RE: good source for UV tubes?

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/14/04-05:10:32 PM Z
Message-id: <Pine.NEB.4.58.0401141431250.18105@panix2.panix.com>

All this talk about a new head is tantalizing... I'd like one with green
hair, please; it's so tiresome re-doing it each week... And "genius" goes
without saying.

Meanwhile,

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Sandy King wrote:

> I have not observed any difference in color intensity between BL and
> BLB tubes with any of the processes tested. As for contrast, BL tubes
> may give just a tad more contrast, but this is a characteristic, not
> a good thing or bad thing, since the small differnce can easily be
> adjusted in printing.

Clearly, those "power fluctuations" in this house and the one next door
you cite to account for my observations -- of 20% no less (!!!) that just
happened to strike when one set of bulbs was running & not the other, were
extremely clever of The Power, being as they were on different days at odd
times.

But what you say here about contrast differences is not so readily
explained & directly opposite to my findings... and since the mechanism of
gum printing is actually quite different from the mechanism of carbon I
suggest some qualifications might apply. I suppose it might have happened
in carbon (and you don't say you did gum), but I anyway am convinced
(pending of course independent verification) that we inhabit two different
planets.

If it sheds any light however, I recall (somewhere) a diagram of the
several spikes of sensitivity of gum above the 360 nm range. Certainly
it's possible to gum print (a la Phil Davis) with regular fluorescent
house bulbs and I'd assume those spikes also shed light from BL.

cheers,

Judy
Received on Wed Jan 14 17:18:22 2004

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