From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 04/25/00-01:22:57 PM Z
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Sil Horwitz wrote:
> If I recall, the weather people (at least here in Florida) measure and can
> provide the exact UV content at any particular time. Worth considering.
> (Some of our TV stations give a "sunburn" number - 15 minutes without
> protection in direct sun will burn - which might be transferable to an
> exposure number!)
O ye gods Sil, burn who ? (OK, burn whom.) Maybe some of those Cubans,
but not us sallow New Yorkers, or no one in my family. I remember lying on
the grass in the sun with my sorority sisters who after half an hour were
all tan and rosy. They enjoyed it, too. For me it was torture -- and
although my skin didn't *look* noticeably darker than theirs, I simply did
not tan. Something in the composition no doubt or maybe the disposition --
but I'd say an excellent analogy to alt printing.
Of course that's all moot now since the experts tell us that to look young
(ie, less like a raisin) when you're as old as I am you should NEVER have
even seen sun. But in my experience, gum mixes are as variable as skin
types if not moreso. And, Chris, several of us did the kinds of testing
you advocate a few years ago -- it's in the archive. (Maybe Sandy King
remembers when.) The proximate cause was an article by Phil Davis
explaining his "economy" light table using daylight fluorescents (about $3
for a 24 inch bulb) instead of black light fluorescents (about $10 to
$12).
So I bought 6 daylight bulbs. For regular gum printing at least by my
tests, they weren't as good. Yes, they exposed, tho they took about 3
times as long, but the scale was so short, sometimes they had only 2 or 3
steps -- which was presumably why Phil wrote in his article that gum
requires several coats to make a full range print.
These bulbs on the other hand did seem to print a somewhat more INTENSE
color from the same mix, leading me to speculate about alternating them in
the table with the UV.... but, like Mae West said, so many tests, so
little time.... Meanwhile, either I've adjusted my printing to the UV
bulbs, or they're infinitely flexible, or I happen to like worse things.
Whatever, I don't think I'd change now did my NuArc miraculously rise from
the dead.
Also the fluorescent configuration can be altered (turned upside down, or
extended) to suit changes in treatment or scale. For instance, I put the
bulbs on the table now and a sheet of plate glass across the top, with
negative sandwich on that, topped by another plate glass with a weight on
it. That way I can expose a much larger sheet of paper than could fit in
contact frame, which gets impossible to wield in that size even if you had
one.
But here's something not touched on so far -- has anyone tested the light
fall-off of the metal or quartz halide bulbs? In my experience, without a
reflector, the cone of *even* light is relatively small. Of course I
haven't seen these appliances, presumably they're configured for even
light, but over what area????
Judy
.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
.................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:09:50 PM Z CST