Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,817   Posts: 1,581,640   Online: 780
      
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400

    I'm Positive I shot a Negative (so what happened?)

    No, it's not the title of my brand new hit single, but a perplexing question. Recently I shot a bunch of Type 55 and have been steadily printing the negatives with good result. Today I was trying to print one in particular and I noticed something strange: the negative was positive. The darks are dark and the lights are light. How can that be?

    Here are some quick and dirty scans:

    Polaroid positive


    Polaroid negative


    Appologies for the cruddy scans.

  2. #2
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,482
    Images
    20
    That is really weird. I think somehow you solarized your negative, but I don't see how it can happen with a Polaroid neg. Could it have been massively overexposed or maybe lightstruck at some point before or after shooting? Did you pull it on the spot or take it home for processing?
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #3
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    That is really weird. I think somehow you solarized your negative, but I don't see how it can happen with a Polaroid neg. Could it have been massively overexposed or maybe lightstruck at some point before or after shooting? Did you pull it on the spot or take it home for processing?
    I've heard, but not tried, that you can solarize it by pulling it apart before full development and then re-contact the pieces, but I shot this the same way I did the twenty or so others I shot that day. I pulled them all on the spot and they were all exposed essentially the same. I've extremely overexposed accidentally (left the lens open) before but that just gives white/black. Everything else shot that day has turned out great.

    The funny thing is that I didn't even notice until my second print turned out negative. I went back to check the enlarger, thought maybe I had used too much diffusion on the print, checked the focus, then noticed that the projected image looked... funny.

  4. #4
    glbeas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Roswell, Ga. USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,307
    Images
    109
    Just a guess, maybe the neg was not completely cleared when you hung it up to dry.
    Gary Beasley

  5. #5
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by glbeas
    Just a guess, maybe the neg was not completely cleared when you hung it up to dry.
    That certainly could be. I cleared it at the same time as all the others in the same solution (all at once), but who knows, maybe it didn't get the right treatment.

  6. #6
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Comparison of the positive and "negative" suggest to me that this is a Sabbatier effect (incorrectly called solarization) -- still-active developer after peeling, combined with bright light, can cause partial reversal. You'll notice that the very bright strip along the lower edge of the low building is dark gray in the negative, rather than bright white as in the positive; this would be a region that got enough initial exposure/development to be either insensitive or shielded by existing silver at the time of the reexposure. Delay in clearing (holding the negatives until the end of session to clear) could have contributed.

    FWIW, this kind of effect is very commonly seen on the paper negative of non-P/N Polaroid B&W materials. Normally, the combination of the clear film base and clearing bath prevent it from occurring with Type 55.
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    194
    I had this effect a couple of times as well, always when working in bright light. I thought the effect rather interesting in the portraits i shot, but was never able to repeat it in a systematic way.

  8. #8
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
    Comparison of the positive and "negative" suggest to me that this is a Sabbatier effect (incorrectly called solarization) -- still-active developer after peeling, combined with bright light, can cause partial reversal. You'll notice that the very bright strip along the lower edge of the low building is dark gray in the negative, rather than bright white as in the positive; this would be a region that got enough initial exposure/development to be either insensitive or shielded by existing silver at the time of the reexposure. Delay in clearing (holding the negatives until the end of session to clear) could have contributed.

    FWIW, this kind of effect is very commonly seen on the paper negative of non-P/N Polaroid B&W materials. Normally, the combination of the clear film base and clearing bath prevent it from occurring with Type 55.
    That certainly makes sense. I stick all of my negatives in water right away, then clear at a later time. Even though I shot over twenty pieces that day in the same fashion, this is the first time I've seen this.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin