Re: Fresson question

[Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>]

At 12:26 AM -0500 1/11/08, Judy Seigel wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> cheers,
>
> Judy

Let me remark that the subject of Fresson is very interesting to me 
from a historical perspective, but the kind of image that one gets 
from the process (and from other similar direct carbon processes) is 
not what I want in my own work. As a general rule one gets with the 
Fresson process an image that is rather low in reflective Dmax, has a 
fairly limited range of tones, and has a painterly/impressionistic 
kind of look. I prefer the direct carbon transfer process because it 
gives much greater reflective Dmax, has a range of tones comparable 
to a pt./pd. print, and the print has a very "photographic" type of 
look that maximizes the appearance of detail and sharpness.

I do not claim that any look is inherently superior to another, but I 
do know for a fact what I like for my own personal work.

My impression is that the demand for a Fresson type paper is rather 
low and  probably does not merit the investment of much time or 
capital. Dick Sullivan at B&S could easily make such a paper if he 
wanted, and since he apparently has nothing against making money I 
believe that he would if he felt that it would be worthwhile 
financially. Instead he has decided to make and market carbon 
transfer tissue, which is capable of giving a much better print from 
a technical perspective.


Sandy King