Me either. Trade secrets exist and there is no point in debating. Everyone
would be interested in trade secrets, but any business is not obliged to be
open about their secrets. Just look at Coca Cola, Kentucky Fried Chicken, even
KODAK....
>> When your tests are complete I will be
interested in the results. However, I doubt that the information you
get from this test will be of little use in helping you manufacture a
direct carbon paper. It may be of interest to know which colloids were
used in manufacturing the paper but will offer little information as to
how the layers were applied.
It is nice that Art happens to have indirect access to electron microscope.
When such is the case, it seem that the question is not "why do such a test"
but "why not do such a test." I am sure many would be interested in the
result, but as I have said in my previous posts, I just don't see that this
will help much in understanding the *process*.
Let's just say that the test results came back today, and you were told that
the colloid is gum + gelatine. Now what? Would you jump up and down and say "I
am one giant step closer in getting the Fresson process?" Or would everything
be the same as yesterday?
Of course it doesn't mean that the test results won't mean anything. If you
know that it is gum+gelatine, you will continue your research in this
direction. If you find that it is something else, maybe you will switch
direction and do your research in a new direction. So the test results do
affect something. But this is *assuming* that the *secret* lies in the *type
of colloid* used. May it is not. I don't even think that is the case.
Now I am not here to debate. I am just trying to point out that in any
scientific research, you need to have some hypothesis and then work out your
plan according to your hypotheses, but you need to re-examine the hypotheses
from time to time; otherwise you might work a long time in one area with a
wrong assumption to begin with.
>> Over 15 years ago a friend gave me the
results of a electron microscope scan of a piece of fresson paper. The
analysis revealed a lot of information and I have a real good idea as
to the number of coatings, and their type, but I found this
information to be of little or no use when it came to the actual
coating process, though it did help me understand the theory of the
process.
Sandy, if you could share with us, I would be very interested in knowing the
number of coatings. Was it a scan from a processed Fresson print? Or was it an
unprocessed paper? If it is unprocessed paper, is it one layer only? Or does
it have all the color layers on it?
>I guess I am still trying to understand why some people are trying so
hard to imitate a process instead of just making say color gum print? I
understand that there is a special look to Fresson, but doesn't most
pigment printed on fine-art paper has some unique, artistic, visually
pleasing characteristic?
>> Color Fressons do have a unique look, sort of semi-pointillistic, that
apparenlty results from the grain of the small format separation negatives
from which they
are made.
Does this pointillistic effect show on microscopic level only or can that be
seen with a loupe or with naked eyes? From the repro I think that the points
or grains can be seen with naked eyes, but I would like to confirm that if
possible.
Thanks in advance!