Glow in the dark camera.

[Light Guru]

Why not just scan your glow in the dark sheet?

Just kidding.

[Peter Gomena]

You get an "A" for ingenuity. What a weird, totally cool experiment.

[Steven Scanner]

Thanks. The idea was to take pictures with this on location. Store the plates. Go home and take a picture with a digital camera later in a darkened room.
Back to the drawing board for that idea.

As for scanning (as in digital flatbed scanner) the image, Light Guru, obviously I can't... unless I find a way to turn off the light inside the scanner.

[Sevo]

Thanks. The idea was to take pictures with this on location. Store the plates. Go home and take a picture with a digital camera later in a darkened room.

That won't do with glow-in-the-dark materials - for one, their brightness drops off sharply right after illumination, for the other, on the brighter ones, light cross-pollution will soon dissolve the picture into a shapeless glowing blob.

You'd need some material not excited by its own emissions, preferably something where the whole emanation process can be delayed. One of the methods employed to do "digital X-rays" involves phosphorescent films that can be charged with X-rays and only release visible light when exposed to red or infrared at a later time. There probably will be (quite possibly exotic, expensive and toxic) substances with similar properties regarding UV or blue light - but they won't be quite as neat and efficient, given the lower energy potential they'd work with, and you'd probably have to team up with a research chemist to do the preparations and get hold of the right materials in affordable quantities.

[Steven Scanner]

I haven't had light cross-pollution so far. The image was quite bright to start with, but as you mentioned, sharply fades to black. It had a kind of over exposed/cross-pollute flare, but after a couple of seconds that faded, leaving a clear image. There is a small window of opportunity to produce a copy with a digital camera.
On another forum someone mentioned a xerox-machine. Perhaps that technique can be used to create a print. The x-ray prosess you mentioned is a bit to expensive and exotic for my taste.

[Steve Smith]

Excellent. People need to try different things. If we only ever did what we knew already worked, we would never invent anything new... or discover what doesn't work!

This method does have some commonality with X-ray film. From what I remember, film itself is not sensitive to X-rays but there is a layer which is caused to glow when X-rays hit it and it is this glow which the film records (scintillating layer?).


Steve.

[Steven Scanner]

Thanks Steve. It does have similarities with X-ray.

About the workings of a xerox-machine
Let’s see if I get this right. A xerox machine works like this. A drum gets static electrically charged. Light from the machine travels to the original paper and reflects on the drum. Light eliminates the charge and dark parts stay charged. Next toner is charged and is attracted to the uncharged parts and bounces away from the charged parts of the drum. Leaving a coat of toner on the drum. Next paper rolls over the drum, transfering the toner on the paper. Then the paper is heated, melting the toner and sticking it to the paper.

Does that mean static electricity doesn’t stick on light? If this is the case, I could do the next. Charge the GITD plate that has a illuminated image. The light areas won’t get charged, dark areas get charged. If I would use some of those graphite CSI fingerprint brushes, the charged parts will atract the graphite. Next I use transparent sticky tape to gather the graphite image. Is that a theory that might work?

Remember, keep thinking outside the box. In this case: what box?

[Sevo]

Does that mean static electricity doesn’t stick on light?

No. It merely means that there are coatings whose static charge holding properties are relative to light exposure. It would be rather odd if your GITD paint should display much of a photoelectric effect - the more so as it has been tuned to optimize something entirely different.

[Light Guru]

Thanks.As for scanning (as in digital flatbed scanner) the image, Light Guru, obviously I can't... unless I find a way to turn off the light inside the scanner.

Im fully aware of that, that's why I said just kidding in the post where I suggested scanning.

[Steven Scanner]

Meanwhile I've been Googleing and searching Wikipedia for Xerography and Photoconductivity (that's what the coating does what Sevo mentioned). For now I'm stuck with the photographing after GITD exposure. Unless someone did a DIY science project in school where they demonstrate how a xerox-machine works.

I got the joke Light Guru. But your idea isn't half that bad. When I was working on the flatbed scanner camera, I was looking for a way to turn off the light inside the scanner. There where a few people before me who made a scanner camera that had an altered flatbed scanner where the light was turned off and the row of pinholes removed.
I might not have to turn off the light of the scanner after all. The loading time of the GITD paint might be slower than the scanning speed. I'll have to give it a try, just to exclude the theory.