[DCRB-L] Colored illustrations

Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:33:16 -0700

--=====================_3706790==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I agree with Jane; black and white are two colors, and grayscale will 
perhaps make more than three, but no one would mistake them for 'colored' 
illustrations. As far as the RBMS logo goes, we have used "red and black" 
for years to describe just that.  I do think that 'sepia'  might best be 
described as sepia, since it is a single, recognizable color tone that is 
familiar to everyone in our line of work and to most of our client 
population as well.  It would be simple enough for most of us to describe 
what we see, I think, but perhaps it is time for experts in the field of 
rare and medium-rare illustration to weigh in here.  Do we need a specific, 
or non-specific definition of 'colored'? Or can we just say (as they do in 
some dog show classes) "any colors other than black or sepia"? (ok, ok, 
they don't describe dogs as "sepia", but ASCOB is just slightly more arcane).

Juliet

At 04:08 PM 4/30/03 -0400, Jane Gillis wrote:
>I just had an illustration printed in one color (green) on  bright yellow 
>paper.  I took it around to catalogers and various library 
>assistants.  *Everyone* said this was "Colored".  With the logo, if all 
>you had was the RBMS--just red on white background--would that not be colored.
>
>  "Not Colored", to me, is something that is black, white and/or 
> grayscale.   "Colored" has at least one color, other than black, white or 
> grayscale.  (I don't know about sepia)
>
>Jane Gillis
>
>At 11:04 AM 4/29/2003 Tuesday-0400, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>
>>I read John's proposal with appropriate amounts of amusement and 
>>seriousness. However, I do think we need  a definition of "colored," 
>>because otherwise illustrations printed in one color on a tinted paper 
>>would be described by some as colored, which I don't think we want.
>>
>>What if we were to specify that a colored illustration is one that is 
>>printed in at least two different colors of ink? It's easy to understand, 
>>and I believe that is the original intent of the clumsy wording. And the 
>>RBMS logo would qualify as colored.
>>
>>This does not consider the case of hand-coloring, however, and I have 
>>some issues with WG3 recommendations regarding that, which I will post in 
>>due time.
>>
>>___________________________
>>Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
>>Head of Cataloging
>>Folger Shakespeare Library
>>201 East Capitol St., S.E.
>>Washington, D.C. 20003
>>202.675-0369 (p)
>>202.675-0328 (f)
>>djleslie@folger.edu
>><file://www.folger.edu>www.folger.edu
>
>Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger|  Sterling Memorial Library
>Yale University | New Haven CT  06520
>(203)432-2633 (voice) | (203)432-4047 (fax) | jane.gillis@yale.edu

--=====================_3706790==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<body>
 
I agree with Jane; black and white are two colors, and grayscale will
perhaps make more than three, but no one would mistake them for 'colored'
illustrations. As far as the RBMS logo goes, we have used &quot;red and
black&quot; for years to describe just that.&nbsp; I do think that
'sepia'&nbsp; might best be described as sepia, since it is a single,
recognizable color tone that is familiar to everyone in our line of work
and to most of our client population as well.&nbsp; It would be simple
enough for most of us to describe what we see, I think, but perhaps it is
time for experts in the field of rare and medium-rare illustration to
weigh in here.&nbsp; Do we need a specific, or non-specific definition of
'colored'? Or can we just say (as they do in some dog show classes)
&quot;any colors other than black or sepia&quot;? (ok, ok, they don't
describe dogs as &quot;sepia&quot;, but ASCOB is just slightly more
arcane).&nbsp; 
Juliet 
 
At 04:08 PM 4/30/03 -0400, Jane Gillis wrote: 
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I just had an illustration printed
in one color (green) on&nbsp; bright yellow paper.&nbsp; I took it around
to catalogers and various library assistants.&nbsp; *Everyone* said this
was &quot;Colored&quot;.&nbsp; With the logo, if all you had was the
RBMS--just red on white background--would that not be colored. 
&nbsp;&quot;Not Colored&quot;, to me, is something that is black, white
and/or grayscale.&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;Colored&quot; has at least one color,
other than black, white or grayscale.&nbsp; (I don't know about
sepia) 
Jane Gillis 
At 11:04 AM 4/29/2003 Tuesday-0400, Deborah J. Leslie wrote: 
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I read John's proposal with
appropriate amounts of amusement and seriousness. However, I do think we
need&nbsp; a definition of &quot;colored,&quot; because otherwise
illustrations printed in one color on a tinted paper would be described
by some as colored, which I don't think we want. 
What if we were to specify that a colored illustration is one that is
printed in at least two different colors of ink? It's easy to understand,
and I believe that is the original intent of the clumsy wording. And the
RBMS logo would qualify as colored. 
This does not consider the case of hand-coloring, however, and I have
some issues with WG3 recommendations regarding that, which I will post in
due time. 
___________________________ 
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. 
Head of Cataloging 
Folger Shakespeare Library 
201 East Capitol St., S.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20003 
202.675-0369 (p) 
202.675-0328 (f) 
djleslie@folger.edu 
<a href="file://www.folger.edu">www.folger.edu</a>
</blockquote> 
Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger|&nbsp; Sterling Memorial Library 
Yale University | New Haven CT&nbsp; 06520 
(203)432-2633 (voice) | (203)432-4047 (fax) | jane.gillis@yale.edu</blockquote></body>
</html>

--=====================_3706790==.ALT--