Fresson secret?

[John Cremati <johnjohnc@core.com>]

What is the appearance  of the Fresson secret  prints lets say compared to
layering  several layers of pigmented carbon?  I have never seen a Fresson
print with the exception of a thumbnail photo in a book..... Is it as unique
and beautiful as I have been led to believe?   Do they look like a photo
process or a water color or lithographic in nature..?

John Cremati


----- Original Message -----

> It's more or less an open secret now.
>
> Yes I have a coating machine.
>
> Sandy did a presentation at APIS Santa Fe on carbon. (Rats!) and my life
> has been hell ever since.<grin> I got the bug for carbon and spent a few
> months playing with the laydown method of making tissue. I thought it
might
> make sense to see if I could machine coat it commercially. In early
October
> I traveled to Europe and found two people with rudimentary coating
machines
> still making their own tissue. Both were kind enough to share their
secrets
> with me. I also got to spend the day with the Fresson family who also were
> very helpful -- and no, I did not get the Fresson secret!
>
> At one time I was an aerospace engineer and find this kind of thing to
> satisfy my creative urges. As Von Karman once said: "Science describes
what
> is: engineering creates what never was."
>
> Photography is part engineering and part art.
>
>
> --Dick Sullivan
>
> At 11:27 PM 5/1/2002 +0200, you wrote:
> >Hi Richard:
> >
> >Richard Sullivan wrote: "had coated some gelatin 290 Bloom on Stonehenge
240
> >gm  paper on my coating machine"
> >
> >What do you mean by a coating machine? Do you actually have a machine
that
> >coats your paper for p/p, oil, etc?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Alejandron López de Haro
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Richard Sullivan" <richsul@earthlink.net>
> >To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 9:51 PM
> >Subject: Re: Paper for Oil Printing
> >
> >
> > > A month or two ago I had coated some gelatin 290 Bloom on Stonehenge
240
> >gm
> > > paper on my coating machine.
> > >
> > > On a lark I decided to sensitize it in 5% ammonium dichromate this was
> >just
> > > a best guess idea as I was going on memory. I exposed the neg and
washed
> > > the paper for about 5 minutes. I then found an old bromoil brush and
some
> > > Senfelders black litho ink and started pounding away.
> > >
> > > That produced the first print of the trees in the snow. Note that
these
> > > were test negs and not anything exceptional as I was experimenting
with
> > > carbon tissue.
> > >
> > > This took about an hour of pounding to produce.
> > >
> > > The second one was overexposed and it took another hour to ink up.
This
> >was
> > > my first attempt at either an oil or bromoil but I've watched Gene
> >Laughter
> > > ink prints at APIS.
> > >
> > > Both prints are on a page at:
> > >
> > > http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/carbon/OildPrints/oil_print.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > No glycerine no fancy schmancy stuff, just gelled paper,  dichromated,
> > > exposed, washed and inked.
> > >
> > > The Stoenhenge comes in 50 inch rolls so I cut it down to a 25 inch
and
> >can
> > > run 15 feet lengths now. I've considered making an oil paper for the
> >market
> > > but thought there might not be much of a market for it. I have the two
> > > prints in our reception room and people are quite taken by them.
> > >
> > >  From observation oil prints are more vibrant than bromoil. Gosh they
ink
> > > up nice compared to what I've seen with bromoil.
> > >
> > > Bromoil does have the advantage of not needing an enlarged negative
but
> > > from the little experience I've had my recommendation is if you have a
> > > large neg go with the oil print.
> > >
> > > --Dick Sullivan
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>