U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | re: resinotype

re: resinotype

  • To: Alt List <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
  • Subject: re: resinotype
  • From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net>
  • Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:41:00 -0600
  • Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
  • Delivered-to: alt-photo-process-l-archive@www.usask.ca
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

Alberto's reply never got to the list so I cut and paste below.

It is a good one and completely clarifies the confusion between the names.

BTW I have had issues lately with my posts not coming back to me. Has anyone else been having problems with posts?

This is probably a question for Alberto Novo...is there a difference
between resinopigmentype and resinotype? One of my students gave a talk on
the resinopigmentype (complete with Novo's images) and I didn't have an
answer for that.
My answer is yes and no...
YES: because Rodolfo Namias' resinotype was named "resinopigmentipia"
(equivalent to "printing with resinous pigments") when he first announced
his invention in October 1922, but about a year later he deposited the
shorter name "resinotipia". This second name has been used in all his
publications. Namias received Clerc in Milano showing him his process in
June 1923, and Clerc reported an half page description of
"résinopigmentypie" in his "La technique photographique" edited since 1926,
although its name was changed in the meanwhile.
Instead, both the Russians I.K. Laubert ("Photographic Recipes and Tables",
1931) and P.V. Klepikov ("Chromium salts Positive Processes", 1938) correcly
report "resinotipia" (The Russian language prefers to write the phonetic
instead of translating the foreign words). The same for Glafkides' "Chimie
et Physique Photographiques", at least for the 1976 edition.
Stricly speaking, the name "resinopigmentype" should so be abandoned. The
confusion perhaps still lives owing to the Clerk's manual (see below).

NO: if you want to distinguish among the original Namias' patended process
(which claims for a "resinous and greasy" powder) and its imitations and
variations. These last don't use resin or greasy substances and are more
similar to the classic dusting-on or Sobacchi's process, using a gelatine
I have been told that Michel Bertrand, on suggestion by Gérard Traquandi,
experimented in 1985 some historic techniques and, with his background on
pictures on ceramics, adapted Namias' resinotype. That process was named
"résinopigmentypie" referring to the Clerc's manual.
In 1993, Bertrand shared his knowledge with Alfons Alt, who in 2000 granted
the European Publishers Award for Photography with his book "Bestiae", whose
images were obtained with his process.
Alt's resinopigmentype does not rely on resinous pigments, nor the gelatine
is heated before dusting. It is shown and described in
http://www.alfons-alt.com/alfonsalt-fr/Altotypie/resino.html (all in a row).
I have had these information by Sebastien Jouanny, author in 2003 of a
thesis with Jean-Paul Gandolfo and Alfons Alt on "Le résinopigmentype -
Formulation et application du procédé sur support bois".
Jouanny wrote that "Ce procédé nommé par son inventeur la Résinotypie, est
désigné aussi sous le nom Résinopigmentype par exemple dans l'ouvrage de L.
P. Clerc, La technique photographique, 2ème édition, Paul Montel, Paris,
1934, p.668. Nous prenons comme convention de conserver le terme résinotypie
lorsque nous abordons la période antérieure à 1930. Sinon, nous utiliserons
la dénomination résinopigmentype pour la période postérieure à 1930."
Clearly, this statement does not take into account what Namias wrote in "Il
Progresso Fotografico" about the renaming of his process.