From: Monnoyer Philippe (monnoyer@imec.be)
Date: 07/15/02-03:55:54 AM Z
I saw one of your large format carbon print yesterday at APIS, Bradford.
I like it very much. That process is really nice.
Philippe
----------------------------------------
Philippe Monnoyer, Ph.D.
IMEC vzw
Kapeldreef, 75
B-3001 Leuven
Phone: +32 (0)16 28 17 35
Fax: +32 (0)16 28 12 14
http://www.imec.be
----------------------------------------
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu]
|Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 22:53
|To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
|Subject: RE: Powerful UV point source
|
|
|Judy Seigel wrote:
|
|
|
|>
|>When I tried grow lights for cyanotype, they were abysmal --
|about 1 hour
|>for what takes 3 minutes with BL (tho other types of grow
|light could be
|>better).
|>
|>IME there's little if any advantage over BL in metal halide,
|except you
|>get to use 1000-2000 watts of electricity instead of a puny
|100 - 160, so
|>you can run your air conditioner more... There may be somewhat more
|>contrast, but for gum, which has so many controls in emulsion &
|>development, etc., this seemed irrelevant.
|>
|>Judy
|
|
|The so-called full spectrum lights are also pretty poor performers.
|
|As for the comparison between MH and BL lights I use both in my work
|with carbon and kallitype and find that although the differences
|between the two lights are not really dramatic there are definitely
|times when one light works better with a particular negative than the
|other, and it is not just an issue of printing speed or contrast,
|though that is often an issue as well.
|
|However, it is my belief that most people who use a contact printing
|frame instead of a vacuum frame will get sharper results about 90% of
|the time with a semi-collimated light source such as the metal halide
|than with a diffuse light source such as a bank of BL tubes.
|
|
|Sandy King
|
|
|--
|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:11:00 AM Z CST