Sabattier Effect!

[photong]

I have one! Those look very nice. I should post mine some day.
A girl in school won an award for submitting an image from doing this effect.

 

[Unimaxium]

I have some prints i did the other day, but mine is cheating really with solarisation of the print rather than the film

That's not cheating... that's how I did my print. And I think that's how Hertz did his too. :thumbup:

 

[Hertz van Rental]

You don't have to take the print out of the developer or dry it to solarise it.
I do a normal print and process it normally for two to two and a half minutes. During development I flash the print.
You can turn the whites on or put the dev tray under the enlarger or use a torch or whatever.
The further in to the processing you fog the print the less the degree of 'solarisation'.
The intensity of the light and the length of time the print is flashed for all effect the outcome too. And don't forget that the paper is far less sensitive to light when it is in the developer so you might need to give it more light than you think.
It's a matter of trial and error but it does allow you to see the effect there and then and it saves a lot of messing.
Don't be tempted to pull the print before it is fully developed though as the print will go blotchy.
Just be prepared to waste some paper - but it's worth it.

 

[Force of Nature]

You don't have to take the print out of the developer or dry it to solarise it.
I do a normal print and process it normally for two to two and a half minutes. During development I flash the print.
You can turn the whites on or put the dev tray under the enlarger or use a torch or whatever.
The further in to the processing you fog the print the less the degree of 'solarisation'.
The intensity of the light and the length of time the print is flashed for all effect the outcome too. And don't forget that the paper is far less sensitive to light when it is in the developer so you might need to give it more light than you think.
It's a matter of trial and error but it does allow you to see the effect there and then and it saves a lot of messing.
Don't be tempted to pull the print before it is fully developed though as the print will go blotchy.
Just be prepared to waste some paper - but it's worth it.

Thats what I did!

 

[Hertz van Rental]

And there is no such thing as 'cheating' in Photography. It's called 'technique' ;-)

 

[Force of Nature]

hehe, but its not a true solarisation is it, its just a pseudo, I think thats the phrase. Man I need a scanner to show you, I also reversed my solarisation which looks awesome.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Yes it is psuedo-solarisation.
True solarisation occurs on negatives that have been grossly over-exposed.
The only example that I know of is 'Black Sun' by Ansel Adams. It was a long exposure shot and the sun has reversed so that it is black.
I can explain what causes it if you want but it's very technical and rather boring.... ;-)

 

[Unimaxium]

I am actually kind of interested in the details

PS: do you know anywhere I can see that image "black sun" I'm searching with google but I don't seem to be coming up with any pictures of it.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The Black Sun, Tungsten Hills, Owens Valley, California 1959 - Image 7, Portfolio V of the Portfolios of Ansel Adams.
It's not actually a very good picture so it doesn't get seen much.
As for the mechanism that causes true solarisation we are talking electron transfer, ion migration and photon absorbtion - Quantum mechanics and stuff. Will give a full explanation later when I have more time.

 

[Rogue Monk]

In the winter 2004 issue of Digital Photography User "Black & White" (http://www.digitalphotouser.co.uk/), they show how to do this in Photoshop.

I did a quick run on a sunset image (top one is greyscale with quick levels adjustment. second is digital Sabattier).

Not saying its better. Just showing another possible option.