RE: Ah, relief

Dick,

Thanks for the long and interesting message on relief. Russ's
comments about the prints at the Ranson Center is intriguing, but at
least you all know for sure that I was not blowing smoke about a lot
of prints there having relief.

In my experience one can nearly always tell the difference between a
carbon and silver gelatin prints so I am going to go out on a limb
and suggest that if there are large numbers of prints in carbon
collections that look the same as silver gelatin prints there is a
distinct possibility that they are in fact silver gelatin prints.
However, I would not bet the house on it because I know that whether
or not there is any relief is a function not only of the tissue but
also of the negative, sensitizer and final paper support. I have
personally made prints with the same tissue, negative and sensitizer
that have very nice relief on one paper support and absolutely none
on another.

Sandy King

At 1:12 PM -0700 12/27/06, Richard Sullivan wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
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 13:25:09 2006