post alternative techniques

[DJG]

Experimenting with UV light sources I just used 3 cheapo black lights for this print. They worked but took way too long. I have a new contraption with 6 bulbs. The idea came from here:
http://photo-reactive.blogspot.com/2...st-uv-box.html

Awesome idea and execution I think. I am surprised it takes only 10min for him to expose a kallitype. My version is waaay more crude but it will work the exact same in the end. Hopefully mine take 10min as well.

I came up with roughly that same design on my own, using bulbs from Home Depot. Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but even with 6 bulbs (basically same setup as that article), my palladium prints don't get enough exposure, even after 2 hours (longest I've tried). Same negative under sunlight takes around 5 minutes. Also tried New Cyanotype, varying times from around 2 minutes to 2 hours, never found what I liked, but then again it was the first time I tried that process. So, for now, I've given up on it. I hope yours works out, it's fairly simple to make.

[Zaitz]

I came up with roughly that same design on my own, using bulbs from Home Depot. Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but even with 6 bulbs (basically same setup as that article), my palladium prints don't get enough exposure, even after 2 hours (longest I've tried). Same negative under sunlight takes around 5 minutes. Also tried New Cyanotype, varying times from around 2 minutes to 2 hours, never found what I liked, but then again it was the first time I tried that process. So, for now, I've given up on it. I hope yours works out, it's fairly simple to make.

That is interesting. For me here in MN right now the sun takes about 20-30min. I really hope these bulbs don't take 2 hours. The ferric oxalate is the same between kallitype and palladium. Would there be something else that would make a difference in exposure times between the two processes? Cyanotype too?

My setup is far simpler than his. Much worse looking too! But it will work the same. There were two bulbs at Menards. The Feit 13w output bulb that he used in that link. But also a westinghouse bulb that said it put out 40watts. I decided to use the same as him but I am wondering if the westinghouse bulb is better. It was also cheaper.

edit: Scratch that westinghouse! lol
http://www.amazon.com/Westinghouse-L.../dp/B0012IRWU0

[Vaughn]

From your link, Zaitz, this one sounds better than the Felt -- 20W vs 13W, and a few pennies cheaper:

http://www.amazon.com/Sunlite-SL20-B...ref=pd_cp_hi_2

My times under a bank of BL bulbs are 10 minutes, perhaps up to 25 minutes. Perhaps longer for Pyro developed negatives.

If one's exposure times are a couple hours, double check to make sure one is not using TMax 100 sheet film. That particular film has an anti-UV layer on it and it takes forever to push enough UV through it for an exposure!

[DJG]

I think the one I mentioned is APX 100 (others that I tried were FP4+ and also failed, but I didn't go past an hour on those tests), but like I said, in the sunlight it's around 5 minutes and prints fine. After two hours using the 6 spiral black light bulbs, the border outside the negative is super dark (no mask around the negative, so I can see my brush strokes fine), but there's only a super faint image. I'm pretty sure I've got what Home Depot's website calls "Feit Electric ECOBULB 13-Watt (60W) Black CFL Light Bulb", or at least something that looks very similar.

This was all with fresh #1 and #2 ferric oxalate solutions from B&S, and maybe 5 year old #3 palladium solution. I got the same results with some older #1 and #2 which have been in the refrigerator the whole time, but I got rid of the old stuff thinking that might have something to do with the problem.

[Zaitz]

From your link, Zaitz, this one sounds better than the Felt -- 20W vs 13W, and a few pennies cheaper:

http://www.amazon.com/Sunlite-SL20-B...ref=pd_cp_hi_2

My times under a bank of BL bulbs are 10 minutes, perhaps up to 25 minutes. Perhaps longer for Pyro developed negatives.

If one's exposure times are a couple hours, double check to make sure one is not using TMax 100 sheet film. That particular film has an anti-UV layer on it and it takes forever to push enough UV through it for an exposure!

Thank you for the link and info! I am mostly using digital negatives on Pictorico OHP. I think I've read somewhere that the Pictorico paper blocks some uv but I'm not positive. Well it obviously blocks something because the paper around the negative is darker than under the clear negative! Like I said, it does take ~20min in the winter sunlight here.

According to this chart the Sylvania 300 24" black light puts out a lot of uva. A lot more than most reptile bulbs and cheap black lights:
http://www.anapsid.org/gehrman2.html
http://www.amazon.com/Sylvania-22113.../dp/B000TZPA10

[Vaughn]

The Pictorico material that is for making digital negatives for silver prints (it is not a transparent material) does indeed block UV. I have a fellow use in a workshop. We set his carbon tissue and negative (the Pictorico mentioned above) under a bank of BL tubes and he did a 14 to 16 hour exposure -- came out nicely.

[Jay DeFehr]

I print 510-Pyro developed negatives under a single 13w spiral fluorescent BL bulb in a large reflector that puts my bulb about 12"-15" from my print frame, and my exposure times are around 30 min.

[Vaughn]

Not a bad time for a single lamp that distance -- especially a pyro neg.

[gldfshbob]

8x10 Print. Original shot on 4x5 velvia. CMYK separation plates made printed with extra layer of blue and black. Printed on Rives BFK

[Jay DeFehr]

Vaughn,

My negs are not as high contrast as yours, as you saw at the workshop, so my highlight density is lower/printing times shorter/ relief lower.

gldfshbob,

Nice portrait!