Re: Paris: Was: Re: Video

Peter charles fredrick (pete@fotem.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 17 May 96 01:03:30 +1000

>Terry, Peter, and others, did you get most of what was going on? 60%? 75%?<

Yes you were very clear the only time you got a bit terse was when a topic
came up that you had a strong interest in such as bergertype for instance
but this is perfectly understandable considering the circumstances

>too early to talk seriously about this in great details, but suffice to say
that the MEP administration has had a very good feedback regarding our
little impromptu meeting. We had visitors from England, Belgium,
Netherlands, Germany, Spain, France, the US, and myself from Canada.<

>For those who don't know, the MEP is the newest Museum in Paris. A $35
million gift from the Chirac administration housed in a restored hotel
originally built, if memory serves, ca. 1716. At any rate they have a Web
page which has more info. Search for Maison Europeenne de la Photographie.<

A very funny situation transpired, we were very generously given an auditorium
extremely well appointed, matching carpeting and chair upholstery all very swish
but it transpired that there was no means of displaying our work no print easel
or even a table consequently we lay the work on the ground with a lot of
bending, and in my case grunting, being of a rather heroic proportion so to
speak ,it proved rather problematical until my good friend Terry come to
the rescue, who is no wraith himself, but is nimble as a mountain goat ,
the whole thing had an element of a Jacques Tatti movie, still lets not
bite the hand that feeds us, the MPE were most generous to provide space at
such short notice.

The net gang under the able leadership Luis put a up a very good show, I am
sure that if you were all there you would have been proud of us, I gained
the impression that all the participants that attended went away highly
satisfied, being only a small group we were not without influence.

I wont comment on the work displayed as Luis has made an accurate job of this
However I must comment on the work of Pierre Brochet ,I don't think I have
ever seen such superb work a true master of the process. The photogravure
process
is probably the most beautiful of all in my opinion, and when you see examples
of such quality it just takes your breath away.Makes you wont try harder
with your own favourite process.This is the value of these get together's
is that they often inspire.

>There was Philippe Berger from Belgium, who has revived the Sury process,
"...marketed in Europe, ca. 1920-1938 by the Belgian J.Sury. The paper was
coated with a layer of gelatin, in which were suspended a light blue
pigment, such as artificial ultramarine, and an inert pigment, such as
barium sulfate... it was sensitised in Dichromate, dried, exposed... and
developed in lukewarm water. The Dichromate stain was then removed in a
very weak solution of hydrochloric acid... reacting with the ultramarine
pigment, produced gas bubbles, giving the gelatin a **spongy**
structure..."

>The above process gives a bright white matrix that I can only describe (now
that I have seen one) as the inside of an oyster shell. We actually had a
demo on how it is powdered up. He simply put a little bit of pastel powder
on the surface of the bright white matrix and with a cloth, started to rub
the powder into the millions of microscopic bubble holes and *instantly*
the matrix accepted the pigment in proportion to the exposure. I don't know
if this is caught on the video. There is a fair amount of control over the
powdering up. The print looks like a pigment print on a shiny surface which
annoyed me a little. I see in the technical literature quoted in my article
that there was a way to transfer the image, perhaps repeatedly, to another
surface. This would result with a pigment print without the shiny surface,
much like an oil transfer, except that the results are automatic. This
seemed to be *much* simpler than oil transfer.<

I would like to add a few points mentioned by Monsieur Philippe Berger's
Firstly part of his proof that he has indeed a projection speed process
was the fact that he stated the the prints he made to demonstrate the
Sury process were of adifferent size to each other and they were, but
these prints were not the gum prints,so this is maybe significant,
however the Sury process does contain Dichromate.

The second point is we were only shown one gum print , there was some
staining on the edge of this print which had a circler characteristic as if
it had been buffered on in the manner of the pastel powder application, is
Monsieur Berger using the Sury process to piggy back the gum I wonder.The
third and final point is when as asked what gum he used he said I quote
"that is an interesting question " Luis can verify this.He also stated that
his method will work with any process which I think highly unlikely unless
he is using the Sury process to carry the sentistisers of other
processes.What is needed is some experimentation.

Well that's it a very stimulating time was had, lets see if we can do it
next year

pete