Your text and the difference between the Carbon Direct Fresson and the Carbon Transfer is very interesting
Date : 11/01/2008 20:46:19
Sujet : Re: Fresson question
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.
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.
__________ Information NOD32 2760 (20080102) __________
Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System.