FotoDave@aol.com
Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:04:42 -0500 (EST)
Hi Jeff and all,
Sorry for the late reply. I was out for the Thanskgiving break.
> So Dave, where is the research and experiments??? I browsed your site
> and could not find them. I did find information on purchasing samples
> or purchasing your talent to make prints.
Sorry, I really didn't mean it to sound like advertisment. It is true that
when I finally got the process under control, I decided to make the printing
commercially available, so all the links / information about getting the
sample or ordering prints are there. They are for general public who access
my web site. For the list, my purpose was mainly announcement.
> However I could not find
> anything about the process itself, how it might be different from
> carbon, how it might be different from gum, or how it may be similar in
> some aspects.
I was under great dilemma / struggle on how much details to describe. On one
hand, you (and others who have been on the list for a while) should know that
I have been willing to show my knowledge (however much or little that is).
Sometimes I shared it to a point of too much details, too theoretical or too
verbose that many disliked it. On the other hand, since I have to sell the
prints to make up the 2.5 - 3 years of work, I cannot reveal the details.
Independent research, especially that done nearlly full time, is extremely
expensive as a friend of mine said "we have to eat too." :(
> Are you planing to add the process instructions, notes, experiments, and
> results to the site, and when???
With the struggle explained above, I guess the answer is no, I won't directly
add instructions, formula, etc. to the site. I will consider how much more
details I will / can add to it though.
However, as I have done in the past, I will continue to share indirectly
about whatever I know (I don't really know a lot so sometimes I just share
whatever I think).
> Announcing a new process, as well as
> one with your name attached to it, certainly should be presented so that
> others may verify your claims to these discoveries.
I guess in a sense it does not need any verification since I am not really
claiming anything.... not a patent, not a big name or recognition, not even
acceptance. The acceptance might come if/when people who use it like it, but
I am not even claiming acceptance by the announcement itself.
Maybe it's like Colonel Saunder's fried chicken. It is just particular
ingredients or particular method that he used. Many can say that they can
make similar or better chicken in their kitchen, but it's ok for Saunder to
name his method after his name.
Or as in the LC-1 developer, one can think of it simply as an identification.
> I am puzzled how this can not just be a Gum print without a transfer as
It is quite similar in the sense that all direct carbons are quite similar,
differing perhaps only in sizing, in the colloid used, in some extra
ingredients, and/or in the method of development. Sometimes the little
difference(s) in ingredient or method produce huge difference in the final
look. However, it is arguable that with more testing and control maybe they
can all be made to have the similar desired look. I have simply found my
method and my formula, but frankly, if I spend my time using another formula
or work hard on controlling it, I might achieve the same result too, but it
takes a long time to study and to devise a control method.
> Although you list some physical attributes of prints from your process,
Yes, and if it is still not clear to many, I will try to clarify again that
the main thing is the deep black, random grains, and smooth tonality. Many
who do direct carbon have achieve one, two, or all attributes above at
different times or at one time, but the real key is the *control* so that you
can do it every time with different negatives. In fact, the control on the
Soemarko's Direct Process is so tight and predictable that I dare accept
orders and if one examines the price, one will find that it is really not
expensive at all to make a print considering that this is a hand-coated
process (this is not advertising, I am trying to explain how controllable and
predictable the process is).
> you give no description of the process itself. What am I to assume???
Well, the name did say that it is a direct carbon process. You can assume it
to be a cousin of gum bichromate print, or a cousin of one of the direct
carbon processes from Artigue to Zimmerman. I am not saying this to
deliberately make things vague. They are all similar in some sense ....
But I would say this to explain that I have a reason to call it a separate
process: If I apply my "talent" (using your term) and make a print in gum, I
can make a pretty nice, continuous tone gum print too, but the print would
look different from the Soemarko's Direct Carbon print. It would look more
like the "Tulip" that I submitted for Traveling Portfolio #3 which you have
also seen, but it doesn't have the grains that I very much desired in the
Soemarko's Direct Carbon print. I am not saying that one is better than
another, but they are different.
Sorry if this does not answer your question. If you (or others have) other
question, feel free to ask. I will answer as much as I can, but I just can't
directly give out the formula or method. I apologize for this, but I hope
that you all can understand ....
Sincerely,
Dave S
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Check out the Soemarko's Direct Carbon process at
http://hometown.aol.com/fotodave/SDC/SdcIndex.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Dec 05 1999 - 17:09:24