Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,772   Posts: 1,516,536   Online: 838
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,020
    Images
    60
    A couple of years ago I took a relatively basic night school course to give me some additional dark room access. The instructor was a better photographer than she was either a technician or educator, but I and the other students enjoyed the experience, and some of the less experienced students learned lots.
    I did have to bite my tongue a few times though, because the instructor had experimented with the Sabattier effect, and was quite enamored with it, but insisted on referring to it as solarization.

    It just wasn't appropriate to try to correct her.

    Matt

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    2
    If you know she was wrong and it was a fact rather than an opinion then I don't see why.

    The reason I ask is for the improvement of the Wikipedia page on cross processing, if anybody wants to help me please do so, there is a task list on the pages talk page.
    Last edited by ajuk; 04-27-2007 at 12:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #23
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,606
    Images
    14
    I will stand by my definition of solarization for now, you guys can take it up with Mr Jolly, whose book I have formulated all my chemicals for my Print Solarizations.

    Solarization Demystified
    www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~wljeme/Southline.html

    from the front page Preface

    *shine diffuse light on a developing photograph, and continued development yields an amazing result: part of the image is positive, and part of the image is negative! The process (usually called solarization, but sometimes called the Sabatier effect) is looked upon by most photographers as completely mysterious.In this book I try to remove the mystery from soarization by describing its history , by showing how it can be used in both art and science, and by explaining how it works from a scientivic point of view*
    William L. Jolly
    Department of Chemistry
    University of California
    Berkeley, California 94720

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Bob;

    In the camera it is achieved by gross over exposure which is of the original image and therefore imagewise. Most films are 'immunized' to this by certain addenda.

    During development, it cannot take place imagewise, as it is a uniform flash.

    PE

  4. #24
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,883
    Images
    65
    Bob;

    We differentiate between the two in that solarization is imagewise, but the Sabatier (sic) effect is non imagewise. Scientifically, the Sabattier effect is defined as normal exposure, partial deveopment, normal exposure and is classed as a Complex (Multiple Mechanism) effect. Solarization is Normal exposure along with or followed by overexposure to radiation of the same quality and intensity (imagewise < my words). It is classed as a Latent Image Destruction effect.

    Therefore, a lightning flash recorded on film will generate a negative and a positive image or a positive image depending on exposure and intensity of light and this is done in camera. The Sabattier effect is never done in-camera.

    You may read more about this on P149 of Mees and James.

    Professor Jolly is the one who is confused.

    Sorry.

    PE

  5. #25
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,020
    Images
    60
    PE & Bob:

    I think that this is one of those terms where the common understanding of the term has supplanted the older and technically more correct phrase.

    Most people will look at you quizzically if you refer to the Sabattier effect, but if you refer to a print as being solarized, they are more likely to know what you are talking about.

    Not many of us have actually seen an example of true solarization (I've only seen it illustrated in books).

    It is sort of like the word "celibate", which has acquired a meaning which is entirely different (although slightly related) from the original.

    Matt

  6. #26
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,883
    Images
    65
    Matt;

    I don't disagree, but since you cannot create either of these effects digitally, then it behooves us (I think) as analog photographers, to use our nomenclature properly. I'm really not sure I should do this, but at least that is my motivation.

    I have that longish section on myths over on PN and I started that series for a similar reason. We fall into this type of trap and forget that there are two things going on and we end up forgetting things.

    PE

  7. #27
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,883
    Images
    65
    I would like to add that there was no malicious intent in this. Due to general errors like this, even professors seem to be falling into error. It is sad to see the passing of this knowledge.

    BTW, the images don't look alike either. If you ever see them both side by side, you can see the differences.

    PE

  8. #28
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,606
    Images
    14
    As I have pointed out , this complete book is a resource for me and by following his methods and formulations I have been able to make thousands of prints toward a long term full show that I hope to put in gallerys over the next 5 years..
    In his manual, he describes many sorts of solarizations one of which is the method I use *thanks to his wonderful descriptions*. As well as the method accredited to Man Ray and Lee Miller which was lights on while developing film. He also talks about the Sun Solarizations, Platinum Solarization, and the effect of massive exposure to film just after and before exposure.
    All of these seem to be related and discovered at different times.
    So where does this leave me , I will continue to call my work solarizations and will be happy with that until someone can debunk Mr Jollys work with a book of their own .
    I also would like to add their is no malicious intent on my part, but I do wish Mr Jolly could be with us to defend his book.
    If you do enough of these prints you can by trial and error make any number of looks within the image , and that is what is beautiful about this process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I would like to add that there was no malicious intent in this. Due to general errors like this, even professors seem to be falling into error. It is sad to see the passing of this knowledge.

    BTW, the images don't look alike either. If you ever see them both side by side, you can see the differences.

    PE

  9. #29
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,883
    Images
    65
    Bob;

    Solarization was orignally described as early as 1899, and the Sabattier effect was discovered way back when as well. They been "discovered" many many times by people who think it is something new. I don't have an original reference to Sabattier's work here.

    I think that Mees, and Mees and James both debunk Jolly's nomenclature and have priority over Jolly as Mees was chief research scientist, VP and director of research at Kodak. In fact, he was the first, hired by Eastman. James is a name known world-wide in the science of photography. The first edition of this text was issued in the 40s, IIRC.

    So, I have my source. I too wish Mr Jolly could be here to discuss it.

    You see, someone often 'discovers' something that is well known in the photographic field, and they name it. "Gee, I have the 'Carnie' effect!" No disrespect intended, but we in the industry may have known of this for 50 years and may have patents and books on it.

    So, there is no reason to dismiss Jolly's work, but 100 years in the future, I assure you that a diligent scientific reader may become confused over what people meant at this time period when they read of these different effects. They will be especially confused if these names are interchanged by us.

    An inspection of comparable images, side-by-side, will reveal the differences in appearance of a solarized and a picture made by using the Sabattier effect. If the images are not readily comparable or are not viewed side-by-side, then this will become a difficult task.

    If it works, use it. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but a chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell!

    All the best.

    PE

  10. #30
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Bob;

    Solarization was orignally described as early as 1899, and the Sabattier effect was discovered way back when as well. They been "discovered" many many times by people who think it is something new.
    PE
    Back in the 1970's, I inadvertently momentarily switched on the white lights while developing a print. I discovered what I promptly named the "Flotsam Effect".
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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