Digital vs Analogue - help

[expose]

@ jonkeefe

expose, please understand that most of the people on this forum have at least some experience in screenprinting, and one of the purposes of the forum is for screenprinters to exchange knowledge, tips, advice, etc. As you can imagine, many people come here and ask questions that have been answered dozens of times before, without bothering to do a search, and over time the forum regulars grow tired of hand-holding and responding to questions from absolute beginners. You'll see the same thing in a lot of online forums, and if you've ever attended university, you'll see the same thing in the faces of people with doctorate-level degrees teaching first-year courses.

I understand these issues, but I don't think that is going on here so much. Also I don't think my questions are so common, which seems pretty evident to me in how people are responding to them (e.g. misconstruing my questions concerning beauty). I searched before I posted my thread, but maybe I missed something of the same nature.

While most people are not averse to answering specific questions regarding process etc, your style of questioning is overwhelming because of the lack of knowledge and experience you possess. Some of your questions are so broad that they would take an unreasonable amount of time to answer, others (i.e. the perception of "beauty") are so vague that one wouldn't know where to begin answering.

I think my style of questioning is probably overwhelming to many for several reasons, but I think it has little to do with my lack of knowledge and experience, or the idea that my questions are too broad and vague. If I have asked broad questions, people can respond by saying something like, "There are many things to discuss to fully answer your question, and I wont go through them all, but to give you an in depth example so you hopefully gain some understanding, when one makes a digital sep ... ". I believe such a response would be helpful to me, as I think many of the responses I have received have been superficial, leaving me without a sufficient understanding to believe in what people are claiming. Many responses also seem mistaken, or incoherent with other peoples responses, leaving me to further doubt what is being claimed.

Some examples of why I doubt and further question stuff:

"Why is there no comparison?" - expose

"Because you are applying something a kin to a study between two varieties of apples to what is actually apples and oranges." - squeegeethree

I think this is just repeating in a different way that they think I'm wrong with my comparison, without supplying any justification.

"Basic knowledge of the process would show you how faulty your analog vs digital question is, and the equating of 'digital' with sawtoothing found on screenprints. Warhol had extremely shitty (technical) screenprints with sawtoothing you could cut meat with. Yet they were created completely by analog processing." - Andymac

I think this fails to negate digital being comparable to sawtooth found on screenprints, because even though analog can create sawtooth, that does not explain that analogue sawtooth is not comparable to the aesthetics of digital.

I think I haven't received any answers that directly address my clarified questions concerning beauty.

People claim I am a troll, but don't supply any reasons to why they believe that.

Andymac claims "you seem to have your mind made up on how it all works", but has not supplied reasons to why he believes such.

Kim-A's comments on digital and analogue music seem to contradict your own.

Please quote a couple of my questions you perceive as being so broad that they would take an unreasonable amount of time to answer. I think however long it takes someone to make a response to a question, it would not be an unreasonable amount of time depending on how much they value being a possible aid to others - though I understand you as communicating that you think people in general do not want to spend a lot of time on such matters.

I don't understand why you think my questions concerning the perception of beauty are so vague one wouldn't know where to begin answering. It seems to me one could begin answering with either, "I feel screenprints that involve digital processing look more beautiful generally", or, "I feel screenprints that do not involve digital processing look more beautiful generally", or, "I feel they look the same good generally", or, "I don't know if one seems more beautiful to me generally". Then to answer what are some of the reasons why they think they perceive it as such, they might say something like, "I don't know why I perceive it as more beautiful", or, "I can see with the naked eye sawtooth/bits with the screenprints that involve digital processing, so if one desires a line that curves smoothly, I think it fails to produce one as beautiful as analogue".

I would appreciate if you would explain why my questions about the perception of beauty are so vague to you, because currently I am left to think your claim is an unconvincing rationalization for why people are not answering it.

Most people here are interested in conversing with people at roughly the same level of experience -- nobody really wants to spend an hour answering question after question from someone who has not ever screenprinted before, and in fact may never do so.

That might be so, but I don't think that really explains how many people are behaving and responding to me. I think if people don't really want to answer questions from someone who is not roughly at the same level of experience as them, or from someone who has never actually screenpressed before, or in fact may never do so, then they can just not bother to answer - but that is not what they have only been doing here (e.g. telling me to fuck off, telling me "you seem to have your mind all made up", telling me that I'm "babbling bullshit").

Before investing time and money in things like learning to work a digital program, getting a transparency printer and so forth, many people may want to get an understanding of some of the differences between screenprints that involve digital processing and those that are all analog, etc. What seems beautiful may be in the eye of the beholder, but if the beholders are human, then they often seem to share evolved tendencies, like enjoying eating things with crunchiness, sweetness, or seeing certain shapes of the human form (e.g curves/boobs/ass). If one is concerned with the perception of beauty in their prints, then I think it's reasonable to investigate if there seems to be a consensus among screenprinters if one method of printing is generally perceived by them as more beautiful in its results than another. People may want to know these things so they can better invest their time and money. While a noob may benefit most from such a discussion, many experienced screenprinters/artists may not have thought about these things, and may benefit in some way by doing so.

To put it bluntly, your questions are comparable to a child asking a group of astronomers why the moon doesn't fall out of the sky.

I feel a lot of people fear to ask questions because of how they may be judged by others. To me children seem to be less inhibited than most adults, and because of this they seem freer to learn. I want to be like a young child in my questioning, and if no one cares enough to help me become better informed, then so be it.

Now. Forgive me if I'm overstepping my boundaries, but your manner of speaking as well as the meticulous nature of your replies indicates to me that you may have some sort of autism-spectrum disorder.

I wonder why you think this. Unless you make a good case to why you think I may have such a disorder, and more importantly why you are bringing it up, I will be left to think that this is likely a tactic to save face, by trying to influence others to think that perhaps the causation behind some of the behaviors in this thread (such as calling me a troll and claiming I'm babbling bullshit) have to do with me evidencing a mental disorder. I can understand that some people may think the meticulous nature of my replies seems strange, but I don't think there's enough information to warrant making the jump that I'm a troll, or that I may be stupid, or express that I may have an autism-spectrum disorder. I think I'm meticulous so I may hopefully get a sufficient understanding on matters, and so that others hopefully get one as well. I think this should seem pretty clear to many if they have been critically reading this thread.

You seem to be over-analyzing people's responses, attempting to decipher a web of posturing, sabre-rattling, and "saving face" that may not in fact be present.

What I believe may be going on in this thread might in fact not be going on, but I don't think because of that I should not share my beliefs. I think I have good reasons to think the things I have expressed, and if you disagree or doubt that I have good reasons, or don't understand them, then please directly challenge my notions with reasoning and/or questions so we may hopefully discover together if they seem ill formed or not.

[expose]

In fact, most of the responses to your questions seem to be patronizing, and not much else. Your phrasing is odd, as well, in a way that I can't fully describe. I honestly suspected that you may have been some sort of "ELIZA"-type bot at first. I'm probably not alone in thinking that your style of writing is odd.

Why patronize me if not for some of the reasons I have suggested? (trying to save face, trying to prove or raise social status)

I question if my writing is so odd to warrant making an issue of it. To me, it seems the reason you may not be able to fully describe why my phrasing is odd to you, could be that it's not my phrasing that's perhaps so odd, but because I'm maybe not following certain social norms (with my questioning, requests, and analyst), and you are conflating the two. I think another possibility could be that you may desire to find fault in the way I have expressed myself, so there is a reason to blame me for peoples reactions, including your own. This seems a likely possibility to me, because you seem to evidence a desire to find and express fault with my communications (my phrasing), my status (noob in print world), my brain (possible autism-mental disorder), etc, and these seem to be rationalizations for why you and others are behaving as you are, or why else are you bringing up all this stuff? I don't think my phrasing makes comprehension significantly hard for others, or communicates that I'm not for real in my investigation. Nor do I think my noob status is detrimental to the purpose of this thread, and as I mentioned before, I'm meticulous in my posts so I may hopefully get a sufficient understanding to believe in what people are claiming. In sum, I think your apparent rationalizations are unconvincing.

So, to summarize, you came on a bit too strong, your questions are too much effort for most people to be interested in answering, and your insistence on analyzing people's responses makes you seem like a bit of a jerk, even though that may not have been your intention.

It might be to much effort for some to be interested in answering my questions, and I can understand that, but I think many are not interested in answering many of my questions for the reason I have suggested (saving face). I think the more answers given to many of my questions and requests, the less ambiguity will likely remain concerning the situation, which is not a good thing if one is trying to not be revealed in some way, or is hiding behind poor excuses.

I do not want to be perceived as a jerk or an asshole, and if I can avoid being perceived as those things without compromising my integrity then I would like to learn how. If you think I come off as a jerk for good reason, then please help me understand why you think I deserve to be apparently perceived this way. I think I'm sharing my analysis of peoples behaviors so as to expose possibilities that others might not be aware of, including the ones doing the behavior. Many of these behaviors I perceive I do not approve of. I do not want to be passive to them if they're occurring, thus I want to expose them to others. I think this will hopefully help limit them and create healthier relating.

It seems you are sharing an analyst of people's responses, so I think on your own terms you should be perceiving yourself as a bit of a jerk. Unless you want to be a jerk, this evidences to me that you probably think sharing an analyst of peoples responses does not really warrant being perceived this way. If you do not think it warrants being perceived this way, but framed it as such, then I think that would further support my claims that efforts are seemingly being made to intentionally or unconsciously save face, or raise social status. What more coherently explains your behavior here, besides the possibility that you may want to be a jerk (which I doubt since you seem to be a pretty nice fellow)?

Beauty is a subjective quality, so it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to objectively judge whether one piece of art is more or less beautiful than another.

I think your comment here strongly suggests that you are either affected by a cognitive bias, or are intentionally trying to reframe my questions so as to make them seem non legitimate to others. It seems to me, you and others may be trying to discredited my questions concerning beauty, by implying that they are not answerable, using a notion I have already twice explained does not seemingly correspond to what I'm asking. I think you could be trying to stack up social proof to influence others and maybe myself. I've been asking for personal opinions, not some universal objective judgement. I'll quote below what kim_a wrote and my response so you can see that your comment concerning beauty does not seem to address what I've been asking, but if you disagree then please explain why.

"Now, as to whether any of those two printed images is perceived 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." - kim_a

"I have not been looking for absolute truths to which print is more beautiful, and if you have carefully and critically read my posts, then I find it hard to understand why you are stating this stuff here, except perhaps to create an illusion that I have been stupid in asking my questions and requests concerning beauty. In light of the apparent social dynamics that have been going on in this thread, I do not find this possibility unlikely.

I have been asking people if they perceive a certain process's outcome over another as being more beautiful to them in general. I'm also trying to discover if there is a consensus about such things. Do you find one print (analogue vs digital) more beautiful than the other in general, and if you do, do you think you understand the factors that make you perceive it so? If you are going to say it depends on the print, and you cannot make a generality, can you please give some of the factors it would likely depend on." - expose

I doubt you'll get any more replies to your questions unless you actually start screen-printing, start figuring things out for yourself, and start coming up with succinct, specific, answerable questions. Until that happens, most people will assume that it is a waste of time to respond, unless it's to make a quip or humorous remark (which usually are posted for the amusement of the original poster, or other forum members) at your expense.

Your advise to figure things out for myself and then to ask questions does not seem to be very coherent to me.

I would appreciate it if you would substantiate why you think my questions have not been succinct, specific, and answerable, otherwise I will be left to think you are probably trying to falsify the reality of my questions so as to justify the behaviors of you and others (calling me a troll, apparent tactics to save face, etc). If you look over my posts, I think you'll find that most of my questions appear to be the things you suggest they are not.

You could be right in thinking I probably wont be getting anymore replies to my questions, but I think you are doing a disservice to the potential of me receiving answers from others with aspects of your post, as it seems to me you are creating social pressure for others not to reply. I believe you are clearly suggesting that my questions have not been succinct, specific, and answerable, thus creating a frame that could influence others to feel they will be perceived as stupid in trying to answer them. You also seem to suggest that help is often given to those who have wielded a squeegee, and not so much to those who have not, thus perhaps creating a social norm in the minds of some, whereby they then may become afraid to deviate from that apparent norm because of social pressure to fit in. I think further social pressure has also been created by you and others, as I think a group has seemingly formed in opposing me, rather than to truly help me (though I think in your earlier post you truly tried to help me). Thus if one were to try and offer me help, they could perhaps feel a loss of social value among this opposing group.

Please understand that although you may have the best intentions, nobody here really seems to know what to make of you.

I thought you made me out to be a total troll, remember? What has caused you to seemingly change your once confidently stated position?

If nobody here knows what to make of me, then I don't know why, for I have clearly let my intentions known, and I don't think I have been inconsistent.

I finally figured this thread out. The give away is being asked to cite examples or illustrate points ad nauseum. Expose is actually writing a dissertation on this topic and is crowd-sourcing us to get it done.

...oh my god.

Expose: is this true? If not, please explain why.

No, it seems inaccurate. For an explanation please look above at my last reply, and at Occam's razor - you jokes or jokers.

[Andymac]

I finally figured this thread out. The give away is being asked to cite examples or illustrate points ad nauseum. Expose is actually writing a dissertation on this topic and is crowd-sourcing us to get it done.

makes sense.

Expose....have you printed yet as per my suggestion? that's the real distinction between talk and screenprinting. Once you actually do some printing, you might quickly figure out why your casual mixing of the analogue/digital/sawtoothing terms are inappropriate in contemporary screenprinting, and off the mark.

And no I'm not going to try and explain this to you.

[40ozGraphics]

Post some art expose. Let's see what you are working with.

[printchesco]

Is there really a significant difference when it comes to how people will react to your designs? I think that whether or not you use digital or analog, a great design with a good background concept will work either way.

[vrooooom]

[Barry Obama]

no amount of digital manipulation will allow you to replicate the old analog halftones. they where created by light going through an actual polarizing metal screen over an analog optical camera. it gave a TRULY random organic feel to the halftones and especially the mezzotints.

sadly, that REAL organic quality is now a thing of the past. I did huge silkscreens with all analog back then and you CANNOT replicate it, no matter how much you try, so.....sad. You can get real close, but..........no banana.

But I sure do like postscript fonts and instant cmyk seps. that shit was a bitch do do the old fashioned way.

[Hrabovsky]

Cognitive bias or GTFO!

[East Attic]

Poopy fingers aside, he who says you are in the crazy spectrum usually cast the first stone at your nutsack causing it burst open to reveal magical multi colored edame, easily confused with skittles minus the S.

We had sawtoothing that was fixed by increasing our output to 300dpi on our transparencies, bat shit, love your boot.

We also put white out on a bee.......and it died.

[edwardo_machino]

We also put white out on a bee.......and it died.

Excellent!

There was an interesting question buried in all of that, but it was answered pretty early, concerning the ability of emulsion to bridge the gap between mesh holes. I think some people may read about screen printing and figure it is an on/off thing, like a raster bitmap, because unless you've printed or practice deep-reading the Ulano pages (fun on a Friday night!) emulsion-bridging isn't something most people will realize can occur.

And I didn't read all of the responses, but maybe what expose was getting at was the difference between stencils made with inkjet positives (digital?) or a piece of cut rubilyth or a rock (analog?).

I sawtoothed my dog, and then he could do SCIENCE! He created something called a "dong-log" but it just turns on the TV.