Terry replied:
>I know what they look like.
>
>I helped hang the Historical Group exhibition to which you refer. I was also
>there when the pictures were taken down again.
>
>Scanning the prints is going to do them no more harm than hanging them on the
>wall. Carbon is about the most archival of the alternative processes.
He probably meant "degrading" in the sense of image quality. Not conservation.
> I am sure that everybody on this list would be interested to see the progress
>you are making as they are all interested in alternative processes. And there
>are people on the list who know far more about the Fresson process than either
>of us.
Wonder who that might be;-)
>Letting people see what one is doing is by far the best way of establishing
>credibility one's credibility. Are there any articles to which people could
>refer ?
The problem with images on the web is that they can be judged in terms of
contents but not in terms of surface quality. Once you have "photoshopped"
an image you can do anything you want with it, e.g., remove stains,
increase contrast, etc.
The difference between a fantastic print and a good one cannot be seen on
the web IMO. Both scanners and computer monitors vary tremendously in
quality and even the very best, in expert hands, will not show you glowing
highlights that can only be seen when you have a print **in your hands**,
at just the right angle in relation to the ambient light source(s). We've
all been frustrated trying to look at prints framed, behind glass, nailed
to the wall... Prints on the web are even more difficult to appreciate.
High quality photomechanical reproduction, that few book publishers can
afford, will do a better job, but nothing replaces the real McCoy.
I am somewhat surprised that only a score of people have shown interest in
the free specimen print that has been offered.
Luis Nadeau
nadeaul@nbnet.nb.ca
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
http://www.mi.net/dialin/awef6t/