-----Original Message-----
From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:31 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Réf. : Re: Réf. : RE: Réf. : Sury
Okay, so the misperception was about the names; the patent
copies on your website is in fact the same patent that is
used to make the
pictures shown, and the process is called the Sury Color Process.
Thanks for clearing up the confusion.
I was apparently mistaking the patent Richard described with
the patent someone else (Dave? Judy?) described, for a color
process that seemed possibly to resemble a resinotype.
Katharine
On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Philippe Berger wrote:
Katharine,
which I gather from Richard's description uses three color
separation
negatives, and a colloid over cyanotype mixed- process for
the three
color printings
This is a other patent of Joseph Sury in 1908 I am also
this patent
(10 pages)
*****
What confuses me is that the pictures show the temporary
blue pigment
being removed by acid; is that also a feature of the
resinotype Sury
Color Process? Or is it that Phillipe's process isn't a direct
translation of either of Sury's patents but his own process
that sort
of takes from both? Or something else, like the names of the
processes have been mixed up or something.
By the way, if anyone's interested in trying this (the method
described in the patent on the website), sodium aluminum
sulfosilicate is ultramarine blue.
This is the patent of the Color process of 1924, do you see on my
Website See the 3 picture on my web site with a demonstration
1 Blue picture
2.The picture without the blue
3. Add the dry pigment
Are you see the difference
Philippe
-------Message original-------
De : Katharine Thayer
Date : 01/02/08 19:52:55
A : alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Sujet : Re: Réf. : RE: Réf. : Sury
I think I need some clarification. My understanding,
reading through
this thread, is that the pictures on Philippe's website, both from
Sury and from Phillipe, are made from the process called the Sury
Color Process, which I gather from Richard's description uses three
color separation negatives, and a colloid over cyanotype mixed-
process for the three color printings.
But the patent that Phillipe so thoughtfully put on the
website for us
to read, is a patent for a different process involving a prepared
paper coated with a colloid mixed with a temporary blue pigment. A
dichromate solution is coated over the paper to sensitize
it and the
paper is exposed, developed and dried, then the blue pigment is
removed by putting the paper in hydrochloric acid, which makes the
dried colloid receptive to powdered pigment.
What confuses me is that the pictures show the temporary
blue pigment
being removed by acid; is that also a feature of the
resinotype Sury
Color Process? Or is it that Phillipe's process isn't a direct
translation of either of Sury's patents but his own process
that sort
of takes from both? Or something else, like the names of the
processes have been mixed up or something.
By the way, if anyone's interested in trying this (the method
described in the patent on the website), sodium aluminum
sulfosilicate is ultramarine blue.
Katharine
On Dec 31, 2007, at 9:45 PM, Richard Knoppow wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Philippe Berger"
<mineurdecharbon@skynet.be>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 1:15 PM
Subject: Réf. : RE: Réf. : Sury
Marek,
The sury color is not a real tricolor, the sury color is
different
of a carbon Black The Sury Color is only a Sury Color, a
process of
Joseph Sury of
1924
Philippe
I was not able to find a Sury patent dated 1924 but found an
earlier one as noted in a previous post. The earlier patent is for
three-color printing from color separation negatives using a
combination of cyanotype for the blue image and some sort
of resin,
gum or something else not specified, for the other two
colors. Sury
distinguishes this method from an "assembled" method such
as three-
color carbon. This may not be the method being described here.
The sample on your web site is quite interesting. I
downloaded it
and, out of curiosity, manipulated it in Photoshop using the auto
level or the auto-color commands. The results are about the same
and quite interesting because they get rid of the yellow overall
cast and bring out a great deal of subtle color which the overall
color suppresses. I wonder what it was intended to look like.
I agree with Judy that it is reminscent of a style
popular in the
1920's but, to my eye, looks much like a good pencil portrait. The
pose and lighting are far better than most of the "pictorialist"
stuff from that period. It is in fact a beautiful portrait of a
quite beautiful girl and quite fascinating regardless of what
process it may have been made with.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
__________ Information NOD32 2760 (20080102) __________
Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System.
http://www.nod32.com
<1D7675F9-DC23-4B36-BA38-6945C86A8C28>