RE: Bleach and Direct Carbon / Direct Carbon Paper Available on TheMarket?
Yes, Judy, We are still making it. The market is building slowly, as I would
like it to. Christopher James's new 2nd ed. will have a chapter that I have
co-written on carbon. A bit of it is on making your own tissue but most of
the chapter will be on the store boughten stuff.
B+S likes to support what we sell, although this is getting more and more
difficult as the "alt" world expands. I convinced the Santa Fe Community
College to limit my carbon class to 10 students and allow me to teach in the
B+S facility. (Like pulling teeth!) The fall class was a hoot. I've not seen
so much excitement in a class. All but two of the students have signed up
for the spring 2008 class so I have to figure out what to do that is new for
The workflow pinch point was the exposure unit. We had a 4000 watt
Dainippoin unit but it did not handle the load. We just got a 5000 watt Olec
and a 1000 watt Nuarc 1k-26S with all the bells and whistles to add to the
Dainippon. The lab has got more wiring than an aircraft carrier.
The 30 gallon water heater pooped out on the last class when the students
were in a flurry making prints for the final, so we may have to up that.
The class acts like a focus group. We get to see what other folks are doing
with the tissue and what mistakes they can make -- and they make plenty!
My biggest problem will be inventory. Some folks want high relief and some
low add that to 4 or 5 colors and you can see the problem.
So, Judy, if you get to Santa Fe, there will be a free class in carbon, and
of course, lunch is on me.
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Bleach and Direct Carbon / Direct Carbon Paper Available on The
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Loris Medici wrote:
> ... I will join the military force for six months obligatory
> military service this Wednesday!)
We'll miss you Loris... I guess you're really a young whippersnapper to be
called up for the military (unless you're a general, or like that, which
is also possible !).
But it's nearly 11:30 PM Tuesday in New York, so it's probably about 5AM
Wednesday over there -- meaning you're gone, or nearly gone... But if you
manage to read this, here's best of luck to you and best wishes for a good
assignment, or at least a tolerable one. (Have they got a gum bichromate
brigade? Or perhaps a photo division?)
Meanwhile I have a couple of questions about direct carbon myself. I take
it from this discussion that a direct carbon paper would be, unlike carbon
transfer paper, which as I recall Bostick and Sullivan had begun to market
(tho I haven't heard much about it lately), exposed under a negative,
then, after developing in an appropriate manner, would become the print
itself. But I don't see how you'd do multiple coats with that, in the way
you could with transfer, so the whole operation would be much trickier --
you'd only get one chance at it?!
Is that correct? Or could you cheat by adding a coat (or coats) of your
own to the developed "direct carbon" ?
> About list membership status of Mike Ware: Most probably / as I know it,
> why don't you ask him directly if you want to be perfectly sure?
Mike Ware was on the list in the beginning, but apparently left quite some
time ago... unless he's secretly tuned in.... (tho if so he's managed to
keep perfectly mum).
> Reply to 2:
> To me, alt-processeses are all
> about being hand-made, self-made; I like to be able to choose the material
> (paper, pigments ect.) to my liking and artistic(!) vision, plus, I need
> able to purchase them locally. (Both very important points.)
For better or worse, nowhere is it written what "alt-process" must be or
mean... tho lately there's been much mention of traditional "factory"
silver gelatin paper as now being "alt."
So one person's "alt" is another's mainstream. I also suspect the average
viewer could hardly tell the difference, at least in monochrome. I
remember about 1988 a fellow from Texas printing gum bichromate on fabric,
doing 3 superimposed coats of black. Many folks who saw it took it for
> Yes, conceptually, we still need factory made material / tools in order to
> make the negatives (either film or digital), but the more I'm free /
> independent the better the process is to me...
> Therefore, to me, a ready-made direct carbon paper isn't interesting /
> desirable at all - unless it provides a quality irreplaceable by other
> means. ???
You're probably in the majority with that.... But "irreplaceable" can
also be a subjective judgement... no?
And regards to you Loris... May you return to us safe and sound, possibly
even with some negatives that will make "interesting" and "desirable"