FotoDave@aol.com
Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:39:01 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 11/29/99 9:28:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, romano@agfa.com
writes:
> I'm aware of that might work without producing heat, but it's pretty
> exotic and expensive. Nichia Chemical sells a UV LED which has a narrow
> spectral bandwidth centered on 370 nm and outputs 1 milliwatt of UV
> energy. You'd need a few hundred of them to illuminate a negative though
>
> and the cost would be over $1000. And, I don't know if 1 milliwatt is
> enough anyway.
I don't know it either, but I doubt it. A thousand of those will give me just
1 watt, which by the time it passes through my negative, enlarging lens, and
the distance between the lens and the paper, will probably not have enough
energy to expose the paper in a reasonable time.
If it works, we will try to figure out how to physically fit 1000 LEDs into a
small space that can evenly illuminate the negative. ;-)
But I like enlarged negatives better as it allows for contrast control,
burning, dodging, and/or masking in the postive and the negative stage, if
needed.
Dave Soemarko
==================================================
Check out the Soemarko's Direct Carbon process at
http://hometown.aol.com/fotodave/SDC/SdcIndex.html
==================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Dec 05 1999 - 17:09:24