Re: UV light source

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: John W. Richardson (jrplatinum@earthlink.net)
Date: 06/28/00-12:18:36 PM Z


Rod:

I am printing developing out platinum/palladium. I had been using 4' Sylvania
BL tubes. Recently I was printing another photographers neg and it took 1.5
hours of exposure. A friend of mine had recently changed to the super actinic
very high output aquarium bulbs with excellent results. I decided to change.
8 4' tubes cost $21 apiece. 2 electronic power supplies cost $150 apiece.

My first tests indicated that the new tubes were going to cut my exposure time
in half. However, when I went to print that same negative that took 1.5 hours,
it now took around 5 minutes. I am using a metrolux as a light integrator. I
wish I had switched a long time ago, despite the extra cost.

Actinic and UV are synonyms.

John Richardson

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


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07/14/00-09:46:46 AM Z CST