Paper History

[wfw]

Can anyone tell me when projection speed [enlarging] papers first came into common use. I've done the prerequisite search (a couple of times...), but so far have found nothing.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Very interesting article on unblinkingeye : https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/AntiqueP/antiquep.html

 

[wfw]

Interesting yes, but I don't see the answer to my question.

 

[NedL]

First came into common use and commercial production in the 1890s.
See page 27 of: https://www.getty.edu/conservation/...pdf_publications/pdf/atlas_silver_gelatin.pdf

This was a switch from silver gelatin papers being developed out as opposed to printing out.
However, it's probably worth noting that this was not a new idea and there were developed out prints from the very earliest time of photographic print making.
Thomas Sutton made developed-out salt prints. They probably would not have worked under an enlarger because the silver chloride is mostly sensitive to UV, but nevertheless they were exposed only briefly and then the latent image was developed. Silver bromide was also in use very early on and probably used for printing before gelatin emulsions were made.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

First came into common use and commercial production in the 1890s.
See page 27 of: https://www.getty.edu/conservation/...pdf_publications/pdf/atlas_silver_gelatin.pdf

Nevertheless this started a contact process, not an enlarging process - see page 26. The question of the op is about enlarging a negative, not about the development of the paper.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

first came into common use

are you refering to "first" or to "common use"?

"First": probably somebody at the GEH could tell you that.

"Common use" in the sense that a lot of people started using it: I´d guess with the launch of the Leica in the mid 1920s. All wide-spread formats prior to the Leica were big enough & intended for contact printing.

 

[removed account4]

you can still make contact prints on DO papers ... that is what contact sheets are
and my poor guess would say that people using solar enlargers &c might have been using developing out paper.

seems strange that eastman and harman ( and others ) were coating plates
and weren't using the same emulsion or a similar one for paper ...
makes me wonder what eastman was making prints with when people bought the KODAK cameras

 

[wfw]

Okay, to clarify. I have four old prints with no date and no information beyond the photographer's signature. I would like to know if they are contact prints or enlargements, yet the photographer dates from and is identified with the pictorialist period, so either could be the case.

My question could possibly be re-phrased something like, "When did enlarging become the norm for photographic printing?" or, perhaps more directly, as, "How can I tell if a vintage photograph is a contact print or an enlargement?" And as far as I know, there is not a way unless the photographer left specific notes.

So, this is not one of those "Which xxx is best?" questions. It's just a basic history question.

@Herr Korn: Common use, however, my other comments in this post hopefully clarify my motivation. VG!~

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The first time I became aware of paper speed was reading a brochure on Bauman's Printofine paper developer. Since paper speed is less important than film speed (just expose more), no one really givees a tinker's dam about paper speed.

 

[AgX]

This thread though is not about the specific standardized paper speeds, which indeed hardly anyone cares about let alone knows them, but on the appearance of a new group of papers needed when enlarging suspended contact printing.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's not really the papers that were a factor in the rise of enlargements, it was the enlargers and particularly their lenses.

My gran-parents married in 1910, their wedding photographs were shot with 15x12 camera, the bride and bridesmaid photos with a 12x10 camera and all are contact prints. Now enlargers were around before this however the best were basically scaled up lantern slide projectors and even in 1910 many still came with Petzval lenses hardly ideal for high quality enlargements. Many lens manufacturers had been left with large stocks of Petzval lenses with the introduction of the Rapid Rectilinear lens.

Ross actually use the term Enlarging Lantern to describe their horizontal enlarger in an 1898 catalogue, it's only around 1910 that newer lens designs begin to appear with some enlargers. Other type of enlarger were fixed focus made to enlarge a specific plate size, so Quarter plate to Whole plate for example, often using daylight. The Stereoscopic company sold a daylight Snapshot enlarger in 1898 with a Rapid Rectilinear lens, however this was essentially a fixed focus field camera attached to a light-tight canvas box so everything could fold away when not in use.

Ian

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

Other type of enlarger were fixed focus made to enlarge a specific plate size, so Quarter plate to Whole plate for example, often using daylight.

As shown here on page 53 (if Google lets you see it):

https://books.google.de/books?id=Gt...Hc8iBZYQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=enlarger&f=false

But what kind of paper was used in these enlargers?

 

[Ian Grant]

As shown here on page 53 (if Google lets you see it):

https://books.google.de/books?id=Gt...Hc8iBZYQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=enlarger&f=false

That's a variation but gives a good idea of a daylight enlarger, I think they were still being made into the 1980's and possibly 90's, seem to remember a Postcard printer for 35mm negatives, I think plastic

But what kind of paper was used in these enlargers?

They used Bromide or Chloro-bromide papers back in the 1890's. Bromide paper was first advertised for sale by "The Liverpool Dry Plate Company" in 1874, surprisingly Gelatino-Chloride POP printing papers are later Abney came up with the process in 1881 the first commercial paper was German in 1884, Obernetter, Munich, followed in the UK by Ilford in 1891. Of course Colloidio-Chloride papers were already on the market 1867/8 again from Obernetter but LAlbumen printing was still very common.

These dates and names are from the BJP who's archives and first publication as the Liverpool Photographic Journal goes back to 1854, becoming the British Journal of Photography in 1860 by then a weekly publication.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

The Unblinkingeye article makes reference to Kodak Velox paper from 1906, actually Kodak took over the Nepera Chemical Co in the US who introduced Velox papers in 1890/1.

One issue with early papers would be developer, initially only Pyrogallol was available, first used in 1862, Hydroquinone was 1880, p-Aminophenol (Andresen - Rodinal) 1888 , Diaminophenol (Amidol), Glycin and Metol 1891.

So it's the 1890's when we start to see more prctical developers, some softer working, their was only a choice of Slow or Rapid (contrast) papers at that point.

These illustrations are from the 3rd Edition Revised of "Photographic Enlarging" by R. Child Bayley, published around 1905, I have an original copy, I see there's a recent facsimile reprint. as you'll see enlargers where quite crude at this point:

Other publications like a similar age Ilford Manual of Photography have similar images, and there aren't many enlargers in the BJP Almanacs of the late 1890s but there's quite a lot by 1910. However there's still not much in terms of paper grades just a slow and rapid on certain papers, and it was still the same in the mid 1920's although by then some companies produced Soft, Normal, and Contrast paper grades of Bromide paper.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

interesting stuff ian
i have seen a small book
of weeing photographs of my great grandparents
probably made around 1900 -/+ and they all look
like reduction prints, not enlargements, unless the
photographer took gem/postage size plates at the
same time he/she took "regular" sized plates...

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

mid 1920's although by then some companies produced Soft, Normal, and Contrast paper grades of Bromide paper.

That was the time when the 35mm film started to get used in photography. And with such small negatives, enlargement was necesarry.

 

[Ian Grant]

That was the time when the 35mm film started to get used in photography. And with such small negatives, enlargement was necesarry.

Well 120 and 127 and a few others smallish roll film formats were already taking off before and popular after WWI and more modern enlargers are available from a number of companies in 1922/3, Kodak offering an Autofocus enlarger for sized up to Half plate but it looks like for professional use. The 20's sees more practical vertical enlargers for all formats but non specific to 35mm, and the first 35mm enlarger the Leitz Valoy is only introduced in the 1930's. Remember 35mm camera sales only really took off with the first Leica I taking inter-changeable lenses and that was released in 1930.

Ian

 

[Tor-Einar Jarnbjo]

I have a Mimosa (German manufacturer) handbook dating from around 1925 describing the characteristics and processing of all the papers they manufactured at that time. If I remember correctly, it still recommends for most papers to do contact printing in daylight. In the processing instructions for the Bromosa paper (at that time relatively new), it is especially mentioned that the paper is fast enough for enlargement prints using an artificial light source, clearly indicating that it was not a self-evident feature for a paper at that time.

I am however not sure if there is an obvious connection between the introduction of the 35mm camera and photo paper fast enough for enlargements. And if there was, which part was the cause and which was the reaction? Were 35mm cameras introduced because photo papers fast enough for enlargers had been invented or did the introduction of 35mm cameras require the film material manufacturers to come up with faster papers? After all, being able to make prints with a different size than the negative had obvious advantages for all film formats, not only for 35mm film. After the introduction of the Leica and the 35mm film format in the 20ies, it would also still pass decades before 35mm cameras became 'common'. At least until the 50ies, the amateur market was dominated by cheap medium format cameras and contact printing of the negatives was still common. Even the first colour prints I have inherited from older relatives were contact prints dating from the late 50ies or early 60ies.

Wikipedia writes about miniature cameras dating all the way back to 1850 using 1 inch wide glass plates, which had to be enlarged when printed. I can't find any sources, but I am quite sure having read about daylight 'powered' darkrooms. In those days, the concept of projection and the required optics was of course already known, but it was for a long time a problem that photo paper had to be exposed in sun light. The known emulsions were mostly sensitive to UV (or perhaps blue) light, which was lacking in almost every known artificial source of light. Clever guys therefore used light guides (internally reflective ducts as a precusor of fibre optics) to provide sunlight from outside as a controllable source of light in the darkroom, even for enlargement printing on slow papers.

 

[Ian Grant]

I am however not sure if there is an obvious connection between the introduction of the 35mm camera and photo paper fast enough for enlargements. And if there was, which part was the cause and which was the reaction? Were 35mm cameras introduced because photo papers fast enough for enlargers had been invented or did the introduction of 35mm cameras require the film material manufacturers to come up with faster papers?

There's no correlation between photo enlargement paper, bromide or chloro-bromide, speed and 35mm cameras being introduced. Enlargers were in use decades earlier.

One point perhaps over-looked is heavy dense negatives print best on POP contact papers which are self masking, with little in the way of early paper grades you needed good negatives for enlargement, perhaps no wonder that there are a great many formulae for Reducers and Intensifiers, and development by inspection often using dye desensitisers was quite common.

35mm only really became feasible with major improvements in film technology, that was 1934 in the case of Ilford and Fine Grain Pan and Hypersensitive PAn the forerunners of FP4 and HP5, by the time Kodak caught up with Plus X, Double X and Tri X in 1939 Ilford introduced FP2 and HP2, and then FP3 and HP3 2 years later.

There were issues enlarging early 35mm films the 1927 BJP Almanac describes wet mounting negatives for enlargement, the illustration clearly shows a 35mm negative strip, this overcame surface artefacts on the gelatin super-coat that increased apparent graininess.

Another factor with enlargers was big improvements in electric filament light bulbs, making smaller enlargers more practical.. In 1898 enlargers used Oil lamps, Lime-light, or Incandescent Gas.. My Houghton King enlarger had clearly had some kind of burner as the tray it sat in was there but had a much later electrical fitting. Figure 4 shows the baffled chimney and holes below to allow air to be drawn it to a Thornton Pickard enlarger. This is still the case in 1910 although an Electric arc lamp is also an option.

Ian

 

[AgX]

I assume with "incandescant gas" you mean gas known as town gas, coal gas, illuminating gas

 

[Ian Grant]

I assume with "incandescant gas" you mean gas known as town gas, coal gas, illuminating gas

Well natural gas wasn't harvested then so yes coal gas, I was using advertisers words. More importantly no light source was straight forward until decent light bulbs became thenorm.

Ian

 

[wfw]

So, back to the OP. Does anyone have an idea of how to determine if a vintage print is a contact print or an enlargement? I'm not even sure now why it's important to me; just curious, I guess. The photographer's biographer says that she used 5x7 and 8x10 cameras. The prints I have (image size) are 10x12.5, 11x14, 4x6 and 4 1/2 x 6 1/2, which suggests enlargement But.perhaps she used an 11x14 camera, too. I don't know. The images are not dated, but my best guess is that they are from the mid-'30's.

 

[NedL]

The only thing I can think of is to examine the print using a magnifying glass. Film grain is on the order of something like 10 microns, so it would not be visible even with a magnifying glass on a contact print. If there is visible grain, that might indicate that the film ( or plate ) was enlarged. The problem with this idea is that there are other reasons a print can look "grainy" besides enlarged film grain, so I'm not sure how useful this idea is. A lack of visible grain under a magnifying glass would at least hint that they are probably contact prints.

 

[Ian Grant]

Also look at the grain sharpness at the edges and corners relative to the center, sharpness will drop off in an early enlargement but not a contact print. However there's a look to early contact prints that sets them apart from enlargements.

Ian

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

During which years has the photographer been active? Were the 30s the end of her creative period, or was this the beginning?

Just judging by the size of the print and the information with regards to time & the cameras, I´d guess that the two big prints were enlarged and the two smaller prints probably were contacts. It was very common to have different plate-holders for different sizes of plates depending on the particular needs of the shot (assuming glass plates were used, and not film).

Leaving the size of the print on the side, you can look for clues on what type of camera and lens was used and what modifications were made during printing. For instance:

1.) How is the colour reproduction, what kind of sensitisation did the taking medium have?​

2.) How is the contrast, edge sharpness and the Bokeh? Does this look like and old Petzval taking lens, or is this a 1930s brand-new crips sharp Tessar picture?
3.) Look for marks of dodging and burning-in: Which techniques were used, did this happen on the negative / a mask or was it only possible with an enlarger?
4.) Can you see some defects at the borders (maybe under a passpartout) of the print which might be a sign of a plate holder or some coating defect at the border of a plate?

As suggested by Ian and NedL, grain and grain sharpness are good indicators, but I am not sure if a common magnifying glass will do. Maybe this requires some heavier equiment. Besides the interpretation of the results might be difficult as you don´t know which materials and tools were used.