> . . .
>
> 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.
>
I agree with everything you said but thought I might comment on what I
believe was my absurd idea (not my first nor last I'm afraid).
Financially it is absurd. However, my comment was focused on how
restricted, if not all but forgotten, that this process has become due to
its limited use.
Speaking of economic realities, Nadeau's machine isn't idle while people
are beating down his door for prints or print paper. Furthermore, earlier
in this thread on Fresson, Nadeau spoke about the Fresson's having to
accept all the work they can get . . . they may have over done the secrecy
thing is my point. Certainly, this line of discussion can and will help
their business which as far as I am concerned is good.
My work on the process is not intended to take anything away from the
Fresson family or Nadeau. I simply think that the process should be made
public and will pursue the paper's analysis and intend to publish/post the
results. I also believe that the process would be as commonly used as gum
if it were made available and that is based upon the input of someone who
used to use Fresson paper. As to making money from the process, I don't
think Kodak would consider adjusting there marketing projections based
upon any or all of the alternative processes.
Sincerely, Art
Art Chakalis
Columbus, Ohio, USA