# Sabattier Effect!



## Unimaxium

Here's my first attempt at producing an effect that I read about in a book the other day. For those who haven't heard of it, it's called a Sabattier effect. Basically it's like solarization. To make the effect, you expose an image onto printing paper normally, develop it normally, but before putting it though stop bath or fixer, you take the print and expose it again but to plain light (just the light, no negative in the enlarger). Then you go ahead and develop it again, and this time you stop and fix to make the print final. This technique creates sorta-kinda negative effects in some of the parts of the image that weren't developed the first time (since only non-developed parts are still light-sensitive after development). You can find more info on this effect here:
http://members.tripod.com/~pworkshop/sabattier.htm

You can notice the effect in almost everything except the guy's hat, which is kind of interesting. The effect is especially visible in the overhead rack (this image was taken on a train).

Admittedly, this print was done pretty recklessly, hence all the chemical spots and streaks and such. It's actually tricky to get it out of developer, skip stop and fixer, wash it, dry it, put it back onto the print easel, expose it again, and back into developer, without making it spot or streak. I made two prints, and while the second came out a little less spotty, it was darker and had less contrast so I decided to scan this one to post. It's a pretty cool effect, and I hope to do better prints in the future. Critique is welcome, but remember I didn't put a lot of thought into the print this time so yeah there are a lot of things I could have done better if I were being more careful.

If anyone else has prints with this kind of effect, I would love to see some.


----------



## terri

I think this effect is pretty kickin', personally.    I've read about it too.  I have another idea about two to try it, but it involves using Polaroid positive/negative film.  Different approach for potentially a similar result. 

If I'd done this first time out, I'd be pleased.   You're right: visible streaks on the back of the coat, moving across the print.   Can't say it really detracts from the image, though.   And the upper part of the image looks great.  I'd be pumped to try again if I were you.   Good first attempt.    :thumbsup:


----------



## Unimaxium

terri said:
			
		

> I think this effect is pretty kickin', personally.    I've read about it too.  I have another idea about two to try it, but it involves using Polaroid positive/negative film.  Different approach for potentially a similar result.
> 
> If I'd done this first time out, I'd be pleased.   You're right: visible streaks on the back of the coat, moving across the print.   Can't say it really detracts from the image, though.   And the upper part of the image looks great.  I'd be pumped to try again if I were you.   Good first attempt.    :thumbsup:



Yeah, I think I've heard of how to do it with polaroids too. You do something like tear the negative and positive parts of the polaroid film apart while they're still developing, exposing them to light before they're done. They have a whole webpage about this effect on their website (although I haven't read much of it) here:
http://www.polaroid.com/global/prin...DER<>folder_id=282574488338439&bmLocale=en_US


----------



## terri

Without looking at the link, I'm gonna guess it's the same one I looked at a couple months ago.        Supposedly you have a hand-held flash at the ready, and that's your light source for the additional exposure.   Sounds like it could be cool, once you get the exposure correct!!   Ahh, the downside of working with Polaroid film: every time you blow something, it's another three bucks down the drain!       (Well, with the 4x5 sheet film, anyway.)   

I hope you try this again and post some more.   Can't wait to get my darkroom set up (just got my enlarger) so I can start doing stuff like this, too!


----------



## Unimaxium

terri said:
			
		

> Without looking at the link, I'm gonna guess it's the same one I looked at a couple months ago.        Supposedly you have a hand-held flash at the ready, and that's your light source for the additional exposure.   Sounds like it could be cool, once you get the exposure correct!!   Ahh, the downside of working with Polaroid film: every time you blow something, it's another three bucks down the drain!       (Well, with the 4x5 sheet film, anyway.)
> 
> I hope you try this again and post some more.   Can't wait to get my darkroom set up (just got my enlarger) so I can start doing stuff like this, too!


Well, if you're talking about the method I used to do it, then I just used the enlarger light to expose the paper the second time (but without the negative in). With the polaroid method, I think they do say to shine a light on it as it's developing, but they don't say necessarily a flash.


----------



## terri

I'm not sure where I read it, actually.   Some alt forum somewhere....I just remember them mentioning use of hand-held flash because with type 55 it's easier to gauge the light.   

Or something.


----------



## Saeid

Very nice! Thnx for the insight. 
But i have afew questions, the 2nd time when ur exposing it to plain light (with no negative), how many seconds to you expose it? Just 1 or 2? And how bout the aperature? Smallest 1/11 or Largest 1/2? 

Thnx! 

P.s. If you dont mind, can u tell us what settings u used for printing, and then the 2nd exposure settings too! Thnx!


----------



## 6Speed

Saeid said:
			
		

> Very nice! Thnx for the insight.
> But i have afew questions, the 2nd time when ur exposing it to plain light (with no negative), how many seconds to you expose it? Just 1 or 2? And how bout the aperature? Smallest 1/11 or Largest 1/2?
> 
> Thnx!
> 
> P.s. If you dont mind, can u tell us what settings u used for printing, and then the 2nd exposure settings too! Thnx!



I know this wasn't directed to me, but I will tell ya how I do it.

I do a test sheet first.  Basically I do 3 or 4 second exposure intervals going horizontally across the sheet, then develope, but no stop or fix.  Now place back under enlarger without negative and do 3 or 4 second intervals going vertically across the sheet.  Finish developing like normal and pick your favorite tone from the grid.


----------



## Jeff Canes

I tried back in high school  (20 years) with a few prints and also recently with PS, Do not recall of how I did it then


----------



## Saeid

Hey, i tried this today, and i actually dried the test strip via the drier before exposing it again, and the effect came out just darker. 

And then i repeated it but from the developer i went to water bath, and straight to the enlarger (without drying it, to prevent any water bubbles or marks to show), exposed it for 4secs with the aperature of F11, and the results were really nice.  I'll try and post the image here sometime next week.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Posted this somewhere else I think, but I like it...


----------



## Saeid

ok question.... when i tried this, i got good contrast but it was all GRAY, and no white... how can i get white while solarizing?


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Ah! That would be telling and I am sworn to secrecy... but seeing as you ask.
You make your print and expose it to light during development. Fix it. Wash it. Dry it.
You then make a contact print of your solarised picture onto another sheet of photo paper. Put the two emulsion sides together and hold it flat with a sheet of glass. Process normally.
In effect you are using your first print as a kind of negative - which it is in some respects. You will then get a solarised print with whites (as in my shot).
If you want the picture around the right way you need to reverse your neg when making the first (solarised) print.
The downside is you get a slight texture from the paper base.
You will need to experiment a bit to optimise results.
The amount of fogging given to your first print affects the outcome quite a lot.
Have fun


----------



## Unimaxium

Wow, awesome post Hertz! And thanks for the tip 

As for you original question Saeid about making the print, (sorry this is late but I havent looked in this forum in a while), I did the original exposure for something around 15-20 seconds at f/8; then I took it out, developed it, rinsed it, dried it, then put it back under the enlarger without the negative for no more than 5 seconds I think (f/8 again); then I developed again, rinced it, stop bath-ed it, fixed it, etc. Sorry I don't remember the exact times but I was mostly just playing around so I didn't really take note of how I did it. I'll probably try Hertz's technique next time.


----------



## Force of Nature

I have some prints i did the other day, but mine is cheating really with solarisation of the print rather than the film


----------



## photong

I have one! Those look very nice. I should post mine some day.
A girl in school won an award for submitting an image from doing this effect.


----------



## Unimaxium

Force of Nature said:
			
		

> I have some prints i did the other day, but mine is cheating really with solarisation of the print rather than the film


That's not cheating... that's how I did my print. And I think that's how Hertz did his too.  :thumbup:


----------



## Hertz van Rental

You don't have to take the print out of the developer or dry it to solarise it.
I do a normal print and process it normally for two to two and a half minutes. During development I flash the print.
You can turn the whites on or put the dev tray under the enlarger or use a torch or whatever.
The further in to the processing you fog the print the less the degree of 'solarisation'.
The intensity of the light and the length of time the print is flashed for all effect the outcome too. And don't forget that the paper is far less sensitive to light when it is in the developer so you might need to give it more light than you think.
It's a matter of trial and error but it does allow you to see the effect there and then and it saves a lot of messing.
Don't be tempted to pull the print before it is fully developed though as the print will go blotchy.
Just be prepared to waste some paper - but it's worth it.


----------



## Force of Nature

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> You don't have to take the print out of the developer or dry it to solarise it.
> I do a normal print and process it normally for two to two and a half minutes. During development I flash the print.
> You can turn the whites on or put the dev tray under the enlarger or use a torch or whatever.
> The further in to the processing you fog the print the less the degree of 'solarisation'.
> The intensity of the light and the length of time the print is flashed for all effect the outcome too. And don't forget that the paper is far less sensitive to light when it is in the developer so you might need to give it more light than you think.
> It's a matter of trial and error but it does allow you to see the effect there and then and it saves a lot of messing.
> Don't be tempted to pull the print before it is fully developed though as the print will go blotchy.
> Just be prepared to waste some paper - but it's worth it.


 
Thats what I did!


----------



## Hertz van Rental

And there is no such thing as 'cheating' in Photography. It's called 'technique' ;-)


----------



## Force of Nature

hehe, but its not a true solarisation is it, its just a pseudo, I think thats the phrase. Man I need a scanner to show you, I also reversed my solarisation which looks awesome.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Yes it is psuedo-solarisation.
True solarisation occurs on negatives that have been grossly over-exposed.
The only example that I know of is 'Black Sun' by Ansel Adams. It was a long exposure shot and the sun has reversed so that it is black.
I can explain what causes it if you want but it's very technical and rather boring.... ;-)


----------



## Unimaxium

I am actually kind of interested in the details 

PS: do you know anywhere I can see that image "black sun" I'm searching with google but I don't seem to be coming up with any pictures of it.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

The Black Sun, Tungsten Hills, Owens Valley, California 1959  -  Image 7, Portfolio V of the Portfolios of Ansel Adams.
It's not actually a very good picture so it doesn't get seen much.
As for the mechanism that causes true solarisation we are talking electron transfer, ion migration and photon absorbtion - Quantum mechanics and stuff. Will give a full explanation later when I have more time.


----------



## Rogue Monk

In the winter 2004 issue of Digital Photography User "Black & White" (http://www.digitalphotouser.co.uk/), they show how to do this in Photoshop.

I did a quick run on a sunset image (top one is greyscale with quick levels adjustment. second is digital Sabattier).







Not saying its better. Just showing another possible option.


----------

