RE: good source for UV tubes?

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/14/04-02:56:13 AM Z
Message-id: <Pine.NEB.4.58.0401140319050.26765@panix1.panix.com>

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sandy King wrote:
> The literature is full of anecdotal evidence. But, frankly, what I
> see is lots of people repeating the same old information from book to
> book, and even from generation to generation. But my comparisons are

Well actually Sandy you're singing my song -- but what can I tell you -- I
did those tests myself. I don't have the BLB bulbs nor the
time/strength/concern to repeat them if I did... but I think the test
strips are pretty conclusive -- or conclusivized me.

However, I gather now that you're saying the BLB was (however much)
slower, but did ultimately come to same or nearly same scale. Friend was
doing editions... growing old while waiting for the BLB to print. I
myself wasn't interested in what I could get after 45 minutes... which if
I read you correctly is what you're saying here?

> not based on anecdote, but actual testing in which common standards
> of comparison were established.
> I have made the comparison with the great majority of processes
> discussed on this list, and the results can be seen in the article on
> UV printing at Unblinkingeye.com. I have also repeated the tests with
> BL and BLB tubes of different manufacture. Although there have been
> some anomalies in results the great majority of my comparisons
> indicates a difference in printing speed of less than 1/4 step (of
> 21) between these two types of tubes, which amounts to around 10% in
> time.

> >You are looking at your negatives under UV light? That's another thing I
> >was taught -- a no-no.
>
>
> I wear protective UV glasses when exposing prints. If you don't some
> of that UV light is going to reach your eyes by reflection.

My lights are draped in dullest black... and around the corner... but I
don't notice dust specks anyway. This place is a veritable canyon of dust,
so maybe there are too many other attractions for dust to bother with the
light table. But, I'm wondering if you found gum also the same with both
bulbs. I've seen a difference in color intensity AND scale with gum by
different lights, as have others, about which more in future. Meanwhile,
am I correct that you DO agree the exposure time is quite different?

J.
Received on Wed Jan 14 02:56:25 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/02/04-09:49:59 AM Z CST