From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 11/09/02-09:16:19 AM Z
Craig,
The distinction you make relating to depth/relief is not valid, for
two reasons. One is that not all Woodburtypes show the kind of relief
you describe, and on the other hand, 2) many carbon prints do show
the kind of relief you attribute only to the Woodburtype. With both
carbon and Woodburytype relief depends on a number of factors. the
thickness the tissue used to make the mold or the print, how heavily
pigmented it was, and the contrast of the negative used to make the
print, and the nature of the final support paper. In my own
experience in looking at Woodburtypes and carbon prints I have the
exact opposite impression than you, i.e, that carbon prints I have
seen, as a rule, have had greater relief than the Woodburtypes I have
seen. In fact,
In other words, with both processes there were working procedures
that maximized depth/relief, while other procedures minimized
depth/relief. On the other hand, size and some dirtiness in the
highlights of Woodburtypes might be a key to differentiation. Because
of the tremendous pressures needed to make Woodburtypes, and because
of the fact that these prints were typically made to be tipped in
books, they tend to be small. The method of exerting the pressure can
also be the cause of slightly dirty highlights since it was
apparently very difficulty to get enough pressure expel all of the
pigmented gelatin from the highlight areas. This problem is often
described in the literature.
Sandy
> > The point is, carbon and woodburytype prints are really the same. Not
>> similar, but *physically* identical. Woodburytype is really only a
>> process capable of making multiple carbons. Place a carbon print side
>> by side with a woodburytype and there are less than two people on the
>> planet who would know the difference.
>>
>> Sandy King
>
>No Sandy, I have to differ with you on this point. Woodburytypes have a lot
>more gelatin deposited into the surface of the paper.Yes, they are
>physically the same material, a pigmented colliod, but the act of pressing a
>substantial amount of gelatin into the surface also builds depth in the
>shadows. You can "see" into the deep mid tones and shadows like a 3D affair.
>I have used all of the commercial carbon tissues and also home grown tissues
>and the deposit is noticibly less then what can be achieved in a good
>Woodburytype.
>I've seen them next to each other in the Museum of Photography, Antwerp,
>Belgium.
> Really, there is a difference.
>I must be one of the two people who can tell. :)
>All kidding aside, if you can dig up that info on Woodburytype I'll get that
>closer to making one and we can compare!
>Really appreciate any help Sandy,
>Best, Craig
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:04 PM Z CST