Solarization/Sabatier with color Negative: is it possible?

[fireallconsuming]

I have been doing some research, and I was wondering if anyone had seen/found/accidentally achieved the type of inversion seen in Ansel Adam's Black Sun, except with color negative film (I'm using pro 160s).

I understand that density curves are different now, and that it would take unfathomable amounts of overexposure, but I was wondering if it could be done and/or if anyone had any concrete data about this.

There is a good bit out there about it in black and white and also in the print, but I am interested in creating the effect upon initial exposure, not while printing or in the development process of the film.

[bob carnie]

I would on a regular basis, turn on the room lights in our C41 line to alter the look of colour negative, basically a very cool look would result that would be easy to print.

Try talking a lab into doing this for you that is still doing dip and dunk c41 process, you may get lucky .
Basically after the first lift which is about 1/3 of the dev time I would turn the lights on and off for a second , then the film would go back into the developer.
I think it would be much harder with reels on a jobo , if not impossible but if trying it this way you would probably have to unroll the film from the reel , turn on the light and reload the reel and continue the process, lots of work and pretty messy.

[Nathan Potter]

What are you saying? I think you want to solarize during the initial exposure in the camera. This then would not be classic solarization as I've come to know it. Not familiar with what you propose.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[W K Longcor]

What are you saying? I think you want to solarize during the initial exposure in the camera. This then would not be classic solarization as I've come to know it. Not familiar with what you propose.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

If we get very exact with our terminology -- Solarization take place during the initial exposure - through what would normally be gross overexposure. The re-exposure during development is the Sabatier effect. If you are NOT doing your own film development -- I would NOT ask a lab to do this for you. The chance of getting a precise and repeatable effect would not be great when dealing with a lab employee -- or multiple employees over time.

If you do your own color printing, It is a lot of fun doing the Sabatier effect on the print paper. Used standard color print paper, as you normally would when printing color negatives. You can print from color negative OR -- print from positive transparencies, then "reverse" them to som really far out color images! All of this is easiest of you process one print at a time in open trays. Flashing with colored lights rather than room light adds to the end effect. By the way, if you allow for a "stagnent" development ( no agitation ) after the flash exposure, you can get some great color "lines" between subjects. :eek:

[bob carnie]

As stated above , I WOULD ask a lab to do this , in fact thats how I got the funky results the first time for a client who after seeing the results , did a complete show with our lab doing just this.
The lights just have to be flashed for a second, after the first lift, put it on a timer, and have lots of fun no major drama to do such a thing , you just need a curious lab to do it for you.




If we get very exact with our terminology -- Solarization take place during the initial exposure - through what would normally be gross overexposure. The re-exposure during development is the Sabatier effect. If you are NOT doing your own film development -- I would NOT ask a lab to do this for you. The chance of getting a precise and repeatable effect would not be great when dealing with a lab employee -- or multiple employees over time.

If you do your own color printing, It is a lot of fun doing the Sabatier effect on the print paper. Used standard color print paper, as you normally would when printing color negatives. You can print from color negative OR -- print from positive transparencies, then "reverse" them to som really far out color images! All of this is easiest of you process one print at a time in open trays. Flashing with colored lights rather than room light adds to the end effect. By the way, if you allow for a "stagnent" development ( no agitation ) after the flash exposure, you can get some great color "lines" between subjects. :eek:

[W K Longcor]

As stated above , I WOULD ask a lab to do this , in fact thats how I got the funky results the first time for a client who after seeing the results , did a complete show with our lab doing just this.
The lights just have to be flashed for a second, after the first lift, put it on a timer, and have lots of fun no major drama to do such a thing , you just need a curious lab to do it for you.

OK -- if what you are looking for is a "funky result" ask your lab for a try. I'm from the old school of "consistant results". If you are doing it for "art" or for your own fun - not a problem with the lab. BUT, if you are trying to come up with something that you might want to do again ( for a client -or?) one lab techs idea of a "flash the room light" might be different than anothers. You will get "funky" both times -- but not a consistant end product. As I said before -- I always had the best ( and very funky!) results doing the Sabatier effect on the print rather than the film. Not only were the results under my control - but, IT WAS FUN!;)

[bob carnie]

Since those early days of C41 fun, I have gravitated to full on print solarization in the darkroom, I will be part of a group show in Toronto , I have 5 murals and 10 20 x24 print solarization's in this show.

As far as consistant results I have never seen two prints identical, I do a quad tone after a two bath dev solarization on fibre paper.
To date I have hundred's of prints and to my dismay and pleasure no real consistant print to print matching.
In fact I am editioning these prints as VARIED EDITION for this very difference in each print from the same negative.

[W K Longcor]

As far as consistant results I have never seen two prints identical.

"Never seen two prints IDENTICAL" -- I agree. But, you CAN control the end results. As you print, you can decide to increase or decrease initial exposure -- flash exposure -- color of the re-exposing flash of light -- point of flash in the development, etc. You keep notes as you go. Besides -- if someone else ( a lab tech) does the flash that makes the funky image - shouldn't he get the credit for the creativity?

I guess what got me started on all of this is the thought that simple lab work ( film development, et al) is fine in the hands of a lab tech, but a photographer who is DOING creative imaging -- should DO the creative work.

Sorry -- didn't mean to make such a big deal of this. And, all I've stated is just my opinion. But, I will push the fact, that if you allow a lab to do the work -- you are missing out on a great creative experience - and a LOT OF FUN!;)