woodcut

The HDR used makes the others appear uniformly flat / without depth, like an old chinese woodcut (e.g.

It can't even handle analysing a 19th century woodcut engraving containing topless mythical beings[1].

A fantastic example of this (in numerous senses) is Albrecht Dürer's woodcut of a rhinoceros (1515), made from second-hand reports and sketches.

The cover image is a Hieronymous Bosch woodcut of an English pub.

Were you thinking that if he knew about The Garden of Earthly Delights he wouldn't have chosen a woodcut of a pub for the PUB manual?

Oh definitely, I agree, woodcut and digital art and photos, for example, are all wildly different media.

Edit: seems I phrased this badly, my point was that a Georgian woodcut circa 1810 is unlikely to be from Bosch (1450 – 1516).

I don't know what Rust is but one of the guys downstairs has a book on it with a woodcut of a beaver on the front.

Though apparently only the woodcut versions.

Xylography (woodcut) technique also uses negatives.

But there were also practical reasons why a printer would make art out of bent brass rules and typographical elements: engraving, lithography and woodcut production were specialized professions separate from printing.

(I made a series of woodcut illustrations for Moscow-Petushki by Venedikt Yerofeyev, was, actually, pretty decent, unlike the other three).

This 2020 document says that it's a “cut-and-paste” from a Thomas Rowlandson (1756-1827) woodcut print.

Same with the image clue from "Fewer candles to count" - it looks to me like a woodcut maze and lead me completely in the wrong direction.

I'm imagining that the printer asked them, 'Where's your logo, we'll put it here in this space,' and they sent over the giant woodcut thing and the printer says, "You know what, nevermind, I don't think we need it here after all."