Re: FW: UV blocker in TMAX100 base?

From: Dave Soemarko ^lt;>
Date: 02/25/04-07:26:10 AM Z
Message-id: <00ef01c3fba2$ef6d7e70$9729fea9@W>

Agree. That's why the density difference of 1.0 (almost 7 steps) surprised
me. For such a big difference, using 2 tablets would still show the
difference as the difference in densities between 2 tablets would be
insignificant comparing with the difference in effective density caused by
the blocking material. If after the test, it is found that actual density
difference is not that much, and one is interested in testing what the small
difference is, then using the same tablet twice would of course be more
accurate. But of course, using the same tablet for the initial test would
work too.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: FW: UV blocker in TMAX100 base?

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Dave Soemarko wrote:
> >
> > But on Sandy's original post, the measured density difference (as far as
> > blocking is concerned) is about 1.0. That is 10x exposure time! If the
> > uncovered part takes 3 minutes to exposure to a certain level, the
> > part would need 30 minutes. That difference would surely shows in the
> > suggested test.
> Oh my, the material I tested was at most maybe 2 steps lighter...or about
> 2 minutes out of 8 minutes... Having found a surprising difference
> between guide (among guides???), & not knowing in advance what the
> difference will be, I would use the same one, at least for starters.
> > If the test doesn't show significant difference, however, it means that
> > that combination and application, the material doesn't really have much
> > effect.
> How much is much? One or 2 steps could still ruin a print if you're not
> expecting it...
> J.
Received on Wed Feb 25 07:26:24 2004

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