Talk:Sabattier effect

message: An example would be good! --njh 02:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good, thanks! --njh 23:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

message: Hello,
This article describes Sabattier effect, i.e. pseudo-solarization, and not the true solarization phenomenon. 
See b:fr:Photographie - 10 - Effets particuliers dus aux germes
w:fr:Utilisateur:Jean-Jacques MILAN
:Correct. The solarization part should be taken out of this article and inserted into a new entry. Only a reference link should remain. When time permits I'll put some work into it. --Jack Klaber, Dipl.Ing. (FH) Photo-engineering 08:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As of 18 June 2017, the confusion remains.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal: Since 2010 I'm waiting to receive consensus about renaming the artikel Sabattier-effect and take out the solarization part and insert it into a new article named Solarization (Photography). Photojack50 (talk) Jack Klaber 20:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

text:  I've gone ahead and split the article. Please work on both to ensure they present clear information about the two topics and their interrelatedness. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabattier effect 

message: It seems weird to have articles one two completely different topics distinguished only by the British vs. American spelling.  I would suggest moving them to one of these six pairs:
* Solarization (physics)/Solarization
* Solarization (photography)/Solarization
* Solarization (physics)/Solarization (photography) + a disambiguation page
* Solarisation (physics)/Solarisation
* Solarisation (photography)/Solarisation
* Solarisation (physics)/Solarisation (photography) + a disambiguation page
195.176.176.226 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Researching the photographic literature, all researchers have used the term Solarization. D A Spencer uses the entry solarisation, -ization and mentions: The Sabattier effect is sometimes referred to as pseudo-solarisation. See: D A Spencer, The Focal Dictionary of Photographic Technologies, page 574. I believe it would be advantageous to stick to the term solarization and only use solarisation in connection with the term pseudo-solarisation. A note that many photographers have shortened the term pseudo-solarisation into solarisation (and kept the "s" in solarisation) can be added as clarification.--Jack Klaber, Dipl.Ing. (FH) Photo-engineering 07:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Given that most of the photography research concerning this was done in America, I'll be bold and use the "z" spelling with the "s" as aliases. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brit/American spelling 

message: As others have commented, solarization and the Sabattier Effect look similar, but are different
Sabbatier requires exposing the film or paper to non-imaging light (fog) during development; solarization is gross overexposure resulting in a poorly-understood reversal of negative film due to extremely high exposure levels.
My best reference for this is personal discussion with Ross Scroggs, Sr., one of the inventors of Ektachrome. For a briefer, published reference in English, see http://www.answers.com/topic/solarization-1.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fil Hunter (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find another source besides answers.com? Books and journals? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabattier vs. Solarization 

message: Has anyone else found that the first two paragraphs of this article are copied from this site? I'm not sure what to do ..just edit/delete it or report it to someone?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allypops (talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes , they are of course identical but that is because Nationmaster.com have simply copied the Wikipedia entry as many such sites do. The words complained are actually came out of my head not some on-line encyclopaedia - you can verify this by comparing the edit history with the update record(if you can get it) for the mirror site in question. Velela (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I was going to  this, but Nationmaster no longer holds a copy of this article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy vio ?

message: It wasn't really clear how exactly it's possible to produce a solarized image with a computer language.
I know there are variable values in the effect but in the end, it's all standardized..
For example..
R = (R>127) ? 255-R : R;
G = (G>127) ? 255-G : G;
B = (B>127) ? 255-B : B;
Where R, G, and B are the intensity of each colour of a pixel.. 0 to 255.
This produces a typical solarized image.. even matches the example image in the article.
I dunno, I just wanted to throw that in here.. maybe it can be mentioned in the article some time.
Nitrxgen (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computation 

message: How about adding a list of articles discussing other related photo effects ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.249.43 (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Wynn Bullock worked out how to control solarisation precisely and patented it, sometime in the 1940's I think, I don't know the details of his method though. I think it may have been used to in medical circles to enhance x-ray photographs, certainly he had articles on it published in the British Medical Journal. The timing of Agfa's solarising film coming on the market makes me wonder if they had been waiting for his patent to expire. Samatarou (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: patent

message: More attention should be given to the digital emulation of solarisation, particularly in light of the prevalence of digital photography nowadays.  kencf0618 (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Emulation 

message: This article has numerous errors and other problems starting with the title, as has been pointed out several times above, but there hasn't been an update in years.
1. Wrong description of the difference between solarization (sorry, using American English here) and the Sabattier Effect. Solarization is NOT synonymous with Sabattier for either negatives or prints. This is a basic misunderstanding of the process.
2. As pointed out above, this article is really about Sabattier Effect, or pseudo-solarization, so the title is incorrect
3. No evidence that Daguerre himself ever knew about overexposure solarization. Other daguerreotypists did and published about it.
4. Chemical process explanation is confusing and not supported by the reference.
5. The darkroom process may have been excerpted from Langford’s Darkroom Manual but is not referenced. I no longer have my copy from 1981. The technique described may be a suggestion, but is not comprehensive enough for an encyclopedic entry.
6. The Digital section is woefully inadequate, and confusing. It needs to be completely re-written with better explanation.
I propose a new outline something like:
1. History of solarization and Sabattier effect.
2. Over-exposure solarization
3. Sabattier solarization (pseudo-solarization)
:A. Mackie lines
4. Chemical process (explanation) of the Sabattier Effect
5. Techniques of creating the Sabattier Effect
:A. Wet darkroom methods
::1) Negative film
::2) Positive print
:::a)Chemical fogging and other non-light methods (e.g. thiosulfate solarization)
:B.  Digital emulation of the Sabattier Effect
::1) Description of preset filters to emulate “solarized” prints, plugins
::2) Manual manipulations (Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, GIMP)
Other suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks for the input. N0TABENE (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs significant revisions

message: In the last week I have made some extensive changes to this article:
* Splitted the real Solarization from the Sabattier effect/Pseudo-solarization and moved the contents into a new article named: Solarization (photography).
* This article was renamed: Sabattier effect.
* Added many citations.
* Removed erroneous "facts" or explanations and corrected/added explanations seen as correct by the majority of authors of well known literature on the subject) .
* To put some conformity into the text, the sometimes used British spelling has been changed into the American spelling so that each occurance of "solarisation" was changed into "solarization".
* Added History and Explanation sections.
I hope that these changes are for the better and I am happy to discuss any item in this article. 
Of course suggestions and additions are most welcome!
My credentials: 45 years ago I received a Dipl.Ing.(FH), Cologne Germany, in Photoingeneering and my thesis was about the Sabattier effect.
Photojack50 (talk|contribs) 09:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remake 

message: There is a hyperlink to "print-through" which does not have anything to do with this (it is about magnetic tape audio recording).  Should a different "print-through" definition be added, or the meaning elaborated right here, or what?
Długosz (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this kind of "print-through" does not have anything to do with the magnetic tape phenomena. I have thus removed the hyperlink. Thanks for noticing this.Photojack50 (talk|contribs) 16:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to "print-through"