DanPhoto@aol.com
Fri, 02 Apr 1999 09:31:51 -0500 (EST)
To take this discussion in a slightly different direction...
There are also some important differences that have nothing to do with
whether an imaging nerd with a loupe (and I include myself in this
pejoratively described grouping) will see a dot or know whether you used
the sun, a fluorescent bank, a plate burner, or held the printing frame
on your belly at the tanning salon.
As I see it, the big plus with plate burners is the ability to more
easily accomplish burns and dodge effects during the exposure. (And
before the OSHA-type launch a rant, yes, one must take all proper
measures against the high-intensity UV.) Using a mercury vapor source
several feet above the frame, your printing experience is more like
projection printing silver (albeit during a super nova). Of course, the
flip-over type vacuum frame/arc lamp systems don't have this advantage.
The downside is that all these systems come with transformers and usually
blowers to deal with the great amount of heat that is generated. For
those who cherish the darkroom as a therapeutic refuge of quiet solitude,
this industrial atmosphere might not be very hospitable. I'd encourage
anyone considering a plate burner to visit a service bureau and ask to
hang around their light sources for a while. Then decide if you can live
with the equipment.
Fluorescent bank sources are less expensive and quiet, but give you the
pizza-oven experience in contact printing. It's just much less exacting
to perform burns and dodges when you are reduced to placing little bits
of paper on the frame glass and relying on the soft-edged shadow (from
the omnidirectional light) to feather your effects. I know many excellent
printers do a terrific job with light banks. I'm just trying to point out
the honest virtues of each system for those trying to decide which way to
go.
Another thing about plate burners. Yes, they are heavily collimated...but
they ain't no point source. Remember that every spot in your negative is
receiving light both from the bulb itself AND from myriad reflections
from the reflector. The ratio of bulb vs. reflector illumination is
probably not as great as the ratio of direct sunlight to skylight,
suggesting that (no matter how big your thumb is) the sun is a very
respectable light source when it comes to collimation.
I don't' want to nurture any arguments, but I'm always cautious about the
"Magic Bullet" approach to photography. Whereas the semi-point source may
have very real advantages for a select group of specialized printers,
it's all too common for less experienced users to read something like
this and declare "So that's the solution! If I get a point light source
I'll finally be able to make wonderful, exciting prints." They spend
their money, install the equipment, and usually have the same
frustrations as before.
Bottom line, for most people, a light bank (fluorescent tubes) will
answer to all the issues of quality, expense, hassle, safety
(particularly important in academic settings) and noise. And I say this
as one who uses a plate burner!
My $.02 worth. Now if you want to talk about the advantages of a vacuum
frame....Ha!
Dan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:29