Talk:Lithography/Archives/2013

Comment 1

By Bomb of Ludhiana PB10 AF 707

Please write your own. Contribution deleted as copyright violation by mikka (t) 06:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The Principle - What is Lithography?

I don't really know anything about lithography, and this page doesn't help me much. I'd expect a somewhat clearer description under "The Principle" but the statement confused the both of us reading the article.

To know more: look the website http://www.theodesmedt.be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.164.143 (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd attempt to repair it myself, but I don't really know lithography. I just thought I'd point out that this article is rather confusing to someone without experience in this field.

69.198.109.233 23:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It was always taught to me as a "chemical relief" process. I think if this were better explained in the article it would be clearer to those unfamiliar with the medium. I might be able to contribute something here. AR 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. And it wouldn't hurt if the article were shaken up a little, to make a gentler lead in for the casual reader. It's pretty densely written at the moment. JackyR 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Chemical relief": I've looked into this, and while some means of preparing a lithographic plate could be described as "chemical relief", the phrase is also used for etching intaglio plates. So to avoid confusion, would it be better to create an article (or § in "Intaglio") describing this, and then mention it briefly in "Lithography"? JackyR 14:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote "The Principle" but the rest of the article is still confusing. Does "The Chemical Process" refer to an image tranfer from plate to paper or to the developement of a plate?--drew1718 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer the last question check the link: http://www.lib.udel.edu/ud/spec/exhibits/color/lithogr.htm

here's the first paragraph: Lithography was the first fundamentally new printing technology since the invention of relief printing in the fifteenth century. It is a mechanical planographic process in which the printing and non-printing areas of the plate are all at the same level, as opposed to intaglio and relief processes in which the design is cut into the printing block. Lithography is based on the chemical repellence of oil and water. Designs are drawn or painted with greasy ink or crayons on specially prepared limestone. The stone is moistened with water, which the stone accepts in areas not covered by the crayon. An oily ink, applied with a roller, adheres only to the drawing and is repelled by the wet parts of the stone. The print is then made by pressing paper against the inked drawing.68.4.80.146 07:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This article appears to have been written by someone who does not understand the differences between intaglio (relief printing) and lithography. It refers to ink filling up a cavity, which is complete nonsense. There is no cavity in lithographic printing - that's the whole point - and acid etching has no part to play in the fundamental principle.Plantsurfer (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the article is fine but the introduction had gone off into the weeds. Hopefully my edits make it clearer. Altaphon (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If I'm wrong…

I've included decorated CDs in the list of lithographically-printed objects. But I'm not 100% sure, so change if you think I'm wrong or can think of a less ambiguous non-paper example, please change. JackyR 01:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed CD'S and Credit Cards unless someone can provide a definitive link. CD's are produced using screen printing first and foremost (raised ink). I can't imagine any CD currently physically capible of traveling through a litho press unless it's a pretty specialized setup. -- Matt 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern printmaking techniques can be extremely complex and sophisticated. I don't think one can safely guess that lithography is used to print directly on CDs, though paper labels affixed to CDs are probably printed lithographically. My guess would be that a form of screen printing would be involved in printing on CDs, though another distinct possibility comes to mind also, that being a form of ink jet printing. Bus stop 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Litho could definitely be used to print separate labels that could then be laminated or otherwise affixed to the CD. Similar processes are used with designs on corrugated cardboard. There's no question about screen and CDs, just run your finger over a CD and you'll feel the raised ink that's a give away for screen. — Matt 11:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Flexography and screenprinting are the methods used for credit cards; CDs use the previous and a technology similar to lightscribe. From a friend who has worked in a print shop: "the image is burned onto a cd that has a special top" —Parhamr 21:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting on Credit Cards. We plotted a few down under loops and have come to the conclusion that many are probably produced by litho (there's no sign of the telltale artifacts of flexo and/or gravure). That said, I'm still trying to find a reference to firmly establish that. — Matt 11:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the people

It might be useful to discuss some of the famous artists who used lith. I came to this page after reading into M.C. Escher, who used them extensivley. It would be grand if someone added stuff. Semath

Crayons

Somewhere along the line in my career, probably college, I acquired 'lithographic crayons', but never used them. How do theyie into this article? Are they separate, and htus should go under 'see also', or a part of this process, and deserving of a section here? ThuranX 17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Added text about this in the printing from stone section. Altaphon (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

lithography is a one-off principle of creation. No one mentions that the plate has to be re-inked each time an image is pulled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshall301 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct, and a lithographic printing press does just that - re-inks the plate for each pass. I've seen one in operation and it really is no great mystery. Mike Hayes (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposed (Serilith)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was: Merge as proposed. --B. Wolterding 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge the content of Serilith into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. Actually it is only a few lines long and could easily be merged here.

Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support merge to here. Serilith appears to be a recent neologism, not a suitable article topic, but worth a brief mention here and maybe also in serigraphy. Dicklyon 15:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support merge to here. —Parhamr 18:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

hydrophilic vs. hydrophobic?

Can someone verify that the terms hydrophobic and hydrophilic are not transposed? I don't know much about lithography, but judging by the etymology of the words, shouldn't the hydrophilic parts accept the ink and the hydrophobic parts reject the ink, if the ink is water based? Even if it is not, then shouldn't the terms still be reversed, as they're probably being used in the generic sense, and not specifically in reference to water molecules? Srajan01 (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind - I did some research, and it makes sense, because the hydrophilic parts accept the water and thus not the pigment, where as the hydrophobic parts reject the water and thus accept the pigment (they can be considered to be "oleophilic," since they accept the oil), so the hydrophobic parts in such a process would represent the "image" itself where as the hydrophilic parts would represent the "non-image" parts, i.e., the background. Sorry for any confusion. Srajan01 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible images to use

These two images were recently removed from Tiger, which I think makes sense as they do not depict any tigers but merely the result of their hunting and feeding activity. I do not know if they really belong in this article, either, but I present them here as they are now unused and this appears to be a more or less relevant article. The first image caption has a reference that would appear in an article with a proper reference section. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lithograph (based on photograph) showing a bull Nilgai killed and partly eaten by a tigress and two cubs. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 1888.

The same bull nilgai after the second meal by the tigress and two cubs. JBNHS, 1888.

Chemical?

What form is the chemical applied to the plate that accepts or rejects the ink/water? I think the article says that the chemicals are "painted" on, implying a liquid, so if this is a form of mass printing, does this chemical not wear off the plate somehow? TheHYPO (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a thick, solid oil or grease, and lasts a surpringly long time. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Lithotint

I think a mention of this technique would be useful (beyond a dictionary definition, obviously), as there is no mention of it in wikipedia —Moogsi (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Typo: Litography

Would someone please correct the heading (should be 'Lithography') and the link to the following. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Litography_negative_stone_and_positive_paper.jpg