Re: uv with metal halide vs florescent bulbs

From: Sandy King ^lt;sanking@clemson.edu>
Date: 03/14/04-04:27:12 PM Z
Message-id: <a0602040dbc7a8b0fda67@[192.168.1.100]>

I am about 99.99% sure that a remarkable difference in Dmax is due to
reasons other than the light source. I have never printed Ziatypes
but in my work with carbon, Pt/Pd, Palladium and Kallitype my bank of
BLB tubes prints with almost the same contrast as my NuArc 261K
platemaker with a metal halide tube, and in fact the tube bank is
slightly faster than the platemaker. And I have printed with
Pictorico OHP with both types of lights.

The caveat is that I have never made Ziatypes and it is not totally
outside the realm of possibility that it may respond differently to
the two light sources than the processes mentioned earlier.

Sandy King

>I have been printing Ziatypes using COT 320 for a few months now.
>i've been using a a UV light box (Edwards Engineered, with
>florescent bulbs), and Pictorico OHP for the negatives. There has
>always been a slight fog through the OHP.. could never get as deep
>a dmax as exposing the bare paper. I just moved to doing larger
>negatives, and have a Nuarc 1kS with a metal halide bulb. The
>difference is dmax is remarkable. I had never been able to get these
>blacks with florescent bulbs. Is this to be expected (not really
>complaining here :^) ?
>
> jim
>
>
Received on Sun Mar 14 16:29:01 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/01/04-02:02:05 PM Z CST