There are some examples of floral photograms done this way in Tim Rudmans World of Lith Printing book....
They're very beautiful and ethereal...
("Solarise" here refers to what's more strictly called the "Sabat(t)ier effect", as PE pointed out. I'll continue to abuse the former term in this post, as there's really no verb form of the latter.)
Originally Posted by keithwms
I would think that the wave patterns would tend to average out over a long exposure, so that it would work better with a quick flash.
I've done some solarising of film (though not paper), always in the developer, and haven't seen anything that looked like wave effects. I suspect that since the light isn't focussed, small variations in how much extra exposure different parts of the image get aren't very visible. Think about how light looks underwater---you can see vague patterns on the bottom of the pool from the movement on the surface, but they move fast, don't have sharp edges, and aren't obviously correlated with how the waves on the surface itself look. I'm just handwaving, but I wouldn't expect patterns like that to be very visible through the general fog produced along with the effect proper.
Now, if you did a normal exposure of film or paper, then solarised it with an enlarger projecting a *different* image while it was in the developer...
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
Exposing in developer
Actually this is a technique that was known as auto masking. And used with negatives that had a very dense highlight area The paper was soaked in developer carefully squeegee and .placed on the easel and the enlarger light turned on. The shadows developed quickly and exhausted the developer allowing the highlights to continue to be exposed until a tone was obtained. It was then placed in a stop bath and normal processing continued. Some times the print was taken off the easel and put back in a tray of developer to darken the shadows more. I have done it and you can get some interesting results, although they tend to look a little flat. I think graded paper of a higher contrast would actually be better for the technique I only used VC .and it was along time ago.
David Vestal discusses this technique, which he picked up from Lloyd Varden, in one of his books. I have tried it. It works well on FB paper, which can absorb the developer.
Say you have a neg that needs all kinds of print controls, but the needed dogding and burning are going to be a bear, and you are not in the mood to make an (unsharp) contrast reduction mask. Or there is not enough contrast in the original neg to handle the effect of a contrast reduction mask. Focus on the baseboard, or better yet, on a piece of scrap paper on a piece of glass [placed on the baseboard, so the baseboard will stay dry. Tape the galss in place, and use masking tape to guide where the wet paper will need to be positioned.
Soak the unexposed print in developer. Squeegee from the back (I use a ferrotype plate for a smooth surface to squeegee against). Then lay the damp print on the glass, per the masking tape marks. Make your exposure. I use a smallish aperure, and enough exposure (known from earlier test strips) to get detail in the densest part of the neg that you want detail to show up in the print. Use whatever VC filter you think will work best with the overall tone of the photograph, if you are working with VC FB paper.
The picture kind of fades out before your eyes, as it is exposed, because the developing agent causes the thin areas of the neg to blacken first, and the denser ares of the neg are darker on the print to start with. The developer exhausts in the thinest areas, so the effect is like 'self masking'. I go straight to the stop bath after exposure.
my real name, imagine that.