01530500ad0974a27d2a@[130.225.200.51]>
>
><< The new photogravure method, which is based on photopolymer rather than
>on
>copper as its substrate, was developed by the Danish lithographer Eli
>Poinsaing, and is described in detail in his book "Photopolymergravure: A
>New Method", Copenhagen: Borgen, 1995 (ISBN 87-21-00396-3, appr. $35.-;
>written in both Danish and English). The basic elements are as follows:
>=3D46irst a very fine stochastic raster, and subsequently a continuous-tone
>positive, are contact exposed by UV light onto a sheet of photopolymer,
>which consists of a thin steel base covered with a light sensitive nylon
..

>It would be very interesting to have more details, particularly of the
>actual nylon resin concerned (and details of how to get it.)
>The process may be similar to that developed by Keith Howard (Safe Photo
>Etching for Photographers and Artists, Wynne Resources Lrd, 1991 ISBN
>0-9695577-0-1) which I and others have previously mentioned here.

I have had several offlist requests from people who wanted to have my
personal opinion as to the value of this process. For some strange reason,
there are people out there who trust my judgment;-)

The basic question is:

Sure, it seems to be a safer and simpler method, but how does it compare
with conventional photogravure, **quality wise**?

Of the 300+ identified processes that are represented in my personal museum
collection here, there are many different flavors of photogravure that are
distinguished by a variety of trademarks, including:

Goupil Gravure; H=E9liogravure; Mezzogravure; Mezzotintogravure;
Relievogravure; Rembrandt Photogravure; Rembrandt Colorgravure; Rotagravure
(type of rotogravure); Swaingravure; Vedragravure; Velogravure;
Vivex-Linked Gravure, etc.

The quality of some of them, e.g., Velogravure (ca. 1920s), is awful while
earlier methods, e.g., Goupil gravure (made ca. 1880s) and Rembrandt
Gravure (ca. 1900) is absolutely superb. As a matter of fact, it seems
impossible to beat the quality of these processes today. Matching their
quality is as good as it can get. Anything close to these processes is
perfectly worthwhile.

So, what is the value of these newer photopolymer processes? They are
certainly environmentally friendly, using plain water for development and
avoiding very nasty chemicals (e.g., cyanide) in their use, but the few
specimens I have here do not remotely approach what could be done in France
and England a hundred years ago. They produce a nice solid black, and nice
highlight density and at the most, a couple of steps in between and that is
it. Strangely enough, the original plate that was sent to me showed a
significantly longer scale and the printer admitted that he was a beginner
far from mastering the inking technique, so the (acknowledged) shortcomings
were perhaps his own and not representative of the processes' limitations.

Perhaps.

To be fair, the specimens I have here were *not* supplied by any of the
people mentioned in this post. It is a tricky business to comment
"publicly" about someone's work and I don't like to do that unless what I
have to say is positive.

I should add also that there is room for all kinds of different printing
technologies out there. The cyanotype is not my cup of tea but it is
certainly excellent for beginners and indeed for experts who have something
to say with it. There is room for photo-silkscreens and even contemporary
daguerreotypes. To each his own. What I have seen so far of the
photopolymer plates does produce a usable high contrast, short scale image
which some people may want for some purposes. I personally want something
with a much longer scale. If I ever see this, I won't fail to mention it.

Luis Nadeau
awef6t@mi.net; nadeaul@nbnet.nb.ca
=46redericton, New Brunswick, Canada
http://www.micronet.fr/~deriencg/nadeau.html
http://www.primenet.com/~dbarto/lnadeau.html#A0