Solarization

[O|||||||O]

OK, so I know what is it and the basic theory on how to do it - but having never done it before, I thought I would ask first...

I've checked all of the books I have, and google... Google was pretty much worthless - all I could find was how to replicate it digitally...


From what I gather, you want to expose the film to light for a second or two during developing. That's as specific of an answer I could find.

What I'm wondering is - when during developing? The middle? The end, before fixing? Or does it even matter...? (Will it just give varying degrees of solarization?)
Also, does the film speed affect the length of time that it needs to be exposed to light?

Basically, I'm trying not to waste 2 or 3 rolls of film figuring it out (I do realize that it might take that though). Now I wish I loaded up some short rolls for experimenting with...


Anybody have any tips of any kind?


What I'm thinking right now is to expose it for 1 second exactly in the middle of the development. Depending on how that goes, plan B is 1 second after the stop bath and before fixing.

[TPF Sponsor]

[c.cloudwalker]

Solarization is kinda like fisheye photos, it gets boring real quick

And that's my way of saying I sure don't remember how it was done because it was way too long ago. But it wouldn't be after the fixing. I just don't see how that could have any effect. I'll see if I still have books that talk about it and maybe come back.

[compur]

Solarizaton is normally done during print processing in a darkroom. Basically you expose the paper briefly while it's in the developer tray.
I've never heard of it being done with film and I doubt it would work. Film is much more light sensitive than paper. But, it might work with
very very slow film like lith film or dupe film or something like that.

[O|||||||O]

Hmm...

What I have been reading seemed to imply that it would work with film or paper. (But it's hard to find any concrete information...)

I might try it on some Efke 50 (it's the slowest film I have, and I already have a roll of it in my camera) to see what happens... I'm thinking I can turn off the lights in my bathroom, take the lid off of the tank, then flick the lights on then off again (maybe 1/4 second or so) 1/2 or 2/3 through the development.

What's the worst that could happen? Just a blank roll I guess... How likely do you think that would be?

I think I'll just shoot 6 or 12 frames and snip it off then develop that ... just to see what happens...

Do you think it would matter which developer I use? (I'm thinking no.)
(I have HC-110, Xtol, Rodinal, and ID-11 on hand, if it does matter.)

[KenC]

If you try it on prints, which is how most people do it, you'll have the luxury of trying it over and over on the same image until you get it right instead of ruining the negative forever. I never did much of it, but I believe it's best to expose the paper in the middle of development. If there isn't some density on the paper it won't really work because the effect depends on the dark and light areas reacting differently to the exposure. However, if there is too much density already the print is likely to just become much too dark.

[Images]

I played around with it many moons ago, I used lithographic film.
I made a negative and positive image using my enlarger to project the desired image on the lith film.
I also used a contact printing to produce the image if it did not need to be enlarged or reduced.
The solarization took place in the developer, experiment with the light until you get what you want.
I treated the positives like transparencies and produced a direct positive, I also added color using various filter settings on the color head.
The results were pretty neat, I still have some of the prints.
I have never tried the process on paper, I would think there might be a fogging problem.

[dxqcanada]

I have an old book "The new photography" which states:
Sabattier effect occurs when a normally exposed print is exposed to a more concentrated light midway during its development. This exposure causes the previously unexposed or minimally exposed silver crystals to be heavily exposed an to darken, and the crystals that were normally exposed under the enlarger printing to reverse their tones.

Solarization refers to an hours-long overexposure of the silver emulsion, resulting in tone reversal.
Is that what you are trying ?

[O|||||||O]

No - what I'm talking about is actually the Sabattier effect (I thought that would have been clear from my question) - I knew the difference, but also knew that almost everyone calls it 'solarization', even if that's not accurate...


I know 'what' it is, I just haven't actually done it before.

.
.
.


From what I've been reading though, it is possible (and actually commonly done) on film (instead of just paper)... It sounds tricky with 35mm though. "They" say that you need to take the film off of the reel and hang it to expose it evenly.

I was thinking of just taking the lid off of the tank (in the dark), then popping a flash in there at the lowest power. Maybe pull the reel out first and pop the top & bottom of it...
I'm thinking that even on the lowest power, it might be way too much light though...


I guess it'll be one of those trial & error things...

Anyway, it'll be a few weeks till I get around to trying it...

[dxqcanada]

Quick search on APUG:

solarization and Man Ray
True solarization and pyro

[Derrel]

I have never heard of this being done with FILM. I have made dozens and dozens of prints this way, however. We used to just expose a print, and then when it was in the developer, we'd flip the lights on and then off...once, twice, three times sometimes, finish processing, and then see what came out...given the EXTREME sensitivity of film to light, compared against enlarging paper, I cannot imagine how one could "flash" the film minimally enough in a real-world setting...

[analog.universe]

Put a hefty ND on the flash?

[Always_Thinking]

Tried to upload this image but was unsuccessful. Could someone please say definitively whether or not the dot in the center of the sun is a digital solarization artifact or defect? I would appreciate it.

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z...mayer_2200.jpg