Re: The Fresson/Arvel Process
Thank you, Dave!
However, the only thing nice and generous about me is my butt after sitting on it all weekend, 24/7, taking notes out of the 300+ pages I took digipix of at Geo Eastman House. But it is DONE!!! One further milestone.
Snippet from an 1896 book I told you I'd share about a possible Artigue formula; they were always trying to guess at it...Since Artigue died with his secrets and the Fresson family doesn't seem to be willing to share theirs, it is interesting to look at discoveries before the Artigue paper that might have been in the air. So this may be worthless but what the heck:
"1863 Mr. Blair of Bridgend took plain paper, coated it with gelatine and dried; then next coated with albumen mixed with a little syrup, and dried. Then floated on water and blotted and carbon powdered pigment was brushed onto the surface in a thin film on top of the albumen. Sensitized by floating on a solution of pot bi. He did not use gum on top of the gelatin because it did not take kindly to it and it was more apt to run together under the operation of the brush and leave small blank spaces, and was also tackier under moisture, and took up too much pigment." (not a direct quote)
I think that electron microscopy nowadays says that gum IS in Fresson paper along with gelatin (at least, that is what I read in Chakalis' patent) but the way this paper is described in the text is even, translucent, and velvety like the Artigue. It seems that when a lower solution of pot bi (like 2-5%), warm or hot water development, sawdust, eau de Javelle are used, gelatin is in the paper. I marvel at their exposing the direct carbon paper for HOURS in the SUNLIGHT before developing it in Javelle.
BTW, any who may be confused about the differences between carbon printing and direct carbon (not you Sandy, John, Art) of which we are talking, carbon printing is the term nowadays used to refer to a transfer process where the tissue of exposed gelatin is transferred to another piece of paper, but back in "the day" the term "carbon printing" referred to the gum process originally. Then the term was swiped in a drive-by for the carbon transfer process so towards the end of the century the term "direct carbon" came into use for both gum printing and such things as Arvel, Artigue, etc. papers even if carbon pigment wasn't used. So when researching I always have to xerox articles that talk about pigment printing, carbon printing, direct carbon, bi-gum, gum-bichromate (that little hyphen becomes important in searches), etc. Direct carbon was not transferred to another piece of paper hence the operative word "direct".
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Soemarko" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:26 AM
Subject: RE: The Fresson/Arvel Process
<< There are no immediate plans on my agenda to make the process I use available on the market. But like yourself I am willing to help others to experiment with the Direct Carbon system by pointing them towards relevant published information. >> John and Chris, Both of you are very nice! Dave