NOW - HOW TO REPLICATE? Well, it's not too hard. First, you want to make a
coarse bitmap->halftone image. Then reset the mode to Greyscale and add another layer of 12% to 18% grey and mottle it to give the overall, uneven cast of the original inking.
For bubbles, holes and scratches you can create them via many means such as the stamp tool. I would consider making two or three layers of just the defects. Save those layers alone to use in other pictures, but vary the placement of the defect layers to give a more random outcome.
Does this help? I could cut an action to show you if you like. With luck, I can even find some LF negatives of architecture done in the same period.
Hi JJS,
yes, this might help. I especially like the idea of the extra layer with another 12-18% grey, mottled. And we were already put on the track of making clone stamps, actions or layers and then applying this for randomly scattered effects, so it is nice to see other people advising along those same lines. However, we think some things might need to be applied before the bitmap step and some after, for a truer look. It seems the work lying ahead is starting to crystalize in something manageable.
It is hard to understand all you say in the other thread that was accidentally started.
"The block was not what was used to create the images you put
online."<
Of course that specific block was not used to create the image I put online. But that is probably not what you ment to say? I put the block online to show what the plates look like, and that it was not a photogravure, nor an offset plate. I am still convinced plates were used to create the images in the books as this is specifically mentioned in the colofon of the book. I never said it was the only thing that was used! Graphic film was of course used to be able to get the photos rasterized and then etched on printing plates. We suspect the book might have been printed on a 1950s Heidelberg.
The images of the buildings are mere crude scans to show where the blown up details come from. The details are blown up to the extreme to show all that is there. Let that not charm you into thinking the raster is a coarse one. You need a good magnifier to see them little dots!
I still am convinced this was not a cheap book to make, although they might not have done a perfect job - it wasn't printed by Germans, you see. Of course it remains a mass production artefact and not a thousand dollar exclusive bibliofiliac production of a mere 50 copies with the most exquisite papers... SO, where does yor standard of cheap start and end?
Printers are Boosten & Stols in Maastricht. Have yet to look them up on the net. Book is hardcover with linnen, bound, paper is very very smooth, went through a press to make it this smooth. Paper inside shows discoloration towards a yellow tinge near the edges wherei it has seen most light.
I know it is not necessary (perhaps) to go into such detail and yes, we should concentrate on the topic of reproducing the feel of it, but it is just too frustrating that I do not quite understand all that you say in your other commentary.
I will be putting an image online of the type of printing equipment I think was used in making this book. The illustration shows a so-called 'Illustratiepers" by the make of Planeta Druckmaschinenwerk and comes from a book for the graphic professional. (Grafische mededelingen by the famous Lettergieterij Amsterdam, voorheen Tetterode).
If you are as old as you make us believe to be, this should all sound very familiar to you?
Have to admit this discussion has gotten more interesting over time than I had expected at the onset .
~(oYo)~