Re: Carbon Was: Re: Collotype

Sandy King (sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:59:10 -0400

Reasonable B+F for carbon printing is .05 or lower. I would be astonished
if any Autotype tissue, at this point in time, has a B+F lower than .30. I
have on several occasions worked with aged Hanfstaengl tissue claimed to
have been kept in frozen storage. Even if so, the B+F was very high, in all
cases over .30.

I am curious as to what Autotype and Hanfstengl added to their
gelatin/pigment mixture which led them to believe that it could be stored
indefinitley. Any comments appreciated.

Sandy King
>At 3:04 PM -0700 98/06/01, Michael Gray wrote:
>
>ייי
>>Sorry, Luis to run counter to your observations regarding the usability of
>>the tissue. It does still work. One of the photographer volunteers at the
>>FT Museum has used the tissue and it produces a reasonable result. It
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>1.-What's the base + fog?
>2.-Could I get a few square cm?
>3.-I suspect that we may not agree on the definition of 'reasonable'.
>'Reasonable' for me is low for monochrome work, and nearly nil for tricolor
>work.
>
>...
>
>>So following your argument as outlined above, a hand-inked collotype plate
>>is not photomechanical? I fail to see how the mode of inking can be used as
>>a defining factor. Perhaps we (collectively) should attempt to arrive at a
>>common defintion.
>
>Sounds good to me. The way I look at it is that the matrix is obtained
>photochemically. The ink is applied mechanically so the resulting collotype
>process is photomechanical. Ditto with photoengraving and photogravure. I
>don't remember seeing any disagreement with this in the literature. Do you
>or anyone else on this list have citations that disagree with this
>definition?
>
>I think I could provide many thousands that do agree with my definition.
>See my Encyclopedia for a start.
>
>Luis Nadeau
>NADEAUL@NBNET.NB.CA
>Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
>http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/nadeaul/