Odd result of oversight... HELP!

[Scuffy]

Well, my curiosity strikes again! This time it has to do with a specific process in the darkroom, or what I perceive to be. I regularly pick up a publication names B&W magazine, something I'm sure many of you are familiar with. I love the quality of the reproductions contained inside, but I can't help but wonder how they get the actual silver look to the light areas of the photo's. In this day in age it can easily be and most likely is just he paper it is printed on while at press.

I've actually obtained this look by accident in my photo lab though. I had a cross-over rack that wasn't set correctly in my mini lab and needless to say a 5x7 print got away from me. It adhered itself to the inside wall of my developer (P1) tank. It sat there for roughly 3 days, face towards the rack. When I went to scrub the tank down and mix new chems I found it and on a whim, ran it through the rest of the machine and when it came out dry... I was amazed. In awe to say the least. The whites had been silverized, almost having the effect of being nickel plated. Now this is a color mini lab so I don't know much about the chemicals and their make up. Is this a style of solarization or the Sabatiering process? I love the look of it and although it would be slightly specialized in use, I'd love to reproduce it.

Has anyone experienced this or would you know how to get this effect in a predictable manner??

Scuffy

 

[JBrunner]

Hmmm, the biggest problem with the results of random, unrecorded processes is they are near impossible to duplicate, but perhaps someone with a good color chemistry background can speculate. I can tell you that it is unlikely that what your seeing in B&W is the result of cross process, such as you experienced. I'm also not sure what you mean exactly. If you have the last issue of B&W, give me a few page numbers and descriptions, so I can take a look.

J

 

[Scuffy]

JB- It's not necessarily one specific shot. It's used commonly throughout the magazine. It's kinda hard to describe. It's not quite the look that one would get if the photo had been foiled (curses Batman!... wait, not that kind!) It just has a metallic shine to it. Unfortunately I don't have the latest issue with me, of course it would be at home! lol

The accidental print was made on color paper with a color neg and color chems. I've never been witness to a solarized color print so that could very well be what happened. Interesting. I'll get back to you when I get home from work and list an example out of the magazine. Thanks again JB for tryin to help figure this out!

Scuffy

 

[Neil Miller]

Scuffy - an editor of a magazine told me that a way to make images 'sing' is to print them on a high gloss, brilliant white paper as quadtones in shades of black and grey and incorporate a silver colour. This might be what you have seen in the magazine.

There is also a kit for 'plating out' silver on a print (from rockland Colloid?), which can make light areas turn to silver. You can also treat the print to chemical bath or two (I saw the formulas in one of the Post Factory Photography Journals) which lets you do the same thing with more control - can't think of the chemicals involved at the moment, alas! A totally different look from the magazine images, though.

Regards,
Neil.

 

[Neil Miller]

Just looked the chemicals up - they are hydroxylamine hydrochloride and hydrazine sulfate. They turn the unreduced silver halide in the "whites" of the photo into a specular silver coating.

Regards,
Neil.

 

[Mike Té]

Neil do you know at which point in the process those chemicals are applied and how?

Thanks

 

[Neil Miller]

Te - it's a long article in Judy Seigal's Post Factory Journal #3, so I'll just outline it. There are two methods - (1) toning a fresh unfixed print which still contains residual silver and (2) toning a fixed print by bleaching it back to silver halide. The first silver-plates the whites, the second silver plates the darks. both to a greater or lesser degree depending on how long they are in the toning bath and how much a print has been bleached.

A copper bleach is used, such as 10g of salt (kosher or pure: ie, uniodized) + 10g copper sulfate in 300ml of water, dilute this 1:1 with tap water for use. Other bleaches can be used with varying effects. Acid (eg 5ml of hydrochloric or 10ml glacial acetic) may also be added to the undiluted bleach mix.

There are a few different toning solutions. One is 1g hydroxylamine hydrochloride, 2g hyDrazine sulfate, 12g sodium hydroxide, 50ml ammonium hydroxide (25% strength) and 150ml distilled water. NB: note the D in hyDrazine - I quoted another source before that spelled it wrong). The ingredients are added to the water in the order given, stirring until each is dissolved. The ammonium generates a strong, unpleasant smell - use a fume hood if you can. Toner keeps indefinitely and is diluted 1:10 with tap water for use.

For the first method you expose and dev the print, rinse well, then put it in the toner until plated - lights off. In the second method, a finished fixed print is bleached with the copper toner, rinsed well, then put in the plating mixture - lights can be on. The author didn't re-fix the prints. some have lasted 20 years, some have had subtle shifts, some have faded.


I haven't used the above methods, but have used a product called Halo-Chrome which is said to contain the same chemicals. It can be used for either of the two methods outlined above. The effects can be very mundane or very exciting. The silver coating seems to last fine (I have some that are 5 years old or more) but it is very fragile and prone to marking, veiling, staining and scratching when wet.

Regards,
Neil.

 

[Mike Té]

Thanks, Neil. I've copied your instructions.

You'd think there'd be a risk of the silver plating oxidizing back to black over the years.