1481
spirit of one of the most zealous and creative artists
to try their hand at photography. The painter Gustave
Le Gray (1820–1882) began experimenting with the
daguerreotype as early as 1847 and the following year
was using variants of Henry Talbot’s calotype process.
Within three years, he had produced a highly innovative
photographic system, the waxed paper negative process.
Although the process is part of the paper negative family,
it uniquely stands apart from the decade-old calotype
announced in 1841.
The crucial difference between the calotype and the
waxed paper process is in the preparation of the paper.
In the calotype process, a sheet of high quality paper is
sensitized with a combination of silver halides, exposed
in a camera (either in a dry state or slightly damp), re-
moved, developed, and fi xed with sodium thiosulphate.
After processing, the translucency of the paper negative
could be increased by saturating with wax. This helped
increase the contrast and shorten printing times.
In most respects, the preparation of the waxed paper
negative parallels the preparation of the calotype, ex-
cept for one important difference: in Le Gray’s waxed
paper negative process, the paper is saturated with wax
before the chemical sensitization. This simple reversal
of one step profoundly alters the qualities of the paper.
First and foremost, saturating the paper with wax evens
out the texture of the paper and fi lls the interstices of
the paper fi ber matrix. In its natural state, paper is an
overlapping, random web of fi bers, held together by
chemical and physical interactions. Light can and will
travel through this matrix, but will be refl ected off of
each paper fi ber in its path, decreasing in intensity as it
passes through. By fi lling in the interstices of the fi ber
matrix, the wax changes the sheet’s refractive qualities,
allowing the light to pass through in a more direct path.
The treatment with wax renders the paper negative
more homogenous then the calotype and the individual
paper fi bers will not be as visually pronounced in the
fi nal print. The wax, however, does not completely fi ll
the paper, and the sensitizing chemistry is still able to
bond and anchor to the cellulose.
A second advantage of the waxed paper process was
improved wet strength. The time required to develop a
paper negative could be considerable, an hour or more,
especially if the photographer was trying to compensate
for underexposure. This meant prolonged submersion in
an aqueous solution, at the end of which the operator had
to handle a water-logged sheet of paper. With the waxed
paper negative, much thinner, machine made papers
could be employed without the fear of tearing.
Finally, the most practical advantage offered by the
new negative process was its impressive longevity. Be-
cause of the protective qualities of the wax, a week’s
supply of fully prepared paper could be stored, ready
for photographic excursions. This was an incredible
boon to travelling photographers who could prepare
negatives ahead of time and consequently lighten the
load of photographic equipment required for travel.
There were, however, contradictory reports from those
travelling in extreme climates. Some accounts suggest
diffi culty with the process, such as Maxime duCamp
(1822–1894), who, despite being instructed by Le Gray
himself, failed all attempts at the waxed paper process
once he reached Egypt and turned to a variant of the
calotype, the wet paper process.
Paper negatives are hand made objects, subject to
variations at every stage of preparation, from the selec-
tion of paper to sensitizing, processing and printing.
However, during the fi rst decade of photography, the
range of off-the shelf photographic supplies increased
and by mid 1850, waxed paper negative devotees
could purchase pre-waxed and pre-iodized papers. In
some products, quality was suspect, as noted by the
Scottish surgeon and photographer Thomas Keith
(1827–1885):I have always waxed my own paper, as what I bought
waxed was so bad that the half of it was generally use-
less. By doing it yourself you have it much better done,
and it is much more economical then buying it waxed.
(Photographic Notes, June 10, 1856)Post-processing manipulations paralleled those of the
calotype, including re-fi xing, chemical intensifi cation
and even reheating the already waxed sheet in an effort
to improve weak negatives. Flaws in the image such as
spots and stains could be retouched, although the waxy
surface made soft graphite stick and powder the media
of choice: gouache and watercolor would not readily
adhere. Like all other paper negatives, the substrate
would easily tear and crease, but was considered robust
and durable when compared to the breakable and heavy
glass plate negative.
The fi nal image can appear on both the recto and
verso of the sheet, and a waxed paper negative can
be much darker in normal refl ected illumination than
its sister process, the calotype. When viewed through
transmitted light, however, the dark muddy sheet is
transformed into a bright, glowing negative of astound-
ing detail.
Le Gray’s endless experimenting led to other inno-
vations and fostered a school of followers who in turn
promulgated numerous and unusual modifi cations to the
photographic formulas of the day, such as the turpentine
waxed-paper process. Most of the formulas altered the
basic process by adding organic components such as
gelatin, albumin, collodion, sugar, or lactose. Although
the exposures times were reduced, the wax-saturated
paper lengthened the processing times and in the hands
of a skilled operator, the results were breathtaking.
Some of the greatest photographers of the 19th