Solarized Negative Questions

[PJ Wagner]

I saw these wonderful images in the 'Nudes' thread and I wanted to break this out so that I could understand the technique a little better.

Painted with light - negative solarized.

pol 665

hi David.

that's easy - but now more difficult...


The negative was polaroid 665 (and this also goes for the Type55).

The negative begs to be solarized! just overexpose one aperture - pull out the film, and let it develop for maybe 10 seconds - then pull the positive from the negative and re-flash the negative - let it sit for a couple of minutes, and there you are....

difficult, as the films are increasingly difficult to find (and now excessively expensive..)

Another example: Stine is painted with light while she is moving the dress.. like dancing..

Gandolfi,

I'm new to this and I'd like to try to replicate your process but I don't understand how you have done this. For some reason I have 4 packs of 665 in the freezer just waiting for a good project... this seems perfect. Would you mind walking me slowly through?

Let's say I'm in the studio and I have a subject with a meter reading of say f16 at 1/60.

Step 1: I open to f8 at 1/60 right?
Step 2: Click
Step 3: Peel apart after 10 seconds right?
Step 4: Here's where I'm lost. You say that you 'reflash the negative' but I don't know what that means. How do I reflash a negative? Am I tossing away the positive?

Please help me Great Gandolfi, you're my only hope!

Best Regards,
PJ

[Vaughn]

Here is a recent one of mine (Polaroid T55).

With my out-dated T55 (exp. around 1995), I am finding that I must pull the packet apart rather quickly (5 sec) and have the flash at ready. Even processed normally the negatives seem to be low in contrast.

Artichoke Flowers, 2011
T55 Negative was solarized
Scanned contact print.

I just followed Gandolfi's suggestions from previous posts. I had a hand-held electronic flash to flash the negative as soon as I peeled it apart. I imagine the 665 packaging and timing is different than the T55 so don't want to lead you astray! It took me almost a box of film to get a decent idea of what I needed to do -- I think the age of my T55 tossed a big variable into the works.

From vague memories of things read or heard, I am concerned that the film is in your freezer, but perhaps someone with more experience could comment on that. I kept mine in the refridgerator in the garage (with a few beers, the extra gallons of milk, and 300 sheets of 14x17 X-ray film.) for many years.

Good luck!

Vaughn

[Emil Schildt]

I kept mine in the refridgerator in the garage (with a few beers, the extra gallons of milk, and 300 sheets of 14x17 X-ray film.) for many years.

Good luck!

Vaughn

wow - I'm impressed if you keep extra milk for many years......

[Emil Schildt]

I saw these wonderful images in the 'Nudes' thread and I wanted to break this out so that I could understand the technique a little better.





Gandolfi,

I'm new to this and I'd like to try to replicate your process but I don't understand how you have done this. For some reason I have 4 packs of 665 in the freezer just waiting for a good project... this seems perfect. Would you mind walking me slowly through?

Let's say I'm in the studio and I have a subject with a meter reading of say f16 at 1/60.

Step 1: I open to f8 at 1/60 right?
Step 2: Click
Step 3: Peel apart after 10 seconds right?
Step 4: Here's where I'm lost. You say that you 'reflash the negative' but I don't know what that means. How do I reflash a negative? Am I tossing away the positive?

Please help me Great Gandolfi, you're my only hope!

Best Regards,
PJ

oups - If I am your only hope, than you're in trouble...:-)

BUT you're doing it right.
The peel apart time can vary - if you're letting it develop longer, the solarization will be less. the shorter time before re flashing, the more solarization.

Yes - normally I toss the positive away, as it is more often or not, useless for anything..

Vaughn is right: Have a flash ready; after peeling the positive away, and keeping the negative, just hold it close to the flash and fire.. then leave it for some minutes and then go as usual..

It is vary simple!
Vaughn: I have done this with type 55 many times, and I actually do it the excact same way. I think the films are identical wxcept for the size.

(the type 55 is awesome as it is so big, that you can make partial solarization, using a small but strong flaslight!)

I normally make sure the background for my models is dark - as it then will turn light(er) when solarized.

below 4 examples of solarized images.

Feel free to ask more, if need be.

and remember to have FUN - otherwise it will not work!.....

[Vaughn]

Definitely fun!

The artichoke flowers were against a black background (darkcloth for a view camera) -- after trying a white backdrop for four of five sheets (a projector screen).

I am hoping to get a couple new negs later this week. I'll try to bump up the contrast in the scene as the negatives I am getting need a boost.

Rhodies
Same as the image of the artichoke flowers

[Jim Jones]

High contrast film solarizes nicely in Solarol developer. I've used litho film, although was plagued with pinholes. Tech Pan worked better when rated at an exposure index of 25. Development was about 45 seconds in Solarol with agitation for the first half. Then the film was flashed while still in the developer and left there for another 45 seconds without agitation. The film should be prewetted to eliminate uneven development. Flashing was a very few seconds with a low wattage incandescent lamp. A small electronic flash might work better. A film hanger cut down to fit flat in the developer tray keeps the film beneath the developer surface. The film is backed by a sheet of fully exposed and developed film to block reflections from the hanger. I haven't tried the films advertised as a replacement for Tech Pan.

[bob carnie]

Jims method works very nicely.

I do a lot of solarizations in print, the trick is to not use hydroquinonne in the developer, but a Metol base developer which Solarol is.

Man Rays solarizations were done the way Jim describes, I love his work, I decided years ago to start a project on solarization and to date have made hundreds if not thousands of solarization exposures onto print. I purposely stayed away from doing it the Polaroid or film way , and have learned how to control the process with paper.
I have a permanent point light source over my second dev tray and it is variable stop so I can darken or lighten the effect depending on neg and look I am trying to achieve.

The best article on this process that I have found, that spells out film and paper solarization is by the following chap.

Solarization Demystified
Historical, Artistic and Technical Aspects of the Sabatier Effect

By William L Jolly

Department of Chemistry
University of California
Berkely , California

Very detailed , very easy to read and my go to manual for all my work..

The method of using flash and popping exposures is not covered by this article, and btw is a very cool way of making solarized film. I wish they still made the type 655 or is it 645?
Those negs fit lovely in my 4x5 glass carriers and had a wicked border to include.

High contrast film solarizes nicely in Solarol developer. I've used litho film, although was plagued with pinholes. Tech Pan worked better when rated at an exposure index of 25. Development was about 45 seconds in Solarol with agitation for the first half. Then the film was flashed while still in the developer and left there for another 45 seconds without agitation. The film should be prewetted to eliminate uneven development. Flashing was a very few seconds with a low wattage incandescent lamp. A small electronic flash might work better. A film hanger cut down to fit flat in the developer tray keeps the film beneath the developer surface. The film is backed by a sheet of fully exposed and developed film to block reflections from the hanger. I haven't tried the films advertised as a replacement for Tech Pan.

[Emil Schildt]

The method of using flash and popping exposures is not covered by this article, and btw is a very cool way of making solarized film. I wish they still made the type 655 or is it 645?

it is actually pol 665

the borders are not easy (possible) to emulate, but this way of making solarized negatives can be done with normal LF film also... (not with flash, but with normal light).

When I solarize negs, the macky's line is always black.
When I solarize positives, it is white...

that's a big difference, and I prefer the black.
On the other hand, if solarizing the positive, you'll still have your original neg, which is a nice thing...

[bob carnie]

665 it is,

I actually am not big on the macky line whether it is black or white, I think the black defines the edge lovely as exampled in your images. I agree with you the black edge is really beautiful.
Maybe I will solarize the neg, and then solarize the print to get both. {wow what a concept.}
When printing I try to play with the in balance of real and unreal image and play with that more than caring about getting a macky line or not.

More exposure at enlarger creates more real image, dodging creates unreal , by manipulating with the burn card and the dodging tool some amazing detail can be brought out.
Printing through tissue and holding back areas is also very cool.
Also pulling the print in the second developer a bit sooner seems to give the kind of result I am looking for.

it is actually pol 665

the borders are not easy (possible) to emulate, but this way of making solarized negatives can be done with normal LF film also... (not with flash, but with normal light).

When I solarize negs, the macky's line is always black.
When I solarize positives, it is white...

that's a big difference, and I prefer the black.
On the other hand, if solarizing the positive, you'll still have your original neg, which is a nice thing...

[bob carnie]

Here are a few with a two developer solution, then duo toned on Ilford Warmtone