Modern pictorialist papers?

[William Mortensen]

There's been quite an interest in older soft-focus lenses lately, but the standard glossy-surfaced, neutral-toned printing papers hardly seem appropriate to the aesthetic. Even the warm-toned papers in a matte-surface seem like a compromise. Today I was looking at an old print made on Ektalure, (G-surface, I think), and wondered, is there any modern paper made for the pictorialist aesthetic? By that, I mean having a textured surface, warm base, an accent of color to its tones (brown, sepia, olive, ochre, etc.), and a look appropriate to softer contrast?

In other words, if F. Holland Day came back today with his approach intact, what commercially produced paper could he use?

[Oren Grad]

Kentmere used to produce all sorts of odd-surfaced papers, which were imported here under the Luminos brand. Kentmere is now distributing directly, but I gather that at least some of the special surfaces have been discontinued recently because Kentmere could no longer obtain the papers. Afraid I'm not up on all the details because I never had much interest in those surfaces. But you might check the current Kentmere catalog to see what's left.

Another different surface that comes to mind is the Bergger Fine Art Silver Supreme paper.

[paulr]

Any surface that works with all your tints, oil paints, and varnishes should work fine

[domenico Foschi]

Mark, I think Kentmere has a chamois surface, something that I will give it a try.

[William Mortensen]

Domenico- I've seen Kentmere's Chamois surface refered to as their "fine art" surface, but that means pretty much nothing. But guessing it might be a pictorialist styled paper, I will probably order a package too, just to see...

"Any surface that works with all your tints, oil paints, and varnishes should work fine "

Paul- actually, the glossy surface fb papers work fine with oils and varnishes, (never tried the tints). And it does have a nice look that sort of suggests something that could be called a "neo-pictorialism". But looking at that old Ektalure print, I really missed that style of paper (which was actually made in the seventies as a fifties-style retro of twenties and thirties late-pictorialism. Phew.) I can't think of anything remotely like it, but I'm pretty ignorant of what's currently out there. Local photo stores (Tucson, AZ) are few and stock at most a little glossy and/or matt fb, sometimes in a warmtone if they feel adventurous.

Oren- I saw some of the Luminous papers a few years back, some were actually cloth rather than paper. Interesting, intriguing, but gone from the market.

[David A. Goldfarb]

You could always coat your own albumen or platinum paper, if you're really after that look.

[Mark Sampson]

Dig up a copy of the Kodak "Darkroom Dataguide " from the '70s or earlier and weep for the choices you've lost. In those days there were a dozen different surfaces and as many different emulsions... "Tapestry X", "Mural R", "Portralure K", "Illustrator's Special J",etc.

[William Mortensen]

"You could always coat your own albumen or platinum paper, if you're really after that look."

Done that- platinum, palladium, kallitypes, uranotypes... Beautiful processes, but not equivalent (or even close) to the pictorialist effect of Ektalure type papers.

Mark- Yes, there were amazing choices back then; I always liked the G surface, but there was a surface called "Opaline" that was like a fine sandpaper. Always wanted to try that one...

[Mark Sampson]

I should mention that the "Dataguide" had actual prints made on the papers available, bound right into the book. I was always entranced by the choices, as a beginner, but never tried most of them. I found out years later that one of the surfaces, made for the wedding market, was designed to be impossible to copy- there would always be a specular highlight in the copied image. The only surface I really miss was the semi-gloss called "J". But then I'm no pictorialist.. I do wish some of those choices would come back, though.

[Paul Coppin]

[...]
" I found out years later that one of the surfaces, made for the wedding market, was designed to be impossible to copy- there would always be a specular highlight in the copied image. The only surface I really miss was the semi-gloss called "J". But then I'm no pictorialist.. I do wish some of those choices would come back, though."

That was, I believe, "Crystal". I have a treasured print, in B&W, I made in the late 60's, shot against the sun in heavy fog in winter. Negative was so dense, it took 5 minutes in the enlarger to produce an 11X14 print. The grain, because of the density and the effect of the sun on fog, was spectacular. It didn't hurt that there were some compositional elements in the frame I didn't see in the fog that all worked. I made three prints, each cropped slightly differently, all on Crystal (think "coarse Pearl").
Then I did the unthinkable - tried to reduce the negative in reducer to lower the density. New compositional elements added - called "blotches" . Negative never printed worth a damn thereafter. Have tried over the years to copy the prints in one way or another. So far the closest I've been able to come is with one of my scanners and heavy use of anti-moire processing, but its not the same. Crystal throws a specular pattern, no matter how you light it, it seems that gives a look not unlike a specular screened image. Blecchhh.