Paper texture effects in calotype photography

Skilled photographers were able to achieve dramatic results with the calotype process, and the reason for its eclipse may not be evident from viewing reproductions of early work.

[1] This stimulated work by others: in 1840, the Englishman Talbot discovered what he called the calotype process for making photographic negatives on writing paper with the relatively short exposure time of a few minutes for subjects in bright sunlight.

Paper texture effects are limiting in nature photography, for example, where one expects to capture subtle patterns such as those produced by plants growing in close proximity or pebbles in a streambed.

[11][12][13] This seems practical for a professional who planned to profit from the sale of contact prints that would be the same size as the original negative, but less so for an amateur because of the large amounts of silver nitrate required.

Anyone who wishes to make calotypes today should expect that otherwise successful negatives will suffer in comparison to the best surviving early work if a relatively small format such as 10 x 10 cm (4 x 4 in) is used.

[16] To understand why the calotype process could sometimes produce attractive results but was found to be generally unsatisfactory, it would be useful to compare pictures of the same subject taken with first paper and then with glass (or clear plastic film) as the negative substrate.

An easier way to gain insight into the destructive effect of low contrast spurious texture is to view a relatively large format (not 35 mm) photographic negative in contact with a piece of tracing paper by transmitted light.

This comparison will also demonstrate that paper texture is relatively coarse and, unlike pixelation in a typical digital image, does not quickly become inconspicuous as the distance from which it is viewed increases.