Talk:Engraving

untitled

Would a summary of how the process of engraving works be appropriate here? --Alex 01:30, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

Yes. If you have knowledge in this area, then please feel free to expand the current article. Be bold. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 03:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Intaglio?

Intaglio (printmaking) and Chalcography are the same? I'm Allman in thhe catalan wiki. Sorry for my english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.14.125.168 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

engraving is, apparently: Chal`cog´ra`phy

n. 1. The act or art of engraving on copper or brass, especially of engraving for printing.

- it's not really used as an English word. Comes from "greek word khalkos meaning "copper" Johnbod 02:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not just a metalworking technique?

I've popped a paragraph on Roman glass engraving into the History section... I think engraving could be expanded here to include glass engraving more expictly, or should this go in a seperate article? Ruth Fillery-Travis (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ideally a seperate article, with a para here, when it is big enough. For now, here is probably best. Perhaps add it to glass art too; I can't see anthing else on the subject, after a quick look. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit this article, as it looks pretty good. I'm jeweler and dabble in engraving now and then. I'll point out that some purists consider engraving to be the pushing of little chisels (burins) that create chips. Meaning that rotary engraving, as glass, is not really engraving - nor are lasers or CNC milling. There's actually a point there, though I'm not such a purist. At least it's good to remember that there is true engraving - pushing little points through metal, and then there is all the rest. Laser is actually only engraving in the sense that it creates tiny images, though people call it that. An old school engraver would take umbrage at the idea, frankly. Just FYI - not saying things should be excluded. Jjdon (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

big hatnote

I've reverted this because it just runs against the WP:MoS - you just don't see things like that. I have expanded & bolded etc some bits to meet your concerns, which had some validity, and altered some of the incoming links - articles that describe people as "copper-engravers" etc should really be dealt with by updating the language. Graven should go to "graven image" which instead of redirecting to Idolatry should be its own little stub, imo. In thius contect it really means "carved" not "engraved". We don't need extra had notes for all forms of a word, like engraves. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge from hand engraving

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge. Wizard191 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

---

While the recent prod was turned down and its notability has been established, I don't know if it deserves its own article. It seems to me that it would be better suited here and any redundancies eliminated. Wizard191 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge makes sense. Hand engraving has existed for nearly four years and there is no reason to think it will be sufficiently expanded to warrant a separate article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm the one who put the deletion tag - first time I ever did that and I suspect it was not protocol.. I've written something on this topic (which I was thinking of anyway) that might help with all of this - at least I hope so. Hand engraving doesn't belong on it's own, in any case. But as I wrote on it's talk page, too - it's not a crusade for me...Jjdon (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So I take that as you would like to see it merged?

On a side note, you properly marked the article for deletion, however anyone can remove a {{prod}} template, except for the creating user, if they disagree with it. If you want to see a more thorough discussion on it them mark it for AFD. Wizard191 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, merge. I'd still say delete, as it's all covered here and in burin. Thanks for the side note - I know anyone can remove the prod tag - no problem with that. I looked into the whole deletion process and it's sure complicated ;<} Jjdon (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It should just be merged & redirected. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (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.

Add section about hand engraving techniques, usage?

Should I add a section about different techniques used in hand engraving? For example there is bulino (scene engraving, often used on guns and knives), sculpting, western bright cut, precious metal inlay, deep relief etc. For each of these you need to use different tools and they all have very different look. Vilts (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Are you aware that material should be sourced, and should not be like an instruction manual? The article (like many others) is somewhat deficient, but it may not be desirable to add a whole new section without any references. I am just an interested onlooker and can't help much with the topic, but feel free to ask if there is anything you want clarified about conventions on Wikipedia. Another issue is that it's not clear where new material might be added (hand engraving is only discussed in Engraving#Process), however, articles are always a work in progress and any difficulties can be sorted out later. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing can be a bit of a problem, but I have bunch of books about engraving, so I will see whether they have sections about different techniques. Most of the stuff I know are learned from other engravers. Also, there is online engraving glossary. Would that work as good/verifiable source? Its author has published book(s) about engraving, so he definitely knows the area. Vilts (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The engravingglossary.com site is probably fine for a small number of references, but we try to avoid basing a significant amount of work on one source (particularly a website). Personally, I do not mind a small amount of "how to" information in articles, but I assure you that many here would delete a section that appeared to fail WP:NOTMANUAL, hence my warning to not put a bunch of effort into that type of text. Feel free to start anywhere you like, and we can sort out any problems later. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to add a lot, then Hand engraving could be split off again. It was only merged because [1] it had been only 4 lines long for years. But I'd add it here for now. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been very busy at work, and not active on WP... I have to say I think this article looks pretty good right now - imperfect as all articles are, but pretty good. The woodcut of tools is of etching tools, BTW. I'd suggest that engraving began as a hand process - everything newer comes from that. I'd resist breaking this into little articles without real reason, myself. Jjdon (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tools pic - though it could be good somewhere else; also that sheep, which isn't an engraving. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth has there not been even the vaguest reference to the development, over generations now, of dentist drill-aided engraving!?? It is where most of the money is being spent by general public and has been for decades!124.183.105.187 (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Engraving of what? Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

confusion of terms and fields

So, here where I live there is a clear distinction between engraving (gravação, printmaking through etchings, woodcuts, litography) and "relief engraving" (cravação, surface engraving on pistols, glass, jewel design), the two fields are very distinct and have no relation, the first being considered a classical fine art together with painting and sculpture, and the second being a craft; this distinction is also made in the academia. It's the same in spanish, portuguese, french, italian and even german, with broader terms/differentiations for techniques, such as radierung, acquaforte, etc. I recommend going to these countries wikipedias to attest this.

I don't know how these are classified in english, I assume it's different, but equating both- gravação and cravação- is the same error as equating woodcutting with woodcarving.

The article contradicts itself by confusing these two fields. In the first paragraph for example it says "Engraving is the practice of incising a design onto a hard, usually flat surface [...] The result may be a decorated object in itself, as when silver, gold, steel, or glass are engraved, or may provide an intaglio printing plate [...] for printing images on paper as prints or illustrations". Wait, so engraving is way of printing reproductions with a press and a support, or is engraving a mere decoration of surfaces? Do the same professionals who work in printmaking, work engraving jewels? Did Rembrandt or Dürer engraved a silver plate with flowers for some central european family or were they actually making illustrations for books?

Is this intended? 201.29.184.156 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's different. But even in Portugal the technique of engraving, on metal at least, and before the printing stage, is the same, and this is an article on a technique. In English (and I suspect in Portuguese too) it is a bad but common mistake to call all printmaking techniques "engraving". They aren't, and a lithograph is not an engraving. If Gravura and Gavura em metal are at all correct, things are very different in Portuguese. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"In portuguese, and I suspect spanish and french too, printmaking as a term for an artistic field doesn't exist; as I said the "technique" is called cravação. You will often find in universities/art schools a graduation in engraving alongside sculpture and painting. And there, lithography is considered an engraving technique. I suspect this is the same everywhere, no? Or else why would people like Escher or Max Klinger learn lithography together with woodcut and calcography. Anyway, shouldn't this article be solely for the technique and all the "printmaking engraving" have an article for itself? It's strange that this article has as the first two pictures, a print of Durer and a printmaker.201.29.209.205 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As I say, in English we just don't call all printmaking "engraving". Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1847Colt Walker.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 1847Colt Walker.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

stone engraving / stonecut

Right now stone engraving is a missing article (or a missing redirect). Can anyone stub it or redirect it to a proper place? Related to this, we have woodcut but no article about stonecut. I did find one image described as "stone engraving" on commons: File:2008-engraving.jpg, currently used in our article here with a caption "stone engraving". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Never heard of it - are you sure this isn't a bad translation of lithography? Ok, the image, which I have removed, shows someone carving deep lettering in stone with a chisel. This isn't called engraving in English. I see it was Ziko (Dutch) who uploaded it. Some, mostly prehistoric, scratched designs on stone could be called engraving, but I don't really see an article is needed. Johnbod (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the terms are used in English, see: Google Books for stonecut (google seems not to distinguish between stoncut and stone cut, unfortunately), Google Books for "stone engraving", Google Scholar for stonecut, Googls Scholar for "stone engraving". Anyway, I came here from a recent discussion on pl wiki where there is an article on pl:kamienioryt, because I was puzzled why it has no English wiki article. From what I gather, a stonecut is an engraving subtype of lithography, which is a wider concept (for example Photolithography is another subtype of lithography). I don't purport to understand it well, I am just repeating what someone told me on Polish Wikipedia when I asked why stoncut isn't a synonym for litography, and I was told it is about the difference as stonecut is engraved or similar, whereas other types of litography can just mean printing something on the stone surface. Again, I may be wrong about stuff, but the point we have those two redlinks that need to be dealt with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, the whole point of lithography is that the surface of the stone is neither cut nor engraved, but drawn on. Johnbod (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

And you may well be right as far as classification. But clearly we are missing some articles about stone engraving? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

But what is it? Those links produce a wide range of things, from carved lettering like the picture, to normal lithography, engraved gems, engraved glass using a stone wheel, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Hopefully someone who is more of an expert in this will comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Good luck with that! Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think "inscription" is the usual name for cutting or carving or inscribing of durable materials that is meant to impart a message; your example picture is an inscription. We don't have an article on stone inscriptions in particular, but the Epigraphy article gives a nice overview of inscriptions. The modern term for it is probably stone lettering, e.g., stone lettering chisels. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Certainly "inscription" is the term for the thing, but the technique (on stone with a chisel) would normally be called "carving" in English. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have just decided to wp:BEBOLD and redirect Stone engraving to Letter cutting, since this is the most common application. If you don't like what I have done, well you know what to do. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I also created Stone lettering as a redirect to Letter cutting, since I doubt that anybody plans to make sorts from stone. No doubt some sculptor has made a giant ΑΩ piece but that would not be generic lettering.

"Stonecut" seems to be the same as woodcut, except where trees are rare and valuable but stone is plentiful and cheap, so it is used by arctic peoples. This documentary from the National Film Board of Canada describes the process from about 12 minutes in. How do colleagues feel about creating it as a redirect to Woodcut and adding an explanatory note? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Not too prominent though. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Stonecut now exists as a redirect to Woodcut#Stonecut, a one sentence section at the end of that article. Peer review, please! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)