>Now try to figure in that the dichromate would harden from the surface of
>the coated paper down toward the paper substrate and in proportion to the
>light exposure. A laser holes or abrasive leaves a gap in the logic.
>
Probably bad exposition on my part. The holes would be "relief ports." This
would allow the dissolving softer colloid and pigment to escape from under
the harder surface layer. With a "direct" process this is the main problem,
how to develop from the bottom up, a major cause of flaking. Obviously I
know that the Fresson process did not work with laser holes, but Luis has
alluded to a complicated "machine" that takes days to "calibrate" etc. Now
I wouldn't accuse Luis of deliberate obfuscation, but if I had acquired the
rights to the Fresson process, I might sprinkle a little fairy dust around
to confuse the issue. If there is a "machine" it might be used for coating
or it might be used to perforate the paper with zillions of tiny holes.
It is interesting to note that Eastman, for many years, made it's film base
by pouring the nitrate out on 200 foot long glass topped tables, and after
it dried, cut the base into strips. (Think about the job of keeping the
tables flat and level!!!) It wasn't until the early 1900's that he
perfected a "wheel" coating device for the film base. This long table
method was used by most film manufacturers of the time. We may be stuck in
the paradigm of "coating paper." What if the Fresson coating was built up
in layers on a glass bed and then attached to the paper? This would, in my
mind, allow a more complex matrix to be built than could be done in a
standard paper loop and dip process.
>What about another tack on how the paper might work. What if the colloid
>were not gelatin but instead one that both hardened and changed adhesive
>property on exposure to dichromate and light? Assume that the unexposed
>colloid is soluble and very adhesive/tacky and on exposure becomes
>hardened and no longer tacky/adhesive. Can anyone shoot this idea down
>for some logical or informational reason?
>
Sounds possible but it seems like this analysis is indicting gelatin as the
colloid in question.
>Thoughts and feedback ?
>
>Sincerely, Art
>
>
>
>
>
>Art Chakalis
>Columbus, Ohio, USA
>
Bostick & Sullivan
PO Box 16639, Santa Fe
NM 87506
505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
<http://www.bostick-sullivan.com>http://www.bostick-sullivan.com