Re: new to list

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;>
Date: 11/02/04-10:08:13 PM Z
Message-id: <>

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Joe Smigiel wrote:
> ... I've found the
> plateburner to work better for gum, VDB, salted and POP although perhaps
> not as well for cyanotype.
> I'll never go back to using UV tubes for gum. The plate burner, metal
> halide lamps, or photofloods work so much better with gum IME.

Difference of opinion is, so they say, what makes horse races: I had a
NuArc 26K and after years of suffering its noise, heat (very uncomfortable
in summer), breakdowns, burnouts, and BULK (how big is your new darkroom,
Susan?), parted with it gladly... I should add that during those years I'd
done many comparison tests of the NuArc versus the black light
fluorescents and didn't see the differences Joe did... I abandoned
photofloods after two tests -- they were very slow, hot, uneven and
expensive -- though maybe there are improved bulbs now, the ones I had
supposedly had a life of something like... well I forget, but at most 23
hours (the cyanotype exposure was 50 minutes).

Another advantage of the fluorescent light table, at least mine, is that
the paper can extend beyond the sides (I use plate glass on plate glass,
not a contact frame), so you can use a paper larger than the negative,
which many contact frames don't permit -- for a self border on the print.

Received on Tue Nov 2 22:08:26 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:32 AM Z CST