It's a very old form of art. The image is sculpted in negative and reverse into a block of wood. Then ink is laid down on the wood, and is then pressed onto a sheet of paper where the image becomes a positive. It's a very cool artform.
It would be more expensive initially in time, and I'm sure you'd charge more per shirt, but it would all average out over time.
I'm not trying to cheapen this awesoem artform at all, but for those that don't understand it, you can liken it to modern rubber stamps. You get the stamp made, you put ink on the stamp, and you press it on your substrate.
The difference is the distinctive look of a woodcut (which, yes, CAN be simulated), and the knowledge of the way these shirts would be produced.
M.C. Escher used to use this method a lot for his work.
Yeah, doing shirts with woodcuts would be a bit more expensive (particularly because of the time-consuming nature of actually MAKING the woodcuts), but I'm not trying to mass-produce them or make any money (though a couple of bucks would be alright, you know). At the moment, it's just for my own edification.
Also, from my understanding, woodcut shirts are better quality (in general) than screened shirts. They have little/no hand and last much longer, due to the nature of the application of ink.
That's what I mean by woodcut. I'm not sure what else it could imply. And yes, it's more than possible to get fine details on a shirt via block printing. Just look at the shirts from tugboat printing (among other great shirts I've seen done this way):
You're right, it is easy to create screens, which is why I want to work with woodcuts. It makes the process feel less industrial, and gives it more of an artisan-like atmosphere. Obviously, there is plenty of creativity and artistry involved in screening shirts, but it seems that it's even moreso the case making woodcuts by hand for the shirts.
Also, my understanding was because there was much more pressure and full coverage (i.e. no breaks in the image a la a screen) involved in block printing shirts, the ink is integrated into the fabric more thoroughly, hence the soft hand. Either way on that, I know that it leads to a sturdier product.
of course it would look the same, but that takes all the fun out of it. the amount of detail i want in the designs i have done thus far is easily achievable from woodcut.
also, my understanding of intaglio is that it was reserved for metal plates, and not wood. i mean, i'm assuming it CAN be done (though likely with a reduction of quality). but i've never seen anything actually using wood for intaglio printing, hence my comment (that in hindsight sounded a bit harsh, but wasn't intended to be).
i've watched that video. it was pretty helpful in terms of the big steps (most of which i had kinda figured out from transfering knowledge of block printing on paper to blockprinting on shirts), but i was really hoping for specific tips that i don't want to have to learn the hard way.
btw, would you happen to have a link to that band's site/their album artwork. i do an album design blog with a friend, and i'd like to feature it on there. even if it sucks (which it probably doesn't), it would be nice to have on there due to the nature of the process involved.
I think your biggest problem might be in getting a good dense print on a tshirt using a woodblock, or a linoleum block due to the soft nature of the material, and the fact that you'll have to stick the shirt to something to keep it from moving. Block printing on the cheap is usually done with a burnishing tool of some kind, but you lay the substrate on the block and rub away from the back . . . a problem with tshirt fabric. You can ink up the block and press it on the shirt, but you'll have to get enough ink on the block to transfer to the shirt, and that might cause a lack of detail if the ink starts filling in the cut-out portions of the block. Consistent prints from shirt to shirt would be pretty much impossible. You could also rig up something like these presses:
Or better yet, this guy found a way to get some pressure on it . . . ;-)
If you were looking to do multi-color printing, I think you'd have a pretty rough time registering anything.
Last edited by tpitman; February 1st, 2008 at 12:33 PM.
Im kind of interested in trying this as well but I keep talking myself out of it because if you can fake it on the computer then it is so much more versatile. If I wanted something to look woodcut I would probably just sketch it out and then trace with different thicknesses of sharpie markers.. then just scan and play with the levels and convert to bitmap.
__________________
American Made 100% Cotton and Certified Organic Cotton Apparel www.brandofthefree.net
Printing with woodcuts 
