At 16-3-2000, Hrant H. Papazian wrote:
>What those guys did should be called something else: they
>did not in fact press any *letters* onto the paper, but they
>instead pressed whole sheets; so maybe it should be called
>"sheetpress" or "pressure printing" or something.
And what about stereotyping? Or the fact that illustrations were
printed as wood engravings or as blocks (I think/hope that is the
proper term), in zinc or magnesium or polymer?
>Again: sure. But my impression is that many people (like
>the "5 designers" people) are motivated by a false sense
>of authenticity when they in effect fake the letterpress
>process, only to brag about it.
Take a good look at the pages form the book at the website, and try
to imagine what the cost per book would be if you wanted to make
something like that on an offset press. Only 75 copies, and lots and
lots of color... Not to mention the fact that you can print
letterpress on all sorts of materials an offset press can't handle.
These are still valid reasons to print things letterpress. If you
want to make nice books on a small scale, it beats using an inkjet
And apart from anything else, if you're a really good letterpress
printer (like for instance Bram de Does), you can achieve results
that look so much better than anything printed on an offset press.
I'm talking about type here, of course, not about illustrations.
Sander Pinkse Boekproductie bv | Amsterdam, The Netherlands | [log in to unmask]