From: sparks@col.hp.com (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: Printing-out papers
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:50:24 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

In article <8APR199216122043@erin.caltech.edu> shoppa@erin.caltech.edu (TIM SHOPPA) writes:
>Hi,
>	Most of my photo books have some reference to printing-out (contact
>printing) papers, but then quickly say that I don't want to use them and
>move on to the subject of enlarging papers.  The photo shops nearby don't
>normally stock Kodak printing-out papers, such as Velox or Azo, and the people
>who work there don't know anything about them.

A printing out paper is one that the image appears by "printing" or
exposure to light (generally the sun or some other high UV content
source).  The paper must then be fixed in some manner to make the image
permanent (I don't know if the fixing is the same as for normal
developing out papers).  Printing out papers were often used for proofs
from protrait studios without fixing them.  The image would slowly fade
over time and the customer couldn't use the proof instead of buying a
real print.  Kodak made a printing out paper up until a few years ago
when it was discontinued.  Some small company now makes a printing out
paper that is essentially the same as the former Kodak product (the
company may be the Chicago Albumen Works, but I'm not sure).  I have
never used any printing out paper, but it is supposed to require very
contrasty negatives and compensates since the printed out image is self
masking (shadow areas are more open feeling).  Because of the process
(especally the time required for exposure and the UV content required),
all printing out papers must be printed by contact.

Now, Azo and Velox are not printing out papers.  They are developing out
papers (just like enlarging papers).  They must be developed to get an
image.  They are however contact papers meaning that they are much
slower than enlarging papers (at least an order of magnitude more
exposure) and require exposures that are impractical if not impossible
because of reciprocity failure for enlargement with a normal enlarger.
If you have an enlarger and will be enlarging for any prints, it is much
simpler to just use the enlarger for a light source and use normal
enlarging papers for your contact prints.  If you do not have an
enlarger you may want to try AZO or Velox because you can use a brighter
light for your contact prints and you don't need an enlarger (though
enlarging papers can be used for contact prints without an enlarger if
you light source is appropriate dim).  If you are making fine-prints
from large format negatives you may want to try one or both of these
papers (or even a true printing out paper) as they are reported very
fine papers, but would generally be wasted on most contact prints that
are only used to determine which negatives to enlarge.  I don't think I
have ever used a contact paper, but I remember an outdated box my father
had for printing his speed graphic negatives that I may have tried.

>I remember reading something
>in one of the Ansel Adams books about Weston nearly abandoning photography
>when platinum paper was discontinued, but then he discovered the wonderful
>properties of one of these Kodak papers.

I think Weston used AZO, but can't really remember.  Also, I think he switched
before the platinum paper was discontinued.  He had been using AZO or whatever
for proofing since it was less expensive and decided that he liked the cool,
sharp silver prints better than the warm soft platinum prints).  This is from
memory from reading his daybooks a couple of years ago.

>I have 3 questions:
>
>1.  Why do all my photo books tell me I don't want to use printing-out papers?

Well, POP's are now unusual and probably considered obsolete by most photo
books that are not about alternative processes.  They are somewhat hard to use
since you must either use the inconsistant sun or an expensive light source
for exposure and the exposure times are fairly long (however the self masking
properties make using something like the sun much easier since overexposure is
fairly hard to do).  

>B.  How would I actually use such a paper?  I don't see why I couldn't also
>use it for enlarging, if it can be used for contact printing.  I remember
>reading something about long exposure times with such papers, and something
>about not developing the paper, but just desensitizing the paper after
>exposure.

This is correct, but exposure times under an enlarger would probably be 
measured in at least hours if not days.  With reciprocity failure included,
it may be impossible to get more than a faint image no matter what exposure
time was used.  I think that POP's are really only sensitive to UV light
(this is true of many contact only processes like platinum printing) and
most enlargers will pass very little of the small UV content of most
incandesent bulbs through lenses, diffusers and/or condensors involved.  

Developing out contact papers on the other hand have similar color response
to enlarging papers but are still an order of magnitude or more slower than
enlarging papers.  They also would be extremely difficult if not impossible
to use under a normal enlarger (maybe if you got or built one of the old
sunlight enlargers that attached to a hole in the side of your darkroom
you could use one).  You could also make enlarged negatives to contact print
(the typical way of making larger prints before enlarging papers were
available), but that would be rather expensive and not worth it for the slight
differences between contact papers and enlarging papers.

>III.  What qualities does a print made on printing-out paper have?  If
>Weston liked it, I might like it too.  But then it seems that hardly
>anyone else uses it.

Weston didn't use POP's unless you call platinum a POP (platinum prints are
somewhat printed out and somewhat developed out).  He used a normal developed
out contact paper.  He was also making contact prints from mostly 8x10 
negatives.  These papers are supposed to be good, but probably no better 
than good modern enlarging papers like Elite, Gallerie or Seagull and would
be difficult if not impossible to use under an enlarger anyway.  They are
probably worth trying if you make contact prints from large negatives,
but otherwize the will not be what you want to use.

John Sparks