What happened here?

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 7, 2007

During a printing session I had made some test prints in order to get to a finished print of a certain neg. Printing my second sheet, turning the lights on, I look over towards the trash can, and I see this happening to the first print. I immediately threw it in the stop bath, and then in the fixer, to finally wash it. I cannot for the life of me remember what I had done prior to tossing this sheet of paper, but I'd love to learn how to duplicate this effect.

Please share any ideas you may have.

Thanks,

- Thomas

George Papantoniou · Jul 7, 2007

Sabbatier effect caused by some still active developer that remained absorbed in the fibres of the paper ?

Akki14 · Jul 7, 2007

Solarisation. It's actually an "effect" some people quite like. This one has gone a bit far, though, in my opinion. You can get varying degrees of the print going negative depending on when and howmuch light you put on it during its developing time.

Same effect as what George mentioned, it just has a few different names.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 7, 2007

I know that I pulled the print early in the process having badly misjudged the exposure time. I cannot remember if I did that in the developer, stop, or fixer.
George, can you just rinse the paper quickly in water to leave just a trace of developer on the paper, and then turn the lights on and let the light work its magic?
- Thomas

Dave Miller · Jul 7, 2007

I go with Akki14. The paper was unfixed when it received a dose of room light.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 7, 2007

So, can you, or should you, if you wanted to use this, expose to light while the print is in the tray and snatch it? Or should you drain the developer, do a water bath for a few seconds and then illuminate? Or what is best for a fairly uniform effect across the print?

Thanks,

- Thomas

Akki14 · Jul 7, 2007

Why would you want to go to the bother of rinsing? Some people just stand over the developing tray with a flash gun and to give it a blast of light. It's obvious you pulled it at the developer or stop stage. If it had been in the fix, it would have even been slightly fixed.

It's a cute little darkroom technique but I've never gotten very good at it nor found very good subject matter to do it to. I only really remember trying it out about two times.

Akki14 · Jul 7, 2007

From what I've read, you should turn on the lights halfway through your developing time. You'd have to experiment with how much light/how long you leave the light on for. Your example is of a fairly long time. You'll get more postive image if you leave the light on for less time.

Ah youth and photography class. I found an example in my archives. The dots are from floatybits in the developing tray, just as a warning... I've helpfully pointed out this was 2seconds light on.

Jim Jones · Jul 7, 2007

Thomas -- you can bleach your print somewhat to restore a near full range of tones. Decades ago Brovira grade 5 paper was prefered for solarized prints. For a more controlled effect, Solarol developer (if still available) works well on both contrasty paper and, for a high key effect, on contrasty film such as Tech Pan or litho film. An opal glass suspended a little above the developer minimizes the effect of anything floating on the developer surface during the reversal exposure. A cut-down film hanger holds the film or paper in the bottom of the tray. I don't agitate after the reversal exposure.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jul 7, 2007

If I compare your print with the one showing a Sabatier effect, yours does not display the partial inversion of tones typical of the latter. It's just that you developed, stopped, and then left it unfixed in the can. The remaining silver just printed out a little bit. Technically you could call that fog.

Photo Engineer · Jul 7, 2007

This is Sabattier effect. It is done by flashing while the paper is wet with developer and the light strikes uniformly in a non-imagewise manner. It is effectively a 2 step exposure, one imagewise, then develop and flash.

Solarization OTOH, is imagewise and is done in-camera with a dry material before processing. It is a single exposure effect obtained by severe overexposure.

As Michel points out, it may be printout of silver caused by light exposure of the unfixed paper, but technically this is just an undeveloped form of the silver exposed as in the application of the Sabattier effect.

PE

Bob Carnie · Jul 7, 2007

I would be interested in knowing whether you are using a Metol based developer or a hydroquinne based developer like Dectol?
I am leaning towards mhv's observation, specifically if it is a Dectol formulation or includes hydroquinonne.*sp*

Photo Engineer · Jul 7, 2007

Bob;

Dektol is Metol + Hydroquinone. I fail to see what direction your query is headed. Could you clarify please?

PE

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 7, 2007

I think I'll run some tests this afternoon with some other prints I have in mind.
I did develop the print in 1+3 diluted Dektol. The paper is Kentmere Bromide Grade 4. I did use an acid stop bath, and now that it's been replayed in my memory I'm almost certain it came out of the stop bath directly to the trash. I'll see what happens this evening. Thanks for all the information and time everybody took to answer.
- Thomas

Bob Carnie · Jul 7, 2007

PE
for the solarizations/sabbatier prints I make*lets not go any more rounds on the name please*
I find a metol based only developer produces the mackie line and reversal immediately, which I cannot get with dectol. I have tried and tried for years until a friend pointed me to William Jollys thesis. Therefore if he is using dectol I doubt the image is a sabbatier but rather mhv suggestion sounds more reasonable
Bob

Photo Engineer said:
Bob;

Dektol is Metol + Hydroquinone. I fail to see what direction your query is headed. Could you clarify please?

PE

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jul 7, 2007

I should probably not commit myself too far with the Sabatier analysis, because I'm just basing my interpretation on the look that is typical of such prints with partially inverted tones.

The OP's print just looks like the way my bits of scrap paper in my wastebasket do. They were developed and stopped, but start to get these funky tones. If the developer was properly neutralized, I suppose printing-out is the most logical interpretation.

You can get some pretty funky colors, though. I often see mixtures of red/blue/grey that are pretty striking. I think I'll try fixing prints that show these characteristics to see if the colors can be preserved.

It reminds me also of that photographer who took pictures of buildings that were about to be destroyed. He exhibited unfixed prints, so that they were gradually self-blackening over the course of the exhibit.

Akki14 · Jul 7, 2007

I have done a sabattier/solarisation where the print did just go gray rather than get that edge effect. I was using dektol at the time I think (or Xtol? Can't remember, this was in the high school darkroom so not really a personal choice on chemicals). But I also did that first print I showed in dektol. It's a kind of hard effect to perfect.
I like that effect you get on paper sometimes when you have unclean tongs/gloves - sort of metallic but semi-rainbowy looking too. Only happens where your gloves/tongs touch but it's still kinda neat to me.

Brian Bullen · Jul 9, 2007

Thomas, I just hope you can reproduce the effect because this image is quite stunning. Keep up the good work.

What happened here?

Thomas Bertilsson

Attachments

George Papantoniou

Akki14

Thomas Bertilsson

Dave Miller

Thomas Bertilsson

Akki14

Akki14

Attachments

Jim Jones

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Photo Engineer

Bob Carnie

Photo Engineer

Thomas Bertilsson

Bob Carnie

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Akki14

Brian Bullen

What happened here?

Attachments

Attachments

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency