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

Re: Direct Carbon Potential.



<>David,

Well Iíll add my two cents to this thread being the inventor and patent holder for a direct carbon printing process.†† First, my interest in photography and specifically the Artigue/Fresson process is driven by a love of photography as an art form along with the challenge presented by a secret process which seems to defy accepted photographic principles for carbon and/or gum printing.

I chose to patent my work for two reasons which are somewhat diametrically opposed.On one hand I feel that if there is a commercial application, I should at least have a chance at sharing in the financial benefit generated by my inventions.In addition, as opposed to keeping it a trade secret, a patent documents the work which I believe over time will have added a significant amount of information to the very limited body of knowledge available on the Artigue and/or Fresson process.

To expand on the commercial side of things, I think the current market for either a carbon transfer or direct carbon printing product is miniscule.However, if we turn back the clock about 30 years, one could have made the same statement about platinum printing.It is my understanding that Dick Sullivan went ahead and began producing platinum printing materials at a time when a market didnít exist and quite likely contributed a good deal of the impetus for its successful revival.Though carbon transfer is not widely used today, Dickís current work to make carbon transfer products available makes perfect sense in light of platinumís resurrection.

As to direct carbon, we know that the Fresson family has successfully run a commercial printing operation for over 100 years.I digress but the familyís ability to maintain their trade secret for this length of time is utterly amazing.The reason the process is viable is best understood by viewing a real Fresson print. There is no other type of printing process, thus far, that is capable of capturing and reproducing its aesthetics faithfully.

You must admire the Fressonís commitment to photography, I just happen to think it would be a good thing if the process were more widely available.Following on that train of thought, the information in my patent is real and the examples work.My process was refined by reverse engineering using the published and well documented Fresson print development method (this had to be truthful as it was used by photographers like you and me in the era when Fresson printing paper had been sold commercially).†† My hitting upon the key ingredients, a mixture of gelatin and gum arabic, was a needle in a haystack discovery found through countless experiments with a host of colloids.†† Long after being granted my patent, I was bequeathed several samples of raw Fresson print paper circa 1950s and its analysis confirmed the use of a like mixture of gelatin and gum arabic.However, direct carbon is a very physical process and the exact manner of coating plays heavily into the processís capability.

In short, the Fresson secret has been pealed back a bit but not completely.

Sincerely, Art




On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:39:35 +0000, davidhatton wrote

> Hi All,
> I have absolutely no expertise in manufacturing anything (except children) but what sort of strikes me is this. If there is no commercial value to the manufacture of carbon paper etc..Why is everyone so secretive about the process?
> Regards
> David H
>
> On Jan 14 2008, John Grocott wrote:
>
> Sandy,
> >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 : -
>
> John,
>
> 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.
>
> Optimistically.
>
> John - Photographist - London - UK


--
WOW! Homepage (http://www.wowway.com)