Re: Trials and Tribulations of the Digital Neg.


Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:20:38 -0500 (EST)


On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Keith Schreiber wrote:

> Something along the lines of the NuArc 26-1K Mercury Vapor unit is usually
> considered a point source, at least in comparison with a fluorescent unit.
> Personally, I think this is a mis-characterization, since the NuArc unit,
> which has a vacuum base of 23x27 inches, utilizes a reflector of
> approximately 16x20 inches.
>
> I had access to one of these for a while and used it along with my home-made
> fluorescent units for a couple years. Once calibrated to each other to
> accommodate different timing methods, I found no discernible difference that
> could be attributed to the light source. I would be most impressed by anyone
> who could look at pairs of prints, one from each light source, and be able
> to consistently identify which was which. That said, I want to point out
> that I use in-camera large-format negatives. There may well be something

I've been waiting for one of these responses to make clear what the reason
for the point light source would be, as has not yet occurred... Sharper?
I suppose -- to which I can only reply .......Feh! Everything is too
sharp already, and that's not just personal opinion it's the absolute
impartial scientific truth.

But I certainly did find a difference between the NuArc and UV bulbs in
one respect -- printing 21 steps, the scale on the UV was a bit longer and
steps flatter... also, POSSIBLY (it seemed, maybe, I didn't fully
pursue the matter) color might have printed slightly more intense by the
NuArc. This is of course dichromate I speak of...

And Happy April Fools Day, all -- it's only 5:19 PM in NYC....

cheers,

Judy



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:29