U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Direct Carbon Potential.

Direct Carbon Potential.

            From my own practical experience the making off a successful Direct Carbon paper is, by far, much less of a demanding project than making Carbon Transfer Tissue.  I feel that your beliefs are rather overestimating what, exactly, is required to make a successful Direct Carbon paper. As you point out,  your belief is that  Art Chakalis has ,
'' plenty of technical expertise'',  in these matters and , after all, he did buy a patent to prove it.  To me, his images look pretty good  altho' I have only seen them on monitor screen.
 I have never, as yet, even in his books, seen a reproduction of a  Direct Carbon  Fresson print by Luis Nadeau. But the work of Jose Ortiz Echague is entirely another matter.  It would be difficult to disagree that there was something viable going in that direction ?
                      I have made Carbon Transfer Tissue, myself, and so have had a fair chance of comparing the effort and ''complications'' involved in producing both types of carbon coated papers.  The results I have satisfy my own desires just as your work satisfies Dick and paying customers, your followers and yourself . So, that's OK, isnt it ?
                        It is my belief that the actual formulae for  ''Fresson Type''  Direct Carbon paper emulsions is what differs, drastically, from many of the other D/C papers marketed around the end of the 19 C. Also, the  bleach method of development for  Arvel Fresson paper was unique.  This Arvel paper was made and marketed for fifteen years prior to World War Two so that, I guess, was finacially viable, over that period, for them.
There are a burgeoning number of photo artists making Gum prints because the knowledge and materials are readily available. With potential Direct Carbon printers it is another matter. The knowledge is missing and it is this information that is really  viable .
                      Whether Direct Carbon paper will ever be manufactured, again, commercially, remains to be seen. Visualizing who would buy this proprietory product is not difficult :-
Universities and art colleges/schools with photo faculties, photo printers  working for photographers in the field of fine art who have knowledge of both digital and trad, basically.  And, not forgetting the domestic hobbyist, to name a few.
There is some financial potential in writing about how pointless it is to consider the viability of  making Direct Carbon paper.
''Use what you've got and use what you ain't got, too.''  ( Seymour Krim . 
 ''  Making It !   The Beat Scene''  1 9 6 0 )
Best wishes in your endeavours.
John - Photographist - London - UK.
Sandy King  wrote : -

I simply don't believe that making a good quality direct carbon paper requires a great deal of technical expertise. Back in the early 20th century there were literally dozens of such papers on the market, most made by fairly low tech operations. Based on my own knowledge of the way some of these papers were made the technical aspects don't appear any more complicated than making a good quality carbon tissue for carbon transfer.

My own belief is that Dick Sullivan and a number of other people, including Luis Nadeau and Art Chaklis,  have plenty of technical expertise to produce such a paper if they thought it would make money. The fact that it ain't happening tells me all I need to know.

Sandy King

At 3:27 PM +0000 1/12/08, John Grocott wrote:

I feel sure that if Dick Sullivan had the know how and technical expertise to make and market a Direct Carbon paper which would respond exactly as described in many published accounts of the development procedure, including that which is in Philippe's expensive book, Dick would risk investing in it.
But that is Dick's business, and as my Grandfather always said, ''Mind your own business and you will have a business to mind.''
The correspondence on this List, by now, must be reaching many thousands, if not millions, of readers including educators, students, entrepreneurs, gallery owners, museum curators, art photo investors, hobbyists, photo journalists and technical authors and publishers, not to mention w/s organizers of photo alternatives, so the potential money making aspect of such a highly secret process seems to be quite viable.
Think on.
John - Photographist - London - UK