| Photography Encyclopedia: photographic papers |
The unique look of many vintage prints is due, in no small measure, to the wild profusion of paper types on which they were printed. Barnet Regal Rough and Verona De-Luxe; Dassonville Charcoal Black; Kosmos Vitegas; Buchet Stenox Gaslight; Criterion Vandyk; we shall not see their like again. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, a bewildering variety of manufacturers offered a still more bewildering variety of papers in a range of weights (airmail, single, double, card), base colours (typically white, cream, and ivory), textures (from glossy through ‘pearl’ and matte to linen, silk, canvas, chamois, and more) and image tones (warm, cool, ‘engraving black’, red—the list went on).
Textures were varied by using additives (normally starch or silica) for matte effects or by impressing the paper or the emulsion or both with patterned rollers. Although albumen papers (invented in 1850) were popular in the early days, the vast majority of commercial papers have always been silver gelatin; the only other ready-coated material that has commonly been available is platinum, though there have intermittently been others.
Particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, papers became more and more alike, though in the 1990s warm-tone and to a lesser extent cool-tone papers revived in popularity. Image tones are partly a matter of crystal size, and partly a matter of ‘doping’ the emulsion with various additives. Unfortunately for photographers, though fortunately for the environment, cadmium was dropped as an ingredient, and the best warm-tone papers (such as Forte Polywarmtone) were never the same again. In some ways, those who bemoan the passing of the ‘good old days’ are, for once, right. On the other hand, there is much to praise in modern papers. Maximum blacks are for the most part much richer; development is much faster; and although the original variable-contrast (VC) papers were markedly inferior to single-contrast graded papers, in the 1980s the quality caught up and indeed surpassed the majority of graded papers. Ilford invented VC papers with Multigrade, though Du Pont was first to market with Varigam (using dyes supplied by Ilford) thanks to the Second World War.
There are also a few specialist papers that compare with the exotica of the past, for unusual surface textures and the like; leading manufacturers include Kentmere and Bergger. Many are graded rather than VC, sometimes for technical reasons (VC does not work well on canvas-textured papers, for example) and sometimes merely to pander to the prejudices of traditionalists.
The vast majority of modern papers are ‘projection speed’, i.e. suitable for enlargements, but there are still a few contact papers that are too slow for making enlargements; they can be handled under weak artificial light, hence their old name of ‘gaslight’ papers. For printing, they need strong UV sources, either a printing box or daylight. An even greater majority are ‘developing-out’ papers, in contradistinction to ‘printing-out’ papers where the paper darkens in direct proportion to the light falling on it. A typical printing-out paper takes anything from ten minutes to half an hour to form a usable image, which is then washed, toned, fixed, and washed again.
Historically, chloride papers were slow and cool toned, but gave the richest blacks; bromide papers were much faster and warmer, with lower maximum densities; and chlorobromides were predictably in between. Some also distinguished between chlorobromides (more chloride than bromide) and bromochlorides (more bromide than chloride). Today, the distinctions between bromide and chlorobromide/bromochloride no longer hold good: advances in crystal technology mean that chlorobromides can be warmer than bromides, and maximum densities are independent of halide type.
There is a popular myth that the more silver a paper has, the richer the tonality. This is not borne out in practice. Beyond a certain point, obviously, there can be no increase in maximum density, and there is no point in using more silver. Actual coating weights vary from under 1 gram per square metre (gsm) to over 2 gsm. Most manufacturers use 1.6 to 1.8 gsm for projection (enlarging) papers, but a contact paper can use as little as 0.9 gsm and still produce a better maximum black than a projection paper with twice the coating weight: the secret lies in the smaller crystal size of the slower paper.
There is also a widespread and substantially irrational prejudice against resin-coated (RC) papers. As with VC papers, early RC papers were markedly inferior to fibre base (FB), with poor maximum blacks, an unpleasant ‘bloom’, and a tendency to cracking and crazing; but today, if the print is behind glass, it is often impossible to distinguish between RC and FB. There is probably a small archival advantage in FB papers, however, and for ‘fine-art’ purposes (where the tactile advantages are also important) FB continues to rule the roost.
For reproduction, glossy prints should be the automatic choice—textured papers often reproduce very badly indeed—and there is little or no reason not to use RC paper. For exhibition, the photographer's taste must reign supreme, though matte and textured prints are easier to light and therefore often easier to see.
Although much can be quantified about papers, including their speed and contrast under specified conditions, the final results that they deliver in different photographer's hands argue strongly that printing is more akin to cookery or perhaps alchemy than to science. Developers play a very major part in both image tone (warm or cool) and contrast (a developer can increase effective contrast by up to half a grade, or decrease it by a grade or more), but enlarger type, negative characteristic curve, and more can mean that a paper which delivers superb results for one photographer can be a disaster for another, and of course vice versa.
A note on formats: papers were originally sold in large sheets, to be cut by the user, but by 1900 pre-cut paper was widely available in a huge range of sizes, as it is to this day; although, paradoxically, the ‘halvable’ DIN A-series, the most logical size of all, has never become popular. At least as curiously, the popular 20.3 × 25.4 cm (8 × 10 in) size is a poor match for 35 mm, but 20.3 × 30.5 cm (8 × 12 in) paper (which would be far more useful) has never been a standard size.
— Roger W. Hicks
