Re: Success! screw-in fluro BLB UV lightbox

The brand is Feit Electric ((Pico Rivers, CA) and the ones I bought are 13 watts; they are about 1/2 inch longer than a standard 60 watt tungsten light bulb, but they have a coiled tube coming off a cylindrical portion that is about 1 inch in length with all this on a typical screw-in bulb base. They are advertised as a 60 watt replacement party light! The company is based in CA, but the bulbs are made in China.

Cheers!
Judy

--
Judy Rowe Taylor
Mukilteo, WA
Art is a voice of the heart, a song of the soul.
www.enduringibis.com
jude.taylor@comcast.net or judyrowetaylor@enduringibis.com
> What's the wattage on those black lights?  Are they bulbs?  Got a brand 
> name?
> 
> Anyone with experience with these bulbs or the gro-light bulbs?
> 
> Steve Shapiro
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Cremati" <johnjohnc@core.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Success! screw-in fluro BLB UV lightbox
> 
> 
> > This would be a HOT HOT set up for you Kodak Contact Printer.........These
> > screw in black light Florescent bulbs could easily be adapted to your 
> > light
> > box giving off a lot of UV light!!!!!!!!!!jc
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: <jude.taylor@comcast.net>
> > To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:49 AM
> > Subject: Success! screw-in fluro BLB UV lightbox
> >
> >
> >> Greetings!
> >>
> >> I have declared my lightbox that has six of the screw-in fluorescent 
> >> black
> > light bulbs as the UV source a success, as I just pulled my first 
> > cyanotype
> > test print last night.  I undercooked the print a bit (or maybe not enough
> > sensitizer, or ...), but I was able to determine from this first attempt
> > that the box does evenly radiate over an 8.5 x 11 inch surface.  As I do
> > more tests and get the timing/distance and other variables down I will 
> > scan
> > and post the results on my web site.  There were a lot of firsts with this
> > print.  Here's a little more about this lightbox adventure...humor is
> > intended :-) in the telling of this tale.
> >>
> >> I gave myself a D in carpentry, but later upgraded the rating to a C 
> >> since
> > the box did come out level, it just looks a bit funny!  I gave myself an R
> > for resourcefulness in parts and materials used and have now added to my
> > notes an A for functionality!  Scale is 1(low) - 4 (high): A=4; B=3; C=2;
> > D=1; F = no such rating as 0 (failure) because something is always learned
> > :-) ; and R = outfield!
> >>
> >> Funny it may be, but it was reasonably economical to make.  The three
> > expensive items were the 6 bulbs at $12 each; 2 lighting fixture strips 
> > with
> > 3 ceramic sockets at $16 each; a 4 inch fan from Radio Shack cost $25;
> > additional wood and hardware added to what I had on hand cost about $25 -
> > $30.  I described my design in an earlier email - two rows of the bulbs
> > spaced 6 inches from center to center of each bulb with 3 inches to the
> > sides of the box also (Inner dimensions of the box are 12 inches wide x 18
> > inches long - a perfect size for Photoformulary's beautifully made 8x10
> > contact printing frame.).  I attached each end of the fixtures with a 
> > screw
> > securely to a 0.5 x 2 x 12 that also serves as part of the box frame. 
> > Since
> > the fixtures were designed to attach flat against a wall, the short wires
> > were now sticking up from the top of my lightbox.  I attached them to the
> > corresponding wires of a small-appliance cord, which plugs into an 
> > appliance
> > strip along with the fan cord
> >>  ; a flip of the switch starts both lights and fan at the same time.  I
> > filled the space between the metal frames of the light fixtures, and on 
> > each
> > side, with strips of board, then made a box top to cover (and protect) the
> > wiring and make the top light-tight.
> >>
> >> Enough said about the construction...except one more item...the nice 
> >> thing
> > about using the screw-in bulbs is that I was able to test the wiring with
> > inexpensive, everyday, 40-watt, household light bulbs and not risk the
> > expensive BLBs!
> >>
> >> The test strip negative I am using is also a first - my first digineg; 
> >> no,
> > actually it is my second.  As I attempted to faithfully follow Dan
> > Burkholder's directions in the "Inkjet Negative Companion" I forgot to
> > change one printer setting and my first digineg came off my Epson 2200
> > looking like someone's pinstriped suit!  I corrected that little mistake 
> > and
> > my second digineg looks pretty nice.
> >>
> >> Next step of course was sensitizing the paper; two trials with coffee and
> > a glass rod worked perfectly, nicely even color with no puddles.  Then the
> > first attempt with the new cyanotype solution (I did let it ripen for two
> > days.) puddled and crystallized over most of the paper as I left it to air
> > dry.  Second try with less solution and a hair dryer did well.  I am using
> > some BFK Rives that I have on hand for these initial trials, but plan
> > additional tests with Fabriano Artistico since most of you have indicated
> > you like this paper for cyanotypes, though the BFK I have seems O.K.
> >>
> >> Then came the exposure test!  As stated initially, I didn't expose long
> > enough (11 minutes at 4 inches from the UV source, though it may just be 
> > too
> > little sensitizer) to get a nice dense dark-dark blue where my positive 
> > was
> > black, but my test indicates to me that the light is falling evenly across
> > the surface of the contact printing frame, which was what I wanted to
> > determine with this first print anyway.  For my test negative I made (in
> > Photoshop) as strip of contiguous rectangles from 100% to 5 % (paper is 
> > 0%)
> > at 5% increments and placed 4 of these (alternating end to end) 
> > side-by-side
> > along with Dan's density "step-wedge" on the side.  I have placed the
> > positive as a jpeg on my web site so you can actually see what I am
> > attempting to describe.  That url is:
> >>
> >> http://www.enduringibis.com/altphoto/tests/alt_photo_tests.html
> >>
> >> The printing frame did its job superbly, though I suspect folks in the
> > next county heard the hardware snap when I secured the back in
> > place...Smiles - a comment, not a complaint!  The tiny little numbers (6 
> > pt
> > if I remember correctly) are nice and sharp!  On the final print the
> > cyanotype blues from my strips matched (visual check) the same percentages
> > on Dan's strip - and they did also via electronic check of the negative in
> > Photoshop.  I don't have a densitometer.
> >>
> >> Now to fine tune "my act" by manipulating some other variables (paper,
> > amount of sensitizer, exposure time, negative density and color vs
> > grayscale) and, not the least, more practice, more tests, more interesting
> > images!
> >>
> >> FYI:  For drying the finished print I used a sheet of plastic needlepoint
> > screen; these are inexpensive, readily available at fabric and craft 
> > stores,
> > come in a variety of sizes and are stiff, sturdy, and smooth.  My previous
> > experience had shown that papers like Arches cover and BFK Rives dry flat 
> > on
> > these plastic screens.
> >>
> >> Thanks for reading to the end!
> >>
> >> JT
> >> Judy Rowe Taylor
> >> Mukilteo, WA
> >> Art is a voice of the heart, a song of the soul.
> >> www.enduringibis.com
> >> jude.taylor@comcast.net or judyrowetaylor@enduringibis.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _____________________________________________________
> >> This message scanned for viruses by CoreComm
> >>
> >
> >
> > 
> 
>