> My cautions about plateburners. The first is to confirm the light source does
> indeed burn around 420nm; many burn at a lower nm and require, therefore,
> longer print times. Also, a plateburner isn't really designed for long
The resident expert at Voltarc told me they found exposure times
just about the same with fluorescent bulbs at 415 and 360 nanometers,in
platinum and other "non-silver" processes, but whether this sameness
applies to plateburner bulbs I suppose depends on how much lower the
lower bulb is.
He also told me that Voltarc was developing a bulb at exactly 360
nanometers called "BL" but it was apparently not yet in full production
and distribution. (Bulbtronics said "maybe" they could get me "one" to
try. This was last fall, & since I needed a bunch I let it drop.)
> If one uses rubylith for dodging and burning -- easy, repeatable, and
> accurate -- then the light source used doesn't matter. The idea of dodging
> and burning with one's hands, whether wearing sun glasses or not, seems a bit
> neandrathal, if not, at the least, dangerous and difficult.
When you say dodging and burning with rubylith, I take it you mean by
means of masks. I find cut-out masks leave a very unattractive hard
edge. As for "neanderthal," well, let's say I disagree.
(Besides which, gum printing isn't exactly
cutting edge.)
I cut basic shapes out of large sheets of cardboard and
keep them moving. This works better than other approaches I've tried to
date, although of course the BEST approach is to have the negative match
the emulsion-paper profile exactly (subject of my book, as I may possibly
have mentioned). And in fact I rarely do dodge or burn, preferring to
reformulate an emulsion, change papers, remake a negative, or devise
some ingenious method of faking.
Judy