From: Joachim (joachim@microdsi.net)
Date: 03/08/02-07:33:43 AM Z
Can I hazard a guess (that's all it is) on the warm-tone cold-tone paper
question? The difference may reside in the chemistry in that warm tone
papers are generally higher in their chloride/bromide ratio than colder
papers that are usually all bromide? Joachim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 12:05 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Sabatier, theory, myth, etc.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Gregory W. Blank wrote:
>
> > I believe I can, Sabattier effect is akin to the Mackie Line effect(edge
> > effect) where as there is a sharp cut off between smooth transitions of
> > tonality. Noticeable where dark and light areas meet. That is you have
> > smooth change of tone on both sides of dark vs light up until
> the dark and
> > lighter areas abruptly meet.
> >
> > I had a teacher who stated that it is much harder to produce
> the reversal of
> > tonality with papers that have a less abrupt toe to shoulder transition
> > (less contrast) Fewer papers are available that are a true
> grade 5 which he
> > believed was important to get the Sabbattier effect.
> >
>
> Gregory, your teacher was probably right about the high grade for
> solarizing *in the days when they had graded paper* but the part about the
> edge effect is wrong, as shown by Stevens & Norrish in "Border Effects
> Associated with Photographic Reversal Processes," The Photographic
> Journal, January 1937. (Tho none of this seems to address the warm vs
> cool paper issue, which was original question.)
>
> Even the reigning current "expert," Wm Jolly, spouted that edge effect
> business until relatively recently (along with some other "rules" my tests
> also showed not true). I learned about the Stevens Norrish research from
> the bibliography of Walker & Rainwater's "Solarization," the best
> bibliography on the process (if not the only) til that date. At the time,
> NY Public library Photo Annex had the original Photographic Journal in
> paper, crumbling a bit, but surprisingly intact, and marvelous to hold.
> Now probably in a landfill somewhere, and contents only on microfiche,
> which turns to red dot even as I write. (Am I off topic yet?)
>
> Anyway, to cut the suspense, the effect is caused by halation -- as is
> proved quite easily once you know to look for it -- in fact, you can get a
> "mackie line" in the middle of an area of even density, by covering half &
> re-exposing, assuming you're doing wet on wet. As I'd seen a hundred times
> before reading their report, but hadn't, so to speak, integrated. Once you
> read that, if you've done much solarizing, all sorts of other anomalies
> fall into plavr.
>
> This is explained at greater length (along with updated Rainwater formula)
> in P-F #2, which is how I found the G.W.W. Stevens & R.G.W. Norrish
> reference so quickly. (Under "Bibliography: Theory," page 16.) Did you
> think I had that in my head all this time?)
>
> best,
>
> Judy
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Yes, there is: no one ever answered my question of why
> doesn't warmtone
> > > paper sabattier well???? OR, is this even true???? What would be the
> > > scientific reason it doesn't work, or is this a fallacy?
> Judy, I know you
> > > do sabattier--do you know, or anyone else??
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST