Luis Nadeau (nadeaul@nbnet.nb.ca)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 14:48:24 -0400
At 10:14 AM 99/02/19, Richard Sullivan wrote:
>The major difficulty with Woodbury is the huge presses that were necessary. A
This is why Woodbury invented the Stannotype version of the process which
did not require a press... And what a coincidence: this was patented when
his original photoglypty patent expired...
>was for tipped in images in books. I've never seen a large, say greater than
>5x7 Woodbury.
This is about 13 x 18 cm. Look up my Encyclopedia, vol. 2, facing p. 470,
to see, from my collection, the standard _Photographie Contemporaine_, 19 x
23 cm.
But the REAL problem with woodburytype, is the quality. At best they came
close to the quality of a carbon print, but not quite as good. This was
only possible with "easy", low key subjects in relatively small sizes. The
process was a disaster when it came to reproducing bald skies. I have many
mediocre woodburytypes in my collection.
On a good day, with the perfect matrix and the right alignment of planets,
the process could produce excellent and perhaps even superb prints, but
that was not everyday. The carbon process on the other hand is simpler and
in capable hands can produce superb prints everyday of the week when the
temperature is not above 21C.
I recommend experimenters to start with the carbon transfer process. Once
they can make their own materials and feel comfortable with the gelatin
"ink" and relief then they can start working with very high reliefs and
produce a matrix using say, the type of molding resins used by dentists.
Luis Nadeau
Fredericton, NB, Canada
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:52