I don't want to knock down the gum process, which certainly has its place
in the palette of processes available to the alt-photo worker. I saw Robert
Demachy's work at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris some years ago and
they were beautiful and apparently all produced with one coat only.
Comparing processes is much like comparing the advantages of oil paintings
vs watercolors, vs pen and ink vs silkscreen, etc. They all have their
place when the image, paper texture, etc., is right. There is more to a
fine print then the highest achievable D-max reading. One aspect that is
usually ignored is the powerful combination of fine typography with an
image on the print.
I received some beautiful collotypes made by Jim Frank the other day.
Images are of a reddish color, that occupy about one third of a large
Arches sheet, with perfect, big typography at the bottom. Everyone who has
seen them has just been in awe as their eyes go all over the large sheet
and appreciate that everything is just at the right place, in the right
color, etc. Jim teaches collotype in NYC and at the RCA in London. Those
who go to NY can see his work at a commercial gallery whose name escapes me
now, but I can dig it out here if someone wants it. Contact me off-list.
>
>
>Where does Fresson fit in here? 8->
I don't like it for color for reasons fully detailed in my books.
Basically, it is not repeatable, which means that when you do get a fine
print, you cannot make another one and if you have a print "almost" perfect
(a more likely scenario), you cannot make a correction in a predictable
manner, as you can with say, tricolor carbon. It's an exercice in
frustration. The colors cannot be laid down in the proper order, results
cannot be realistic, etc.
On the other hand, in monochrome, the results *can* be quite stunning. That
is all I ever used it for.
Luis Nadeau
NADEAUL@NBNET.NB.CA
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada