> At 7:30 PM -0400 97/06/06, Judy Seigel wrote:
> >On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Luis Nadeau wrote:
> >> Most, if not all woodburytypes you saw were varnished. The carbon transfer
> >> process -not for beginners- is superior to the woodburytype in many ways.
> >> Since multi-pigmented layers are possible in carbon one could also add a
> >> *non-pigmented* gelatin layer where the gelatin would be applied
> >> proportionally to the amount of light that was allowed through the
> >> negative.
Judy wrote:
> >In my experience, for gelatine to increase the "luminosity" of a print,
> >the pigment has to be suspended *in* it (as in Drtikol's carbon prints)
> >not *under* it as you suggest here.
Luis wrote:
> In my *considerable* experience (thousands of prints since 1974 that led to
> 4 books plus the acquisition of the Fresson process) with pigment prints
> the answer is not that easy. For starter, I won't even touch the definition
> of "luminosity".
>
> I have made carbon prints where the pigment would easily rub off on one's
> fingers when touched, while others looked like perfect facsimiles of Agfa
> Portriga papers. I have often taken pleasure in showing a wide variety of
> prints to visitors, asking them how many different processes they could
> identify. After they'd say 4 or 5 they were always stunned to learn that
> only one process, carbon transfer or double transfer had been used. They
> had no idea that such a wide spectrum of effects could be achieved out of
> one process.
>
> And what they saw did not even include full tricolor prints nor photoceramics.
>
Luis, all this may be true, no doubt is true, but I don't see the
relevance. I don't deny the varieties of carbon printing. I speak of the
general effect of gelatine coating on so-called "luminance" in printing.
However, I'm glad you mention ceramics. Photo or not, glazed ceramics
have a glorious "luminosity" that makes anything on paper, tricolor, or
sculptured jello mold, seem dead next to it. I would hesitate to show any
kind of print next to ceramics (although that seems beyond the scope of
the original question).
Judy