film in paper developer?

[Vaughn]

If a developer's used highly dilute then any oxidation of a PQ (or MQ) developer will just mean a corresponding amount under-development. In reality this degree of oxidation is over months rather than weeks and in partially full bottles and splitting a developer into smaller containers helps enormously.

Ian

Thanks, Ian. I have used it when it started to look pretty bad, and actually tossed out the last pint or so of it -- which is why I went to splitting it up into smaller bottles. It was getting to be a matter of months. Five liters lasts awhile when only using 50ml for five 8x10 negatives at a time in the 3005 -- and I do not burn thru a lot of film. And it is nice to be able to fill up a tray with a good amount when doing 11x14 negs without thinking about cost or running out soon.

Vaughn

[Bob Carnie]

Sure

For my print solarizations I am using Metol, sodium sulfite, sodium carbonate, sodium bromide with water, I mix up enough to make 12 litres, I split the chems into two trays and the second tray I add a lot of potassium bromide. The first tray is for the 1/2 development and make the print quite light. The second tray is my flash tray, I have a point light source with various intensity switches to control the light, with the addition of the p bromide which in layman terms changes the grain structure of the second dev. If Ian can jump in , I believe the p bromide is a restrainer and I add mucho mucho p bromide to the second bath. after the flash the image still has a way to develop and by controlling time and dodging and burning a lot of interesting results can be had.
With this two dev method when toning the real side tones one way and the unreal side tones another, by using bleach sepia, gold , and a third cool toner one can get some pretty funky results.


So now I mix the same developer, but I do not use potassium Bromide, I figured out a 5 minute dev time and I am using a century 8x10 camera so I load 2 sheets at a time into the deep tanks that are situated below my point light source, I develop as normal, but half way through I pull the film out lay on the lid of the deep tanks and flash . I have found that if you underexpose by 1 stop from your normal setting this will work..... Thank you Mr Jolly from Berkley U who wrote a wonderful description and after a few thousand solarizations that man really knew what he was talking about.

These negatives now have a black Mackie line vs the white that I get from print solarization.
As well I print with lith and then multiple tone so the sky is the limit as far as control and experimentation.

The jpegs above are 8x10 neg, solarized and the look is mimicked in PS as to how the print is going to look in my mind.

I believe this is how Man Ray did a lot of his work, ***Negative Solarization***so in respect to his work my first few years of solarizations was done by the print method which I believe he did not do . I wanted a look that was completely different. I believe Ed Buffaloe does print solarizations but I am not sure on that one.

Hi Bob,
Could you share a few details about how you're doing it?? Thanks, Evan Clarke

[MattKing]

For those who might be confused due to a difference in terminology....

As I understand it, what Bob refers to as solarization is understood by some as the Sabbatier effect.

I'm not publically taking sides in the discussion about whether one name for that process is more appropriate than the other.

[Bob Carnie]

Yes - I have had a long standing argument with PE about this. William Jolly as far as Ron was concerned was wrong about how he described the name of his process.
I really do not care, and will continue to call them solarizations, which sometimes can be confused with the Sabbatier effect.

For those who might be confused due to a difference in terminology....

As I understand it, what Bob refers to as solarization is understood by some as the Sabbatier effect.

I'm not publically taking sides in the discussion about whether one name for that process is more appropriate than the other.