1) I agree with the concept that this thread should be called "direct
carbon," not Fresson. Fresson is a proprietary system, and true Fressons
can only be made by the Fressons in Paris. Not even Luis Nadeau can make
Fressons, though he knows how to make fresson like papers. Fresson was one
of many direct carbon processes that appeared during the pictorial period.
A short list of others would include names such as Artigue, Auto-Pastel,
Deux-Epées, Farinaud, Leto, Paper Gomme-Noire, Höcheimer, etc. They were
all proprietary systems and the exact coating system is unknown. In fact,
the colloid used in manufacturing these papers is also uncertain. Research
indicates that some used gum arabic, others fish glue, others gelatin, and
combinations thereof.
2) Ortiz Echague was an active photographer over many decades. He begam
working with direct carbon and commercial gum papers other than Fresson as
early as 1906, but by 1915 he had become a master of Fresson. He continued
to make Fresson prints until 1966. After World War II the Fresson family
ceased commercial distribution of Fresson paper but they continued to make
it available to a relatively small numbers of photographers, including
Orti-Echague. In 1966 Echague purchased the process through an agreement
which provided him with the technolgical information to make a direct
carbon paper similar to Fresson. In return, Echague was prohibited from
calling his prints "Fressons." Instead, after 1966 he uses the term
"carbondir" which is short for "carbon directo" in Spanish. However, the
great majority of his prints were made on true Fresson paper, not
"carbondir."
3) The idea that the Fressons should have made their process public is
absurd, as Luis has pointed out. They would have gained little or no
finanical advantage to doing so. Instad, keeping the system proprietary has
resulted in a sustained econimic base for several generations of the
Fresson family.
4) It is wonderful that so many are experimenting with different forms of
direct carbon printing. However, in my opinion no one is going to realize
any significant financial return from this experimentation unless it be via
the method of the Fresson family, i.e. offering a direct carbon printing
service to the public. I doubt seriously that there would be any
appreciable market for direct carbon papers. If anyone could do it, it is
Luis Nadeau. He already has the formulas (at least for monochrome papers)
and knows the coating operation. It would be only a small step for Luis to
manufacture commercial fresson-like papers, if a market existed. I would
(as would may others) love to experiemnt with some of his fresson-like
paper were he to make it avaiable.
5) Quadrichomie Fresson prints made today are unique in terms of their
appearance. It is true, as Luis notes, that tricolor carbon is technicaly
superior to Qudrichormie Fresson, yet the look is totally different. The
allure of Quadrichoromie Fresson is in the very distinctive appearance of
the proces and in the fact that the system itself is proprietary. However,
from the perspective of aesthetics, my opinion is that Quadrichormie
Fresson is approprite for only a limited range of subjects. Also, I find
that Quadrichormie Fressons made from 35mm originals are much more visually
interesting (because of the pointillistic effect resulting from grain
enlargement) than those made from 6X6 originals.
Just a few random thoughts which may be of interest to someone.
Sandy King