If the grain works go for it , the image is what its all about, so sharp grain is a desired thing and pleasing.
What is not pleasing is when a negative pops in the enlarger and its not caught, areas of defocus can be disturbing.
I always like printing from prime lenses, from 35/mf I specifically like rangefinder on tripod.
Zoom lenses always freaked me out when printing , as there always seemed to be an area where the optics broke down and looked clumsy in the final print.
like flotsam said, its suppose to be there so embrace it.
Bob - have you ever seen Sheila Metzger's 35mm work printed on color Fresson? It would be right up your alley. An absolutely wonderful
marriage of an extremely idiosyncratic very grainy process with appropriate images. The color is unlike anything I've ever encountered in photog
before. Of course, this is a trade-secret direct-carbon process, known only to the original family and Luis Nudeau up in your part of the world,
but not quite as secret as it once was. But at least it's the kind of thing to inspire your own adventures into new territory!
Drew actually I have,
Jane Corkin gallery here in Toronto has / had some of her work displayed here.
Fressons are quite unique and as you say propriertory.
I am trying to make my prints look a bit like dye transfers that we were discussing on the other forum. I really like the physical look of these prints. I also like
the Carbro's that were made for advertising purposes of the 50/60's , GEH has a couple on display when I visited last and they were very nice.
I also was lucky enough to see 30 -40 Steven Livik tri colour gums of his ontario fair series 1980 which IMO are some of the greatest prints ever made.
He stopped in that vein of work , which always has struck me as odd.
I am not so sure Luis Nudeau knows how to make the fresson prints, I have never seen any of his work other than I own a bunch of his books which are quite informative.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
Nadeau figured it out and they went after him. They reached an agreement. He's allowed to make color Fresson prints for personal use, but
cannot benefit from the process commercially or otherwise disclose it, or they'll sue him. Monochrome Fressons are a different story - a number
of people have successfully made those. I'll agree the old ad carbros can be quite appealing, but bonding failure (blisters) and cracking are almost inherent to vintage ones (and alas, this was the achilles heel of certain commercialized quad carbon processes too). I suspect metallic contaminants in the pigments.
Did they actually patent the process?
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Well maybe a trip to the east coast is in order, I would be interested if he actually made a bunch.
I did not know about the bonding failure, of carbros, are not the pigments not standard , what metallic contaminants are you referring too. I am interested as I am purchasing pigments for testing shortly and would like any heads up.
Yes , I believe so .. They are very strict on the process getting out, very , very few people know how to make them properly.
Originally Posted by clayne
Bob - bonding has been a serious long-term issue which sometimes spoils the alleged permanence of various true pigment processes. I'm not an
expert in this field by any means, but have had some long discussions with various people who have been at the receiving end of it. It was one
of the things which led to adopting relatively coarse halftone patterns in carbon (which spoils the whole look of it for me), and which put a least
one commercialized revival of it out of business. Knowledgeable curators routinely differentiate old carbro from layered carbon by the nature
of the cracks and blisters. That's why I'm keeping my mouth shut about any new potential tweaks to process colors, just in case there is
some unlisted additive in them that might cause problems down the line. And I'm involved in way too many things as it is to make such tests
for awhile. For those who used watercolor pigments, it was often the formaldehyde preservative or metallic driers which proved to be the
culprit. Someone would choose a particular brand of pigment and it would work, but then it might get changed in some manner by the mfg.
Older process pigments tended to be contaminated with all kinds of trace things. And even today, with much pigment and dye coming from
either India or China, there are all kinds of quality control issues. Certainly not a game-changer... but it amounts to more homework.
It's turned out to be a long thread. I was only wondering what such a big print from 35mm would look like.
A lot of talk about viewing distance, surely if you had one on a wall you wouldn't only look at it from a metre or two away.
It just seams to me that from a realistic viewing distance it would look pretty crappy, regardless of subject or quality.
Of course you can print anything any size, but what's the point, apart from being able to charge more for it.
Andreas Gursky makes enormous prints, but they're from LF with great detail and print quality.
BTW, I do like Mc Curry's work, but after seeing him shoot on the streets of NY," in peoples faces" without approaching and talking to them, I'm not sure what to think.
So Wojtek, have you seen any in person? Lived or worked around a nicely printed, big, highly enlarged print for a while?
Surely, one expectation many people have for photos is lots of detail.
People even use the term photo-realistic to describe certain drawings, the stereotype is strong. So is the stereotype that insists you gotta have; big film, the best lenses, or some other magic bullet.
Doesn't make the stereotypes right or absolute.
The question in the end is subjective.
Who's work is more to your liking;
Diego Rivera or Rembrandt? (For me Diego by a wide margin)
Steve McCuury or Karsh? (For me a toss up)
Guilillaume Zuili or Ansel Adams? (For me Zuili again by a wide margin)
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin