Re: "The Fresson Secret"

[Art Chakalis <achakali@gcfn.org>]

Sandy,

Counter points:

1. The digital age is here . . . full size paper negatives are relatively
easy to make (as compared to silver) and practical. If paper negatives
give you heartburn a bit of photo trivia . . . almost if not all of
Echague's Fresson prints were done with Bromide paper negatives. 
 
2. If pre-coated paper were being sold today, Fresson printing would
be the easiest alternative process to practise.  

3. The prints have a unique characteristic which I think is what created
the awe/notoriety that Judy described about Metzner's work.

4. Paper production would never be financially viable for the Fuji &
Kodak's.  A cottage industry type operation using current technologies
while not carrying a huge overhead might just be able to survive in the
niche.  Remember there was a time when platinum supplies were basically
unavailable . . . I believe B&S came to the rescue.

And lastly, the odds of a successful new venture puts the smart money on
your side of the argument.

Sincerely, Art



On Fri, 3 May 2002, Sandy King wrote:

> John Grocott wrote:
> 
> 
> >Dick wrote...
> >
> >"..........and no, I did not get the Fresson secret!"
> >
> >Hi Dick and All, For the enlightenment of myself and others who have an
> >interest in the Fresson process, may I respectfully enquire what you would
> >intend doing with the "Fresson secret" if you managed to acquire it?  Would
> >you post up the formula on this list and make it available to the whole
> >world?  Only the  very naive would believe this ! !  The Fresson family have
> >kept this secret for  well over one hundred years. What is this information
> >worth in financial terms? How much are you, or anyone else, willing to pay
> >for such a sought after system which can produce such desireable results?
> >
> 
> 
> 
> I have a feeling that some on the list will disagree with what I am 
> about to write but so be it. For what it is worth my personal opinion 
> is that the "Fresson secret" is worthless information in financial 
> terms. Even if one knew exactly how to make the paper and/or offer an 
> equivalent printing service I seriously doubt there would be any way 
> to commercialize the knowledge. I am in complete agreement with what 
> Dick Sullivant wrote, i.e. "Fresson's success is not really do to any 
> "secret" in my mind. It is due to the diligence of the family to 
> produce nice images at reasonable prices."
> 
> Let us remember the history. Fresson is one of numerous direct carbon 
> papers that were commercially produced in the period from 1890-1930 
> when the pictorial style was in vogue. I could list at least a half 
> dozen like processes, and perhaps more. All of these processes worked 
> and in fact some may have been better than Fresson. I have personally 
> seen side by side prints made on Fresson and Artigue and preferred 
> the surface qualities of the latter.
> 
> All of these papers eventually disappeared from the market, in part 
> due to the waning of the pictorial style, in part due to competing 
> photographic systems. Bromoil and  bromoil transfer in particular 
> were/are able to render the same pictorial look with either less 
> effort or with more versatility than direct carbon.
> 
> Is there a market for commercial direct carbon materials toda?. I 
> doubt it. The number of persons interested in the pictorial look 
> rendered by direct carbon processes is relatively small, and for 
> those who are interested in the look there are any number of hand 
> coated processes that can provide it.
> 
> So quite frankly if I had the complete "Fresson secret" or any other 
> secret that would allow one to make wonderful direct carbon prints I 
> am inclined to believe I would just make the knowledge public, as 
> Peter has done with his Temperaprint process for example, because in 
> the long run the possibility I could turn any profit from the 
> knowledge ranges from slim to none, IMHO.
> 
> But prove me wrong if you can.
> 
> Sandy King
> 
> --