Having started these designs with the intention of having woodblock prints made from them, I tried to imagine not only the constraints that process would require, but the added beauty which could be achieved by the process. I came to learn that there would be difficulties in this transposing process because of the fact that I did not speak Japanese, and most carvers and printers skilled in these techniques did not speak English. I therefore strove to 'show' the printer the effects I was after by delving into the facets of computer art programs that could help me out there.

This led me out there where I am now, doing the digital designs as prints themselves, not only because finding the craftsmen to print them as woodblocks was getting ever more difficult, but the costs of doing so was getting beyond me.

In steps Dave. Here's a fellow that I can talk to, who is not only adept at this process, but is a reliable person who takes his work and word seriously, and even expresses an interest now and then in producing woodblock prints from my images!

Now, to Dave's original question of what to do about trying to match a woodblock print to the designer's expectations as realized in the master copy, which incidentally has been developed far beyond the sketches that the artists of old did for their publishers. In Hiroshige's day, it may well have been that he dropped off a sketch at the publisher, who then handed it out to the carver and printer for further development, and saw it to its ultimate state. If that is the case, then either that publisher and those craftsmen had a notion of aesthetics that understood and complemented the artist's design, or went beyond it.

In Hasui's day, I believe he was more involved in the process as we see photo's of him inspecting the proofs and read comments of his regarding working with the printers. In this sense, I believe he was simply using the proofing to develop his concept of the image to its ultimate effect as further bridging between his watercolor sketches and the woodblock print required.

Rather than trial by proofs, I am able to see the image through to its ultimate effects by my own efforts on the computer, which have substituted for that proofing stage. I indeed proof it myself _before_ it goes to the printer.

Here then is where Dave feels a bit left out in terms of the final stage of development of the print to its pleasant surprise ending. We already have that image in the digital print which Dave is trying to _copy_ in his effects on the woodblock print, and this is where he begins to question his contribution.

I offer that while the surprise may be a bit less for him, the ultimate viewer who appreciates the more subtle and longer lasting qualities of the woodblock print, will find every bit as much of the pleasant surprise in his viewing of the woodblock print, as will I myself. This is the ultimate goal, and while Dave perhaps regrets that he is not carrying the same load the same length as his predecessors, he is none the less carrying it across the finish line that none of the rest of us can do. And certainly one of the pleasant surprises to me is how close he comes to my final image. This is a different medium, yet he's right on, and from scratch! This is amazing.

As a simple look at my digital "Hilo Bay" and his woodblock proof of it shows, this is an extraordinary leap between mediums with apparent effortless creativity, yet those of us who understand the woodblock process can only stand here in awe at this amazing recreation.

This is not copying to me, it is the culmination of our print.

Dave, Gary, and anybody else reading these pages:

I just haven't got the time for a proper reaction right now, but will try to add my thoughts on this subject (Watanabe vs Adobe) later this week...

In the meantime, Joost Veerkamp asked me whether it would be possible to cross-link your (Dave) and his website. What do you think Dave?

In the meantime, Joost Veerkamp asked me whether it would be possible to cross-link your (Dave) and his website. What do you think Dave?

Well, he's already now linked from three places on this site, once from this post (the photo above), and twice from the post the other day when his name came up. Other than that, there is no specific page of 'links' here ...

As an artist rather than a collector, I will dare to add my thoughts to those of the highly qualified artists already posted here. I am solidly in the camp of the sosaku hanga genre, I handle all of the procedures myself from the original concept to the final printing. Like you Dave, I have been dealing with the "encroachment" of the digital print into the realm of the hand made original print.

I have seen digital photography knock film off it's lofty pedestal in an amazingly short period of time, only to discover the resurgence of "alternative" (early processes) photography" because they offer qualities not found in later photographic processes such as silver gelatin. I think digital will make significant inroads into the realm of art prints because of the qualities it is able to offer. With enough money and technology thrown at it, digital will be able to reproduce many of the qualities found in other mediums. The question is, will the market want digital prints that recreate other processes that already exist and still offer some qualities not available to digital, or will it speed off into other realms that only digital can enter?

For me as an artist, there is always the concept of personal passion. I have to have a passion for the medium I work with, otherwise I loose interest. For me those passions are stirred by the more organic nature of the earlier processes.

A few weeks back I sent Dave a personal email, basically telling him that trying to copy a digitally produced print like Gary's Hilo Bay is _not_ a good idea because it's impossible to reproduce the special effects available to the designer working on a computer in the world of analogue woodblock printmaking.

Having had the time to take a few steps back (several weeks actually!), I no longer agree with my own first opinion. I can see now that my original reaction was triggered by the continuous direct comparison between the results of the two approaches, as they were consequently shown side by side on these webpages.

Once Dave's analogue version of Gary's print was exhibited on its own, however, I started to see that my initial criterion of exact similarity is not the proper issue at all. The two media in which this print was produced are inherently and completely different, and the only thing that counts, therefore, must be how the results relate to one another _in_spirit_. And considered in that light (no pun intended) I completely agree with Gary that Dave did a great job in translating his computer design to the woodblock printing medium!

Dave -I've been following the on-line development of the Hilo Bay print and have found it a fascinating and educational process. I especially appreciated your closeups of the various print versions to show the quality of the "light", which as I understand it is expressed in the gradations or lack thereof of the other colors and in subtle changes in the process of printmaking.

I think for me, this is why I prefer Watanabe over Adobe. No matter how meticulous and precise a craftsman you are (and you David are very meticulous and precise) there will be differences, perhaps hardly noticeable, perhaps very noticeable, in every print.

I am eager to see what kind of light will be in my print. Thank you, David, for this venture.