History of Cross Processing?

Matt;

I don't disagree, but since you cannot create either of these effects digitally, then it behooves us (I think) as analog photographers, to use our nomenclature properly. I'm really not sure I should do this, but at least that is my motivation.

I have that longish section on myths over on PN and I started that series for a similar reason. We fall into this type of trap and forget that there are two things going on and we end up forgetting things.

PE

I would like to add that there was no malicious intent in this. Due to general errors like this, even professors seem to be falling into error. It is sad to see the passing of this knowledge.

BTW, the images don't look alike either. If you ever see them both side by side, you can see the differences.

PE

As I have pointed out , this complete book is a resource for me and by following his methods and formulations I have been able to make thousands of prints toward a long term full show that I hope to put in gallerys over the next 5 years..
In his manual, he describes many sorts of solarizations one of which is the method I use *thanks to his wonderful descriptions*. As well as the method accredited to Man Ray and Lee Miller which was lights on while developing film. He also talks about the Sun Solarizations, Platinum Solarization, and the effect of massive exposure to film just after and before exposure.
All of these seem to be related and discovered at different times.
So where does this leave me , I will continue to call my work solarizations and will be happy with that until someone can debunk Mr Jollys work with a book of their own .
I also would like to add their is no malicious intent on my part, but I do wish Mr Jolly could be with us to defend his book.
If you do enough of these prints you can by trial and error make any number of looks within the image , and that is what is beautiful about this process.

Photo Engineer said:

I would like to add that there was no malicious intent in this. Due to general errors like this, even professors seem to be falling into error. It is sad to see the passing of this knowledge.

BTW, the images don't look alike either. If you ever see them both side by side, you can see the differences.

PE

Click to expand...

Bob;

Solarization was orignally described as early as 1899, and the Sabattier effect was discovered way back when as well. They been "discovered" many many times by people who think it is something new. I don't have an original reference to Sabattier's work here.

I think that Mees, and Mees and James both debunk Jolly's nomenclature and have priority over Jolly as Mees was chief research scientist, VP and director of research at Kodak. In fact, he was the first, hired by Eastman. James is a name known world-wide in the science of photography. The first edition of this text was issued in the 40s, IIRC.

So, I have my source. I too wish Mr Jolly could be here to discuss it.

You see, someone often 'discovers' something that is well known in the photographic field, and they name it. "Gee, I have the 'Carnie' effect!" No disrespect intended, but we in the industry may have known of this for 50 years and may have patents and books on it.

So, there is no reason to dismiss Jolly's work, but 100 years in the future, I assure you that a diligent scientific reader may become confused over what people meant at this time period when they read of these different effects. They will be especially confused if these names are interchanged by us.

An inspection of comparable images, side-by-side, will reveal the differences in appearance of a solarized and a picture made by using the Sabattier effect. If the images are not readily comparable or are not viewed side-by-side, then this will become a difficult task.

If it works, use it. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but a chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell!

All the best.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Bob;

Solarization was orignally described as early as 1899, and the Sabattier effect was discovered way back when as well. They been "discovered" many many times by people who think it is something new.
PE

Click to expand...

Back in the 1970's, I inadvertently momentarily switched on the white lights while developing a print. I discovered what I promptly named the "Flotsam Effect".

Photo Engineer said:

nomenclature

Click to expand...

That is what we are talking about here.

Corey

Are there any pages on the net to do with cross processing past, that could use as citations?

Kodak had, at one time, a great deal about it in manuals and books. It was uesed as noted here, by some big compaines such as Nat. Geog. and Time/Life for assignments.

This should be around somewhere. I have a text on it, once published by EK, but I cannot locate it right now. It is on special effects in color and includes a hefty amount on cross processing.

There is also a textbook from the 60s that describes the cross processing of Ektachrome Infra Red for some unique special effects.

PE

It took me a while, but I have finally put all of my books on the subject together. This list contains all of the books I have on special effects in photography, and cross processing is only a small part of any individual book. But they are a good reference.

1. Creative Darkroom Techniques, Kodak Book AG-18 Cat 142 2211 (hardcover 292 pages - 1973, first edition)

2. Creating Special Effects - The Kodak Library of Creative Photography, Time Life Books Cat 127 1410 (harcover 104 pages)

3. Focus on Special Effects, Done and Marie Carrol, Amphoto books (hardcover 184 pages)

4. Special Effects, Petersen's Complete Library of Photography (hardcover 80 pages)

5. The Book of Special Effects Photography, Michael Langford, Knopf 1981 (hardcover 168 pages)

Of these, 1 and 5 are IMHO the best. The latter contains examples of IR Ektachrome cross processed and includes a print of this on the cover that is stunning!

It may not be history, but the books sure are full of good information.

PE