Digital vs Analogue - help

[Andymac]

Please quote where you have explained how you think I'm wrong about my comparison with digital and analog sawtooth being aesthetically comparable. Please quote the major bits about the process that you think I'm not listening to.

I already have the book you suggest, but I do not recall it answering the questions I've asked. I find it strange that you offer a book to answer my questions when you seem to claim they have already been answered in this thread, but that I'm just not listening. I feel that you are suggesting this book to serve another purpose than to help me. I think you are perhaps trying to use authority to influence me and others to think you are in the right; while others in this thread are seemingly promoting that I'm a troll to create a bandwagon effect. The cause to these apparent behaviors I believe is due to the desire to prove and preserve ones social value in the group.

I hope you all take the time to carefully question this stuff and decide to help me.

You got me. I was just trying to sell you a book.

[Fools Gold]

This might be the stupidest f**king thing posted here in a long time . . .

[40ozGraphics]

Why the fuck would anyone want to help you?

I hope you all take the time to carefully question this stuff and decide to help me.

[the hipoisie]

Sorry everyone is being such an asshole to you, expose. Just call up some local print shops and tell them you'd like some t-shirts printed, but you don't want them to use any computers because you want your shirts to be the most beautiful. They'll be happy to accommodate you. Also try to find one whose shop is a yurt, they'll be the best.

[expose]

@squeegeethree

Expose, just make your stuff in vector and be done with it. There will always be a difference between hand-drawn seps and digital seps. Maybe you are a master of vectorization and can somehow come up with a way to mask the fact that blown up or reduced in size vectorizing hand-drawn work loses the sense of proportion that shows the hand or maybe you don't care.

Squeegeethree, thank you for the help. Vector is probably the way to go, but I just want a little more of an understanding of some stuff. If analogue creates a look that I really prefer over vector, then perhaps I will make fully analogue posters and then vectorize the same images for everything else (mugs, postcards, stickers, etc). I'm not sure what you mean by "hand", but I'm not concerned if someone feels I made it with my actual hand in that specific size, unless that somehow noticeably alters ones perception of beauty in general. Have you experienced a shift in perception concerning beauty when experiencing different size vector images of the same graphic, that you feel were not related to the size, but based off of proportions that would make it seem like it was hand made by a average persons hand, a giants, or very little person? Beauty can be affected by all sorts of things, so maybe by "hand" does too generally.

Squeegeethree, can you tell a difference in general with the naked eye between an analogue image and a digitized(seps) version of the same analogue image that is then screen pressed? If so, how, and is one more beautiful than the other to you in general?

On another note, nobody cares about Andymac's standing in the group, he was always on the outer fringes of society anyway.

If people on this board are not showing Andymac due respect would you not care? I would. Others on this board seemingly care about my standing and seemingly wish me gone or marginalized.

My last answer was not about digital printing. Define what you mean by analog graphic because I though I just answered this as well.
Analog to me means hand-drawn seps. They remain true to the scale that a hand works at. Your original question was about vectorizing graphics and blowing them up or reducing them.

My post was not directed at you squeegeethree, it was toward loco, but by analog I mean information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity

@crosshair

Please quote where you have explained how you think I'm wrong about my comparison with digital and analog sawtooth being aesthetically comparable. Please quote the major bits about the process that you think I'm not listening to.

I already have the book you suggest, but I do not recall it answering the questions I've asked. I find it strange that you offer a book to answer my questions when you seem to claim they have already been answered in this thread, but that I'm just not listening. I feel that you are suggesting this book to serve another purpose than to help me. I think you are perhaps trying to use authority to influence me and others to think you are in the right; while others in this thread are seemingly promoting that I'm a troll to create a bandwagon effect. The cause to these apparent behaviors I believe is due to the desire to prove and preserve ones social value in the group.

OK, you're not trolling. You are insane.

Thank you for recognizing that I'm not trolling. I'm not sure how you are using the word "insane", but if you are using it in the way to describe that I'm not rational, then I disagree with that, and will be happy to try and show you why through logic if you like. If you are using "insane" to mean that my behavior is outside the social norm, then I'll probably be taking that as a compliment.

We all tried to help you. You're beyond help. At this point we all have decided to tell you to fuck off, because in addition to suffering from paranoid delusions, you are rude and condescending.

What makes you think I'm beyond help? What makes you think I'm suffering from paranoid delusions? How am I being rude? How am I being condescending? If you could discover whether or not you are mistaken about such things here, would you want to? If you don't, then I think that would say a lot about your motivations to post such stuff and your use of "we all", which I think is to create a bandwagon effect (perhaps unconsciously).

I'll start. Fuck off.

Why should I fuck off from my own thread when it would seem much more logical for people to just not visit it anymore? Again, it seems to me your trying to create a bandwagon effect to discredit me.

@RichieGoodtimes

My dad spent a ton of money on a serigraph and explained to me why it was better than a screen print. For reals. That happened.

Why was it better? Is a serigraph different from a a screen print because it uses silk, or what is the difference?

@loco

Learn the difference between the two and then come back and ask with a little homework behind what you are asking

Thanks you loco for you efforts, but there still appears to be a misunderstanding about what I am trying to learn. One of the things I'm trying to discover is, can one tell a difference between a screen print made by fully analogue means from a scanned in and digitized version of the same analogue image, that is then screen pressed. Can you tell the difference with the naked eye, and if so, how? (By sharpness and crispness?) Is one generally more beautiful to you than the other? I've asked this so many times now, yet received not much help on it.

@Andymac

You got me. I was just trying to sell you a book.

I did not suggest you are trying to sell me a book, but that you are maybe trying to save face through the influence of perceived authority. Now it appears you could be trying to create a sarcastic effect to influence others to believe I'm full of it.

@fools gold

This might be the stupidest f**king thing posted here in a long time . . .

Why do you think that?

@40ozGraphics

Why the fuck would anyone want to help you?

I could give lots of possible answers to that question, but here is one possible reason why someone would want to help me: Andymac explained that the general aesthetics of screen prints display sawtooth, even though sawtooth is not intrinsic to the aesthetics of screen prints. Why is that? sqeegeethree explained it's because printers don't know what their doing, which implies to me that sawtooth is generally not desirable in prints, and I agree. So if I'm going to make art for people to see, and you 40ozGraphics have a chance of being one to see it, it's likely that you would prefer seeing my art without unnecessary sawtooth, which thanks to the help of others on this board, I now know is possible. I strive to know what I am doing for your possible benefit, but maybe you don't care to help me in that.

[johnny_on_the_spot]

Why has nobody else responded to this guy? Come on people, keep the dream alive.

[Hrabovsky]

Sacha Baron Cohen is working on his next role—The Designer?

[40ozGraphics]

His posts are too tedious - if only he were funny.

[Andymac]

Well, he/she is a diligent copy and paster, I'll give them that.

Here's my last bit of advice. given without sarcasm.

Go and screenprint your art. Try to do it 'analog'. Try and do it 'digital'. See what is 'better'. Put up a picture or two, then come back and ask a specific question about your process. If you are for real, and you are not fucking with us, and you are not stupid, and you really want to know, then this might be a good starting point.

[kim_a]

This thread is the perfect example of why I need to come here more often, this shit is too awesome for words.

What the fuck, I'll give it a whirl.

Expose:

Yes, you will be able to see the difference between a screenprinted image that was printed from an original, analogue stencil (i.e, not having gone through a digital device) and a screenprinted image that has been printed from a stencil that was based off of a scan of the first image. Why? Because even at the highest resolutions of scanning and printing, there will be a loss of detail or character somewhere in the process of making a stencil of the correct size, on photosensitive emulsion, from an exposed, printed, positive.

Anyone who has done screenprinting for a while, or has any knowledge of how the original was created, will be able to compare the two and immediately see the differences that point out which is which. Even if both screens were burnt perfectly from perfect stencils (that means that they would not have sawtooth) and used the same mesh screens, inks and paper. It is just a fact that 100% reproduction is not going to happen through the process you describe, and the differences would be easily discernable by anyone that has access to both images.

This is why your comparisons to high-vs-low fidelity audio aren't any good, because science tells us that the differences in the audio are indistinguishable to the human ear, proved by countless studies over decades, while the differences in the two printed images are so easy to spot that anyone who are familiar with either the printing process or the technique used for the original art, can do it with a minimum of knowledge. Basically, as long as they knew what they were trying to figure out, they would be able to identify the original, analogue stencil image.

Now, as to whether any of those two printed images is percieved as "more beautiful" than the other, that is purely subjective and thus by definition, impossible to answer objectively. There is absolutely no guarantee that there is no single person who will enjoy the digitally processed image more than the analogue-stencil one.

However, if you are catering to a high-end market, a knowledgable collector will probably prefer to see the signs of analogue process, quite simply because there is more details that signify the technique and tools used in its creation.

However, in the poster world that you are currently swimming in by visiting this forum, most artists are doing work that has been scanned, processed, scaled and then printed, and many collectors don't care about the fact that some of the original brushwork or whatever it is has been lost in that process, or that some tell-tale signs of digital processing is visible. There is only one complete end-product, the poster, which exists independently of the sketches that were scanned and reworked, and it is the object sought after. For most collectors of contemporary posters and art-prints, the digital processing just tells more of the story behind the artist's method.

And for fucks sake, stop with the babbling, "why is this so, please elaborate" bullshit as it is making you seem like an asshole, if you are looking for answers, be prepared to get them.