From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 12/31/03-10:15:46 PM Z
I use an Olec AI 131 on the 1000 watt HID. This was purchased used
for less than $100.
Another good light integrator is the Metrolux II, which is a light
integrator sold for enlargers. I see these used on time to time on
ebay. You would need a special UV probe to replace the standard
probe that comes with the unit.
Sandy
>Where are people on the list getting what integrators and how are
>they installed? -jb
>
>At 11:10 PM 11/12/2002 -0600, John Campbell wrote:
>>Sandy,
>>
>>Which integrator (manufacturer/brand/model number) is in your configuration?
>>
>>TIA,
>>John
>>
>>www.photogecko.com
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Sandy King" <sanking@clemson.edu>
>>To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 10:47 PM
>>Subject: Re: Consistency Is No Hobgoblin
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not saying that the variations in temperature and humidity are
>>> not an issue. However, I will say with absolute certainty that 2-3
>>> minute warm up time is not sufficient for most commercial metal
>>> halide lamps to reach full output. With an integrator you calibrate
>>> the unit to reach a certain output, which in my case I have set to
>>> 100 when the the unit of operation is approximately one second. At
>>> 2-3 minutes my unit, as measured by the integrator, has only reached
>>> a reading of 20-30 units, that is, less than 25% of full output.
>>> Obviously if your exposures are in the 10 minute range and you begin
>>> them at 2-3 minutes of turning on the light, you should be seeing
>>> significant variations in printing density, irrespective of any other
>>> factors.
>>>
>>> Sandy King
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >Clay & Sandy: Thanks for the suggestions. As you know, I have a
>>> >metal halide HID. I don't worry much about timing the exposure,
>>> >because they run 6-8 minutes typically and I don't see how the 2-3
>>> >second fudge in my crude timing system can make any difference. The
>>> >intensity of the lamp is another matter. When I got the thing last
>>> >spring, I followed leads to get an integrator, but pretty much
>>> >crapped out when the glass-virtuoso guy proved no help. On the
>>> >other hand, looks like I should be doing a longer warm-up. I've
>>> >been doing 4 minutes because the electrician said 2-3 minutes would
>>> >be plenty. As for the quiet time around the house, I can manage
>>> >that sometimes and I try to.... Say, are you guys saying that the
>>> >variations in temp and humidity I noted are probably not at issue?
>>> >-JB
>>> >
>>> >At 11:04 PM 11/12/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Clay wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>Jeff:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>What are you using for your light source? And how are you timing
>>> >>>it or measuring it. I find I get pretty consistent results with
>>> >>>the same materials and ambient conditions... But I'm using a Nuarc
>>> >>>most of the time.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>When using any UV light source without an integrator one is almost
>>> >>certain to observe some small differences in print density, even
>>> >>when all other things are held to absolute consistency. I find this
>>> >>to be true with both my bank of BL tubes and with the HID lamp when
>>> >>used without the integrator.
>>> >>
>>> >>If one must work without the integrator it is best to do so when
>>> >>the house is relatively quite and there are no large and sudden
>>> >>current drains. Also, for maximum consistency all light sources
>>> >>should be allowed to warm up for a few minutes before exposing. Two
>>> >>to three minutes is enough for fluorescent tubes, while HID mercury
>>> >>vapor and metal halide lamps need from 5-8 minutes to reach maximum
>>> >>output.
>>> >>
>>> >>Sandy King
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Clay
>>> >>>On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 08:58 PM, Jeff Buck wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>Actually, it's the tendency of a phenomenon to recur in the same
>>> >>>>form.... Anyway, after doing platinum/palladium for about
>>> >>>>fifteen months now, I find if very difficult to achieve. I
>>> >>>>arrive at a print that is satisfying. I want to repeat it. So,
>>> >>>>I use the same paper, the same chemicals (plain FO, pure
>> > >>>>palladium, PO w/ sodium dicromate mostly), the same exposure, and
>>> >>>>the same developer. As for ambient temperature and humidity, I
>>> >>>>can get pretty close to repeating, especially this time of year
>>> >>>>when I'm producing both artificially (by and large). Like the
>>> >>>>last couple days, I'm printing this negative, and the temp is
>>> >>>>between 65F and 70F, the humidity is in the range of 60% to 70%.
>>> >>>>In each instance, the paper has been laying out in the area of
>>> >>>>that temp and humidity for a few hours; it's a little "heavy" and
>>> >>>>tacky to the touch. I guess I made four prints in these
>>> >>>>conditions (I was double-coating Platine, if that makes any
>>> >>>>difference). There were notable differences in the overall
>>> >>>>darkness of the prints and in degree of contrast. Would you
>>> >>>>expect discernible differences working within these variations in
>>> >>>>temp and humidity? How do you measure the temperature of the FO
>>> >>>>and platinum or palladium? I'm squeamish, maybe for no reason,
>>> >>>>about putting a thermometer into a bottle of precious metal....
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>--
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:05 PM Z CST