From: stephen wasilewski (steve_wasilewski@yahoo.com)
Date: 04/20/02-07:13:03 PM Z
Sandy,
The negative was oriented correctly. I also expect
similar sharpness and have a hard time acceptoing that
the light source made that much difference. I print
with masked edges and have noticed a faint shadow
printing through the masking. If this effect were to
be inside the margins of the print, that might reduce
sharpness. I don't know if the long print times
combined with a low to moderate density range is
affecting sharpness and creating the shadow.
The NuArc is an FT26V with integrator and vacuum
system. I don't know the age, but I could get it near
the top of the price range you mention.
Thanks
Thansk for your ideas. If i continue having problems I
willtake my box to the printer and try making
sequential prints under the same conditions.
--- Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, did you use the negative in
> the correct
> orientation with both light sources, i.e. emulsion
> of the negative in
> contact with the sensitized surface of the paper. If
> by any chance
> you used the negative reversed with both light
> sources you would get
> much reduced sharpness with the fluorescent bank.
>
> Other than poor contact between the negative and
> paper and/or use of
> a reversed negative there is no reason that you
> would have greatly
> reduced sharpness with a fluorescent bank as
> compared to the light
> from a plateburner. Some people claim that there is
> so reduction in
> sharpness with a diffuse light source but I use both
> types of light
> and if there is any difference at all it is very
> small indeed.
>
> What Nuarc unit are you considering? I have seen
> fairly new Nuarc
> 26-1k units going for $600-800, and these have
> integral vacuum and
> integrator.
>
> Sandy King
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Thanks to all. I will try the suggestions. The sun
> >test is a good start. I doubt the print frame to
> be
> >the probelm as I did add foam backing to assure a
> good
> >pressure and flatness. This did not help. Also,
> these
> >are not large prints - 8x10.
> >
> >I am considering a used Nuarc with Metrolux
> >integrator. Does any one have a fair price
> estimate
> >other than "what one is willing to pay?"
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >--- Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu> wrote:
> >> As others have suggested the most likely culprit
> is
> >> poor contact
> >> between the film and paper. Poor contact can
> reduce
> >> sharpness even
> >> with the semi-collimated light sources such as
> those
> >> in plateburners
> >> but the problem is much worse with fluorescent
> banks
> >> where some of
> >> the exposing light that reaches the film arrives
> at
> >> angles from 45 to
> >> 85 degrees.
> >>
> >> If you are making large prints with a
> fluorescent
> >> bank a vacuum frame
> >> will almost certainly improve sharpness. Even
> the
> >> very best contact
> >> printing frames can give poor contact with large
> >> prints if not
> >> adjusted correctly. In my own work I have found
> that
> >> a layer of
> >> plastic packing material, of the kind with
> integral
> >> small bubbles,
> >> placed between the print and the back of the
> frame,
> >> in combination
> >> with a lot of pressure, will provide sufficient
> >> contact in most cases.
> >>
> >> Sandy King
> >> --
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and
> more
> >http://games.yahoo.com/
>
>
> --
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:30 AM Z CST