Why is only the "double transfer" method considered "true"?
>
>The newer approaches typically use pre-sensitized pigmented papers on
>*stable* polyester supports with automatic registration and direct
>development, one on top of another.
Our "tissue" is not pre-sensitized. We hand expose and pin register each
color and dry between each transfer.
>
>There are only a fraction of the steps and variables involved in these new
>techniques and they are overall a hundred times easier than the traditional
>method. These processes should be feasible especially if they can offer the
>appeal of a true *paper* surface.
>
Hopefully next.
>The problem here is that Wilhelm in his recent book, indicated that $1.99
>prints on the right RC paper (of all things!) can last over 100 years while
>$199 prints can last 300 years and many people are not willing to pay the
>difference to see their wedding pictures or whatever last that long;-)
The market for Rolls Royce is smaller than for the Chevy. They are both
cars that work, and use the same gas. There is a market for quality and
uniqueness. Is it big enough to sustain a business? I guess only time
will tell.
>
>If these newer carbon processes had appeared in the 70s they would have
>created a multi-million dollar business in a hurry. Now, from what I hear,
>they are struggling. I do hope their niche market allows them to survive.
Me too.
>
>Luis Nadeau
>awef6t@mi.net
>nadeaul@nbnet.nb.ca
>http://www.primenet.com/~dbarto/lnadeau.html#A0
David E. Le Vine
david@TreeO.com
http://www.TreeO.com