From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 03/20/02-12:22:58 PM Z
Keith:
At this time I am using both BLB and HID exposing units and each has
its advantages and disadvantages. However, 20X24 is the biggest
prints I am making, or intend to make (although my current bank of UV
tubes consists of twelve 48" tubes, enough for very even coverage of
about 32" X 46". I think you are right in that if the HID lamp were
to be placed, either with or without the center filter, in such a way
as to cover 30X40" it would be slower than a UV bank of BL or BLB
tubes of sufficient size to cover that area.
And yes, all but one of the photographs in the article were carbons,
the other a platinum toned kallitype as I recall. The wonderful thing
about carbon is that you can get virtually any tone or color desired,
and all of these with absolute permanence out of the box.
BTW, I agree with John in that you should get very even exposure with
the tube layout described in your earlier message. Good luck with the
project.
Sandy King
>Sandy,
>
>Great article. I had made a mental note to read this when it was published,
>and then plum forgot about it. It tends to support my decision to remain
>with Sylvania BL. I doubt if the extra speed of the HID would still be
>present after the bulb is extended far enough back to cover a 30 x 40. And
>the exposure range for the HID was rather disappointing as well.
>
>Beautiful accompanying photographs, too. I'm assuming that most of these
>are Carbons. I love the colors, especially the soft green of the bamboo.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Keith
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:08 PM
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: RE: Light source for big prints
>
>
>Keith,
>
>If you have not already done so have a look at my article on UV light
>sources at http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Light/light.html
>
>Sandy King
>
>
>
>
>>John,
>>
>>My intent was to minimize (hide!) the appearance of a line going down the
>>middle of the print. The fixtures would be butted together, but that would
>>still leave a 2 inch gap of no light emission - the bulb holder, and the
>>ends of the bulbs temselves (bulb is 22" - fixture is 24")
>>
>>I wasn't aware of the 48" fixtures. Thanks. I'll look into that.
>>
>>Keith
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: John Campbell [mailto:tojohn@texas.net]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:40 AM
>>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>>Subject: RE: Light source for big prints
>>
>>
>>Keith,
>>
>>If you are building a new array from scratch, why not use 48" fixtures and
>>40-watt tubes? I recommend Phillips product number 046677-30108-5, which
>is
>>a super actinic radiation source available in 48-inch lengths. I don't
>>think you'll have any problem with lengthy exposure times!
>>
>>FWIW, I don't really see a problem with your staggered graphic-but I wonder
>>why you would need 2 1/2 inches between the fixture ends. Maybe I'm not
>>getting your intent.
>>
>>Good luck,
>>-John
>>
>>http://www.photogecko.com/
>>Home of The Gecko UV Light Box
>>"Get The Gecko!"
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Keith Gerling [mailto:keithgerling@att.net]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:08 PM
>>To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>>Subject: Light source for big prints
>>
>>Currently, I use a bank of Sylvania 20w Black light bulbs, which
>>provide coverage for 22x30 in prints. As I now have a need to print 30x40,
>>I am considering alternatives. One option would be to go to another light
>>source (yard lights, etc.) but I am concerned about lengthy exposure times.
>>As I am comfortable with using the flourescent source, I am wondering if
>>there might be a way to build a larger light bank using 22 inch bulbs. My
>>question: if I were to line up two banks side-by-side, and stagger them by
>4
>>inches like this:
>>
>> ============ ============
>> ============ ============
>> ============ ============
>> ============ ============
>>
>> etc,
> >
>>what are the chances that the gap between banks (approx 2 1/2 inches) would
>>be "filled in" and not effect the print. Currently, the print is about 4
>>inches from the light source.
>>
>>I'd appreciate any other ideas.
>>
>>Keith
>
>
>--
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST