From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 04/10/03-12:08:54 AM Z
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Don Bryant wrote:
>
> > I PROMISE that you don't need a safelight of
> > any kind or color for coating alternative processes. Unless you're
> > feeling undeserving, and want to suffer? And I'm not the only one who
> > points that out, though maybe the only one who hasn't given up...
> >
>
> How bright are the lights that you use. I can't deal with "bug" lights as
> they seem to affect my eyes and they become quite tired after as short
> period.
>
As bright as I want... At home I work by normal room light -- tungsten
overhead, fluorescent off to the side... and TALL wall-to-wall windows
facing north. During normal daylight I don't have the electric lights on,
but it wouldn't matter if I did.
At school we worked in a room ENTIRELY lit by fluorescent bulbs -- and I
never saw any sign of fogging. Or let's say sometimes the students did get
fog, tho from beginner's mistake, on occasion... generally from too thin
negatives.
I must add however, that I think platinum is more sensitive to fluorescent
light than cyano, gum & VDB (I didn't teach platinum). I remember Sura
Steinberg saying when she demonstrated their platinotype at the Jacob
Javitz center that the overhead flurorescent lights did cause some fog.
I'll add however, that I couldn't detect it -- and those were FULL strong
exhibition hall fluorescents and the entire process including development
was done in full light.
I would suppose though that there is at least a possibility that the full
light affects exposure. You MIGHT want a shorter exposure to get the
density you're used to. But that's purest speculation -- and I seriously
doubt that for gum the difference would be measurable... you'd just
develop 10 minutes more.
Judy
>
> > On the other hand, that safelight fogged lith film in the twinkling of an
> > eye, even on low... so if that's what you mean by "alternative," don't.
>
> I wouldn't know about lith film and the Thomas. I beleive you might be
> asking for trouble there.
>
> And to everyone else that sent replies to my question, thank you all very
> much. I agree totally that testing is called for on my part and that the
> coin test is only reliable when a treshold exposure is given.
>
> On the other hand the Thomas Duplex light with filters puts out light at
> about 539 nm so that doesn't seem to me there would be much if any UV
> radiation in the light source.
>
> I'll test and report later on.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don Bryant
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 05/01/03-11:59:54 AM Z CST