'Stretch' to read the full entry | Separate page (with discussion [1])

From: Mike  |  Date: September 21, 2006

Aspen Grove block 1 is carved and side two (block 2) is carving now – at this rate, I’ll be done by the end of this week, or maybe early next… Currently calculating toolpaths for 7th block – when it’s done, only one to go! LONG day today, and I’m VERY dirty and dusty! Going home now to shower, eat, and sleep – back at it in the morning to finish #2 and move on to begin carving #3…

(Dave replied during a Skype conversation ... )

From: Mike  |  Date: September 22, 2006

I’ve completed carving of blocks 1 through 3 and am currently surfacing block 4 (2nd side of 2nd block). I’ve been planing off about 15 thousandths of an inch from the surface in order to make the blocks flat and parallel (they seem to be out by about 1/100th inch as they come from Matsumura – that means the faces are non-parallel by that amount)… Then I sand smooth to remove machining marks with 220 grit and finish with 400 grit to a dull shine.

I’m using the same bitmap contours as with block set #3 which are the ones I sent you last spring – those bitmaps look very good to me still. But I’ve vectorized them with more precision than before and I’ve redone all the toolpathing using a much closer tolerance (now about 1/1000th inch tolerance) in order to try to carve more of the fine detail than before – this means it took about twice as long (24 hours) to calculate the toolpaths, and is taking about three times longer to machine, but from the way the first three blocks look, it’s worth it – these appear to me to be a substantial improvement over the previous set (at least according to my memory)!

The 45 degree vbit is (so far) providing much greater precision than the 60 or 90 degree vbits I’ve used in other carving. This is like… DUH! Each axis of my machine ‘moves’ in increments of about .002 inch. I previously carved the blocks about .07 inches deep (35 ‘clicks’ vertically) using a 90 degree vbit on the first (plywood) blocks, so the narrowest mark I could theoretically make should be about .004 inches and at .07 inches deep the diameter would be .14. With a 60 degree vbit, the narrowest mark I can make would be about .0023 inches and at .7 inches deep, the diameter would be about .08 – this is what I used for on the maple and cherry sets – you have the cherry set carved this way.

This week I’m carving the Woodlike Matsumura blocks .1 inches deep (50 ‘clicks’ vertical instead of 35 at .07) and I’m using a 45 degree vbit. So the narrowest mark I can make is theoretically about .0017 inch and at the full .1 inch depth the cut is only .083 inches in diameter, so it’s clear why these are turning out better all the way around – about 5 times greater precision, assuming, of course, that the steeper tiny pyramids survive machining and that I accurately zero the vertical axis exactly at the surface of the block…

4.5 million lines of code to carve these blocks and about 3500 feet of actual carving, so I still have a LOT of hours of machining ahead of me at this point – might be finished closer to the END of next week it now appears.

From: Dave  |  Date: September 23, 2006

... but from the way the first three blocks look, it’s worth it – these appear to me to be a substantial improvement over the previous set (at least according to my memory)!

OK ... hope you keep the bit sharp! That steeper angle might mean more mountain tops getting chipped off ...

You said the other day:

I’m VERY dirty and dusty!

How much actual 'hands on' do you have to do with all this? And how much input does the toolpathing process need from you (decisions, etc.)? People have been curious where the 'line' between you and the machine is falling ... how much is 'automatic', and how much is 'artistic' ...

From: Mike  |  Date: September 24, 2006

The 'line' between me and the machine falls mainly at the tips of my fingers, I suppose. I've described this before, I think, so you already know all this -- but again, briefly:

I photographed the Aspen Grove about 50 yards from my Mom and Dad's home in Aspen, Colorado. I manipulated the image using PhotoShop, both rotating and distorting it in order to make a 10x15 inch (oban) image which I liked. Then I scaled it up to 600 dpi and began adjusting the tonal curve until the image contained roughly equal areas of tone while maintaining an overall tonality which appealed to me. Then I began to enormously simplify the image. First I converted it from color to grayscale, then eliminated areas too small to carve while still maintaining sharpness and detail (something of a trick actually). After many hours of back and forth adjustment and simplification, I had only nine values in the image (white, and eight evenly stepped grays going to black), each covering roughly the same area (square inches) of the image and the smallest piece of each tone was only a bit smaller than I might actually be able to carve. I added kento registration and masked borders for carving so the bitmapped image became a bit larger than the blocks I would carve. Then I built the contours to be carved for each block (I chose this particular image in part because I could avoid having to include paper support areas which could complicate instructions to the printer and make it easier for mistakes to occur in printing).

I output the contours for each block to a 1-bit bitmap (black and white) and vectorized the perimeter of each black contour -- in effect, each area to be carved away was outlined with vectors. At 600 dpi and using a 1.2 pixel 'average' for the vector conversion, and eliminating any contours of less than 6 pixels (.01 inch), the outline of each area to be carved was contained in a dxf file. Then I loaded the dxf vector information into my toolpathing software, defined the router bits I would use during machining (their geometry, including shape, diameter, inches per second, offset for clearing strategy, and similar information) in this instance, a 45 degree V-bit and a 1/8 inch upspiral end mill. Then I computed the toolpatsh -- using the v-bit to engrave the outline of each contour (calculating the Z-axis height of the v-bit in order to accomplish very narrow lines) and used the v-bit to clear interior areas too narrow for the eighth inch end-mill to reach. Larger areas were toolpathed for clearing with the eighth inch end-mill. Then I saved the toolpath instructions as text files in a format my CNC machine can interpret. Although the toolpath files contain some instructions to set the speed of tool movement and other parameters, and many instructions to lift the bit out of the block and 'jog' to a new location without cutting, more than 99 percent of the toolpath file instructions are "move in three dimensions from the current location to x,y,z where x y and z are the measurement in inches from 'zero', a point about six inches above the bed of the machine at a corner. All these millions of lines of instruction are generated automatically from the parameters I enter and using the vectors I built from the original image.

Then I decide how to mount the block onto the bed of the machine. In the case of the current block, I use vacuum. I built a vacuum plenum over my machine bed -- it's a 49x96x1 inch sheet of light weight MDF and I machined away deep grooves from the bottom side so it is 'waffled' and I screwed it down to the bed of my machine and caulked the sides all around so they are air-tight. I have a Fein shop-vac attached under the bed to provide about 1 pound per square inch of suction. I cut 10 3/4 x 16 inch (the size of the blocks you provided me) hole out of a sheet of 4x8x1/4" corrugated plastic sheet, mounted the sheet onto the vacuum plenum and used masking tape to seal the edges. Then I placed a block into the hole I'd cut in the plastic, turned on the vacuum, and taped around the edges of the block onto the plastic to effect a tight seal. So the block is held down by about 172 pounds of air -- enough to keep it from moving around during machining.

Then, since the two cherry-faced sides of the block were not completely parallel or flat when they arrived, I used a 1/4 inch end-mill to plane about 15 hundredths of an inch from the surface of the block (I do this with a 'cut rectangle' command to my machine giving parameters for how deep to cut, how long and wide, the step size (tenth of an inch for these) and that it's to begin at the outside and move in until the whole surface has been machined.

Then I sand the freshly machined surface (already quite smooth, actually), first with 220 grit and then with 400 grit. The whole setting the block, zeroing the tool, machining flat, and sanding process takes about 30 minutes per side.

Then I install a 45 degree vbit into the router, zero the vbit to the surface of the block, check the zero carefully by machining small lines at the edges until I'm satisfied with the accuracy of the setup, load the toolpath instruction file and run it. I watch for a few minutes to make sure all appears to be 'right', then I run upstairs (and write this email) and do other stuff, usually checking on progress every hour or so until the carving has completed (for these blocks probably an average of 7 or 8 hours of v-bit carving). When the v-bit movement has been completed, I lightly sand the surface with 400 grit to clear any burrs. Then I remove the v-bit and install an eighth inch end-mill, zero it to the surface of the block (doesn't require as much precision as it's only clearing and cutting kento), then load and run the toolpath for that tool and block. On these blocks that's only 30 minutes to an hour to complete.

Then I blow the dust and chips from the carved surface, turn off the vacuum, remove the tape and either flip the block to begin the other side or (if this IS the other side) put in a new block and repeat until done.

As I think I've mentioned before -- the ink and paper have NO idea and receive NO information about what sort of tool might have removed the portions of the block which don't print, so there's really NO way to determine by looking at the print that the block was carved by router, by hand, by fingernail, teeth, or whatever! The only evidence of the block is the ink transferred from the UNCARVED surfaces, right?

OK, so where's the 'line' between me and the machine? I don't really believe there IS any such line. The machine is an extension of myself in exactly the way ANY tool is an extension of oneself. Mind goes, everything else follows, right?

* * *

Minor disaster yesterday... My router shot craps mid-block-4... Picked up another (and dropped $350) this morning and am now re-carving #4 which should turn out just fine.

This thread continues in Aspen Grove (9) ...

'Shrink' back down ... | Discussion [1]

Here it is on his proofing stand together with Mike's original ...

'Stretch' to read the full entry | Separate page (with discussion [4])

Continued from Aspen Grove (6) | Starting point of the thread is here

Hard to believe it's been four months now since Mike and I first tossed around the idea for doing this print; I had expected it to be 'done' in a couple of weeks!

Yesterday I went down to Numabe's workroom with two things in mind - to pick up the completed Hilo Bay prints, and to work with him on Aspen Grove proofing for the day. In baseball terms, I did fine ... :-(

The Hilo Bay prints were fine, and there wasn't much for us to spend time on with them, so we got right to the proofing. Numabe had spent the previous day on it, getting familiar with the blocks, going over the proofs and colour separations that I gave him, and trying a few samples.

By the time I got there, he had one nearly done; here it is on his proofing stand together with Mike's original (Mike on top): (note: all the photos taken during this session are a bit schmucked up - I found out when I got home that the camera had retained an ISO setting that I had used the night before when trying to take pictures of fireflies!)

As you can see, Numabe has pretty much retained the 'look and feel' of Mike's work in his own proof. At first glance, it looks like we are on our way!

But ... here's a zoom in:

Mike's is clean and sharp; Numabe's is completely 'fuzzy'. And, you can see a wide strip of blue tone at the top of his, where one of the blocks is sticking up beyond the others.

The fuzzyness is coming from misregistration. Now these blocks - right down to the registration marks - are cut by machine directly from the image files, so there are no lines 'out of place' at all.

But he found - no matter how he tried to move the registration marks up or down - that he just couldn't get all parts of the image to line up properly. Here's a closeup:

You can see the parts that should be lining up ... they are off by a couple of millimiters easily. Now usually, that's no problem - you trim or adjust the registration mark to move the paper into the proper alignment.

Unfortunately, this isn't a misalignment of the registration mark, but a distortion across the entire face of the block ... of all the blocks! And something else in that picture shows us what it is; look at the image right at the '270' line - there is a straight line across the print, blue on the bottom, white on the top.

This is one of the joints; one of the places where the laminations meet. Just how bad is it? Here's a rubbing from one of the blocks:

The laminated strips have distorted in two ways - in thickness, and in width. Each one now sticks up, or sinks below, the level of its neighbour, and there is no way that a proper impression can be taken from them.

And as for width, they have expanded in what seems to be pretty much a random fashion, some more than others. And because half of the blocks (1, 3, 5, 7) are in one orientation, and the other four in the opposite orientation, there is no hope whatsoever of getting things lined up.

Numabe looked at me, and asked whether he should go ahead and try it ... but look back again at that proof of his - the horizontal bands are clearly visible across the face of the image. This one's a goner ...

So, there really isn't any choice on this; the wood available to Mike over there is just not suitable for this kind of work. Monday morning I'll call up Matsumura-san, order a set of blank cherry blocks, and then send them across to Mike, where he'll have to 'reload' the image files and fire up his cutter again.

It'll take a bit of time, but I think that's all - the image has pretty much been 'solved', both at Mike's end, and here on the proofing desk. When the good blocks arrive, we can pick up where we've left off, run up a few variant proofs, decide which one (or ones) to use, and run the edition. Numabe-san is interested in doing this one, as it's completely different from anything else he's done before.

Apologies to the collectors who are waiting for this print; I'll post a timetable here shortly, after talking to Matsumura-san and Mike and finding out what their schedules look like.

This thread continues in Aspen Grove (8) ...

'Shrink' back down ... | Discussion [4]

Time to sit down and feel a bit blue ...

'Stretch' to read the full entry | Separate page (with discussion [3])

Continued from Aspen Grove (5) | Starting point of the thread is here

Time for some more work on the Aspen Grove proofing. But first, a small side journey. Mike has been describing his prints as being made with 'ai' (indigo), in the tradition of 'ai-zuri' prints from the old days. This was a kind of sub-genre in which the entire print (or most of it, anyway) was done using just that pigment, giving a sort of ghostly effect.

But when I look at his prints, the blue I see there doesn't match what I have here in my pigment drawer labelled 'ai', and I thought it was time to sit down and try to figure out what he used as a starting point for his proofs. (And not coincidentally, to also try and sort out for myself just how some of these pigments compare with each other, the kind of thing that I haven't spent anywhere near as much time doing as I should have!)

Let's look at the stuff that I currently have in my 'arsenal':

These are mostly from Matsuyoshi Pigments, one of Tokyo's most respected suppliers of colourants to printmakers, painters, and people in the textile business.

I say 'respected', but honestly speaking, the place is nothing like it was, even 20-odd years ago when I first went there. Mr. Matsuyoshi is long gone, and the current managers - not by any fault of their own - no longer have access to the sort of pigments that were still quite commonly available then. (Things aren't completely bleak though; there is strong demand from workers in the textile trades for 'authentic' dyes and pigments, and this is promoting a lot of research into traditional colourants ...)

The six various 'blue' pigments I have are:

• 1) hon-ai - 'hon' translates as 'real', but in this case, that's a lie. When I bought this, I thought it didn't quite look like 'real' indigo, and when I queried the people in the pigment shop, they agreed, saying something like "Yes, you're right. This is a factory-made pigment. 'hon-ai' is the name of the colour, not any indication of what it is actually made from."
• 2) indo-ai - 'indo' is of course 'India', and this is imported from there. It looks much closer to what I understand as 'real' indigo, and I think that this is indeed extracted from the plants.
• 3) hana-ai - 'hana' is flower, but again, as with the first of these six pigments, this is just a label, not an indication of source. This too, has every appearance of being a factory pigment. (More about this one below)
• 4) kin-bero - also called 'bero-ai', bero being an attempt at the word 'Berlin' (or so the colour encyclopedias tell us). This pigment comes in good large chunks, and has gold coloured flecks and reflectance all over it.
• 5) Prussian blue - or 'purashan booroo' as it comes out in Japanese. A very fine powder. Interesting that this product is considered to be the same substance as #4 above, but look at the difference in the colour that has 'rubbed' onto the inside of the package ...
• 6) (name unknown) - (not in the photo above) a powdered pigment in a bottle marked 'Grumbacher' that I found at the back of my pigment cupboard. [Is this maybe what is known as 'ultramarine' in the west? If somebody can let me know, I'll update this page accordingly ...]

For eighteen years, I have used these pigments - and none others - for the blue (and mixes) on my prints. (The western pigment was used only once - for a mix to produce the sky on this print.)

Taking photographs of a pile of dark powder is not the easiest thing to do, and some of these differences are not going to be easy to see. So I have created quite large versions of these little images (in the popup), to try and let you see the details of the pigment texture, etc. Here they are, in the same order as I just listed them:

Now, that's all very interesting, but doesn't help us see the colour that they produce. Let me do some 'finger painting' on each one, just dipping my finger in water and rubbing a bit of the stuff around ...

The first two are very similar. The factory that made the first one did come very close to a reproduction of the natural plant pigment. (What will happen over time I have no idea, although I would perhaps expect that the natural one would fade more readily ...)

#4 and 5 are also similar, which is to be expected, as they are supposed to be the same thing, just in slightly different form - heavy lumps as opposed to finely ground. I have no idea at all how these are made. When I need a 'Hiroshige' water colour, I use #4 ...

#3 is interesting as - something I hadn't realized before - it seems to be a kind of blend of the indigo and the Prussian Blue. The wall cabinets of the Matsuyoshi pigment shop are jammed with rows and rows of bottles of such colours. I have written about this over in my Encyclopedia, how traditional printmakers do not generally use such pre-blended pigment mixes, usually preferring to make up their own colour from a small palette of 'base' colours.

Now, getting back to our proofing work on Mike's print, let's look at an enlargement of his proof, and try to figure out what he used to make it. The darker shades here have a lot of sumi blended in, so won't stand a direct comparison with the samples shown above, but I think at the 'thinner' levels of blue, he perhaps used his pigment pretty much 'straight'.

Well, what do you think? I don't think his pigment has the 'darkish' feel of the indigo, nor does it have the outright 'blueishness' that the Prussians have. If any of these, it looks perhaps quite similar to a light application of #3 ... with the 'icy' feeling apparent in the thinnest parts. But it certainly doesn't have the 'greenish' tone that comes with the buildup of #3.

Let's try looking at it a different way. To try and reduce the effect of the different paper and lighting, if we look at a print at a sharp angle, we can get an interesting view of the overall 'tones'. This is the same print, under the same light, with the same camera settings! Look at how 'green' it has become!

And then, if I lay some of those smeared samples on top of it one by one (still in the same order) we can see which ones feel right:

I think I'll clearly 'vote' for the third one ... although seen this way, it does indeed seem that Mike's pigment is clearly of the 'ai' type, and doesn't lean much to the 'Prussian' side of things ...

But there is yet one more aspect to this comparison that we are ignoring - the paper. It's actually impossible to make a fair comparison of pigments that are on different types of paper, as these test swatches are.

Down in the workshop now, with the beta block that forms the base layer of Mike's print. I've brushed some light pigment over it, although because that is so transparent, it's completely impossible just looking at the wood to see how much we have there. We have to take a test strip first:

... and then lay it down for comparison ...

Not even close, right? But the paper I used for that was just a strip of white copy paper. Let's try it again - exactly the same brushwork - but this time with a strip of washi trimmed from a previous printing job:

... and lay it down ...

Still not exactly the same shade/tone/tint that Mike used, but certainly in the ballpark. This question of how colours change depending on the underlying paper is so important in this tradition. Because the pigment applications are so transparent, it's completely impossible to tell what you are going to get just by looking at the pigment in a bowl, smeared on a test strip, or printed onto the wrong kind of paper. Here are those two strips side-by-side ... exactly the same pigment, at the same concentration:

So anyway, enought talking ... now that I've got these a bit more clearly understood in my head, let's make a print with this stuff ... #3 from the above list. I've drilled the blocks to take some 'hold-down' screws to keep the warping under control, have just made some washi moist, and will start another run tonight. I'll have to interrupt that in the morning, because tomorrow I have an appointment downtown with Numabe-san the printer, to deliver the Hilo Bay blocks and paper, and to have a good long discussion about what we need on that one ... if I can still remember!

This thread continues in Aspen Grove (7) ...

'Shrink' back down ... | Discussion [3]

This is one cool set of blocks!

'Stretch' to read the full entry | Separate page (with discussion [8])

Continued from Aspen Grove (4) | Starting point of the thread is here

The Aspen Grove blocks are in Japan ... Mike made a special crate for them, with only one 'entrance' - through a dozen strong screws on the top. By the time it got to me, it carried a strip of tape marked "Opened and resealed for Customs inspection", so I guess they must have gone at it with a screwdriver!

Not sure why they bothered ... Perhaps when they saw 'nothing' on the x-ray they were curious about a hidden compartment? Or maybe it's just that they needed to open it to figure out if they should charge duty/sales tax ... (They didn't)

This is one cool set of blocks! The photos Mike sent earlier (on the previous page) show the faces, but give no sense of the carved effect. Here are a few angled shots that try and show the actual carving ...

(Some images can be clicked to popup a larger version)

First surprise for me when I saw them was just how thin these blocks are. For the second set of blocks Mike made, he mentioned using 3/4" maple, which seemed just about as thin as I would like to go, but he didn't say anything about the thickness of this cherry laminate set. They are thin, only 16mm! This was fairly common back in the really old days, but for most of the last 100 years or so, with good wood impossible to find, it has been customary to work with thicker pieces; 23mm is typical.

This stuff is going to warp, and it is going to warp a lot! Mike's proof copy shows no evidence at all of any misregistration, but I know he works pretty quickly, and he only made a few copies, so didn't have wet wood sitting on his bench for an extended period. But for printing a large edition it's going to be impossible to keep this wood stable during a run. As soon as the water hits the printing surface, the wood starts to bow upwards. This can be kept somewhat in control by moistening the back side too, but that just means that the whole plank starts to grow wider and wider. Only 'solution' is to dunk it in the tub for a time before printing, to let it drink what it wants to drink before printing starts ... and do this with all the blocks similarly ...

Another thing that is going to cause trouble is the laminations. During my test printing this afternoon, I found one of the blocks had a strip that absorbed water much more than its neighbour, and swelled to the point where there was a distinct difference in surface levels. I'll try and take a shot of it under extreme angled light ...

In a classical design, this would be fatal - the line would show clearly in an area of flat colour - but perhaps in this rather 'scrambled' design it will go unnoticed ... we'll see. (It can also be 'fixed' by grinding down the surface with a flat sharpening stone, but that'll 'open up' the carved areas a bit ...)

Anyway, on with the test printing. This print is essentially a 'reduction' print - the method that uses a single block which is gradually cut smaller and smaller as the process goes on. As the block is thus destroyed in the process, Mike has produced a fixed set of blocks this time, but they are designed in the same manner - starting with the first one, they are 'cut back' bit by bit, so that the printed area becomes gradually smaller and smaller.

One 'side effect' of this technique - the thing that differentiates it from other types of woodblock work - is that there are no 'three-way' overlaps.

Imagine a set of three blocks with overlapping areas:

When you alter the pigment applied to block A, you end up changing parts of both B and C.

But with a reduction print, the blocks are laid out like this:

A covers everything, is cut back for B, then cut back still more for C, etc. etc. When you change the pigment for any particular block, you also change everything 'up the line', but nothing below it.

Now I've never printed anything quite like this before, so I need to learn how to control the pigment application from step to step. Because the later blocks all build on previous blocks, there are two basic approaches to use: print everything with the same intensity/colour/etc. and let the blocks themselves create the 'build-up', or alter your pigment each time, thus adjusting the 'natural' flow of the build-up.

Mike talked about this in his post the other day:

The first four or five printings should each be of a single pigment (gray or blue or green – whatever) and if that pigment is not black, then black should be added to the last three or four printings – when printing a color (like blue for example), the result of simply printing that color in more and more saturation will NOT produce a pleasing result.

But because I don't have a clue about how to approach that second method, I'm going to make a trial with the first method - using a single 'colour' for every block, and see where it takes me. 'Not a pleasing result' or whatever ... but by studying that, I'll have a 'base' from which to try further variation.

Today was mostly printing for my Small Print Collection, but between impressions on that, I worked with these blocks too. That's actually a very good way to do this print, because with impressions that have such wide 'cover', the paper gets saturated quickly, and needs to be rested after each impression.

I used a simple light grey, to try and keep things basically neutral, but this quickly became slightly greenish, after picking up residue from Mike's proofing with indigo. I also kept the pigment application on the light side, because I think Mike's proof is kind of dark and oversaturated. Here's the result, eight basically even steps through the image, with no additions or changes to the pigment as I went along:

Pretty 'washed out', as Mike suggested would happen. I printed with pretty light touch, and got some nice definition in the foliage details though. But that's where we'll have to leave it at the moment. I won't have a chance for another go tomorrow, but should be able to try it again on Wednesday.

Just for fun though, let's have a little Photoshop foolery on my proof, to give a taste of what I'll try for ... not much change at the lower levels, more saturation at the top, and more of a 'bluish' cast ... (click it for a popup)

Once I've got a pleasant effect with the blue-grey, I guess I should try an 'all-blue' version like Mike's. Problem with doing that though, is that once the blocks really get covered with blue, it makes it very difficult to do anything else with them!

This thread continues in Aspen Grove (6) ...

'Shrink' back down ... | Discussion [8]

... here are photos of blocks and prints ...

'Stretch' to read the full entry | Separate page (with discussion [0])

Continued from Aspen Grove [3] | Starting point of the thread is here

Getting closer ... we continue with an email from Mike ...

From: Mike  |  Date: May 7, 2006

I still have a tiny bit of clean-up to do on the blocks (to remove some ‘fuzz’ at the image borders), so have not yet packed and sent them, but here are photos of blocks and prints – block 0 is maple, the rest are cherry. I think it could make an effective print – might be most effective as a sumi-zuri-e instead of a blue picture, actually – I think for gray images I prefer a ‘graphite’ pigment to sumi for the grays, adding sumi in the last 3 or 4 blocks to deepen… These could also be printed in green, but I imagine the effect will be best in grays.

(click to see a larger version in a separate window - then keep that window open off to one side, and the other images should also pop into it ...)

In this print it will be important to make clearly pronounced color steps between the three lightest blocks (which I did not achieve in my proofs) – here’s how I think about color steps: There are 8 or 9 blocks in the set depending on whether block 0 is printed. The set should be printed from lightest block (0 or 1) to darkest (8). Let’s leave block 0 out of this discussion since block 0 is intended only to compress the color space and reduce perception of the steps between colors. Each subsequent block prints onto areas printed by ALL previously printed blocks.

As a practical matter, this makes controlling the dampness of the prints somewhat more challenging than with a ‘normal’ block set – the printer will have to take special care that the paper can fully relax and moisture equalize before printing each subsequent block. Because each block prints on top of all previous printings, the control of color is slightly non-intuitive in that less pigment is required to achieve a ‘step’ than you might imagine.

The first four or five printings should each be of a single pigment (gray or blue or green – whatever) and if that pigment is not black, then black should be added to the last three or four printings – when printing a color (like blue for example), the result of simply printing that color in more and more saturation will NOT produce a pleasing result. But the color of the last “black” printing is actually a grayed-out color with a density of only about 50 to 60 percent (if printed on white paper it would produce a tone about half-way to black – not black – unless you want a SUPER-saturated print – such prints are interesting, actually, but too harsh for this image in my opinion, and you’ll tend to lose definition in the darks if you approach printing in this way).

So an ‘average’ stepping from light to dark in blocks 1-8 would produce the following (approximate) %darks:

I hope that the printer will feel free to experiment in order to achieve an optimal effect – look forward to seeing some proofs from which we might select a BAT…

From: Dave  |  Date: May 7, 2006

OK, thanks for these proofs. I'll use one of them (with adjustments as mentioned below) for a 'sample' on the catalogue page, and will now try and get the place 'opened up' ...

Random comments ...

Woods: slightly (more than slightly!) nervous about using mixed woods for the print. There is no way that they are going to have the 'same' coefficient of expansion over time or under the impact of water. In this case - as you've obviously considered - it's not so important because the maple is 'blank' and thus registration is irrelevant, but I just want to emphasize that this is dangerous. (Sorry to preach :-) but it's better to mention this now, rather than run into trouble in the future!

Laminate?: the cherry is a laminate? (or whatever you call that stuff made up from thinner strips ...) I have no experience with such stuff; I imagine it must be very difficult to plane flat, what with varied grains running this way and that, but I'm more concerned about varied water absorption leading to stripes in the print. Are the blocks cut from one long plank of this stuff, so that the strips 'match up' from block to block? Or have you flipped/staggered them, to minimize potential trouble?

Colours: - grey/green/blue/etc. It's a bit difficult to consider this image in a different 'light', as we've spent so much time looking at it this 'blue' way. The grey blue could be effective, and on my list of things to try with the blocks is to see how much of a 'duotone' effect I might be able to get with them - thinking of a silvery-grey appearance. The obvious thought is that this could be a moonlit scene. And that leads to the idea of producing this print in both versions - daytime/nightime ... It's going to be worth experimenting with.

Beta block: for my taste, you've got the blank block way too deep, losing the silvery colour of the tree bark. And Photoshop backs me up on this. Here are two histograms, one from your proof1 (on the right), and one from the 'master' you sent me originally (on the left). The master shows a mostly smooth path from darks to lights (with a strange spike near the light end), but yours shows a sudden drop-off suddenly cutting in at the light end, indicating that there are no 'whites' present in your image. Yours also shows fat 'bumps' in the curve, so I think the gradation percentages you have used can be adjusted to good effect.

If I fiddle with your proof a bit in Photoshop, I can smooth that a tad, and put some silver back on the trunks ... (yours on the left, fiddled on the right)

Tone breakdown: seeing your printout of the 'steps' of tonal gradation, makes me realize that next time, this kind of thing should be carved into the blocks, spaced far enough away to be trimmed off after printing. That would make both proofing and subsequent printings so much easier ...

Carving detail: pretty damn close! Have you put them side by side? I'll attach a clip ... two images sized to match - your master, and this newest proof. The darkest blacks have 'expanded' a fraction, so overall we won't have the exquisite detail of the original, but this is 'not bad ... not bad ...' I think though, that this shows the 'loss' of the silvery white quite clearly. I think these blocks just need to be printed - from light to dark - with a bit of a 'lighter' hand ...

More later as I think of it ... Get me those blocks!

From: Mike  |  Date: May 8, 2006

... nervous about using mixed woods for the print.

First, I imagine given your histogram comments (farther down), that you won't be using block 0 anyway -- but if you do, it isn't going to be a problem -- I didn't have enough of the cherry for a 5th block, so included the maple blank from a previous attempt in the event you decided you wanted to use it -- registration is NOT going to be a problem in this print, especially for this block 0, but you KNOW I wouldn't 'normally' mix woods in a block set, right?

the cherry is a laminate? (or whatever you call that stuff made up |from thinner strips ...)

Well, we did discuss this -- I was unable to find (ANYwhere -- even contacted several large mail-order suppliers without success) a single plank wide enough for the blocks, so I used a glued-up plank -- a number of 2 to 3 inch wide planks glued up to make a single board wide enough to cut the blocks -- I believe it'll be just fine -- there is no sapwood in the stuff so it ought to behave as well as (maybe better, as it may tend to resist overall warping) a plank. Honestly, I believe it'll be OK, but there's always a chance that something could 'go wrong' -- but plank can also go wrong (severe warping or cracking possible) -- I just don't believe that this will be a problem... I'll keep an eye out for wide stock for future projects, though.

I don't believe you'll be able to perceive ANY variation in the prints at all, though -- I tried to select a homogenous glued-up plank and I think it'll print exactly as you'd expect with a normal plank. This glue up is a commercial one -- I didn't assemble and glue them up myself -- it came that way from the lumber yard (they sell this stuff side-by-side with solid planks undifferentiated and priced the same). Buyer beware -- sometimes it's hard to tell at first glance that you're looking at a laminated plank!

I screwed the plank down to my machine bed and then 'planed' the surface on my machine using a 1 1/4" diameter planning bit and making .3" passes in order to get it very flat (relative to the machine plane), then sanded with 100, 150, 220, 400 grits to a high polish before carving. Then flipped it, screwed it back down, planed the other side, sanded and carved for the even numbered blocks.

Block 2 is the flip side of block 1, block 4 is the flip side of block 3, etc.

The grain match of the boards in the glue-up appears NOT to have been done the way you or I might have arranged it -- I'd have alternated convex/concave/convex/etc in order to minimize warping in blocks or furniture, but these appear to have been laid out without regard to growth ring direction -- nonetheless, I don't believe that these will warp and I don't believe that the joints will be at all visible in the prints. Let me know if that turns out not to be the case (I'm sure you will) :-)

And that leads to the idea of producing this print in both versions - daytime/nightime ... It's going to be worth experimenting with.

Romantic thought -- I hadn't considered a Yoshida Hiroshi style day/night handling (I would never consider such an approach on my own) but SURE -- give it a try if you are able! I do think this would be effective in graphite (silvery gray pigment + sumi)... Duotone -- I've done several "duotone" editions, but usually using contrasting colors -- red and green or blue and red -- these make a somewhat psychedelic color effect and make it less obvious how the print was accomplished -- but I don't imagine that approach will enhance this image at all!

Here are two examples: 1 | 2

The Aspen Grove 'could' go from green to blue to black, I suppose (or for more punch, from green to red to black) -- have to experiment to see whether this is dramatic -- but I see the image as quiet and only slightly menacing, so probably better more or less monochromatic...

|- block 0. For my taste, you've got this one _way_ too deep

You'll get no argument from me on this point at all -- I agree -- solution is to leave block 0 out of it which is very easy, of course!

- gradation sample. Seeing this makes me realize that next time, this should be carved in the block, spaced just far enough away to be trimmed off after printing. That would make subsequent printings _so much_ easier ...

Well, this is going to be even easier than you imagine, as the blocks have an outer lip all the way around which could easily be carved to produce such a 'scale' on the left and right (one side with individual colors and the other with overlapped colors -- it'll remove some of the outer baren support, of course, but might be worth it -- I'll leave this task to you, I guess -- you can decide after you receive the blocks. VERY easy job, actually.

carving detail. Pretty damn close! Have you put them side by side?

No, I NEVER do that! It's always so disappointing to see the huge loss from hundreds of colors to only (in this instance) 8! But your side-by-side image is interesting in that the gross print holds up 'fairly' well against the photographic original, I suppose -- but the original is so much nicer!

More later as I think of it ... Get me those blocks!

I'll get started packing them up for you this morning and get them into Monday's mail

From: Dave  |  Date: May 8, 2006

Duotone -- I've done several "duotone" editions, but usually using contrasting colors

I think a Duotone is perfect for what we want here. I don't mean 'duotone' in the sense of a 'two-colour print', but in the 'official' sense of a Duotone: "allocate a different colour to specific part of the tonal range".

With our print already 'separated' into tones, experimenting with this should be easy. For a Silvery-grey ghostly appearance, using a cyan in with the greys at the appropriate level should provide a very interesting effect.

Just did a quick-'n-dirty Google on this, and here's a page that shows the kind of thing I mean - a colour photo turned into a Duotone, ending up with a good 'silvery' feel; click the 'finished' photo on that page to enlarge it and see the effect ...

Well, this is going to be even easier than you imagine, as the blocks have an outer lip all the way around which could easily be carved to produce such a 'scale' on the left and right

Hmm ... after I saw your images I had one thought ... "Soon as I get that package, I'll get those blocks down to my bench, get out my nice broad chisel, and get rid of all that stuff around the edges." And in fact, when I prepared your block images for the website yesterday, I 'trimmed' them at just that place!

But yes, while proofing that'll be a good idea - use that area to print a 'scale'. But when it's time to print for real, they'll have to come off!

This thread continues in Aspen Grove (5) ...

'Shrink' back down ... | Discussion [0]

I have a decent piece of hard maple 12 inches wide 3/4 inch thick ...

'Stretch' to read the full entry | Separate page (with discussion [0])

Continued from Aspen Grove [2] | Starting point of the thread is here

At this point we have a six week gap in the 'story', with Mike very busy doing printmaking workshops ... We pick things up with an email from him on April 18th ...

From: Mike  |  Date: April 18, 2006

I need some guidance from you... I have a decent piece of hard maple 12 inches wide 3/4 inch thick which would be suitable for carving (the new toolpaths are ready and they look good to me), but you don't like the way maple prints (I haven't noticed that myself, though - seems to print similarly to cherry -- maybe just a bit drier, but that's only the hint of a flavor, not a strong difference to me)... I do not have a suitable piece of cherry in my stock -- the piece I planned to use has several knots in just the wrong place, unfortunately. I called around to all the local hardwood suppliers this morning, looking first for quarter-sawn cherry (got laughed at), then for plank-cut pieces 12" wide -- there is not a single piece in town. I 'could' glue up suitable widths from narrower planks (or purchase that already glued up which is available off-the-shelf at one location here), but my experience with that is not the best -- different boards expand and contract at different rates when damp, and the resulting little ledge at glue-lines sometimes show up in the print... On a multi-block print like this one, that shouldn't affect the final image too much, but it will to some small degree, I think. Or I could 'wait' for Woodlike Matsumura 12x16 inch blocks to arrive (supplied by you) -- these need not be surfaced (underwater sanding) by Matsumura, as I will need to plane them in place to assure the surface is parallel to the machine plane (and in that way make 'perfect' cuts).

Your call on this -- the maple is here and ready to go -- carving could be finished and blocks on their way to you by the end of the week, I think. So let me know how you want to move forward -- I'm all ready except for cherry wood. :(

From: Dave  |  Date: April 18, 2006

(Discussion via Skype):

(Rather than face more delays at this point, I gave Mike the go-ahead to use the maple. That's not my first choice for wood for printing, but as he felt it would do the job from the cutting point of view, and as the image has no open wide areas where the quality of the wood surface would affect the printed tone, there seems no reason not to try it for this print.)

From: Mike  |  Date: April 19, 2006

The (maple) blocks are underway and taking shape nicely -- Yesterday I prepared a wide hard maple plank by screwing it down to my machine and surfacing it flat (it was amazingly unflat) then sanding it (100 grit, 150 grit, 220 grit, 400 grit) shiny smooth, cutting the kento, and began v-carving the first side (blocks 0, 1, 3, 5, 7) about 14 hours ago... It's finishing up the last (#7) block now with about five hours to go, I think. Then I'll clear the larger areas with an end-mill (flat bottom bit) to about .07 inches, turn the plank over, screw it back down, surface the other side and sand, and this afternoon will begin v-carving of blocks 2, 4, 6, and 8 -- should be complete and ready for proofing late tomorrow afternoon -- well over 2,000,000 lines of machine code in the carving... I'm still knocking off many of the tiny islands, but the holes look great -- it's going to take a 'fine' brush to keep ink from pooling in all the tiny impressions, I think, and a very 'thin' ink, but this version of the block set is much improved it appears... Hope the image will be better communicated this time! Keeping fingers and toes all crossed! Blocks should be packed up and on the way to you (marked 'samples, no commercial value'?) Friday if all goes well.

From: Dave  |  Date: April 19, 2006

Sounds good! You don't have to worry about 'no commercial value' stuff ... just mark them 'woodblocks', and they should come through fine.

Looking forward to proofing them!

From: Mike  |  Date: April 20, 2006

Completed blocks 0,1,3,5,7 yesterday and turned the plank over, surfaced 2nd side and began v-carving blocks 2,4,6,8 (block sides are 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 0)... When I was adjusting the bit height for the 2nd side blocks, I noticed that I was a tiny bit deep -- .004 inch -- doesn't seem like much, but the 2nd side is carved much more accurately than the first side as a result -- man this is a demanding block set! I obviously do not want to recarve the 1,3,5,7 blocks -- but by carving ~.004 too deep on those blocks, my bit has cut .002 too wide on each side -- doesn't seem like a huge error, but it's enough that I can perceive a difference in the blocks -- I've likely wiped out many of the tiny islands which otherwise might have survived and printed... Actually, .002 is the accuracy limit of my machine (which makes .002 steps in each dimension)... I suspect that since the blocks are mostly correct, and every other block is accurate (I think), it should work out in the printing so that the image is reproduced fairly well... I'll proof it this afternoon when I complete carving and see what I think... Otherwise, all seems to be moving along splendidly! Still isn't going to 'look like a photograph' at all, I don't think...

From: Dave  |  Date: April 20, 2006

Actually, .002 is the accuracy limit of my machine (which makes .002 steps in each dimension)... I suspect that since the blocks are mostly correct, and every other block is accurate (I think), it should work out in the printing so that the image is reproduced fairly well... I'll proof it this afternoon when I complete carving and see what I think... Otherwise, all seems to be moving along splendidly! Still isn't going to 'look like a photograph' at all, I don't think...

Are the registration marks also cut by the machine? Given the tolerances you are working to, it would seem that they would need the same accuracy ...

From: Mike  |  Date: April 20, 2006

Registration also machine cut and exactly accurate -- these are carved with a different bit, so they're 'perfect'!

From: Mike  |  Date: April 21, 2006

Did a very quick and awful proofing job last night and this morning -- It's 'better', but imperfect -- I believe I miscalculated the width of the 60 degree v-bit and so left many small areas uncleared, so the tones are not well-reproduced and the print is way too 'dotty'... I'm afraid I'm going to have to find another suitable plank and begin again, Dave -- I think it's 'worth it', but I'm pretty disappointed after so many days of effort... I'll see how the proofs look when dry -- my proofing was so quick and wet that it may be worth trying to print these with a bit more care, but my strong suspicion at this point is that I'll need to begin all over again... :( I'm feeling pretty incompetent this morning -- the fine grasses and other details appear to have been very delicately and properly carved -- they are quite effective even in my horrible proofs, but I sure do think I've left 10,000 little uncleared areas which should have been cleared... Probably back to the old drawing board for another three to five days -- I'll go shopping for laminated cherry this morning and see what I can find.

Don't give up on me -- I'll get this thing under control yet -- 3rd try's the charm, riiiiight?

From: Dave  |  Date: April 21, 2006

... but I sure do think I've left 10,000 little uncleared areas which should have been cleared... Probably back to the old drawing board for another three to five days -- I'll go shopping for laminated cherry this morning and see what I can find.

This may be the dumb question of the week, but is there no way you can put it back under the machine and have it run over the thing again, with a different depth setting?

Don't give up on me -- I'll get this thing under control yet -- 3rd try's the charm, riiiiight?

Not sure what to say ... my 'answer' has to be of course, "Let's get it right ..." ... but I'm getting a bit embarrassed at how much time this project is taking away from your 'real' work! :-)

From: Mike  |  Date: April 22, 2006

Well, it's not the depth setting -- it's toolpath problem (my own dumb fault), really... I do have two screw holes in each block which I could use to attempt to register, but it wouldn't get me close enough to zero, I don't believe -- gotta really be DEAD on or I'll just screw up all the fine work and have to do it over anyway -- even if I hadn't already cut the plank apart into blocks -- I didn't plan to put the blocks back on the machine, so have no sure way to register blocks or machine anymore... Best to begin again, I think... I could 'try' it, but 99% sure it wouldn't work.

Not sure what to say ... my 'answer' has to be of course, "Let's get it right ..." ... but I'm getting a bit embarrassed at how much time this project is taking away from your 'real' work! :-)

Embarrassed and longing to get back to real work? ME TOO, YOU BET! ouch! And.... "Oh -- that's nothing, a computer did it!" Yeah... Riiiiiiiight! :)

From: Mike  |  Date: April 22, 2006

OK, just had a look at the mostly dry proofs -- I think I'm mistaken about the clearing error -- I've properly cleared the blocks -- just not printed well at all -- the blocks are the way they're supposed to be, I now think (isn't this a hoot? when the artist is uncertain exactly WHAT he intended?)... My scanner is DEAD of course, along with my main computer, but I can photograph a couple of the proofs and see what you think, but after seeing the dry prints, I think it's gonna work after all -- especially under more gifted (and patient) printing hands than my own...

OK, I've zipped up a photo of each block and two proofs and attached them to this email -- one is blocks 5 through 8 only [image below] and the other is blocks 1-8 (not block 0) -- I did a poor job of printing and didn't properly step through the tones -- this would be much more effective with block 0 printed first at about 30% of the way to blue, then even steps from next shade through very dark...

What do you think?

From: Mike  |  Two hours later ...

Nope -- it ain't gonna work -- I've looked carefully and I can see many, MANY areas which were not properly cleared - this pretty much ruins the illusion -- I've decided that I'm gonna have to recarve.

From: Mike  |  One hour later ...

Have you ever printed from poplar? I have not, but it's cheap and I found an excellent clear plank 5/4 inch thick, 16 inch wide, 10 foot long piece for under $30 and bought it. Could NOT find any suitable cherry -- either much too narrow or glued up with sap wood all over the place and many knots. From the look of it, the poplar should print quite well, but may not carve so well as it's softer and more fibrous than cherry or maple. The maple, by the way, carved excellently -- better than cherry with very clean cuts, virtually no burr, and no tearout. Hard as a rock, though!

It's going to take me at least a full day to do the toolpathing, so no cutting until tomorrow -- so I have a little time -- let me know your experience with poplar if any? If you're reluctant, I can run back over to my hardwood supplier and pick up something more exotic, I suppose.

From: Dave  |  Date: April 22, 2006

What's the halo effect I see everywhere? Many (most?) of the dark areas/spots have a 'halo' cut out of the underlying lighter blocks, leaving a white ring around them.

Is this something from Photoshop - did you apply an Unsharp mask or something to some of the layers? I don't get it.

Have you ever printed from poplar?

Please no 'whitewood' ... Surely you are going to find the same problem that you did with the plywood - it just won't hold the detail.

And then at printing time, hit it with water, and two minutes later it's a soggy saturated mess. The small islands will absorb and swell up, the whole thing will be too soft to apply any firm pressure, and of course, it'll wear out in ten minutes ...

Other than the usual suspects we've been working with - cherry, maple, etc. - the only 'softwood' alternative that seems to work at all is magnolia. Smooth wide planks are easy to get (over here, anyway), it cuts like butter and prints beautifully smoothly. You have to let it rest frequently, because it gets saturated, but it will do the job ...

From: Mike  |  Date: April 23, 2006

But poplar isn't a softwood (conifer) -- it's a hardwood but I see what you mean -- appears it would be much more absorbent than cherry (which is much more absorbent than maple)... I'll take another run over to the yard right now and see what I can find in maple -- maybe bite the bullet and pick up a glued-up cherry plank (those are plentiful but contain sapwood and knots which will complicate both cutting and printing a bit)... Magnolia is unavailable in KC right now and I've only seen small pieces a few times here (50 species in Asia, 8 in North America and only 4 of those commercially cut, mostly in the Southeast. But there are some pricey wide planks of beech ($13+ per square foot 1" thick), birch ($6 to $8/ft, cherry ($8+/ft), and some others...

From: Dave  |  Date: April 23, 2006

(Discussion via Skype):

Mike called this morning (evening for him). He brought me up to date on the problems he has been having with getting his machinery to work to the tolerances this project needs. Seems that 'halo' effect on the proof he sent me was an artifact of the way he had programmed/set the cutting procedure, and that it wasn't repairable; this set of blocks will have to be junked.

We talked about the wood choices for the next attempt. Seems the best way to move forward with this is for him to hit up some of the local lumber suppliers, to see if he can find something suitable. It's got to be hard enough to hold the detail, yet not so hard that it won't 'take' the water while printing ...

With so much of his time invested in this one now, I really want to make sure we get a good set of blocks - one from which we can pull many impressions, over many years. I know that he isn't thinking in terms of '$ per hour' on this stuff, but the only way that projects like this can be viable, is if each of the people involved does get a worthwhile return on their efforts ...

From: Mike  |  Date: May 2, 2006

Dave, sorry for not writing sooner – but want to let you know that the blocks came out OK and printed OK… I’ll get them boxed up and sent off to you before the end of the week, I hope.

From: Dave  |  Date: May 2, 2006

Good good good ... very much looking forward to getting a photographable proof, and then getting the place opened up!

This thread continues in Aspen Grove [4] ...

'Shrink' back down ... | Discussion [0]

In early March, Mike send a .jpg of the image he had in mind, and our discussions continued ...

'Stretch' to read the full entry | Separate page (with discussion [0])

Continued from Aspen Grove [1]

In early March, Mike sent a .jpg of the image he had in mind, and our discussions continued ...

From: Mike  |  Date: March 3, 2006

The image I've prepared for Mokuhankan is an Aspen Grove with quite a bit of tall grass bending among the trees -- a pretty typical landscape composition designed for 9 blocks (one of the nine is just a solid background in case we decide to begin somewhere below paper color, a 'trick' which I often use, as it automatically softens some of the lighter transitions and provides some variation in the highlights)... Otherwise, eight genuinely carved blocks -- this is by FAR the most elaborate design I've EVER attempted (emboldened now by my reliable-seeming automated carving) -- I've spent the better part of three days working on the image and colors and shapes -- finally began toolpathing this afternoon -- it appears that may take more than 24 hours (which means that the carving itself may take several days of solid 24 hours per day cutting)... Might be overly ambitious, actually, but I want the first blocks ever printed under other than my own hands to somehow justify my process... LOTS of little tiny marks in these in order to eliminate the lack from the too-small number of 'colors' (I hope, anyway)... Although the image is 'just another landscape', as a print I imagine it should turn out FABULOUSLY!

I'm considering carving these blocks on 1/4" cherry plywood -- that stuff will be light as a feather to ship to Japan and may then be glued down flat onto heavier ply locally -- each block will be just under 12 x 16 inches and the kento are placed so the image is centered in a 10x15 inch sheet. Sound about right?

From: Dave  |  Date: March 3, 2006

Do I get a chance to see it first? ...

I'm sure it'll do ... as long as it has interesting light/shadow effects, which I'm sure is a natural part of that kind of scene ...

(which means that the carving itself may take several days of solid 24 hours per day cutting)..

So should we maybe consider sending it out to a 'real' carver instead? :-)

- I've spent the better part of three days working on the image and colors and shapes -

You say 'colours' ... do you mean shades, or actually different colours? Isn't this a 'monochrome', like the other Aspen Grove?

-- each block will be just under 12 x 16 inches and the kento are placed so the image is centered in a 10x15 inch sheet. Sound about right?

I don't know much about those 'inchy' things, but yes, it sounds about on target. When you say 10x15, that size is presumably determined by your pre-determined margin - the distance from the registration marks to the image area ...?

From: Mike  |  Date: March 4, 2006

Mockup attached -- toolpathing completed miraculously! Block in image is as you would look at them, paper simulated, image reversed as it would appear on print (not blocks), "ML" mark camouflaged in lower right.

From: Dave  |  Date: March 4, 2006

Very interesting ... quite an impact when the image opens up on the screen ...

But have you started cutting this yet? There are some things I'd like to talk to you about ...

From: Mike  |  Date: March 5, 2006

The 9 blocks are about 1/2 carved as I write -- but even though I did my best to check, there was an error somewhere in my 1.6 MILLION lines of code for the V-carving run, and I see there's a shallow gouge through the center of three of the blocks -- DAMN! But it's OK, because my 1/4" plywood doesn't appear to be surviving the intense carving well enough anyway -- I will go out shopping for genuine lumber in 12" widths tomorrow morning and hope to find something (cherry or maple with luck) which will work better -- probably be better for Mokuhankan purposes anyway, as it's GOTTA hold up in printing better than the ply stuff... I'm knocking off the tiny veneer islands in too many places on the plywood, partly because I didn't have a brand-new and SHARP bit on hand, so the bit I'm using is the same one used for the blocks on both the BIG prints and wasn't quite sharp any more... No time lost, really, as I couldn't have obtained, flattened, and sanded planks before Monday anyway -- so... Back to the drawing board... Problem with plank is that I can't carve all blocks at once, so it'll take much longer and I may not finish before I leave for Connecticut Friday, so block delivery will probably be pushed back two weeks.

It's likely that I'll be able to locate some 90 degree V-bits locally, but if not mail order will require that carving wait until my return anyway... I'll have LOTS of time in the evenings for proofing and toolpating though, so might all work out for the best! After image, quality is paramount!

I'll proof the current cherry blocks when they're done anyway, and it'll at least give me an idea whether I'm on track or not...

From: Mike  |  Date: March 6, 2006

Dear Dave, The blocks are finishing up and actually don't look so bad, except for the three with the straight gouge through the middle, of course -- I may just recarve those three (will work on toolpathing tonight) -- I've dampened three whole oban size sheets for proofing tomorrow (pretty ambitious of me, eh?) and I'll see how the print before proceeding in ANY direction...

From: Dave  |  Date: March 6, 2006

Sounds like you've been having fun there ...

I'll just sit tight until I hear what's happening. Some thoughts though:

I will go out shopping for genuine lumber in 12" widths tomorrow ... I'm knocking off the tiny veneer islands in too many places on the plywood ...

For what it's worth, my own preferences for projects that will have an intended long-term life - like this one - is to stay with hardwood ply of the Matsumura-type - with a good 5mm layer of hardwood. My poets' blocks were done on solid lumber, and reprinting them nowadays is a nightmare of block adjustments. Very little of the solid wood we get these days is properly dried, and the inevitable (and inevitably uneven) shrinkage over the next few years after carving them just makes work _so_ difficult.

I know your system allows an easy 'recarve', but it would be kinda nice to get it right first time ... But anyway, go with whatever you have to use to get this one up and running ...

(Might be worth looking ahead to the next one, and getting some wood ordered and shipped over to you, well in advance of work beginning ...)

From: Mike  |  Date: March 7, 2006

Uh-Oh -- just returned from shopping -- with 12 feet of 3/4" x 12" hard maple -- beautiful stuff! I'll not carve it until we've discussed further -- was unable to find decent cherry at either of the two local hardwood lumber suppliers, but did find some 1/4" cherry and some beautiful 1/4" mahogany which might glue well onto plywood to make some Matsumura-like blocks -- what do you think? Mahogany will print a typical straight grain (white lines where tubes are open), cherry you already know all about. The recarve on the three blocks is underway -- the paper is damp and waiting for proofing... Should know more this afternoon or tomorrow...

Blocks for oban carving should be 12x16 inches (30.5 x 40.6 cm) (gives me ample room to hold them down, but could make due with somewhat smaller if need be).

From: Mike  |  Date: a few minutes later

OK, now I'm really starting to get irritated -- why does this happen when I'm on a tight schedule and about to leave for CT?!? My router shot craps today -- have to either repair it or get another -- it's a pretty standard machine and not too pricey as these things go, but still today of all days... I've got the toolpaths ready for 3/4 maple -- I _think_ it's stable stuff, but... Plan to machine both sides, of course... What do you think?

From: Dave  |  Date: March 7, 2006

No maple please ... it's a bitch to print - too 'hard', doesn't absorb water properly, too 'chippy' for carving ... nothing but trouble ...

Let's take this a bit more slowly ... starting to sound like I should just order some wood and have it sent over.

From: Mike  |  Date: March 8, 2006

Proofed the blocks this morning -- not at ALL what I expected after all that carving, carving, carving! My table bed or block either had some junk on it or my bed is no longer flat -- that won't be a problem with 'real' blocks, though... It'll print quite differently from recarves... But the two sheets I printed are kinda 'OK', though completely lacking any over-the-top detail which I expected... Here's a scan, let me know what you think...

I'll wait to recarve until I make up some blocks -- I think it's better NOT to send me Matsumura blocks, as they are finely surfaced and I'll likely just 'plane' them flat to the machine and sand myself prior to carving... Not worth it! I'll find some appropriate lumber and make the re-carves locally unless you're 'thrilled' with the proof (which I'm NOT) -- this was printed without paste at all -- only pigment in water...

From: Dave  |  Date: March 8, 2006

What's the 'resolution' of your cutting system? The image you sent is only 72dpi, so I can't tell for sure, but it seems that your machine doesn't 'see' below around 2mm.

Just looking at the dark black areas of the first main tree on the left, for example, your cutter isn't getting the lines 'thin' enough. If you run your eye over the whole image looking at just the parts cut into that darkest block, you can see that all the lines and blobs have that same minimum dimension. If that's the case, then we are over-reaching by using an image with so much delicate detail ... It would work at your 'normal' super-large size, but not at this small size ...

I think it's better NOT to send me Matsumura blocks, as they are finely surfaced and I'll likely just 'plane' them flat to the machine and sand myself prior to carving..

?? Sorry, I don't understand ...

... unless you're 'thrilled' with the proof (which I'm NOT)

Well, no ... I had been telling myself "Dave, don't expect a proof that looks just like the photo you have been looking at!", but I figured we would be a bit closer than this! :-) I have to try and sort out how much of the appearance is due to the blocks, and how much to the printer .... (Also, you lost the 'whiteness' of the birch trees completely, so I'm not sure if that flat beta-ban should really be part of it ...)

From: Mike  |  Date: March 8, 2006

What's the 'resolution' of your cutting system?

.002" (.05mm)

Just looking at the dark black areas of the first main tree on the left, for example, your cutter isn't getting the lines 'thin' enough. If you run your eye over the whole image looking at just the parts cut into that darkest block, you can see that all the lines and blobs have that same minimum dimension. If that's the case, then we are over-reaching by using an image with so much delicate detail ... It would work at your 'normal' super-large size, but not at this small size ...

problem was with uneven surface -- cutter working too shallow in some blocks, too deep in some others -- this will be fixed in future rev :)

I 'think' I can do it -- but maybe not? If not, I'll send block plans ready to transfer (or I can transfer block plans for carving to blocks and return)

?? Sorry, I don't understand ... 'plane' them flat to the machine?

Best if machine does the planing so surface is flat in reference to cutter head -- if I do it that way, no point in fancy underwater sanding -- I'll just be cutting it down to new surface -- in other words, just ignore this whole topic -- I will supply suitable blocks... eventually .

.. I had been telling myself "Dave, don't expect a proof that looks just like the _photo_ you have been looking at!", but I figured we would be a bit closer than this! :-) I have to try and sort out how much of the appearance is due to the blocks, and how much to the printer .... (Also, you lost the 'whiteness' of the birch trees completely, so I'm not sure if that flat beta-ban should really be part of it ...)

Print is somewhat better than the scan -- it's a very hard color for my scanner to reproduce for some reason, and the print is both lighter in color and with more color definition than the scan... Best my scanner can do, however, even with my 'help'... A better printing would help these blocks, but I think I'm abandoning them in favor the the next revision which should be quite a bit better... If not, then back to the old drawing board... Impressionism is definitely NOT what I had in mind for this one!

This thread continues in Aspen Grove [3] ...

'Shrink' back down ... | Discussion [0]

... in the interests of having the entire process documented ...

'Stretch' to read the full entry | Separate page (with discussion [0])

These Mokuhankan 'Conversations' had not yet started at the time that I first talked to Mike Lyon about using one of his designs for Mokuhankan, but in the interests of having the entire process documented, he has kindly agreed to let me cut/paste portions from our series of email exchanges in which we discussed the idea.

I should mention at this point that as I write, it is far from certain that this print will be made as 'planned'. Mike is certainly confident of his ability to produce 'something' interesting, but please understand that the project we are about to undertake is an experiment. We know where we are starting, but just where we'll get to, what sort of roadblocks will present themselves, and what sort of detours we'll be forced into, are unknown.

But that - of course - is the point!

From: Dave  |  Date: February 23, 2006

Well, almost ready to take it live ... although it's kind of embarrassing to be starting this off on such a small scale: http://mokuhankan.com

From: Mike  |  Date: February 23, 2006

What a wonderful new venture! Your write up is terrific! How exciting! I'd LOVE to be included, of course, but perhaps my work isn't up to standard... Let me know if it's a possibility -- I do still plan to produce some smaller treasures, you know...

From: Dave  |  Date: February 23, 2006

I'd love to be able to include some 'Lyon' designs. But would you be willing to:

• - have other people print your blocks (or even carve them)?
• - work with 'no edition numbers'?
• - work at (for now anyway) a 'low end' of the market? (meaning simply I want to keep prices quite low and send out a lot of prints ...

What kind of thing would you like to do/try?

From: Mike  |  Date: February 23, 2006

- have other people print your blocks (or even carve them)?

Print? sure! carve? might be more cost effective and accurate if I simply supply ready-to-print blocks and color plan?

- work with 'no edition numbers'?

Open edition of my image? sure! any image for Mokuhankan would be 'unique' anyway, so not a problem

- work at (for now anyway) a 'low end' of the market? (meaning simply I want to keep prices quite low and send out a lot of prints ...

Pricing up for discussion, of course, but -- why not? Be very fun to be involved in such a joint venture.

Would you want to reproduce (on a smaller scale) any of my previous work -- that might be a hoot (not that ANY of it has been particularly popular)! I've got a yen to make some more [abstract work] -- but am happy designing 'more of the same' figures as in recent years... I'll give some thought to what might work (and sell) in a smaller format

From: Dave  |  Date: February 24, 2006

Thinking about this some more ... and yes, I really would like to put something from you in there. As you can see, there is no contemporary work in the list yet, so it gives the people who will be visiting it when I open up next month a totally wrong impression of what the intention is ...

Would you be game for including a design something on the lines of your new Aspen? (or even a mini version of the same image, if you would do that ...)

It wouldn't make visual sense to do that too small, so maybe around o-ban size? If it were around 10~12 impressions it would cost me around 3,000 per sheet to have printed.

I've got the first rough spreadsheets on the $ stuff for this project kind of worked out, although it is all provisional, and many changes are sure to come .... Printer's fee - the largest single item - sets the basic pricing level for each print, and it seems to work scaling up from setting that at around 17 ~ 20% of the final target price. The carver sits at half the printer, as does the designer. Printing paper and packaging add another 10%, bringing basic production costs to 50% of target price.

So - projecting this on a print like that, for which you acted as both designer and carver (sending us a set of blocks from your machine), it would maybe be:

• Target price: $150
• Printer: $30
• Carver: $15
• Designer: $15
• Paper/packaging: $15

Giving a raw production cost of $75. Singles sold from the website at $150 would give a nice margin at this end, but actually, I'm expecting that there will be more action on the wholesale end here in Japan. I'm going to try and get these things into quite a variety of places: of course obvious stuff like print shops and hotel arcades, but also into boutiques/shops in the 'interior design' world. They aren't going to be overwhelmingly excited about the 30% I'll be able to offer them, leaving the final 20% for me, but we'll see ...

as your own taste may be a bit 'provincial' or eclectic judging by the upcoming print ideas

Well, my taste is what it is ... and this thing will fly or fall based on that. I'm not so interested in sharing the responsibility. But what I will do (and there is a web page discussing this in preparation) is be open to suggestions/input from 'out there'. Just as I am being right now ... I wouldn't have considered asking you - I thought you were targeting yourself into the 'upper' art market (not being sarcastic) ... But if you're game, then let's do this! (Assuming the numbers are something you could live with ...)

Carving is going to be the biggest stumbling block to getting material into Mokuhankan for quite a while. Up to now, carvers have always been paid on a single lump payment for a set of blocks. Cash on the barrel, and no extended royalties. I want to do it the other way, small advance on a royalty which will continue as long as the print stays in production. But with no track record, and only vague promises of sales for 'years to come', it's going to be a hard sell ...

So if you can get me a set of blocks like this, I'm ready to start tomorrow!

From: Mike  |  Date: February 25, 2006

YES, I'm game to submit an oban design or three... I'll work up an Aspen Grove (not the big one) for your consideration and publication and send you an image when I have something presentable. Whatever pricing is fair to you is OK with me as you get this thing flying ... Seems well considered, and I completely trust you'll treat me fairly.

For monochromatic work on that scale, more blocks (16 to 24) is better, but these'll be relatively easy to print, requiring NO bokashi and only a light touch -- should go very fast even with more blocks, I think... For 'full color' work, it takes even more blocks (more like 24 to 48) to get something really impressive I think... Maybe consider down the road if simpler stuff winds up selling? I'll try to keep the initial design to as few blocks as I think we can get away with, though. It's also very easy for me to supply ready-to-carve block plans if you decide to have a pro do the carving for any reason... Otherwise, I think 1/2" plywood will work well, but I can just as easily carve 3/4" or heavier plank if I can find any wide enough (wide cherry is in fairly short local supply right now for some reason). Do you have any preference?

From: Dave  |  Date: February 25, 2006

Thanks! As you mentioned, because of the way you do your image 'organization', printing should be neither difficult nor too time-consuming, so it should be relatively easy to get something out there quite quickly, once we get the set of blocks.

For monochromatic work on that scale, more blocks (16 to 24) is better, but these'll be relatively easy to print, requiring NO bokashi and only a light touch -- should go very fast even with more blocks, I think... For 'full color' work, it takes even more blocks (more like 24 to 48) to get something really impressive I think... Maybe consider down the road if simpler stuff winds up selling? I'll try to keep the initial design to as few blocks as I think we can get away with, though.

Yes please ... we have to keep things relatively simple at first - I really don't have the resources for the more extended work (translation: I'm broke this year ...), but there is lots of time in front of us ...

It's also very easy for me to supply ready-to-carve block plans if you decide to have a pro do the carving for any reason..

As I mentioned, working with carvers is going to be the most difficult and expensive part of this project at first, so yes, a set of blocks from you would really help. This gets us into an area that I haven't clearly defined yet - 'ownership' of stuff. Under the 'normal' way of working: the blocks would be 'mine', image rights would be 'yours', right to publish the print would be 'mine', etc. etc. But these blocks would presumably be 'yours', and I would be using them on a 'rental' basis, something like that. I'm going to work out a written-up agreement to use between myself and the designers, and will get a draft off to you as soon as I get something down on paper.

Otherwise, I think 1/2" plywood will work well, but I can just as easily carve 3/4" or heavier plank if I can find any wide enough (wide cherry is in fairly short local supply right now for some reason). Do you have any preference?

Thinking about long editions - which is of course the way I want to go - I'm not so excited about using white wood of any kind. When you say 'plywood' are you talking about hardwood surface? Should I think about getting some cherry-face from Matsumura, and send it over?

Or for this first kick at the cat, just go with what you've been using there; if the print starts to fly out the door, then we could prepare a duplicate block set at our convenience, as I presume you keep all the image files ...

From: Mike  |  Date: February 26, 2006

I was thinking of hardwood veneer-core plywood (probably cherry for non-self-printed, but ash and birch have interesting grain characteristics in the print, so those might be suitable as well on occasion), but commercial thin veneer is what's available to me -- nothing here like the fancy 1/4" hardwood veneer stuff Matsumura supplies you -- but Matsumura's would be GREAT, I think, if you can tolerate some waste (carving machine very occasionally goes berserk -- for example, in "Leaves" on the 3rd or 4th block state I had to carve a new block instead of reducing the old, because I managed to carve a deep gouge right through the middle of the almost the whole block)... Doesn't happen very often, and I'm getting better and better as spotting this sort of error before carving, but still -- there would probably be some % of blocks ruined during carving -- no big deal with cherry plywood at $30 or $40 per 4x8 sheet, but I suspect the Matsumura blocks are just slightly more expensive! I don't know about Matsumura's 'flatness' -- for my use, any supplied blocks MUST have both faces exactly parallel -- that's probably how they come from Matsumura, but just stating the obvious, as usual.

Or for this first kick at the cat, just go with what you've been using there; if the print starts to fly out the door, then we could prepare a duplicate block set at our convenience, as I presume you keep all the image files ...

Started typing before I read the para above... That's fine, Dave -- if the blocks aren't suitable for large runs, then you can just send over a set of Matsumura blocks (with a couple extras which I will return uncarved with luck) and I'll carve and return those...

I hope to have a design or two for you early next week -- I'll want your approval before cutting any wood, of course!

How exciting!

This thread continues in Aspen Grove [2] ...

'Shrink' back down ... | Discussion [0]