Re: Sandy King's Note about UV density of film base

From: Sandy King ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 02/18/04-08:54:32 AM Z
Message-id: <a06020401bc592bcfc431@[]>


The note I posted about UV blocking applied to Kodak TMAX 100 film ,
and it was based on a densitometer reading in UV mode. At this point
I have not determined if the base UV log density of 1.0 is an
effective printing density for UV radiation or if it is merely an
anomalous blocking at a certain narrow wave length.

BTW, I did not observe this kind of blocking with either TMAX 400 nor
TRI-X 320, and I tested new boxes of these films recently.


>Content-type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
>Content-language: en
>A few days ago, Sandy King posted a note regarding, which I have
>since lost track of.
>Sandy was pointing out that he had tested some (I believe it was)
>Tri-X film. His note mentioned that the film base showed a UV
>density of Log 1.0-Sandy can correct me if I am not quoting him
>correctly from memory.
>I don't know if anyone responded to Sandy's note or not. I
>sometimes don't get all the posts that are sent to the list-Mother
>AOL seems to filter out some of the posts-especially when Judy
>starts talking naughty about nekkid people.
>Anyway, I was thinking about this and wondering:
>1. Is this a new "feature" that Kodak is adding to the film,
>perhaps being so kind as to protect the film from UV after it has
>been developed? Or just a major screw up on their part, not
>realising that black and white film is used for other things besides
>printing on their polycontrast RC paper?
>and if so...
>2. Won't this sort screw up printing in a lot of alt processes just
>a bit by increasing exposure times dramatically?
>3. Does anyone know where I could find information on reciprocity
>failure with PT/PD printing?
>Thanks in advance,
>Mark Nelson
Received on Wed Feb 18 08:58:59 2004

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