Karl,
I am mostly neutral on the topic of relief. For a portfolio print it is an
interesting effect that can be observed in a handheld print. Most people
look at prints in galleries and display them under glass on a wall so in
those cases relief is pretty much a moot issue.
I've made high relief tissue. It was a bit too high for practical work as
it turned out, not quite enough pigment and as such it was tricky to work
with. We will be making and marketing a relief tissue in the near future.
I perhaps was a bit over the edge when saying that historic no prints had
any relief. Most I've seen had no relief, either specular or physical I have
seen some, several in our collection) with specular relief which I really
don't consider to be relief.
Christmas day I was at Russell Young's house. Russ was the one who did the
soft focus lens lecture at APIS 2003 and is just now finishing his doctor's
thesis in Art History at Saint Andrews College, Scotland, and is under a
January deadline. Russ did his Masters at UT and worked at the Ransom Center
under Roy Flukinger and Russ is quite familiar with the collection. Russ is
also (or was) a carbon printer and took a couple of Dr. Green's classes and
was the founder back in the 70's of the New Pictorialist Society.
Ok, I am not making this up, and I'll have Russ confirm this conversation
after his thesis has been submitted, as you might imagine, he's a bit edgy
right now.
I asked Russ on Christmas day what his take on relief was as pertaining to
historic carbon prints. His answer as near as I can reconstruct it was:
"It's rare, except at the Ransom Center which has a lot of prints with
relief." I asked why and he said: "I don't know it's a bit odd." I was blown
away by his comment and have been a bit reluctant to pass it on as it sounds
a bit too convenient.
It may have been the style of a certain period of printing and the Ransom
Collection of carbons is centered on that period. I've looked at Ponting's
carbon prints at the Museum of Photography Television and Film in Bradford
England and numerous other carbon prints in the Bradford Collection and was
asked by the curator about a number of prints -- somehow I was some sort of
expert -- if the prints were carbons. I was in many cases unable to render
and opinion as many could have been silver gelatin prints. They were labeled
in the collection as carbons, and had apparently arrived labeled as such but
I think the curators were curious as they looked a lot like silver prints.
Had they had relief, the answer would have been obvious. I had a similar
experience at the RPS when the collection was in Bath under Pam Roberts
care. I was there once with Paul Caffell and Terry King, and at another time
on my own. The second time I was especially interested in looking at
carbons.
Christian Nze managed to get Melody and I into the French Photographic
Historical Society in Paris and we looked at a number of boxes of carbon
prints, most notably those of Haenfstengl and Puyo. I did not know
Haenfstengl was a carbon printer, I just thought it was the name of a
company making tissue. I've looked at Sudek prints in Andrew Smith's
collection, carbon prints in Leonard Vernon's, Stephen White's, and Michael
Wilson's, collections and though I was not looking specifically for relief,
my memory does not recall seeing much if any, at least not to the point that
it made any impression on me.
It is my take that the vast majority of carbon prints from the historic
period do not have a lot of physical relief. It may be we are differing over
what the definition of relief is.
Much of the interest in carbon at the moment comes from atelier printers.
High relief prints are exciting and we will provide that market what it
needs. As has been stated here, making a relief print is a bit more
difficult that a traditional print and because of that we've gone to market
with easier material to work with.
Much of the pressure at the moment is for color tissue and that is our
next hurdle to cross. We have a Color Carbon Study Group which will meet
until June and we will be working with Russell Lees 4x5 Pietown, NM
Kodachromes from 1940. We decided it would be a bit unwieldy to each do our
own images, so working on one set or one image is a bit more practical.
It's also good to see the List active again!
Cheers.
--Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-carbon@spitbite.org [mailto:owner-carbon@spitbite.org] On Behalf
Of Karl Schulmeisters
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:44 AM
To: carbon@spitbite.org
Subject: RE: [carbon] Ah, relief
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 12:10:44 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 01 Jan 2007 - 02:13:00 PST