Re: UV blocker in TMAX100 base?

From: Sandy King ^lt;>
Date: 02/15/04-04:03:55 PM Z
Message-id: <a0602040cbc559c0968ae@[]>


I don't know the answer to your question, and I just thought I would
ask if anyone has had any previous experience with this film in
printing with UV sensitive processes before I test it myself. No big
deal to test but I don't use this film myself and don't want to waste
my time if someone else already knows the answer.

But yes, a difference in log 1.0 density, if indeed effective
printing density, would change printing times by more than three full
stops, i.e. an exposure of two minutes would become one of more than
16 minutes.

There is of course the possibility that the UV filtration just
happens to be in a very narrow band that covers the wavelength of my
measuring instrument and that outside of this band there is no UV


>Would the effect of this when printing a UV sensitive process be to
>just increase the exposure time? It sounds like it would increase
>it by quite a bit...
>Mark Nelson
>In a message dated 2/15/04 1:55:58 PM, writes:
>>In testing TMAX 100 film I have come across a curious phenomenon. It
>>is the fact that when reading UV density with my densitometer (which
>>reads in a fairly narrow band around 373nm) there appears to be a
>>base UV blocker of a little more than log 1.0.
>>I am wondering if any on the list are currently using TMAX 100 for
>>alternative printing in which exposures are by UV light, and if so
>>have you noticed any difference in printing times between TMAX 100
>>and other films.
>>So far TMAX 100 is the only film I have tested that has this kind of
>>UV blocking in the base.
>>Sandy King
Received on Sun Feb 15 16:05:33 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/02/04-11:35:09 AM Z CST