From: Jeffrey D. Mathias (jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net)
Date: 06/19/01-07:03:39 PM Z
Richard Sullivan wrote:
> ...
> Platinum shows less of a difference though I swear I can see a
> difference in that the MH prints seem to have more depth and life but it
> could be my imagination.
I can certainly confirm a difference with FL (BL lamps) and the sun.
But, I have not tried MH lamps.
As far as depth and substance, it may be your imagination. I have
attained excellent depth and substance equally well with both FL and the
sun. Although overall I prefer the sun which may take into account some
of this life attribute. My preference in not just due to sharpness, but
seems to partly involve color, and mostly this life thing.
Trouble is, the availability of the sun is limited. So maybe when I get
a larger area I can add MH lamps. However, I will keep the BL lamps as
they do make some excellent prints. And as Dick mentioned, some images
may just work better a certain way. All of my folded axis work was
exposed with BL lamps with two negatives, emulsion to emulsion (back
side of Tri-X to coating), and they still show incredible sharpness.
And with a couple taking more than 3 hours to expose certainly would
have make use of the sun more challenging. [Note that my BL lamps
typically expose about 4.5 to 6 minutes for a regular negative, about
25% to 30% more exposure than the sun in Phoenix or Florida.]
Part of the consideration can also be the resolution that the substrate
is capable of handling. For example, a rough paper may not show a
resolution difference between diffuse and collimated light. A rough
enough paper may be a good way to compare MH and FL lamps without the
distraction of a resolution difference.
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:41:54 AM Z CST