From: Phillip Murphy (pmurf@bellsouth.net)
Date: 11/10/02-04:31:37 PM Z
Hi Sandy,
Nice collection of Woodburytype research. ; )
And yes my Underwood has been put to rest since I bought my Mac.
Ciao,
Phillip
Sandy King wrote:
> 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