Talk:Edmund Evans/Archive 1

Assessment
As requested at WikiProject Children's literature, I have assessed this article and improved its rating to a C class. To improve further, you need to increase the coverage of this article, particularly expanding the biographical sections and creating more sections to deal with the style and notable works of this engraver. strdst_grl  (call me Stardust) 14:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to a further request, I have assessed the article again and improved its rating to B class. For help improving the article further, please look at the Good Article criteria. strdst_grl   (call me Stardust) 14:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Technology
As I said here, the passges on technology need lots of links and some adjustment. How to identify prints: a complete guide to manual and mechanical processes from woodcut to inkjet, by Bamber Gascoigne, Edition	2, illustrated, revised. Publisher Thames & Hudson, 2004, ISBN 0500284806, 9780500284803 is a good, clear introduction to this. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This article took on a life of its own, and I know I haven't the expertise for it. Good to have something to read. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done some links, but more clarity is needed on this. Did he use up to 10 or 12 colours? Both seem to be said. Did his "3 colour printing process" involve mechanical colour separation, as the term usually means (probably using photos with filters), or just using 3 colour blocks? It is a very confusing area, & not my specialty at all. A "hand-press" is just a traditional old "Gutenerg-style" printing-press powered by hand, as opposed to (I think, in those days) hydraulics. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You should ask User:Awadewit if she can take a look. Early children's books are right up her street, though this is a little late for her, & she has massive FAC experience. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)For his earlier work he used either 10 or 12 colors (blocks) depending on the book. Those works he printed with the traditional style hand press. For the children's books he stopped using handpresses, and used the three color blocks. But I am confused about the 3 color printing process, so will try to find more information on his processes. Our library doesn't have the book you posted and apparently I've used up my interlibrary loan privileges for the month, so will have to try something else. Thanks for the help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you seen this? It would need to be read for an FAC. We need at least a stub on Chromoxylography some time, the technical term for his process.  Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen his Reminiscences, but hadn't realized it was available (for $125! at Amazon). Have been trying to track it down in through interlibrary loan. Thanks for the term Chromoxylography - in teaching myself about children's illustrators I became somewhat familiar with other terms, but had difficulty identifying the term for Evans' process, and then became interested in his work. That was the genesis for this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some questions: If relief printing involves the use of woodblocks, intaglio printing, the etching of a metallic surface (I hope I'm correct in this assumption) how are the two processes melded? Why are they melded? This indicates Baxter used metal plates, but Evans not always. I'm afraid, what I'm adding is incorrect. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you are, and they have to be done quite separately, & normally on 2 different presses (high pressure for intaglio, low for relief). But I'm pretty clear (I've looked at Gascoigne & another book) that, unlike Baxter, Evans only used relief printing, with wood blocks, for all stages, at least normally. I added (not realizing I was signed out) a little edit to this effect. his innovation, if it was, was to use a wood engraving (rather than woodcut, a rather fine distinction) for the black (or whatever) key or line block, and then tone blocks with areas of colour, some solid, but others actually made up of tiny parallel lines (hatching), which could be overprinted with other blocks for varieties of colours & tone.  Gascoigne has an Crane/Evans (Baby's Opera from date given) picture with a greatly blown up detail that shows this well - if you have access to originals inspection with a magnifying glass should show this. AFAIK, the Japanese Nishiki-e, a type of ukiyo-e, who were using a line-block & up to 9 or more colour blocks well before this, only used solid areas of colour, though I'm not sure about that. All these techniques involved a separate go on the press for each block, which I imagine had to be dried before the next run. But labour was cheap.    Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the information I've added about the Baxter process incorrect, as it seems the process Evans used was slightly different. From what I've read, and the sources are frustratingly scarce, in his earlier work, Evans followed the more labour intensive process, which was dropped for the children's book illustrations by using fewer colors and an automated press. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's correct as it now is, but I need to read up a bit more. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for the help. It's useful to have another set of well-qualified eyes on this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
File:WalterCrane Baby'sOpera.png should certainly go to Commons. Crane died in 1915, and Evans in 1905. Works of EU artists dead in 1940 (death + 70 yrs) are copyright-free. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the  the tag to use? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so - whatever they use for Rembrandt Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about "three colour process"
In this book the author asserts (p 272) that Evans was forced to adopt the "three colour process" but didn't use it for Crane or Caldecott. I find this a bit confusing. How is it best explained? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this help? But it is confusing. 3-colour normally means using colour separation, as used in modern printing, photo-mechanical methods for which were just coming into use during Evan's lifetime, using photos and colour filters, usually to make metal plates for photogravure, zincography or some other process I think. So 3 prints of coloured plates are overprinted to achieve blended colours. But I think it was a tad primitive back then, & he probably preferred to use the manual process with woodblocks. I asked about this back above. The trouble is, its very difficult identifying the process used from digital reproductions. This is another source btw. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources, am digesting the material (I have some volumes of early 19th century children's books where the imperfect separations are apparent in some of the illustrations, presumably printed w/ the 3 colour process). The statement in Hardie is a bit ambiguous, so I've commented it out for now. Is it possible Evans would have used the three colour process for other jobs, and the woodblock process for the children's book illustrations? Am not entirely ready to discount it, simply because the author appears to have spoken to Evans directly, and there is so little from Evans himself. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That was what I took it to mean; it was then cheaper but less artistically effective I think. He was pretty much the top man for the woodblock process, so presumably preferred to use that, & keep his skilled staff occupied. I agree more sources are needed. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen articles in journals to which I don't have access, but I'll continue to search. I've submitted a request for the Reminiscences. Picking out pieces from other books is too tedious and unreliable. Might take a few weeks, but I have to agree—the article is incomplete without it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great - let's hope all is revealed. That reviewer may just have been bored stiff by the wealth of technical detail! Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the way he talks about the Greenaway books suggests he was sometimes not merely a printer - though that is what he is generally called - but acted as publisher as well. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had wondered about that early on, but most of Greenaway's books - such as this at Project Gutenberg - show Warne as the publisher. I'm interested to see whether Evans himself sheds light on his business practices; he clearly had a good relationship with the publishing houses and may have used them only for distribution purposes. This confirms that he did convert to the three colour process and in fact he printed Beatrix Potter's The Tale of Peter Rabbit in 1902. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The BM link above is rather rude about those. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The link from the British Library? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes (used to be part of British Museum, as you know0. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have Gasgoigne's book, and now understand much better. As I understood it, Evans was using a simple palette to create more complex colors, which I thought was called the three colour process without realizing that three colour process was something entirely different. In fact, in his work, he does what I thought: mix/separate colours to create other colours/hues through the hatching process. Will work on a draft of this, and then add to the article. What a lot of work they did! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm busy until late next week, but will catch up then. I've started a history section to Colour printing, which could do with expansion, though Evans is already covered better than rival early processes. Any stray crumbs would be welcome there. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Another question about methods
This source (page 150) explains that Evans' illustrations were "dropped" into the text of The History of England. Is that the same term as "tipped"? And if so, is it reasonable to assume they were plates and maybe this is where he used a mixed method such as the Baxter method? Trying to sort it all out in my head.... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it means glued in & flopping about. That might be a reasonable assumption, though remember that the advantage of relief printing - you can print together with letterpress - is anyway pretty much lost if you have to do 8 or whatever print runs for the different colours. I don't know the originals, but I suspect the coloured pages were normally printed independently & married up. Actually I thought we were saying the "History" was a top example of his woodcut style somewhere? So perhaps not. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reminiscences
According to this 1970 review (which may not be worth much) the book isn't terribly illuminating. At any rate, not a single copy exists in the interlibrary loan system to which my library belongs. Is it absolutely necessary? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can cite that, but normally at FAC an autobiography by the subject of a biographical article would be expected to be used. It's not as if there are many other sources, as you point out yourself. At the moment there is hardly anything on his private life for one thing. It can't be that uninformative, for writing a bio. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a problem. I have been considering renaming the article Edmund Evans (printer) to highlight his profession more than the biography. At any rate, I'll keep digging. If it turns out it can't go to FAC I won't be too bothered - I've learned quite a lot from working on it, so in that sense it's been worthwhile. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A disappointing set of reminiscences (and it can scarcely be called that) with only a few points worthy of extraction. He's still very much the behind-the-scenes man; don't know when he was married, when he moved to Sussex, how many children he had. Can't really think of what else to add here. I'll let it sit for a day or so before another clean-up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I know. He was married in 1864, "to Mary Spence Brown, a niece of Birket Foster", they had five children, and they moved to Surrey, not Sussex. I also know that after his death, his business was carried on by his sons Wilfred and Herbert, until its amalgamation with W. P. Griffith Ltd, in 1953. The ODNB has quite a nice little article on Edmund Evans. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, sorry about that - always confuse Sussex/ Surrey. (Whenever I'm in England we're in Manchester of Cheshire - my weak explanation for confusing the southern counties) Not surprising the ODNB has an article; Oxford published the book and I think they may have a collection of his work at the Bodleian. I can't access the ODNB. The information about the business is in the book, but extremely vague mention of children. Had no idea there were five. Of course, if you or Johnbod were to add the information and review the article at FAC who knows what you'd be accused of. What a dilemma! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can do the DNB. See Myles Birket Foster. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Awadewit sent it to me, but needs citation information. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it is:

Malleus Fatuorum 12:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation info, Malleus. Also, I think the Myles Birket Foster page is wrong. According to Evans, Birket Foster was the son, and Myles Birket Foster the father. I should know, but I don't - how are these things dealt with? Page name? Page move? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, see Getty Union List and this - both had the same name though the function and use of Birket seems to have varied, no doubt especially among those who knew both. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That will teach me to heed the idle ramblings of an old man. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cross hatchings
The article now describes the techniques used very well and I understand it all except for the bit about the cross hatchings. The following sentence is the one I don't fully understand: "If, for instance, an area of the print was to have a patch of solid colour it was simply carved out of the block, but to create a blend of colours, background hatchings were added that resulted in browns, greens and greys. How did the hatchings produce these colours? Was an optical effect created by the lines themselves or was a different coloured ink applied to the hatched areas and held in the hatched lines? Richerman (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Have a look at these two images: The bell is a pure blue, with a few bits of white (uninked) for highlight. The wood appears grey but is a combination of colours. This is true of most of the images. I wanted to place the image with the detail blowup in the article but can't find the mark-up to place in the section vertically. It gets lost where it is, but is parked there for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I suspected, it works the same way as an inkjet printer or the pixels on the screen of a colour television. The different colours are actually an optical illusion created by the small size of the dots (or lines in this case). I think where it says "the printer would use fewer ink colours, which could be optimised by mixing colours such as blue and yellow to create green" that the word "mixing" should be in inverted commas and a footnote added to explain that the the colours aren't actually mixed but the mixing is an optical effect that only works at normal reading distance. What do you think? Richerman (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not entirely; look at the left end of the beam over the bell, where some parts have the colours overlaid, which your tv can't do. "overprinted" might be a better word, though we have "blended" in there too. Aren't some areas overprinted with two solid colours; I thought they were? For example here the light creamy colour underlies everything except the few white flowers, doesn't it? So many areas have three if not four colours overprinted at a single spot.  Btw they are not "cross-hatchings"; that is when two sets of hatching lines in engravings cross each other; too difficult in wood I think. All the Evans examples I have seen are just hatching with a single set of parallel lines for each colour, though different colours cross each other at angles.  Remember that here a hatched line shows as blank; in normal engraving it is black. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, overprinting is the main technique used, but I was specifically referring to the hatching technique (sorry not cross hatching). There are two different methods used but, of course, there is never actually any mixing of the inks as you would mix paint colours before applying them, and I'm suggesting that this should be made clearer. Richerman (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No indeed, as I say somewhere above I suspect each sheet was dried before the next colour was printed, but that's just a guess. In that case the inks form layers, but that does allow optical "mixing" in some cases, though in others the top colour pretty much dominates. It was a very skilled business.  Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I think I'm getting it now. If the hatchings show as blank that means the colour that was already applied in that area will be left where the hatchings are and the next colour will be applied in between the hatchings - is that right? Of course, the technique of ovelaying colours is also use by painters when they apply a base colour, let it dry and then overpaint with another colour, allowing the first colour to show through a little. I think they use it for skin tones. Richerman (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think of it this way: as I child when I used watercolors the magic was when the clear glass of water turned red as the brush was cleaned, then purple when the brush was cleaned of blue paint, then a murky something (very disappointing!) when the brush was cleaned of yellow. Unfortunately Evans doesn't explain the process enough that we know whether the sheets were dried, but they must have been. If the process is too detailed for this article, some of it could be lifted and added to the Chromoxylography article instead and linked from here as a main article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a bit more explanation or a short footnote would do it as long as we're clear on the method - and I think I am now. Each layer of ink must have dried first or the colours would have bled into other areas. I imagine it probably dried pretty quickly anyway, but I think the time between each block being applied is best avoided as we don't know for sure. I'm off to bed now but I'll have a think about some wording tomorrow and see what you think of it. Richerman (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the print runs must have been at least a few thousand, so with a manual process no extra time hanging around waiting for things to dry would have been necessary, except for trial proofs, if they one used one press. Each colour run must have taken some days to print. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the hatching, this was clearly done using some mechanical device; you could never get the exact tiny and regular parallel lines by hand. It would be nice to know what this was. Etching used lots of "roulettes" - rollers with different patterned wheels, & other tools, but in this technique there has to be a distinct regular cut into the wood. Maybe a device with a row of parallel blades, or something moving the blade a regular interval? It must all have been done under magnification too. But as you say, some of the detail can be at chromoxylography. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had copied a large chunk from this page to chromoxylography which I've now removed here as it's perhaps too detailed and redundant. I've linked to chromoxylography in the process section - second time it's linked, but I think appropriate. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As the first link is in the lead I don't think it's a problem. Richerman (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Cursory review
User:Truthkeeper88 asked me to look over this article. I briefly read it over - it looks very good (let me know if you want a line-by-line review before FAC). The one thing I noticed was that it seemed to have an excellent discussion of Evans' career but not much about his personality, family life, or social life. Is that material simply not available? I've emailed you the ODNB entry on Evans, which has a few details along this line that might help. You did mention that you were having trouble locating sources. Here is a good bibliography regarding illustration, picturebooks, and children's lit. It might help you out. Awadewit (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Awadewit for the ODNB - came without citation information. Yes, I have Vandegriff's bibliography. One small point regarding title page, which you delinked. Evans' title pages were extremely elaborate, and if it's allowable and necessary I can scan one from his book and upload. I'm not sure it's obvious that a title page would involve complicated engravings, but it depends on the audience. The title page article is in rough shape (partially because of an ugly template pushing the relevant image to the bottom of the page) but I'd intended to work on it. Would you mind if I reverted the edit? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And I even clicked the button to include citation information! How frustrating. I'll send it to you. I think linking to title page it is a lot less instructive than what you just told me here (also I don't know how many readers are going to look over the whole article). I think scanning an Evans title page, including it in this article, and providing a good caption would be much better. Awadewit (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Malleus posted the citation above. Sorry, forgot to strike my comment. Scanned an uncoloured magazine title page. Caption may need more explanation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this article need a line-by-line review? I've left a message for Awadewit, but she seems to be gone. I can't think of what more to do, but if anyone else can, let me know. I'm afraid it's become a bit technical, but I'm considering taking my chances at FAC with it in the near future. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Birkett Fosters still need sorting: "....Evans worked and became friends with Birket Foster [links to father], John Greenaway, and George Dalziel.[6] Foster, whose father Myles Birket Foster [??] was friends with the well-regarded printer Thomas Bewick, became a life-long friend to Evans. When Landells received a commission from the Illustrated London News to provide illustrations of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, he sent Evans and Foster to Balmoral  to make sketches which Evans engraved.[4]..." Myles Birket Foster Snr. was within a year of Evans' age; the son was born 1851. There is only the father in this passage I think.  Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed the father's name. That he was friends with Bewick makes sense, as Thomas Bewick is a generation older than Evans. According the to the birth-date in Birket Foster this is one who was Evans' friend. Also, see your previous response at the end of the reminiscences thread above, unless I'm missing something.  Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. Bewick, his pupil Landells & Foster's father (the beer bottle man) all came from very nearby each other round Newcastle. Landells & Foster's father only moved to London in the late 20s. Bewick was born 1750 odd, & was dead by the time Evans was two. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Evans' journal, the beer bottle man was named Myles Birket Foster, and Evans refers to the son as Birket Foster. Is it better to change the younger Foster's name in this article to Myles Birket Foster (this seems to link to Evans' friend). It is confusing. BTW - on a separate subject: I don't know whether you found it, but the punctuation inside the quotation is in note 61 (I think). I tried to fix, but got lost in the text and meant to message you but was interrupted. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, got the punctuation, I think, & thks again. They all seem to have had the same name, & Evan's friend & contemporary is generally known as Myles Birket Foster, so maybe its best to say something like "Myles Birket Foster, who Evans refers to as Birket Foster ..." Of course, it may just have been the Victorian thing of male friends still using surnames, but also the first names of their children. The "Birket" seems to have been "multi-role" in this respect - another rather Victorian thing. This is what happens when you're only edited 80 years after you're dead I suppose! Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

British Museum
Is it worth trying to create a tie-in to the BM for this article? I've found Crane's orginal painting of the frontispiece for The Baby's Bouquet, and wondered if it was worth comparing the unprinted to the printed versions, or is that straying from the topic of Edmund Evans? If not, is there a page for image requests from the BM? Thought I saw something about that somewhere but can't find it at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Photos requested] Here, but they don't allow stuff in the prints & drawings dept to be photographed. Obviously a link is worth having. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is permission required to take a screenshot of the image of the painting? Or alternatively, can they supply the image to Commons without having to take a screenshot? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As it is 2-D the file can be uploaded under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. though the BM does not recognise this US case. Just right-click & copy to a file. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment
As requested at WikiProject Children's literature, I have assessed this article and improved its rating to a C class. To improve further, you need to increase the coverage of this article, particularly expanding the biographical sections and creating more sections to deal with the style and notable works of this engraver. strdst_grl  (call me Stardust) 14:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to a further request, I have assessed the article again and improved its rating to B class. For help improving the article further, please look at the Good Article criteria. strdst_grl   (call me Stardust) 14:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Technology
As I said here, the passges on technology need lots of links and some adjustment. How to identify prints: a complete guide to manual and mechanical processes from woodcut to inkjet, by Bamber Gascoigne, Edition	2, illustrated, revised. Publisher Thames & Hudson, 2004, ISBN 0500284806, 9780500284803 is a good, clear introduction to this. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This article took on a life of its own, and I know I haven't the expertise for it. Good to have something to read. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done some links, but more clarity is needed on this. Did he use up to 10 or 12 colours? Both seem to be said. Did his "3 colour printing process" involve mechanical colour separation, as the term usually means (probably using photos with filters), or just using 3 colour blocks? It is a very confusing area, & not my specialty at all. A "hand-press" is just a traditional old "Gutenerg-style" printing-press powered by hand, as opposed to (I think, in those days) hydraulics. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You should ask User:Awadewit if she can take a look. Early children's books are right up her street, though this is a little late for her, & she has massive FAC experience. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)For his earlier work he used either 10 or 12 colors (blocks) depending on the book. Those works he printed with the traditional style hand press. For the children's books he stopped using handpresses, and used the three color blocks. But I am confused about the 3 color printing process, so will try to find more information on his processes. Our library doesn't have the book you posted and apparently I've used up my interlibrary loan privileges for the month, so will have to try something else. Thanks for the help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you seen this? It would need to be read for an FAC. We need at least a stub on Chromoxylography some time, the technical term for his process.  Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen his Reminiscences, but hadn't realized it was available (for $125! at Amazon). Have been trying to track it down in through interlibrary loan. Thanks for the term Chromoxylography - in teaching myself about children's illustrators I became somewhat familiar with other terms, but had difficulty identifying the term for Evans' process, and then became interested in his work. That was the genesis for this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some questions: If relief printing involves the use of woodblocks, intaglio printing, the etching of a metallic surface (I hope I'm correct in this assumption) how are the two processes melded? Why are they melded? This indicates Baxter used metal plates, but Evans not always. I'm afraid, what I'm adding is incorrect. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you are, and they have to be done quite separately, & normally on 2 different presses (high pressure for intaglio, low for relief). But I'm pretty clear (I've looked at Gascoigne & another book) that, unlike Baxter, Evans only used relief printing, with wood blocks, for all stages, at least normally. I added (not realizing I was signed out) a little edit to this effect. his innovation, if it was, was to use a wood engraving (rather than woodcut, a rather fine distinction) for the black (or whatever) key or line block, and then tone blocks with areas of colour, some solid, but others actually made up of tiny parallel lines (hatching), which could be overprinted with other blocks for varieties of colours & tone.  Gascoigne has an Crane/Evans (Baby's Opera from date given) picture with a greatly blown up detail that shows this well - if you have access to originals inspection with a magnifying glass should show this. AFAIK, the Japanese Nishiki-e, a type of ukiyo-e, who were using a line-block & up to 9 or more colour blocks well before this, only used solid areas of colour, though I'm not sure about that. All these techniques involved a separate go on the press for each block, which I imagine had to be dried before the next run. But labour was cheap.    Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the information I've added about the Baxter process incorrect, as it seems the process Evans used was slightly different. From what I've read, and the sources are frustratingly scarce, in his earlier work, Evans followed the more labour intensive process, which was dropped for the children's book illustrations by using fewer colors and an automated press. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's correct as it now is, but I need to read up a bit more. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for the help. It's useful to have another set of well-qualified eyes on this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
File:WalterCrane Baby'sOpera.png should certainly go to Commons. Crane died in 1915, and Evans in 1905. Works of EU artists dead in 1940 (death + 70 yrs) are copyright-free. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the  the tag to use? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so - whatever they use for Rembrandt Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about "three colour process"
In this book the author asserts (p 272) that Evans was forced to adopt the "three colour process" but didn't use it for Crane or Caldecott. I find this a bit confusing. How is it best explained? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this help? But it is confusing. 3-colour normally means using colour separation, as used in modern printing, photo-mechanical methods for which were just coming into use during Evan's lifetime, using photos and colour filters, usually to make metal plates for photogravure, zincography or some other process I think. So 3 prints of coloured plates are overprinted to achieve blended colours. But I think it was a tad primitive back then, & he probably preferred to use the manual process with woodblocks. I asked about this back above. The trouble is, its very difficult identifying the process used from digital reproductions. This is another source btw. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources, am digesting the material (I have some volumes of early 19th century children's books where the imperfect separations are apparent in some of the illustrations, presumably printed w/ the 3 colour process). The statement in Hardie is a bit ambiguous, so I've commented it out for now. Is it possible Evans would have used the three colour process for other jobs, and the woodblock process for the children's book illustrations? Am not entirely ready to discount it, simply because the author appears to have spoken to Evans directly, and there is so little from Evans himself. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That was what I took it to mean; it was then cheaper but less artistically effective I think. He was pretty much the top man for the woodblock process, so presumably preferred to use that, & keep his skilled staff occupied. I agree more sources are needed. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen articles in journals to which I don't have access, but I'll continue to search. I've submitted a request for the Reminiscences. Picking out pieces from other books is too tedious and unreliable. Might take a few weeks, but I have to agree—the article is incomplete without it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great - let's hope all is revealed. That reviewer may just have been bored stiff by the wealth of technical detail! Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the way he talks about the Greenaway books suggests he was sometimes not merely a printer - though that is what he is generally called - but acted as publisher as well. Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had wondered about that early on, but most of Greenaway's books - such as this at Project Gutenberg - show Warne as the publisher. I'm interested to see whether Evans himself sheds light on his business practices; he clearly had a good relationship with the publishing houses and may have used them only for distribution purposes. This confirms that he did convert to the three colour process and in fact he printed Beatrix Potter's The Tale of Peter Rabbit in 1902. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The BM link above is rather rude about those. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The link from the British Library? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes (used to be part of British Museum, as you know0. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have Gasgoigne's book, and now understand much better. As I understood it, Evans was using a simple palette to create more complex colors, which I thought was called the three colour process without realizing that three colour process was something entirely different. In fact, in his work, he does what I thought: mix/separate colours to create other colours/hues through the hatching process. Will work on a draft of this, and then add to the article. What a lot of work they did! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm busy until late next week, but will catch up then. I've started a history section to Colour printing, which could do with expansion, though Evans is already covered better than rival early processes. Any stray crumbs would be welcome there. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Another question about methods
This source (page 150) explains that Evans' illustrations were "dropped" into the text of The History of England. Is that the same term as "tipped"? And if so, is it reasonable to assume they were plates and maybe this is where he used a mixed method such as the Baxter method? Trying to sort it all out in my head.... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it means glued in & flopping about. That might be a reasonable assumption, though remember that the advantage of relief printing - you can print together with letterpress - is anyway pretty much lost if you have to do 8 or whatever print runs for the different colours. I don't know the originals, but I suspect the coloured pages were normally printed independently & married up. Actually I thought we were saying the "History" was a top example of his woodcut style somewhere? So perhaps not. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reminiscences
According to this 1970 review (which may not be worth much) the book isn't terribly illuminating. At any rate, not a single copy exists in the interlibrary loan system to which my library belongs. Is it absolutely necessary? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can cite that, but normally at FAC an autobiography by the subject of a biographical article would be expected to be used. It's not as if there are many other sources, as you point out yourself. At the moment there is hardly anything on his private life for one thing. It can't be that uninformative, for writing a bio. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a problem. I have been considering renaming the article Edmund Evans (printer) to highlight his profession more than the biography. At any rate, I'll keep digging. If it turns out it can't go to FAC I won't be too bothered - I've learned quite a lot from working on it, so in that sense it's been worthwhile. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A disappointing set of reminiscences (and it can scarcely be called that) with only a few points worthy of extraction. He's still very much the behind-the-scenes man; don't know when he was married, when he moved to Sussex, how many children he had. Can't really think of what else to add here. I'll let it sit for a day or so before another clean-up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I know. He was married in 1864, "to Mary Spence Brown, a niece of Birket Foster", they had five children, and they moved to Surrey, not Sussex. I also know that after his death, his business was carried on by his sons Wilfred and Herbert, until its amalgamation with W. P. Griffith Ltd, in 1953. The ODNB has quite a nice little article on Edmund Evans. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, sorry about that - always confuse Sussex/ Surrey. (Whenever I'm in England we're in Manchester of Cheshire - my weak explanation for confusing the southern counties) Not surprising the ODNB has an article; Oxford published the book and I think they may have a collection of his work at the Bodleian. I can't access the ODNB. The information about the business is in the book, but extremely vague mention of children. Had no idea there were five. Of course, if you or Johnbod were to add the information and review the article at FAC who knows what you'd be accused of. What a dilemma! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can do the DNB. See Myles Birket Foster. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Awadewit sent it to me, but needs citation information. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it is:

Malleus Fatuorum 12:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation info, Malleus. Also, I think the Myles Birket Foster page is wrong. According to Evans, Birket Foster was the son, and Myles Birket Foster the father. I should know, but I don't - how are these things dealt with? Page name? Page move? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, see Getty Union List and this - both had the same name though the function and use of Birket seems to have varied, no doubt especially among those who knew both. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That will teach me to heed the idle ramblings of an old man. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cross hatchings
The article now describes the techniques used very well and I understand it all except for the bit about the cross hatchings. The following sentence is the one I don't fully understand: "If, for instance, an area of the print was to have a patch of solid colour it was simply carved out of the block, but to create a blend of colours, background hatchings were added that resulted in browns, greens and greys. How did the hatchings produce these colours? Was an optical effect created by the lines themselves or was a different coloured ink applied to the hatched areas and held in the hatched lines? Richerman (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Have a look at these two images: The bell is a pure blue, with a few bits of white (uninked) for highlight. The wood appears grey but is a combination of colours. This is true of most of the images. I wanted to place the image with the detail blowup in the article but can't find the mark-up to place in the section vertically. It gets lost where it is, but is parked there for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I suspected, it works the same way as an inkjet printer or the pixels on the screen of a colour television. The different colours are actually an optical illusion created by the small size of the dots (or lines in this case). I think where it says "the printer would use fewer ink colours, which could be optimised by mixing colours such as blue and yellow to create green" that the word "mixing" should be in inverted commas and a footnote added to explain that the the colours aren't actually mixed but the mixing is an optical effect that only works at normal reading distance. What do you think? Richerman (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not entirely; look at the left end of the beam over the bell, where some parts have the colours overlaid, which your tv can't do. "overprinted" might be a better word, though we have "blended" in there too. Aren't some areas overprinted with two solid colours; I thought they were? For example here the light creamy colour underlies everything except the few white flowers, doesn't it? So many areas have three if not four colours overprinted at a single spot.  Btw they are not "cross-hatchings"; that is when two sets of hatching lines in engravings cross each other; too difficult in wood I think. All the Evans examples I have seen are just hatching with a single set of parallel lines for each colour, though different colours cross each other at angles.  Remember that here a hatched line shows as blank; in normal engraving it is black. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, overprinting is the main technique used, but I was specifically referring to the hatching technique (sorry not cross hatching). There are two different methods used but, of course, there is never actually any mixing of the inks as you would mix paint colours before applying them, and I'm suggesting that this should be made clearer. Richerman (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No indeed, as I say somewhere above I suspect each sheet was dried before the next colour was printed, but that's just a guess. In that case the inks form layers, but that does allow optical "mixing" in some cases, though in others the top colour pretty much dominates. It was a very skilled business.  Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I think I'm getting it now. If the hatchings show as blank that means the colour that was already applied in that area will be left where the hatchings are and the next colour will be applied in between the hatchings - is that right? Of course, the technique of ovelaying colours is also use by painters when they apply a base colour, let it dry and then overpaint with another colour, allowing the first colour to show through a little. I think they use it for skin tones. Richerman (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think of it this way: as I child when I used watercolors the magic was when the clear glass of water turned red as the brush was cleaned, then purple when the brush was cleaned of blue paint, then a murky something (very disappointing!) when the brush was cleaned of yellow. Unfortunately Evans doesn't explain the process enough that we know whether the sheets were dried, but they must have been. If the process is too detailed for this article, some of it could be lifted and added to the Chromoxylography article instead and linked from here as a main article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a bit more explanation or a short footnote would do it as long as we're clear on the method - and I think I am now. Each layer of ink must have dried first or the colours would have bled into other areas. I imagine it probably dried pretty quickly anyway, but I think the time between each block being applied is best avoided as we don't know for sure. I'm off to bed now but I'll have a think about some wording tomorrow and see what you think of it. Richerman (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the print runs must have been at least a few thousand, so with a manual process no extra time hanging around waiting for things to dry would have been necessary, except for trial proofs, if they one used one press. Each colour run must have taken some days to print. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the hatching, this was clearly done using some mechanical device; you could never get the exact tiny and regular parallel lines by hand. It would be nice to know what this was. Etching used lots of "roulettes" - rollers with different patterned wheels, & other tools, but in this technique there has to be a distinct regular cut into the wood. Maybe a device with a row of parallel blades, or something moving the blade a regular interval? It must all have been done under magnification too. But as you say, some of the detail can be at chromoxylography. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had copied a large chunk from this page to chromoxylography which I've now removed here as it's perhaps too detailed and redundant. I've linked to chromoxylography in the process section - second time it's linked, but I think appropriate. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As the first link is in the lead I don't think it's a problem. Richerman (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Cursory review
User:Truthkeeper88 asked me to look over this article. I briefly read it over - it looks very good (let me know if you want a line-by-line review before FAC). The one thing I noticed was that it seemed to have an excellent discussion of Evans' career but not much about his personality, family life, or social life. Is that material simply not available? I've emailed you the ODNB entry on Evans, which has a few details along this line that might help. You did mention that you were having trouble locating sources. Here is a good bibliography regarding illustration, picturebooks, and children's lit. It might help you out. Awadewit (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Awadewit for the ODNB - came without citation information. Yes, I have Vandegriff's bibliography. One small point regarding title page, which you delinked. Evans' title pages were extremely elaborate, and if it's allowable and necessary I can scan one from his book and upload. I'm not sure it's obvious that a title page would involve complicated engravings, but it depends on the audience. The title page article is in rough shape (partially because of an ugly template pushing the relevant image to the bottom of the page) but I'd intended to work on it. Would you mind if I reverted the edit? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And I even clicked the button to include citation information! How frustrating. I'll send it to you. I think linking to title page it is a lot less instructive than what you just told me here (also I don't know how many readers are going to look over the whole article). I think scanning an Evans title page, including it in this article, and providing a good caption would be much better. Awadewit (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Malleus posted the citation above. Sorry, forgot to strike my comment. Scanned an uncoloured magazine title page. Caption may need more explanation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this article need a line-by-line review? I've left a message for Awadewit, but she seems to be gone. I can't think of what more to do, but if anyone else can, let me know. I'm afraid it's become a bit technical, but I'm considering taking my chances at FAC with it in the near future. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Birkett Fosters still need sorting: "....Evans worked and became friends with Birket Foster [links to father], John Greenaway, and George Dalziel.[6] Foster, whose father Myles Birket Foster [??] was friends with the well-regarded printer Thomas Bewick, became a life-long friend to Evans. When Landells received a commission from the Illustrated London News to provide illustrations of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, he sent Evans and Foster to Balmoral  to make sketches which Evans engraved.[4]..." Myles Birket Foster Snr. was within a year of Evans' age; the son was born 1851. There is only the father in this passage I think.  Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed the father's name. That he was friends with Bewick makes sense, as Thomas Bewick is a generation older than Evans. According the to the birth-date in Birket Foster this is one who was Evans' friend. Also, see your previous response at the end of the reminiscences thread above, unless I'm missing something.  Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. Bewick, his pupil Landells & Foster's father (the beer bottle man) all came from very nearby each other round Newcastle. Landells & Foster's father only moved to London in the late 20s. Bewick was born 1750 odd, & was dead by the time Evans was two. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Evans' journal, the beer bottle man was named Myles Birket Foster, and Evans refers to the son as Birket Foster. Is it better to change the younger Foster's name in this article to Myles Birket Foster (this seems to link to Evans' friend). It is confusing. BTW - on a separate subject: I don't know whether you found it, but the punctuation inside the quotation is in note 61 (I think). I tried to fix, but got lost in the text and meant to message you but was interrupted. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, got the punctuation, I think, & thks again. They all seem to have had the same name, & Evan's friend & contemporary is generally known as Myles Birket Foster, so maybe its best to say something like "Myles Birket Foster, who Evans refers to as Birket Foster ..." Of course, it may just have been the Victorian thing of male friends still using surnames, but also the first names of their children. The "Birket" seems to have been "multi-role" in this respect - another rather Victorian thing. This is what happens when you're only edited 80 years after you're dead I suppose! Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

British Museum
Is it worth trying to create a tie-in to the BM for this article? I've found Crane's orginal painting of the frontispiece for The Baby's Bouquet, and wondered if it was worth comparing the unprinted to the printed versions, or is that straying from the topic of Edmund Evans? If not, is there a page for image requests from the BM? Thought I saw something about that somewhere but can't find it at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Photos requested] Here, but they don't allow stuff in the prints & drawings dept to be photographed. Obviously a link is worth having. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is permission required to take a screenshot of the image of the painting? Or alternatively, can they supply the image to Commons without having to take a screenshot? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As it is 2-D the file can be uploaded under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. though the BM does not recognise this US case. Just right-click & copy to a file. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)