Re: Fresson secret?

[Richard Sullivan <richsul@earthlink.net>]

Somewhat like a tri-color gum print, but a lot nicer. Gum can be beautiful. 
I hand held some Demachy's in France when Christian Nze took me to the 
photo historical society in Paris. [Société Française de Photographie] To 
sit at a table and actually hold classic Demachy's is an experience. Most, 
and I stress most, gums today pale in comparison. The best I way I can 
describe them is they have a pointillistic character to them rather than a 
fuzzy character normally associated with gum today. It's tough to put into 
words. Fresson's achieve a similar character.

--Dick Sullivan


At 10:56 AM 5/2/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>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
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >