|
I'm still waiting for acoustic experts and luthiers
to make a Stradivarius
Jacques
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:26
AM
Subject: Fresson question
The 1929 American Annual of Photography article, "The
'Fresson' Direct
Carbon Printing Process" by Charles M. Mouret, was
mentioned.
I happened to have that particular AAP, and, more
surprising, found it,
and absolutely no surprise, it was bookmarked at
that article, which of
course I re-read -- confirming, as mentioned, that
it told (in detail) how
to develop a print on the proprietary Fresson
paper.
But, little as I desire to go that route, it leaves me more
puzzled than
ever: Why is it that the so-to-speak best minds of the field
(give or take
a few other minds), WITH the aid of the Internet AND modern
photo
knowledge have not been able to, or claim not to have been able to,
duplicate that paper -- invented at a time, incidentally, when potassium
dichromate crystals were still called "powder" (vide Mouret). How much
could they have known that "we" don't know?
Art Chakalis wrote a
(charming, if I may say so) article about his visit
to the presentday
Fresson studio for Post-Factory; he himself has patented
a process of
direct carbon, which I admittedly have not tried, but which
obviously
works, yet Art claims not to have found the "secret" of the
original.
John Grocott has likewise developed a process, apparently
not (yet anyway)
patented, but still it also "works." I'm forgetting
the name of the
fellow who wrote about his discoveries in Silverprint,
some 10 or more
years ago. Others, perhaps MANY others, have worked on the
problem, yet it
seems, whatever their other successes, the "original"
"Fresson," the holy
grail (?), eludes them.
Sandy King, world-class
expert on carbon printing, with publications &
triumphs worldwide,
plus advising (I gather) Bostick & Sullivan on their
recent commercial
carbon paper, yet -- IIRC, Sandy has rarely so much as
uttered the word
"Fresson."
Perhaps he, and others, achieve what Fresson can't, but the
world still
seems to long for a paper to buy and print on.
Maybe I
don't have enough problems. (I took a holiday today, walking to
Chelsea to
enjoy & disenjoy some current art) but still I ask: How did
those
folks, without a computer or a sensitometer or a 21-step, let alone
an
MFA, devise a process posterity cannot match? Or is that simply
nostalgia, a longing for temps perdues (the feeling, not the chickens),
&
the main difference is lack of the commercial distribution of
Mouret's
time?
PS. My own favorite feature of the American Annuals
(the commentary, as a
rule, being vapid and long-winded) is the list at
the back of the book,
"Who's Who in Pictorial Photography" world-wide:
some 19 pages from
America to Tasmania, circa 1500 photographers: The two
most exhibited in
salons of 1927-8, BTW, were Dr. Max Thorek of the US
(211 prints), and
Frantisek Drtikol of Czechoslovakia (142 prints). Wm
Mortensen,
incidentally, was slacking off, with only
18.
cheers,
Judy
--
No virus found in this
incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus
Database: 269.19.0/1216 - Release Date: 1/9/2008 10:16
AM
|