From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 11/09/02-02:38:10 PM Z
Craig,
Many people have a fixed idea of what a carbon print looks like. It
is complicated to explain all of the reasons why but there is not any
*one* look about carbon. They can be either very sharp or soft-focus,
of virtually any color or tone, have no relief or a great deal of
relief, have a lot of sheen or be very matte in appearance, and
appear on virtually any surface imaginable, including paper but also
on ceramics, metal, glass, etc.
About the Woodburtype, I found the folder mentioned earlier and there
is in fact quite a bit of information there, several hundred pages in
fact. Some of it is copies from photographic and photomechanical
books from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but there are
several items which to my knowledge have not been published.
Excluding most of the copies work from the early photograhic texts,
which I think you should be able to find and copy on your own, this
is what I have.
1) Copy of material from a book called Traite Pratique de photoglypt.
245 pages in all, most of it devoted to Woodburtype.
2) A section on Woodburytype from the 1898 Encylopedic Dictionary of
Photography, edited by Walter Woodbury, pp. 523-32.
3) An article, "The Woodburytype: The Most Beautiful Photographic
Reproduction Process Ever Invented," by J. S. Mertle. pp. 165-70.
4) Section on Woodburytype from Davanne, Traite de Photographie, pp. 222-44.
5) A 24 page research article by Phillip Jackson, plus a 10 page list
of Woodbury patents, plus a 15 page blibliography of the Woodbury and
Stanotype processes.
6) A hand-typed paper on the Stannotype process, by W. T. Wilkinson.
48 pages. Date not known but typing appears to be from pre-computer
days.
For 5 cents a page plus postage I will send you any of this material
you like, with the exception of the papers by Philip Jackson.
Philip's papers have not been published, so far as I know, and I
would only send that to you with his permission. Unfortunately I can
not find his address at the moment. Philip used to be member of this
list and has corresponded with me on several occasions since he left
but due to a computer crash I lost a lot of email addresses. I will
try to find his address and get permission to send you his papers,
which I am certain you would find very useful since it is high
quality research work.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 10:16 AM
>Subject: Re: Woodburytypes
>
>
>> 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
>
>Sandy,
>Thanks for clarifying these points. I stand corrected and at the same time
>learned a great deal. You have obviously seen a lot more Woodburytypes then
>I have. I guess what I would like to achieve is along the lines of the few
>examples I have seen. That's the look I'm after, and I did not realize
>Carbon printing was capable of this intensity.
>I have observed the "dirty" highlights, and find them a bit charming, thanks
>for explaining what causes them.
>Again Sandy, if you come across the hard copy of what you have on
>Woodburytypes, I would be very grateful.
>Cheers, Craig Z.
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:04 PM Z CST