In the context of what you are talking about, I agree with you.
Photography is about images.
My understanding is that this forum is about alternative photographic
processes, alternatives to standard silver printing is my personal
interpretation. I certainly don't think that discussion should be limited to
technical aspects but the e-mail medium isn't about images and even if we
begin to attach images to these notes the electronic interpretation
typically loses a lot of the information the original image contained.
This thread started out in response to a question about a dusting box for
use in following the commonly believed method that Artigue used to make
his printing material. It seems to have evolved into a debate about the
ongoing investigation into the nature of the Artigue and Fresson printing
processes as well as conjecture about the merit and/or futility of such
investigation. In brief, there are camps that want the process to be
maintained as a trade secret and my efforts are counter current to that
thinking.
Back to photography and images. If you get an opportunity to view an
original Fresson print, I think you will quickly understand the reason for
the technical investigation, discussion and debate. To your point, words
are inadequate to convey the image's content.
Sincerely, Art
Art Chakalis
Columbus, Ohio, USA
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Herold Faulkner wrote:
> Art,
>
> Thanks for your prompt reply. I guess what I was trying to say is that
> there seems to be an incredible amount of energy going into an attempts to
> duplicate processes (exactly?) rather than dealing with results. If the
> intent of a photograph is to convey meaning of some sort or another then I
> contend that the photo speaks for itself. One of the threads of discussion
> that I have seen on RAPP began with the question "What is a sepia toned
> photograph supposed to look like?" This misses the point also, the real
> question is "what do you want your photograph to look like?" If the answer
> is "I want my photograph to look like a Fresson print," then by all means
> one should investigate the process and attempt to duplicate the appearance
> of the Fresson print. However, I don't think one should be over concerned
> with what is in a Fresson print. Passing the Turing (SP?) Test should be
> sufficient.
>
> My reference to making one feel good was perhaps not the best way of putting
> it. Gene Richards' photographs don't necessarily make me feel good, but
> they certainly make me feel (and think.) Although they may be open to a
> different interpretation if printed differently Gene has presented them for
> impact, not for adherence to a particular process or technique.
>
> You are entirely correct when you suggest that many processes are closely
> related to one another. One need only look at the formulation of D-76 and
> ID-11 to see that. These formulas (this formula) are here because the work
> and yield a certain result. For my money, the visual result is the
> important one and I don't care if one uses D-76, FG-7, or even Rodinal. I
> use primarily one film (which a number of my acquaintances seem to despise
> or at least denigrate) because it does what I want and I am happy with the
> photographs I get. When I grow to the point that I am no longer satisfied
> with those results I will began an investigation into what I need to do to
> get a different result. I hope I will be sensible enough to have some
> semblance of an end in mind rather than simply a vague dissatisfaction with
> what I'm doing, although I can't guarantee sensibility. In the meantime I
> will look at as many photographs as I can and continue to ask "would that
> look better express my feelings about my images than what I am presenting
> now?" My decision to use (or explore) one or another process more
> intensively will be based on my own emotional feelings about the images
> which I am getting, not on what a given process is supposed to look like.
> Looking back at this paragraph it is obvious that it is filled with the
> first person, however, one should be able to generalize.
>
> Perhaps we are talking apples and oranges here, but I for one would rather
> look at your photographs than at your patent. I do not mean that your
> patent and process are not worthwhile, just that I want to know how your
> images feel before I would ask for some of that feeling in my work. I also
> don't mean to imply that I am not interested in technique or
> photo-chemistry.
>
> I hope this isn't too much of a monologue and/or diatribe and that it is not
> interpreted in a negative way. It just seems (yeah, O.K., TO ME) that we
> should be dealing more with images and less with molecular structure.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Hal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Art Chakalis <achakali@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
> To: Herold Faulkner <faulkner@redshift.com>
> Date: Monday, January 05, 1998 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Artigue and Fresson Printing
>
>
> >On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Herold Faulkner wrote:
> >
> >> Luis, Art, et al:
> >>
> >> Perhaps I am missing the point but I am confused by some of the querries
> >> and
> >
> >
> >Hm . . . well yes you have and are . . . but then again we all are, it's
> >just an issue of the topic.
> >
> >
> >Despite contrary opinion, many things and processes are reverse
> >engineered. However, I don't think your analogy to the human body is very
> >realistic. Look at things that we deal with in photography, take color
> >processing, do you really think that each supplier has invented their own
> >chemistry . . . not very likely. Look at cameras, why do you think they
> >all look alike overnight; as one manufacturer adds some feature the others
> >follow.
> >
> >As to feeling good about a gum/gelatin mixture . . . I don't understand
> >what you are trying to say. I spent a little over tens years testing both
> >reported Fresson and Artigue type formulas as well as a wide variety of
> >colloids. The idea to mix the two came out of an inspiration and in fact
> >should not be possible based upon the published literature. If you are
> >interested I will forward you a copy my patent which will provide a good
> >deal more information.
> >
> >Sincerely, Art
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Art Chakalis
> >Columbus, Ohio, USA
> >
> >