From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 11/03/01-07:33:31 PM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
>
>Speaking of which, did you ultimately find your BLB faster, or
>contrastier, or....??? I forget.
After discarding the tests from my old bank of Sylvania 350BL tubes I
compared tests with new GE BLB tubes and new Philips BL tubes. The
results were virtually identical. The BL tubes were ever so slightly
faster, and the BLB tubes every so slightly more sensitive. In
practice one would see virtually no difference in printing.
>
>Another note re Voltarc -- they manufacture the AQA bulb (or did) which
>supposedly has major output at 414 nm, or the hot spot for platinum -- so
>they got those bulbs for ICP and convinced themselves they were faster
>(which was not my finding)... However the AQA stands for "aquarium," which
>is what they're made for, and sold through aquarium stores. When I priced
>them retail, $17 per 24 inch bulb, at least around here.
The Super Actinic, which peaks at about the same wavelength as the
Aqua (415-20 nm), is also a bulb intended for aquarium use. In my
tests with carbon, cyanotype, gum, traditional kallitype, and van
dyke, the Super Actinic was slower than all of the other tubes I
tested, including Actinic, BL, and BLB.
As for platinum, there are many reports from experienced platinum
printers that the Super Actinic tubes are faster than BL tubes.
Others claim the opposite!
Sandy King
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/10/01-11:12:21 AM Z CST