The Print Run That Failed Registration
A student is producing a three-colour reduction linocut edition of 12. The design uses a pale ochre background, a mid-tone red figure, and dark blue linework. After printing the ochre layer on all 12 sheets, the student carves the red block and prints it, then carves again for the blue. On inspection, sheets 1–4 show the red layer offset 3 mm to the right relative to the ochre; sheets 5–8 are aligned but show ink smudging where the paper was handled; sheets 9–12 are clean but the blue layer sits 2 mm low. The student has one sheet of paper left and 11 days before assessment. The assessment requires a resolved edition of at least eight matching prints.
1. Determine how many saleable matching prints the student can realistically achieve, and justify the count.
Read the worked answer
Realistically zero to four, not eight, without intervention. Reduction printing is unforgiving: once the block is carved for blue, the red cannot be reprinted, so misregistration in sheets 1–4 is permanent. Sheets 5–8 are aligned but smudged; smudging may be partly removable but handling marks on absorbent paper usually cannot be fully corrected, so treat them as uncertain. Sheets 9–12 have a consistent 2 mm low blue layer - consistent error is more recoverable in principle, but the block is already carved, so it cannot be shifted without destroying the image. The honest conclusion is that the edition has failed as a matched set. The student must either accept a variable edition of the cleanest sheets with documented differences, or restart - and with one sheet of paper and 11 days, restarting a 12-print edition is not feasible.
2. Recommend a course of action that best serves the assessment criteria, explaining the trade-offs.
Read the worked answer
The strongest option is to present a small variable edition of the cleanest aligned sheets (likely three to four), explicitly documented as a variable edition with a written account of the registration failure, its cause, and the decision made. This serves criteria about technical understanding and reflective practice, which reward accurate diagnosis. The trade-off is that it does not meet the stated requirement of eight matching prints, so the student should confirm with the teacher whether a documented variable edition is acceptable before committing. A second option - printing the remaining sheet as a single proof and presenting the whole run as an investigation into registration - is riskier but may score well on inquiry if the written component is strong. Restarting is not viable given materials and time. The judgement being tested is recognising that a technically failed edition can still be assessed as evidence of learning, provided the failure is analysed rather than hidden.