From: Eric Neilsen (e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net)
Date: 06/28/00-02:01:09 PM Z
Rod, Black light sources vary in energy output. And the same tubes
with
different ballast will also effect out put. The quality of "efficient"
may not
matter. If you are looking to increase your printing speed and spend
lots of
money on power consumption, buy a big noisy light unit. The up keep of
these
units can be costly as they burn out capacitors. The lamps burn out
much faster than florescent tubes.
There was some talk about increased sharpness with the plate burners.
There was
also some discussion about printing of digital negatives and how
different light
sources performed. BL tubes work fine and if you are going to print
other alt
processes it may be the right choice.
Have fun
EJ Neilsen
Rod Fleming wrote:
> Hi
>
> Further to my query last week- you will recall that the dismal Scottish
> summer has persuaded me that I need to make a UV light source, and several
> people helped with basic designs etc.
>
> Now on the subject of lamps- some people recommend "black light" UV tubes.
> However Dick Arentz in his book states categorically that "black light"are
> the least efficient, "super actinic" are better, and "aguarium" (?) are best
> of all. Further, talking this over to a commercial lithographer, he
> suggested using actinic rather than UV sources. So, who is right?
>
> Best
>
> Rod
-- Eric J. Neilsen 4101 Commerce Street, Suite #9 Dallas, TX 75226 214-827-8301 http://e.neilsen.home.att.net http://www.ericneilsenphotography.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07/14/00-09:46:46 AM Z CST