From: Scott Wainer (smwbmp@starpower.net)
Date: 10/05/03-06:32:37 PM Z
> I doubt if this article is going to satisfy current desire, since it
> specifies a prepared paper no longer available (calling Fresson, BTW, a
> revival of the Artigue process).
I agree with you 100%. It was my thought that some of the more chemically
inclined (than me) might be able to figure out a possible work around for
the commercially prepared papers; so I will post what I have to that end.
Hopefully someone out there might have an idea.
> I cannot forbear noting that this is the same article by Paul Anderson
> that has promulgated the glorious/infamous/eternal Gum-pigment ratio test,
> though I daresay Fresson was more precisely laid out, depending as it did
> on a commercial product, and not so vulnerable to, um, let's call it
> personal interpretation.
I thought, though it was not intentionally done, that the mention of his
name might raise a few hairs even though this particular work seemed to have
been written by the authors/editors of the book rather than by Anderson
himself as the only reference to him is in the bibliography. Reading through
the Fresson section, I found that there is quite a wide latitude for
expression with the process; possibly equal to gum, though I will admit I
have only made a few gum prints to date and am not qualified to decisevly
comment in that respect.
Scott Wainer
smwbmp@starpower.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST