Now that you mention it there is a Scottish saying you will enjoy: Opinion
is that exercise of the human will which helps us to make a decision
without information.
So lets deal in the realm of real information.
Testing on two separate unprocessed Fresson printing paper samples, as
manufactured by the Fresson family, is in progress. I do know that we can
expect to see electron microscopic views in hopes of identifying the layer
structure and thicknesses measurements for clues as to the coating method.
The IR spectroscopy will provide the inorganic chemical content of the
coatings. The difficult analysis will be the colloid identification. The
lab has been told to look first for either/or gum arabic and gelatin but
that there could be some other colloid present. Should the lab I have
access to be unsuccessful on the colloid identification there is a testing
lab that specializes in this type of work but it will not be free.
Having seen some of the preliminary analysis, I am certain that the
testing will provide some real information about the nature of the Fresson
process. Recognizing that it will lead to a lot of conjecture I intend to
disseminate the information only after all testing is complete. In
addition, out of respect for the source of the paper, Bill Foster be given
the information ahead of a general publication or list E-Mailing. The
samples were submitted in late summer and in view of the 100 years of
secrecy a couple of months or even another year can't be a serious issue.
I have a proposition to the other list members who are most likely in a
university environment. Once the initial analytical data is made
available I would be willing to share samples of the paper that I have for
further analytical testing. I am not interested in duplicate testing
(though I wouldn't object to a confirmatory test) but rather any added
types of tests that could draw further facts from the samples. The only
condition is that the test results be made public in a timely manner. If
you have an interest please respond to me individually (Alchemists need
not respond).
Having seen the beauty of this process, it deserves the chance to be utilized
by the photographic community at large. A broader use would only further
refine the process and allow it to evolve beyond the vision of the few people
who have maintained its secrecy.
Sincerely, Art
Art Chakalis
Columbus, Ohio, USA
On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Luis Nadeau wrote:
> At 10:20 PM -0500 98/01/03, Art Chakalis wrote:
> >On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Peter Charles Fredrick wrote:
> >
> >> Art you are leading this lads astray there is no prove that the Artigue /
> >> Fresson processes contains any gum ,we had this conversation at Bath this
> >> last year, and I seem to remember a wager, and also I am still awaiting the
> >> results of your research,
> >> We have a saying in the Uk an empty drum makes most noise :-) ?
>
> There is an interesting saying here that goes like this: a closed mouth
> gathers no feet;-)
>
> ...
> >Our wager is not forgotten, it stands as a commitment to our differing
> >beliefs. As a reminder, I think that the Fresson paper samples will
> >contain both gum and gelatin while you believed that gum will not be
> >present. Unfortunately, the testing has proceeded at a snails pace. In
>
> I think the real reason why these tests are taking forever and a day is
> that those conducting it know in advance that it is an exercise in
> futility. They have better things to do with their time.
>
> For conservation/restoration/provenance purposes, I have been using
> scientific analysis of photographs for over 20 years, with the finest of
> the equipment and scientists in the world. The bottom line is this: you
> can't reverse engineer a process, period. There are tricks that some
> manufacturers use to find out what others are doing but most of these
> tricks don't involve chemical analysis and they are often not successful.
>
> One such trick consists in buying the info from an ex-employee and this is
> what is sending retired Kodak executive Harold C. Worden to jail for
> industrial espionage against his former employer, as widely reported in the
> press last year. Other "tricks", of course, are perfectly legal, e.g.,
> inventions can be bought. Ugh? What a concept! I should patent it, quick!;-)
>
> Last year (97), _Pour la Science_, the French edition of _Scientific
> American_ published a most interesting article by Marignier (CNRS
> scientist) on the first photographic process ever invented, by Niepce in
> the 1820s: the bitumen process. After 10 years of work he has succeeded in
> reviving the process, not because of his analytical work, but because he
> had enough of the formulas left by Niepce's correspondence with Daguerre.
> If it had not been for that he would never have succeeded, as only a
> precise series of steps involving heating, dissolving, distilling, coating,
> etc, at specific temperatures and for specific periods of time, etc., could
> make something work. If you change one variable, nothing works!
>
> The odds of winning the lotery are much better than stumbling across the
> perfect solution for any of these processes.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Luis Nadeau
> NADEAUL@NBNET.NB.CA
> Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
> http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/nadeaul/
>