RE: Ah, relief

Dick offers the opinion that "the dislike for relief was near
universal in the classical carbon period" and that "you never see
relief in older prints."

I disagree on both points. On the question of relief in older prints,
I have personally seen many prints from the 19th century that have
relief. In particular, many of the prints by the French photographer
Nadar in the Ranson Center at the UofTexas, and other prints as well,
show very distinct relief. Since Nadar was one of the most famous
photographers in the world at the time, one assumes that his prints
would reflect the highest level of craftsmanship in printing
available. And indeed, the quality of the carbon prints in the Nadar
collection is much greater than that of the great majority of other
carbon prints there. The prints by Adolphe Braun, on the other hand,
have a great number of tissue and development faults.

Second, I have reviewed many of the English and French texts of the
19th and early 20th centuries on carbon printing and do not ever
recall reading anything that suggested that there was a disdain for
relief. To the contrary, there is specific language in some of these
texts which speaks of the relief in positive terms which I am able to
cite for anyone interested.

I think it is a mistake to suggest that double transfer was used as a
"curative" for relief. Double transfer was pretty much necessary in
the early days to obtain correct orientation. Reversing the plate and
printing from the base side of the negative for single transfer would
result in considerable loss of sharpness.

Finally, I think the fact that many older prints do not show relief
should not come as much of a surprise because it is much more
difficult to balance a tissue formula that will give relief than one
that does not give relief. The great majority of tissue formulas I
have made over the years produced very low relief with carbon, or no
relief at all.

I would add that it is much easier to make a tissue for *carbro* that
will give good relief than for carbon. With carbro the entire
thickness of the tissue is always affected by the hardening/bleaching
solution so that all you need to get relief is a very thick and
heavily pigmented tissue.

Sandy King

At 11:43 PM -0800 12/26/06, Karl Schulmeisters wrote:
>Relief is something the eye can cue on. I would suspect that at the time of
>the classical carbon period, there was an attempt to distinguish photography
>from painting or drawing - both of which can often leave significant relief.
>
>But subtle relief can add dimensionality to the image that a glossy surface
>removes. Our eyes are extremely sensitive to changes in surface relief and
>texture and use it for all manner of psycho-optical cues.
>
>Personally I like relief. To me, it makes the images seem more 'tangible'.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-carbon@spitbite.org [mailto:owner-carbon@spitbite.org] On Behalf
>Of Richard Sullivan
>Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 8:06 PM
>To: carbon@spitbite.org
>Subject: [carbon] Ah, relief
>
>Eric,
>
>Marton, in his "Modern Carbon Printing" c. 1905, is quite explicit in
>telling how to eliminate relief. It is clear he finds it to be a defect. I
>think the dislike for relief was near universal in the classical carbon
>period. Double transfer, if I recall, was the main curative for relief.
>
>I've rummaged (an accurate term) through a number of collections in Europe
>(where rummaging unfortunately is still allowed, Mr Nze, was with me on one
>rummaging episode can attest to this!) and looked at many early carbon
>prints. You never see relief in older prints. You see lots of fog and black
>specks though! Formulas for making tissue just said add x number of grams of
>carmine red or lampblack, the assumption was you just dump it in the gelatin
>and stir. Today we used pigment dispersions, or if just using pigment, we
>ball mill it in dispersing agents. Fog is hard to determine if it was a
>defect or an asset. Printing styles in those days seemed to avoid white
>whites and black blacks and focused on the midtones.
>
>I think in today's world of electronic inkjet images, relief is something to
>distinguish a carbon print from the run of the mill digital print. Over time
>it may be a passing fancy, just like brush marks were in the early days of
>platinum printing. There is certain elegance to a carbon print, maybe it's
>the black cocktail dress and pearls of the photographic world and doesn't
>need a pair of argyle socks to liven it up.
>
>I am interested in making some high relief tissue and playing with relief
>and think it may be an interesting asset for some images. I am not sure I
>want it as a steady diet. I like Japanese food but not as a steady diet but
>there are millions who do! I dunno, for me the jury is still out.
>
>Carbon, in my mind, is perhaps the most extensible of the photographic
>processes and is exciting for that reason.
>
>--Dick
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-carbon@spitbite.org [mailto:owner-carbon@spitbite.org] On Behalf
>Of Eric Scott
>Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 8:27 PM
>To: carbon@spitbite.org
>Subject: Re: [carbon] acetone
>
>Dick,
>
>Have you seen any older carbons, say 1800's , that had significant
>relief? I viewed quite a few naked carbons from the 1800's at the
>SFMOMA. I held them in my hands and inspected them closely. No
>relief. The book "Keepers of the Light" talks about how to identify
>older carbons. No talk of relief. Apparently Crawford hasn't seen
>any either. I'm wondering if making carbons with significant relief
>is a recent phenomenon. To me, if transferring to FOP, relief almost
>becomes a necessity. Otherwise you've got a print that's virtually
>indistinguishable from a silver print. At that point one might
>ask: "What's the point?". From what I understand, carbon came
>about as a result of silver prints fading noticeably in high
>pollution areas, not because folks were looking for something that
>was aesthetically more pleasing than a silver print. Of course what
>I say does not apply when transferring to watercolor paper. Even
>though such prints resemble platinum/palladium prints, looking at
>them fairly closely reveals quite clearly that they're something
>different.
>
>Eric.
>
>On Dec 22, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Richard Sullivan wrote:
>
>>
>> High relief is an issue of personal taste. I think it is somewhat
>> like
>> brush marks on a pt print. I think it is an interesting and novel
>> idea for
>> portfolio prints, but once under glass in a frame, it is not that
>> visible. I
>> am sort of neutral on the subject. I think it would be nice for
>> some prints
>> and immaterial for others.
>>
>> --Dick
>_______________________________________________
>Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
>carbon mailing list
>carbon@spitbite.org
>FAQ at http://spitbite.org/carbon/list.html
>_______________________________________________
>Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
>carbon mailing list
>carbon@spitbite.org
>FAQ at http://spitbite.org/carbon/list.html
>_______________________________________________
>Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
>carbon mailing list
>carbon@spitbite.org
>FAQ at http://spitbite.org/carbon/list.html
_______________________________________________
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
carbon mailing list
carbon@spitbite.org
FAQ at http://spitbite.org/carbon/list.html
Received on Wed Dec 27 07:34:58 2006