The wavelength of the light and the "curve" of negative and
emulsion and match between them are two entirely different matters
Yes, I know that, Judy. I am talking about "tweaking in" the entire process
and matching the bulb ouitput to the material's light sensitivity is part of
that, right? Sure, if the difference were minor its not worth bothering with
changing a system one already has. But for someone building a printer, say,
for the first time, buying bulbs more suitable to the process, even for just
a minute here and there, makes sense. Those minutes do add up, right?
I haven't tested this, but apparently Voltarc had;
the man told me, in fact, that they found times "exactly" the same, but
I didn't think that important enough to claim.
Why not important enough? Why, more peculiarly, would you report it
differently, that is reporting he had said that they were "just about the
same."
That red Sharpie line strikes me as very ingenious, but I confess I'm still
puzzled about the masks. What do you draw the fine
red line on? Clear acetate under the rubylith? I haven't tested that for
optical degradation, but would certainly be disinclined to cover my
negatives with it, even for gum ....And a stickler like you? (Talk about
NEANDERTHAL!)
The red sharpie is used on the acetate layer which remains after the rubylith
has been cut away. And since the rubylith sits on top of the print frame
glass, between the light source and the negative, not between the negative
and the print material, no optical degradation occurs. Yes, I am a stickler
and find this process superior to others I have tried (like cardboard masks).
Also, I can't help wondering how many of you folks wringing your hands about
UV bulbs are SMOKERS ! ! ! ? ? ? ? ? ( And a few other even more dangerous
practices come to mind !)
Gotta love those red herrings. In choosing what one does, that includes
choosing those areas where risks are to be taken and what kinds of dangerous
practices to partake or not partake in. I risk my life daily by riding a
scooter all around a major city (San Francisco) but figure the risk is worth
the time saved looking for parking, the long lines at lights (I zip between
cars), the low costs of motorscooter insurance, upkeep, gas, etc. and the
reduced contribution it makes to pollution. I personally don't find the risks
of exposing my eyes or skin to high levels of UV (I print often) when other
techniques are available, especially when those techniques (rubylith vs.
dodging with hands) so far superior technically, let alone safer. But
someone else may choose to dodge with his or her hands and weigh the risks as
less important than, say, the sheer fun of waving one's hands around and
feeling kinetically connected to the printing process. But for those who say
in the same breath that they want to stay safe and then admit practicing
unsafe things, there's a bit of a catch there (herine comes the Neandrathal
part).
Not so wholesome Bill
-- Sent from Designlink, San Francisco. Design, Graphics, Photo, Portfolios Online. Modem: (510) 933-9676. Voice: 930-6746 WEB: http://www.designlink.com