 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / January 2006Strange phenomenon solarizing
Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during solarization. I've made a test to decide time of first and second exposure using a piece of paper cut form a big sheet. After having obtained a good result I've printed the same negative with the same enlargement with the same conditions found before. But the resut was a very darker image. Why this? And trying with another negative the fact came again. It is a mistery! Thanks all P. "Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during solarization." It's Sabbitier, not solarization. "I've made a test to decide time of first and second exposure using a piece of paper cut form a big sheet." 'Determine' the time, not 'decide' the time. After having obtained a good result I've printed the same negative with the same enlargement with the same conditions found before. But the resut was a very darker image. A 'much darker image', not 'very darker image'. Why this? And trying with another negative the fact came again. It is a mistery! 'Mystery', not 'mistery'. Thanks all Where are you from? Do you have access to an English language course? pslavi...@interfree.it wrote: > Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during solarization. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > P. It's Sabatier, not Sabbitier. My mistake > "Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during solarization." > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > > > P. > It's Sabatier, not Sabbitier. My mistake > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > > A 'much darker image', not 'very darker image'. Mr UC, you are the first negative person I've met in this group. What do you think to have obtained with your ill-mannered reply? Well, probably my english is not so good, but surely it is better than your education. A lot of useless language corrections and NO ONE photographic idea! Please, if you don't know what to do, go away and, if you are a photographer, take some pictures... And now please leave room for anybody more intelligent.... Va là poareto! (This you CAN'T understand) P. > > Why this? And trying with another negative the fact came again. > > It is a mistery! [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > > > > P. I was trying to help you with your English. I knew you were a foreigner. I did not say anything negative. It is impossible for anyone to tell what happened during your Sabatier trials. There is nothing that anyone can say otherwise. There are too many variables... pslavi...@interfree.it wrote: > > It's Sabatier, not Sabbitier. My mistake > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > > > > > > > P. > Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during solarization. You are saying that the only thing that changed was putting a big piece of paper in place of a small one? Weird.  Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during solarization. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > P. Are you sure everything was exactly the same? I suspect small changes in the original exposure will make a large difference in the final print. The partial reversal depends on how dark the original image is. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com Save for a change of paper batch, I cannot understand why anything would change. > > Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during solarization. > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Los Angeles, CA, USA > dickburk@ix.netcom.com > > Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during solarization. > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Los Angeles, CA, USA > dickburk@ix.netcom.com Is it possible that a large paper needs a longer time to develop tha a smaller one? Expecially to egin to develop. I mean, if black tones are coming out a little bit later with large sheets I have, at the same develop time, more "gray" than using a little paper, and with second exposure I'll obtain more inversion and a darker image. But I have no proof about this different time of develop. P. >> > Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during >> > solarization. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > P. The paper size should not change development time. Development time depends on the nature of the developer and the sensitive coating on the paper. You can check that the exposure and time are similar by looking for the first appearance of the image on the paper as it is developed. Depending on the paper this could be anywhere from 10 to about 30 seconds. Another test is to make straight prints (not solarized) in the two sizes and compare them. Since one can not use a stop bath when solarizing the amount of development may be hard to control and that's another factor in trying to duplicate the effect. A note on the terminology: UC is right that the term "solarization" properly means a different effect, but it has been used for this process of partial reversal for generations and most photographers understand it to mean partial reversal. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com >> > Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during >> > solarization. Another test occurs to me. Try making tests with small sheets of paper but with the enlarger set for the larger size print. This will save paper in testing and may turn up a clue about what is happening. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > >> > Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during > >> > solarization. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Los Angeles, CA, USA > dickburk@ix.netcom.com In fact I still use this trick: I set the enlarger to the appropriate height and then use small sheets for test strips. I think the first thing I have to do firday when I'll be back in darkroom is diluite Solarol adding another liter of water. In this way I'm sure to increase develop time. Now it is 20-25 seconds for first develop and 30-40 more seconds to finish process. I would like to double these times to reduce errors in this part of work. After having read professor William Jolly electronic book on solarization (well, Sabatier effect) and expecially the part about Solarol, I expected to have longer develop time. I've found short times, but surely diluition helps in this way and not only in this! I'll let you know what's new in my prints. P. >> >> > Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during >> >> > solarization. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I'll let you know what's new in my prints. > P. I will keep a look out for it. In general it takes about 30 seconds for developer to saturate the emulsion layer and short development times are likely to produce uneven results. If you can get the firt development time up to around 45 seconds it will help matters. I don't remember what is in Solarol but I will see if I can find out. Diluting it is probably OK since you don't want full development anyway. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com Richard Knoppow ha scritto: > >> >> > Hi all, a strange thing occourred me during > >> >> > solarization. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Los Angeles, CA, USA > dickburk@ix.netcom.com Here is the formulation suggested by professor Jolly: Metol 12.0 g Sodium sulfite, anhydrous 37.6 g Sodium carbonate monohydrate 41.0 g Sodium bromide 4.8 g I've used potassium bromide instead of sodium bromide in the same stechiometric amount. May be useful for somebody else... P. Just to finish this post, I have to say this. After having considered many options, in my opinion the problem I've had developing large sheets of paper was because a not so controlled second exposure and other factors. In fact increasing diliution of Solarol permitted to develop first time for 40 sec, a much more reproducible time. Then the lamp: before it was hand-helded, now it is fixed on wall. I've increased second exposure time from 2 to 5 sec. putting lamp higher. Now I can obtain nice images, and most important I can have a great reproducibility of my work. Thanks to all of you P. > Is it possible that a large paper needs a longer time to develop tha a > smaller one? I cannot imagine why it would. > Expecially to [b]egin to develop. I mean, if black tones are > coming out a little bit later with large sheets I have, at the same > develop time, more "gray" than using a little paper, and with second > exposure I'll obtain more inversion and a darker image. But I have no > proof about this different time of develop. > P. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.