Now we agree on something;-)
>Financially it is absurd. However, my comment was focused on how
>restricted, if not all but forgotten, that this process has become due to
>its limited use.
>Speaking of economic realities, Nadeau's machine isn't idle while people
>are beating down his door for prints or print paper. Furthermore, earlier
>in this thread on Fresson, Nadeau spoke about the Fresson's having to
>accept all the work they can get . . . they may have over done the secrecy
>thing is my point. Certainly, this line of discussion can and will help
>their business which as far as I am concerned is good.
>My work on the process is not intended to take anything away from the
>Fresson family or Nadeau. I simply think that the process should be made
>public and will pursue the paper's analysis and intend to publish/post the
>results. I also believe that the process would be as commonly used as gum
>if it were made available and that is based upon the input of someone who
>used to use Fresson paper. As to making money from the process, I don't
>think Kodak would consider adjusting there marketing projections based
>upon any or all of the alternative processes.
There are so many errors in your posts, I wouldn't know where to start...
You're off by a mile.
I'd better get back to work.
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada