Re: Success! screw-in fluro BLB UV lightbox

From: SteveS ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 06/24/05-09:30:51 AM Z
Message-id: <001401c578d1$b5c60a40$4802280a@VALUED65BAD02C>

What's the wattage on those black lights? Are they bulbs? Got a brand
name?

Anyone with experience with these bulbs or the gro-light bulbs?

Steve Shapiro
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cremati" <johnjohnc@core.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Success! screw-in fluro BLB UV lightbox

> This would be a HOT HOT set up for you Kodak Contact Printer.........These
> screw in black light Florescent bulbs could easily be adapted to your
> light
> box giving off a lot of UV light!!!!!!!!!!jc
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jude.taylor@comcast.net>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:49 AM
> Subject: Success! screw-in fluro BLB UV lightbox
>
>
>> Greetings!
>>
>> I have declared my lightbox that has six of the screw-in fluorescent
>> black
> light bulbs as the UV source a success, as I just pulled my first
> cyanotype
> test print last night. I undercooked the print a bit (or maybe not enough
> sensitizer, or ...), but I was able to determine from this first attempt
> that the box does evenly radiate over an 8.5 x 11 inch surface. As I do
> more tests and get the timing/distance and other variables down I will
> scan
> and post the results on my web site. There were a lot of firsts with this
> print. Here's a little more about this lightbox adventure...humor is
> intended :-) in the telling of this tale.
>>
>> I gave myself a D in carpentry, but later upgraded the rating to a C
>> since
> the box did come out level, it just looks a bit funny! I gave myself an R
> for resourcefulness in parts and materials used and have now added to my
> notes an A for functionality! Scale is 1(low) - 4 (high): A=4; B=3; C=2;
> D=1; F = no such rating as 0 (failure) because something is always learned
> :-) ; and R = outfield!
>>
>> Funny it may be, but it was reasonably economical to make. The three
> expensive items were the 6 bulbs at $12 each; 2 lighting fixture strips
> with
> 3 ceramic sockets at $16 each; a 4 inch fan from Radio Shack cost $25;
> additional wood and hardware added to what I had on hand cost about $25 -
> $30. I described my design in an earlier email - two rows of the bulbs
> spaced 6 inches from center to center of each bulb with 3 inches to the
> sides of the box also (Inner dimensions of the box are 12 inches wide x 18
> inches long - a perfect size for Photoformulary's beautifully made 8x10
> contact printing frame.). I attached each end of the fixtures with a
> screw
> securely to a 0.5 x 2 x 12 that also serves as part of the box frame.
> Since
> the fixtures were designed to attach flat against a wall, the short wires
> were now sticking up from the top of my lightbox. I attached them to the
> corresponding wires of a small-appliance cord, which plugs into an
> appliance
> strip along with the fan cord
>> ; a flip of the switch starts both lights and fan at the same time. I
> filled the space between the metal frames of the light fixtures, and on
> each
> side, with strips of board, then made a box top to cover (and protect) the
> wiring and make the top light-tight.
>>
>> Enough said about the construction...except one more item...the nice
>> thing
> about using the screw-in bulbs is that I was able to test the wiring with
> inexpensive, everyday, 40-watt, household light bulbs and not risk the
> expensive BLBs!
>>
>> The test strip negative I am using is also a first - my first digineg;
>> no,
> actually it is my second. As I attempted to faithfully follow Dan
> Burkholder's directions in the "Inkjet Negative Companion" I forgot to
> change one printer setting and my first digineg came off my Epson 2200
> looking like someone's pinstriped suit! I corrected that little mistake
> and
> my second digineg looks pretty nice.
>>
>> Next step of course was sensitizing the paper; two trials with coffee and
> a glass rod worked perfectly, nicely even color with no puddles. Then the
> first attempt with the new cyanotype solution (I did let it ripen for two
> days.) puddled and crystallized over most of the paper as I left it to air
> dry. Second try with less solution and a hair dryer did well. I am using
> some BFK Rives that I have on hand for these initial trials, but plan
> additional tests with Fabriano Artistico since most of you have indicated
> you like this paper for cyanotypes, though the BFK I have seems O.K.
>>
>> Then came the exposure test! As stated initially, I didn't expose long
> enough (11 minutes at 4 inches from the UV source, though it may just be
> too
> little sensitizer) to get a nice dense dark-dark blue where my positive
> was
> black, but my test indicates to me that the light is falling evenly across
> the surface of the contact printing frame, which was what I wanted to
> determine with this first print anyway. For my test negative I made (in
> Photoshop) as strip of contiguous rectangles from 100% to 5 % (paper is
> 0%)
> at 5% increments and placed 4 of these (alternating end to end)
> side-by-side
> along with Dan's density "step-wedge" on the side. I have placed the
> positive as a jpeg on my web site so you can actually see what I am
> attempting to describe. That url is:
>>
>> http://www.enduringibis.com/altphoto/tests/alt_photo_tests.html
>>
>> The printing frame did its job superbly, though I suspect folks in the
> next county heard the hardware snap when I secured the back in
> place...Smiles - a comment, not a complaint! The tiny little numbers (6
> pt
> if I remember correctly) are nice and sharp! On the final print the
> cyanotype blues from my strips matched (visual check) the same percentages
> on Dan's strip - and they did also via electronic check of the negative in
> Photoshop. I don't have a densitometer.
>>
>> Now to fine tune "my act" by manipulating some other variables (paper,
> amount of sensitizer, exposure time, negative density and color vs
> grayscale) and, not the least, more practice, more tests, more interesting
> images!
>>
>> FYI: For drying the finished print I used a sheet of plastic needlepoint
> screen; these are inexpensive, readily available at fabric and craft
> stores,
> come in a variety of sizes and are stiff, sturdy, and smooth. My previous
> experience had shown that papers like Arches cover and BFK Rives dry flat
> on
> these plastic screens.
>>
>> Thanks for reading to the end!
>>
>> JT
>> Judy Rowe Taylor
>> Mukilteo, WA
>> Art is a voice of the heart, a song of the soul.
>> www.enduringibis.com
>> jude.taylor@comcast.net or judyrowetaylor@enduringibis.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________
>> This message scanned for viruses by CoreComm
>>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 24 09:31:25 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 07/07/05-11:30:55 AM Z CST