History of Cross Processing?

[ajuk]

Is there one, were there early pioneers who started doing this back in the 60's or 70's, was it discovered by mistake? Are there famous early photographers who were the first to really start doing it artistically, because I can't find anything about the history of Cross processing on Google or Wikipedia.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I can remember doing "cross processing" of E-6 slide film in C-41 chemistry back in the early 1980's., for a doctor client that shot title cards...black type on white (I think), and when cross processed (by me) in C-41 they appeared as white type on a nice deep blue background. That was my first experience with it, and I was informed of it by the doctor who had, I guess, read about it somewhere, and decided to try it. It was black type on something, I never really saw the originals, so it might have not been white.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak published instructions and precautions for E4 in C22 long ago. The National Geographic pictures of Alan Shepard were taken on HS Ektachrome and pushed in C22. They were then masked and corrected for printing in Life magazine and NatGeog.

This was well known in the early 60s.

PE

 

[ajuk]

Is there one, were there early pioneers who started doing this back in the 60's or 70's, was it discovered by mistake? Are there famous early photographers who were the first to really start doing it artistically, because I can't find anything about the history of Cross processing on Google or Wikipedia.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I was first aware of cross processing ... E6 in C41 dev or colour neg in E6 developer ... as an artistic workflow for photographers in the mid 80's .
I think both methods were a mistake of wrong film in wrong developer and someone seeing something great and moving forward with the mistake.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Isn't this a repeat thread? There is one idential to this started earlier.

PE

 

[ajuk]

Yeah, oops please someone close this one!

 

[jd callow]

Threads have been merged

 

[jd callow]

years ago,(before e6?) crossproccessing was used for some forms of copy work where contrast was important and colour and some tone was also needed -- maps, and shots of colour line art.

 

[Flotsam]

As a young lad, I realized that I just felt more comfortable in Ladies clothing.

D'oh! I mis-read the thread title.
Boy is that embarrassing.

 

[Helen B]

Kodak published instructions and precautions for E4 in C22 long ago. The National Geographic pictures of Alan Shepard were taken on HS Ektachrome and pushed in C22. They were then masked and corrected for printing in Life magazine and NatGeog.

This was well known in the early 60s.

PE

High Speed Ektachrome pushed in C-22 was the fastest colour film I used in the early to mid 70s - in fact it was that combination that got me my first fashion job. As well as printing it in the way that PE described I also printed it on Cibachrome. Most of the things we tried were done out of curiosity, for fun.

Best,
Helen

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

There must have been some 60's acid heads who have flipped on cross-processing as a totally groovy way to make pictures, but where are the traces of it?

 

[Bob Carnie]

I use to make a gap in time for a C41automachine that I worked with and after the first lift in the Dev, I would turn on the lights to solarize the colour film. This really pissed off my Boss because I was slowing down the production line until he relized it was a cool look and we could sell it to our clients.

There must have been some 60's acid heads who have flipped on cross-processing as a totally groovy way to make pictures, but where are the traces of it?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I use to make a gap in time for a C41automachine that I worked with and after the first lift in the Dev, I would turn on the lights to solarize the colour film. This really pissed off my Boss because I was slowing down the production line until he relized it was a cool look and we could sell it to our clients.

Bob;

Solarization takes place imagewise in the camera while the Sabattier effect takes place by giving an overall flash during development.

I just want to get the terms straight.

PE

 

[Bob Carnie]

How does it take place image wise in the camera? enquiring minds must know.
In my eyes if there is a complete reversal of tones by flashing in development as out lined in Mr Jollys complete article on solarization , It is a solarization. I think it is not a leap of process : to put film in the exposure sequence rather than paper and continue development, as Mr Jolly suggests.

Bob;

Solarization takes place imagewise in the camera while the Sabattier effect takes place by giving an overall flash during development.

I just want to get the terms straight.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bob;

In the camera it is achieved by gross over exposure which is of the original image and therefore imagewise. Most films are 'immunized' to this by certain addenda.

During development, it cannot take place imagewise, as it is a uniform flash.

PE

 

[Roger Hicks]

How does it take place image wise in the camera? enquiring minds must know.
In my eyes if there is a complete reversal of tones by flashing in development as out lined in Mr Jollys complete article on solarization , It is a solarization. I think it is not a leap of process : to put film in the exposure sequence rather than paper and continue development, as Mr Jolly suggests.

Dear Bob,

True solarization is a reversal of tones caused by a single overexposure, first seen when the sun reproduced as a clear dot (on the negative) rather than a black dot -- hence 'solarization'. The Sabattier effect, caused by exposure during development, is not the same thing. I've never been entirely sure when the two were first conflated.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I stand corrected and will have to reread Mr Jollys discussion on solarization to clarify this in my tiny brain.

Dear Bob,

True solarization is a reversal of tones caused by a single overexposure, first seen when the sun reproduced as a clear dot (on the negative) rather than a black dot -- hence 'solarization'. The Sabattier effect, caused by exposure during development, is not the same thing. I've never been entirely sure when the two were first conflated.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bob F.]

The Sabattier effect is often called "pseudo-solarization" which does not help to remove any confusion.

Never did get the hang of it on prints. Of course, now you can get a similar effect in an image editor, so it then becomes pseudo-pseudo-solarization ...

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Color Sabattier is often quite remarkable and beautiful.

I have cross processed EPP in C41 and then printed using the Sabattier effect during the process. I have posted some of these prints here on APUG.

PE

 

[MattKing]

A couple of years ago I took a relatively basic night school course to give me some additional dark room access. The instructor was a better photographer than she was either a technician or educator, but I and the other students enjoyed the experience, and some of the less experienced students learned lots.
I did have to bite my tongue a few times though, because the instructor had experimented with the Sabattier effect, and was quite enamored with it, but insisted on referring to it as solarization.

It just wasn't appropriate to try to correct her.

Matt

 

[ajuk]

If you know she was wrong and it was a fact rather than an opinion then I don't see why.

The reason I ask is for the improvement of the Wikipedia page on cross processing, if anybody wants to help me please do so, there is a task list on the pages talk page.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I will stand by my definition of solarization for now, you guys can take it up with Mr Jolly, whose book I have formulated all my chemicals for my Print Solarizations.

Solarization Demystified
www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~wljeme/Southline.html

from the front page Preface

*shine diffuse light on a developing photograph, and continued development yields an amazing result: part of the image is positive, and part of the image is negative! The process (usually called solarization, but sometimes called the Sabatier effect) is looked upon by most photographers as completely mysterious.In this book I try to remove the mystery from soarization by describing its history , by showing how it can be used in both art and science, and by explaining how it works from a scientivic point of view*
William L. Jolly
Department of Chemistry
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720

Bob;

In the camera it is achieved by gross over exposure which is of the original image and therefore imagewise. Most films are 'immunized' to this by certain addenda.

During development, it cannot take place imagewise, as it is a uniform flash.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bob;

We differentiate between the two in that solarization is imagewise, but the Sabatier (sic) effect is non imagewise. Scientifically, the Sabattier effect is defined as normal exposure, partial deveopment, normal exposure and is classed as a Complex (Multiple Mechanism) effect. Solarization is Normal exposure along with or followed by overexposure to radiation of the same quality and intensity (imagewise < my words). It is classed as a Latent Image Destruction effect.

Therefore, a lightning flash recorded on film will generate a negative and a positive image or a positive image depending on exposure and intensity of light and this is done in camera. The Sabattier effect is never done in-camera.

You may read more about this on P149 of Mees and James.

Professor Jolly is the one who is confused.

Sorry.

PE

 

[MattKing]

PE & Bob:

I think that this is one of those terms where the common understanding of the term has supplanted the older and technically more correct phrase.

Most people will look at you quizzically if you refer to the Sabattier effect, but if you refer to a print as being solarized, they are more likely to know what you are talking about.

Not many of us have actually seen an example of true solarization (I've only seen it illustrated in books).

It is sort of like the word "celibate", which has acquired a meaning which is entirely different (although slightly related) from the original.

Matt