Re: Direct Carbon Potential.

[Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>]

Part of the reason Direct Carbon may not seem so hot today may be a change 
in photo practice.  In the 1920s, for instance, most camera formats were 
large enough so the original camera negs could be used to print. Then -- 
what we take for granted -- "miniature" cameras became the norm.  I'm 
supposing of course that most direct carbon requires a contact neg (tho as 
I recall, the Fresson lab was using enlargers?). So maybe Nadeau & company 
found the extra trouble -- and complications -- of making enlarged 
neatives took some of the joy -- and profit -- from the operation?

I also think that today's improvements in inkjet printing -- colors, 
versatility, ease, economy and archivality -- will obviate the need for 
direct carbon (except for what I've called the wish/need for 
labor-intensive art).

Judy