Solarised Portrait

[Pete Askew]

After posting the announcement of the Man Ray exhibition and then discussing solarising with Brian I realised that my DIY camera (http://www.realphotographersforum.c...format-paper-negative-diy-camera-project.html) could provide a good way of producing solarised images. You can solarise an image either at the printing stage by exposing the print as it develops in a tray to a flash of light. You can do the same with a negative but, since you are working in darkness rather than under safe lighting, this is much harder to do. However, the most effective results for portraits is usually achieved by solarising the negative (is the main areas of skin do not invert). My DIY camera shoots onto paper and so the negatives can be developed in trays. And this is what I did. It was still fairly hit and miss but after about 3 exposures I was obtaining some level of control. For each pose I made 2 exposures onto Ilford MGIV RC paper each 60 seconds long under the very bright lighting used (lens at maximum aperture, ie f1:8.0). These were then developed in Multigrade developer. The first negative was developed normally whereas the second was exposed using an electronic flash just as to main skin tones were appearing (at about the 25% mark) and then developed and fixed normally. The negative was then scanned and inverted in PS and then cropped and converted to a final print in SilverFX Pro 2. Here's an example. There is still some work to do to get an image I am pleased with and we had to experiment to find poses that could be maintained for the 2, fairly long exposures. Still, it was in interesting exercise.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Very good, Pete. As usual with me, my mind wanders when reading technical stuff, even two lines of it, but I think I know a good photo when I see one. Looks excellent to me. Of course, you could have done it much more easily and quickly by using a Nik solar filter

 

[Pete Askew]

What?! Now you tell me.

 

[Kev Pugh]

Solarisation works for me Pete, works well on this image too, i think it lends itself well to Portraits especially ones of this type, it's a shame more people don't understand the process and it's outcomes..

 

[Pete Askew]

Thanks both. As a comparison, this is a digital solarisation from the un-solarised negative using Nik ColorFx 4 and then SilverFX Pro 2.

 

[Brian Moore]

Brilliant, Pete!

Personally I like a wee bit less conversion in her hair, but that is nitpicking my part. I especially like how her hand is rendered partially solarized but also the tone right there at the hand is beautiful. (So too is the tone on that bit of dust resting across the ring.)

When you mentioned in the previous post about trying it I didn't fancy attempting to do so with roll film,...my thought immediately was that large format, single sheet would be the way to do it. You've done it. Very excellent indeed. (Except of course for the dust, which I would recommend you try to avoid scanning in future since the Dust Police will be on your tail before you know it.)


(Ah,...I see you've cleaned it up in the 2nd image. Good boy! Or did the dust police chap your door? )

 

[Pete Askew]

Dust? What dust. Have you been on the Malt again?!

 

[Brian Moore]

Did someone mention Malt...?

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Talking of dust, your way beats the Nik way into the dust...

 

[Pete Askew]

It's more subtle isn't it. Mind, with a layer it might be interesting. Here is the 'print' that was used in the digital process.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Interesting stuff Pete - especially to see the analogue version and then a digital version.

The backdrop bothers me a little in the solarized versions - looks like a giant brain from a sic-fi movie

 

[Pete Askew]

I think they might actually be her thought patterns, "How much longer do I have to lie here?". I agree though, the texture / lighting isn't right and for the next series I will use something more uniform. I just wanted to work out what sort of tones worked best together to give the boundary effects I was after.

 

[David Jones]

Interesting results and thank you for sharing.

On reading about Man Ray, Lee Miller's name came up very frequently. Now, there is a story to be told.

You might be interested in the FAQs on the Lee Miller website. I cannot link direct, but there is a small amount of technical information at the end of the FAQs. The site is run by Lee Miller's son I believe.

http://www.leemiller.co.uk

 

[Pete Askew]

She was quite a character and I am a fan of her photography (more so than Man Ray in Fact). I must finish reading her biography some way - it was just not that well written and I gave up about a quarter way through. I hadn't seen the website though. Thanks.

 

[David Jones]

I admit my ignorance until now. The war affected her deeply and I'm not surprised given what she photographed.

Her son has maintained a gallery on their farm which is just north of Eastbourne. There is a link from the Lee Miller site.

 

[Paul Lange]

Really interesting to the the analogue version compared to a digital one. So I guess solarisation was "invented" when someone accidentally exposed either the paper or negative part way through development?

 

[David Jones]

This is a quote from one of the FAQs on the Lee Miller website:

"In the various interviews she did many years later, Lee Miller claimed she was working in Man Ray’s darkroom developing some negatives when a rat ran over her foot. She screamed and turned on the light. Man Ray immediately turned it off, and in an attempt to save the negative, dumped them in the fixer. To their surprise they found that a clear line surrounded the figure of the nude on the negative. The effect delighted Man Ray who then had to set about learn all he could from this lucky accident so he could replicate it at will. Lee Miller, who worked very closely with Man Ray, also used the technique in her own work, which became a hallmark of their artistic association."

Solarisation was first noted by Sabatier in 1862 so it was really the creative use that Miller and Ray developed.

 

[Hamish Gill]

What a brilliant story ... so basically, if it wasn't for a rat Pete might not have taken these photos.

I too find the background a touch distracting...
The digital version just looks like that digital solarisation you would do when playing with all the filters and wondering what in the world it is for ...
the film, looks more purposeful... but maybe thats just becasue I know it was done for real ... ?

 

[Pete Askew]

Thanks Hamish. Next time I'll use a less textured and non-reflective background. This was kind of imposed by time and the need to allow Ina to lie against something darkish and not move for 60 seconds with fairly strong and harsh light (60s at f1:8.0 and ISO 6!).