ilver gelatin paper, and found three de facto standards. The most common was ‘single weight,’ followed by ‘double,’ and finally ‘medium.’ Double weight papers fall above 0.25 mm, medium weight papers under 0.25 and single weight papers under 0.2 mm. The double weight paper started get thicker in the 1930s until the 1950s and then got thinner again, so manufacturers changed the thicknesses over time but not the terminology. It was also found that five common aspect ratios occurred in 88% of the de facto standard sizes. This implies that scaling relationships were a factor for determining silver gelatin DOP paper sizes. Characterization by aspect ratio not only simplifies the dimensional diversity of silver gelatin paper by emphasizing their scaling relationships, but also highlights their relationship with other media. For example, 6:5 is common mainly with plate sizes, 5:4 is the aspect ratio of many large format films. 4:3 is the first motion picture aspect ratio and 8:5 is the golden ratio.
The measurements and other data were recorded in spreadsheets (the full results were published in JAIC, Volume 53, Issue 4 (November, 2014), pp. 219-235). It led to the conclusion that there is no easy answer to these questions. No system of standard paper sizes was successfully put in place for photographic papers. Additionally, available sizes varied widely over time and across geographic boundaries.
This research can be utilized in identification of artist’s methods and paper preferences. One useful application is to study photograms. This technique was used to great effect by Man Ray and Laszlo Maholy-Nagy, contemporaries working in France and Germany respectively. Of course, each print is unique, because it would be difficult to replicate the exact condition since no negative has been used. Of a selection of 163 prints by Man Ray dating from 1920 to 1940, there were 88 photograms and 75 traditional prints from negatives. Compared with the de facto standard sizes identified by this research, the dimensions of 39 Man Ray photograms (roughly 44%) correspond to de facto paper sizes. From 75 prints from negatives, only 25 (33%) correspond to the de facto paper sizes. This survey shows that Man Ray most likely trimmed his photographs from negatives, but didn’t trim his photograms. Averaging about 3.5 mm thickness, the photograms fall into the category of double weight papers.
Man Ray’s process contrasted with the working practices of Laszlo Maholy-Nagy. Print dimensions and estimated thickness for 216 prints by Maholy-Nagy made in Germany between 1922 and 1928 were collected from the catalogue raisonne of his photograms. Of these photograms, 216 or about 89% correspond to the de facto standard sizes identified by this research. The majority of the prints made from negatives were printed on two sizes of paper, 18 x 24 cm and 13 x 18 cm, both de facto standard sizes. This shows that Moholy-Nagy used full sheets of paper for his photograms and didn’t trim them down. The catalogue raisonne describes the thickness measurements of many Moholy-Nagy photograms as single weight or double weight. According to these descriptions Moholy-Nagy used the single weight or double weight papers in equal frequencies and sometimes used both in the same series.
Understanding the de facto standard sizes provides a useful point of comparison of these two artists. Differences in their methods can be due to a variety of factors. Moholy-Nagy was known for his scientific approach to photography, as a record of the interaction between light and physical object composed within the border of the paper. His photograms were complete upon processing. In contrast, Man Ray was more acutely engaged in producing highly refined settings of expression; attention to detail and subtle manipulation apply to all aspects of Man Ray’s photography as evidenced by his skilled practices in retouching and using carefully proportioned mounts.
In summary, there really were a lot photographic paper sizes available, particularly in middle of the 20th century, when these papers were extr