From: Jeff Foster (jfoster@uclink.berkeley.edu)
Date: 12/11/01-01:38:54 PM Z
-smile-
ah, hmm, well.....
she knows the answer, right. I say under 1.5" it matter, after that
not much....
I'll just have to print and see ....
Sandy King wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I missed something in your message. Are you betting for or against Judy?
> Please clarify. Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>
> Sandy King
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Okay-deal me in: Given (1) the relationship of brightness to distance;
>> and
>> given (2) the diameter of fluorescent tubes (other than the late "thin"
>> varieties, fashionable for kitchen cabinet applications, but not widely
>> respected for UV radiation); it would seem to reason that a print in
>> direct
>> contact with the glass of a given set of tubes on 1/4" or greater centers
>> would experience (not consciously, of course) as equal a distribution of
>> light as one at 3" distance-or one at 30", for that matter; or 30
>> yards-from
>> the light source. The difference would be in intensity, not in
>> distribution
>> of radiance. (Note, also, that the hypothetical 1/4" centers are less
>> than
>> possible under the conditions of (2) above, confirming the premise.)
>>
>> Hence, no banding1
>>
>> N'est pas?
>>
>> <<John dramatically throws down a cool million Monopoly Dollars>>
>>
>> Has anyone out there actually experienced banding or stripping from UV
>> tubes?
>>
>> If so, Judy will gladly cover my bet-while l am looking for a new tanning
>> salon.
>>
>> (Personal aside to Sandy: please give my regards to Beth Daniels in the
>> English Dept. at Clemson, a fine Rhetorictician, and Very Clear Thinker.
>> She knows much about light and is a de-light-full human being.)
>>
>> Regards to all,
>> John
>>
>> www.photogecko.com
>>
>> 1- a term better suited to my Epson 3000 printer, but I won't quibble.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:56 PM
>> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>> Subject: Re: UV Article
>>
>> Judy Seigel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > I think this is a legitimate concern. If you are using the two-tube
>>>
>>>> holders with 3/4" spacing between the tubes there is some point in
>>>> bringing the tubes closer to the contact frame where you are going to
>>>> get so close that banding (or stripping) will take place. I will bet,
>>>> for example, that if you place the contact frame at 1-2" from the
>>>> tubes there would be some banding on the print.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How much is that bet? I'm finishing some tests that I will show in
>>> upcoming P-F, and though, as noted, I rarely bet less than a million
>>> dollars, I'm very soft-hearted.
>>>
>>> J.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I won't take your bet on this because I actually hope you are right.
>> I recently replaced my bank of 24" tubes with very close spacing
>> (about 1/4") with a larger bank of 48" tubes with 3/4" spacing and
>> have assumed up to now that it would be necessary to use the new bank
>> farther from the exposing plane than the old bank, which I was using
>> at about 2". If I can actually use the new bank at the same distance
>> as the old one, without banding, so much the better.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sandy King
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>
>
>
-- --- Jeff Foster - SDA UNIX UC Berkeley CA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST