Sabattier effect T55p/n

[buggy]

My attempt today at the Sabattier effect. The attached images are the positive and negative. The negative has not been inverted in PS and shows a high degree of image reversal.

The first thumb is the positive and the second is the negative.

 

[Photo Engineer]

These examples don't appear to be 'there' yet.

You should see distinct lines around objects when the proper degree is achieved.

PE

 

[buggy]

Yeah, I was looking for the lines too.

Since I almost got total reversal I think it might have gone too far.

What's your opinion, was it too much or still not enough? More bursts? Less initial exposure? I'm too new at this to know.

I've got a couple other images to evaluate so maybe those have the lines.

 

[buggy]

This one is the inverted negative, showing how it would print. Alot of reversal. The flower petals are white. I see some dark lines around some of the flower image. Is this closer to 'there'?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, the inverted negative looks better.

Usually though Sabattier is an effect of development and flash. Solarization is classically done only in-camera with long expsures. They give different visible results.

So, with my own work, I use a very low level exposure about 3/4 of the way through developent of a print. I have no idea how to do it with Polaroids. But, as I said, that last one looks pretty close.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I might add too, that I do it in color so my B&W methodology is a bit rusty.

PE

 

[buggy]

Hey PE,

Understand, I am newbie at this, but this is how I approach it. I've read a couple of different ways to do this, and Alex and Bob have been a big help to me in understanding this.

For the polaroid T55, give an initial in-camera exposure of about half that for a normal exposure. Then at about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way through development peel apart the print/negative sandwich. I have the best luck at about 5 seconds. Then hit the negative with a flash burst, or many bursts, and clear the negative. The burst will reverse the image to a small or large extent depending on initial exposure, power of burst, distance from flash to negative, development time, etc. Many variables.

The goal is to get about half of the image to reverse. That's why on my first example I got almost total reversal and thought maybe I went too far. However, I'm not that familiar with this to know that for sure. I don't know if more flash would give me the mackie lines, or if it needed less flash.

Anyway, I would be interested in seeing a couple of your images that have this effect. If you are so inclined you could post them here or PM me.

 

[Alex Hawley]

For the polaroid T55, give an initial in-camera exposure of about half that for a normal exposure.

Buggy, we may be getting on the wrong track with exposure. Here's an article I found which talks about increasing exposure by one stop over normal and flashing with a low-power flash. http://www.iconpublications.com/photon/april95/psolaroid.html

I was exposing mine at the nominal asa 25, and it was taking the full-power setting on my flash to get the amount of reversal I was getting.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sabattier effect in color

Ok, here are 2 prints I scanned in.

#1 is a print from EPP cross processed in C41

#2 is the same, but I flashed to tungsten light during development. RA processing was at 68 degrees to control development time.

PE

 

[buggy]

Thanks Alex.

Very informative and interesting article.

According to the article, the lines, that are referenced in this thread by PE, form between areas that have reversed and areas that have not reversed. That is why I didn't get any lines in the sunflower image, because the entire image reversed. The 'solarization' went too far to show any lines.

Just thinking out loud here, it seems that the more in-camera exposure you give, within boundaries, the less percentage of the total image is reversed, and if you can find approximately a 50/50 reversal, that is the goal. Total reversal, like in my sunflower, is pretty much useless unless you want a print that looks like a negative.

Thanks again for the info.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Just thinking out loud here, it seems that the more in-camera exposure you give, within boundaries, the less percentage of the total image is reversed, and if you can find approximately a 50/50 reversal, that is the goal.

Think you are right on that one Buggy. I'm going to keep my exposures between asa 25 and 50 until experimentation dictates otherwise.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Please don't confuse "solarization" and "sabattier".

Solarization is caused by extremely heavy overexposures in-camera, and sabattier is achieved by short exposures with a flash during development. They give subtly different effects.

Modern films are designed to make it difficult to get solarization, as it was an effect of reciprocity which has been greatly reduced in modern films.

PE

 

[buggy]

Very interesting PE. Thanks for posting the images. I really like the effect on the solarized version.

I see the lines you're talking about. They're very distinct, especially on the little red flower on the right with the dark background.

As mentioned above I probably didn't get the lines on the sunflower because, at least according to the article Alex provided, they form between areas that reverse and areas that don't reverse. In the sunflower the entire image reversed, so no lines.

Thanks again. This has been extremely informative for me.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I've been thinking about the Polaroid process which involves solvation, nucleation and transfer (not in that order), and I just wonder if the chemistry might minimize the Mackie lines to some extent either via solvation effects or image spread (diffusion).

PE

 

[buggy]

Actually, I believe I'm going for Sabattier because I am flashing the negative during the development stage.

Regarding the chemistry, you are probably correct, however, I have seen Mackie lines in other images. At least to some extent. I will go back and look at those again to verify this.

My goal in the next few weeks will be to attempt to get some very distinct Mackie lines.

Thanks.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Buggy and all

google William L. Jolly He has written one of the most well thought out articles on Solarization that I have ever seen.

Solarization Demystified
Historical, Artistic, and Technical Aspects of the Sabatier Effect.

I use his notes for my own work and he has put it in plain language for anyone to follow.

PE__ I really like your colour work . Could I suggest trying a very simple subject matter with fewer colours and details in the image.

I find the mackie lines in my work disturbing and actually only try to subtley introduce them with selective dodges and burns.
I am putting together a web site of Laura and My images where I want to include the solarizations. When it goes live I will post the site.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bob;

Thanks. I don't regard that as particularly good work myself. It is interesting but a bit cluttered. If I were to enlarge just one flower or one small object as Buggy is doing, it might look a bit better.

It is part of a set of about 6 prints that I was making derivatives of. I have reversal images and posterized images that I did for practice work, and then never got back to it due to the emulsion work I've been doing. I have all of them now reduced to 4x5s and printed on several sheets of paper for demos. I do hope to get back to it someday.

My intent is to use an E6 film and cross process it to get high contrast, and then to use some on-easel effects as well as sabattier to jazz up the final image. One thing I'm thinking of is to use Ektachrome IR film cross processed to get some really wierd effects. I have several textbooks on the subject.

Another thing you can do with color is vary the light you use to flash, or combine lights when you flash to get mixed color sabattier. The combinations are nearly endless.

PE

 

[Bob Carnie]

PE

I think the endless possibilities of photography is what draws me further and further into the craft.
I am really intrigued by the tri colour carbon process , as I do love colour but the the permanence issue has always been a overriding factor to stay mainly in Black and White for my professional work and that of my own personal.
I plan to try working on this tccp process over the next few years and see if I can make some permanent colour prints.

 

[Photo Engineer]

PE

I think the endless possibilities of photography is what draws me further and further into the craft.
I am really intrigued by the tri colour carbon process , as I do love colour but the the permanence issue has always been a overriding factor to stay mainly in Black and White for my professional work and that of my own personal.
I plan to try working on this tccp process over the next few years and see if I can make some permanent colour prints.

Bob;

Later this week, Sandy King and I are going to work with my coating blades to see if we can make some advances in carbon printing. If so, are you interested?

PE

 

[buggy]

Here's one from yesterday that I just scanned. Are those Mackie lines around the flower?

 

[buggy]

Thanks Bob. I'll look up William Jolly.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Are those Mackie lines around the flower?

Looks like they are to me.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Here's one from yesterday that I just scanned. Are those Mackie lines around the flower?

Yes thats what they look like, keep the imagery simple or the lines will eventually drive you crazy

 

[Bob Carnie]

Bob;

Later this week, Sandy King and I are going to work with my coating blades to see if we can make some advances in carbon printing. If so, are you interested?

PE

I am very much interested in any advances in carbon process for colour, say hello to Sandy for me.

Bob

 

[Alex Hawley]

Here's my latest try. I re-oriented the camera a little bit between shots. The solarised neg was peeled at 5 seconds and hit with two flashes. I'm not real wild about this one. Think one flash would have been better. As you can see, the midtones, the galvanized part of the can, did not change much.