Glow in the dark camera.

[Steven Scanner]

Some of you may know, I have build a large format camera with a flatbed scanner behind it.

Here more info about the build:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?84761-New-from-the-Netherlands/page3

I don't have room for a darkroom and to store chemicals needed and I've got a 3 year old daughter running around, so I'm looking for a non-toxic alternative.

The plan is to use a sheet of plywood and cover it with glow in the dark paint. After that, the sheet is placed behind the camera, using it as a film plate. Light travels thru the camera lens, projecting an image on the GITD sheet and creating a temporairy picture. Before the picture fades, I could take a photo with my digital camera. At least, that's the plan.
Right now I'm making something to load a GITD sheet without exposing it to soon to light.

I know it is going to work, sort of. I've tried it before with one of those plastic GITD stars taped to the ground glass and have it exposed for a day. By the end of the day, I had a blurry shape of the tree I was trying to photograph. Probably because of the thickness of the star, the image became blurry. Or to long exposed. I don't know.

And now for my questions:
I've got GITD clear paint. Should I paint the sheet black or white before I apply the GITD paint?
Does two or more coats of paint add to the loading speed?
How long does it take to load the paint and how long does the glow last?
And finally, has anyone ever tried this before or seen it done?

Updates will be posted here.

[Brian C. Miller]

While that could possibly work, how about using Fuji Instant film and a PA-145 holder? You would get far better results, and it is possible to recover the negatives. It should also be possible to keep your kid out of the trash, and not eat the chemical goop.

[Light Guru]

Sounds like a rather complex way to go about things. If your going to just photograph the resulting image with a digital camera yu might as well just use tht digital camera in the first place.

Yes you have a small child but it is not hard to develop film and keep the chemicals away from the kid. Locking the chemicals in a over head cupboard seems much more simple then your runs about way of doing things. Then just scan your negatives.

[C. D. Keth]

Expect very long exposures to charge the plate enough to form much of an image. I'm definitely curious to see what you come up with.

[unixrevolution]

My solution with a kid running around is to dispense with the processing malarky at home and do it at a friend's house, or else send it out to a lab. Certainly less trouble than this GITD sheet business, I'd think, though I'm interested in how the GITD sheet thing will work.

[Roger Cole]

I'm all for innovation but a door lock does wonders. Most people have stuff under their sink or wherever they store kitchen cleaners and insecticides that's more toxic than the vast majority of ordinary home darkroom stuff. Do people move all their cleaners to the neighbor's house because they have a kid, or do they just lock the door to the darkroom or storage cabinet?

[Jim C.]

That's a fascinating idea, I would love to see what your results are.
I did a quick google for GITD paper and there's a few places to purchase it,
if you camera can use a standard film holder ( 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 )
why not buy a few sheets and load them as film, the film holders will
solve your 'exposure' problem, and the pre coated paper will solve your
needing to paint it on.
Here's one source -
http://www.papilio.com/inkjet%20glow%20in%20the%20dark%20media.html

[Steven Scanner]

I have to admit, our 3 year old daughter is the least of my worries. It's the dark room, materials, chemicals. Not being able to go to a random store and buy the stuff I need. And frankly, since ninth or tenth grade school I haven't developed film. Not even 35mm. Courses and clubs about LF-photography and developing techniques are hard to come by these days. But the main reason is that (like others here have stated) it might be possible. And it's not about the destination, but more about the road you travel.

I have made the LF-camera for a previous project, the scanner camera. The dimensions of the back is based on the flatbed scanner I have. Anything standard like PA-145 holder or standard film holder has to be made or ajusted to the camera.

To paint you a picture of what I'm working with, let me run by the materials I used for the camera: Body made from surplus wood I had laying around in the garage, mostly whitewood. The lens is a plastic 8cm magnifying glass I got at a Euro (you might call them Dollar) store. The bellow is black cardboard, hand foulded. At the time of the scanner camera, I held the scanner into place with elastic bands. I have made a mechanical iris out of plywood sheets and black plastic from a folder. The ground glass is a glass plate from a photo frame and I frosted it with a sheet of baking paper. All non conventional materials, but it works, kind of. Total costs, a few bucks. Right now it's just for fun and experimenting.

Yesterday I've painted one coat of GITD paint on a plywood sheet. I have found out that it takes about 15 seconds to load and it lasts for about half an hour. I have to do it again and apply an even coat, because it shows the brush strokes right now. If I have some spare time this evening, I might give it a try.

As for my questions in my first post, I think I have to figure it out myself. But, let's say it works and I do get an image out of it, how can I scale the sensitivity value? (Equivalent of ISO/ASA) I probably need this for calculating the exposure time, apeture size.
I also wonder if you have a way of using a GITD image to create a print. It should be a paper to paper, positive-positive technique. Something like anthotype, but faster.

[Brian C. Miller]

Oooookay, now it's starting to make more sense! I had thought that you had a standard (i.e., commercially manufactured by somebody) view camera. Something that would take a normal film holder and all of that other stuff. So the upshot is that you've created your own beastie. That's not bad, it's just that you've built your own boat and set a course for a distant horizon.

Developing sheet film yourself isn't that difficult, and chemicals can be ordered from a number of places, like B&H Photo-Video or Freestyle. I use my bathroom as my darkroom, and I had to black out the window. Unless you want to develop your film totally in the dark with either trays or hangers, you'll need a tank of some sort. There is the Jobo tank and reel system (recommended), the discontinued HP Combiplan, the Yankee tank (not personally recommended), or the near-unobtainable Nikor stainless steel tank. There are also methods of using the Patterson reel tank with sheet film, including an insert (the name escapes me right now). You'll still need to load the film in the dark, so a closet or big changing bag is a requirement.

If you do decide to get a commercially manufactured camera, there are a large number of them for really cheap. Post a WTB in the For Sale section, and state your price point. Calumet/Cambo/Burke & James 4x5 monorails are available very cheaply, and a lens and shutter that works is also really cheap. Then you can use normal film holders and things like the Fuji PA-145.

[Steven Scanner]

It worked!!!

This is the camera setup I had for tonight.
88236

This is the view thru the ground glass.
88237

And after half an hour exposure time, this is the result.
88238

It took a couple of minutes before I had my digital camera set up. The image faints pretty fast, but just slow enough to take a photo.

[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.

[Steven Scanner]

As for scanning the GITD image, it doesn't work. Nothing but white, leaving an even luminated sheet.

I did managed to make another image. Apple and bananas still life:
88299

I think I overstretched my bellows. It's ripped. Not a huge problem as the bellows was made from black paper/cardboard. Going to have to make a new one soon. I've got the hang of the geometrics of bellow making, so that won't be a problem. Perhaps I'll use a more durable material this time.

[Jim C.]

Do you have any capability of developing film or paper ?

Quick thought is to build a holder that will have your GITD plate and a sheet of
film or paper with a dark slide or two separating the two, expose GITD,
cover the GITD, place the film or paper in position and expose the paper / film
to the glow.

[Light Guru]

Do you have any capability of developing film or paper ?

Quick thought is to build a holder that will have your GITD plate and a sheet of
film or paper with a dark slide or two separating the two, expose GITD,
cover the GITD, place the film or paper in position and expose the paper / film
to the glow.

GITD sheets dont hold the image long enough to expose a piece of film or photo paper.

[Tim Meisburger]

This is really interesting. I think that with long-term exposure even your shadow areas will get charged, so there should be an optimal exposure time, rather than just exposing for as long as possible. But really I have no idea. Keep going, as this is quite fun.

[Steven Scanner]

The time I have to expose the GITD image to something else (like film or paper) is just a matter of minutes. I have a couple of rolls of 35mm film laying around. I could give that a try, although it's not going to be exact. As I don't know exactly how bright the GITD is and don't know how long I have to expose.

The first try with the bright white sugar pot was better than the fruit. The sugar pot really lit up on the GITD paint, while the fruit was a faint picture. The lighting and exposure time was exactly the same. I need to do some metering to determen the exposure time.

[cgrab]

The apple-and-bananas picture is very attractive. Congratulations on your creativity, and all the more, since you built the whole camera from scratch. What kind of paint did you use?
I am probably belabouring the obvious, but from your original post I thought you just wanted to take a digital picture of the image produced by your camera, which could have beeb done by photographing the "ground glass", but it seems you have gone way beyond that.
Christoph

[Jim C.]

GITD sheets dont hold the image long enough to expose a piece of film or photo paper.

If you're quick enough with the right jig I don't see why it wouldn't expose film, paper maybe not, it's been eons since I
did any wet darkroom stuff.

[Steven Scanner]

@cgrab: the paint I used? on the camera I used a mahogany stain. On the plate I used glow-in-the-dark paint from a local store called HEMA. It's more like a thick gel than paint. It's water based so I could easyly dillute it before applying. I'm going to make another plate where I put white paint on first, to create an even surface. The GITD paint is going to be rolled on instead of brushing with a paint brush. I have to have an even coat of paint for the best result.

But first I have to finish the plate holder. If all works well I'll try to make a jig to load strips of 35mm film. (as that is the material I can get my hands on pretty easyly)

This weekend I'll try a daylight exposure.

[unixrevolution]

I like the aesthetic of the images it makes. Ethereal and dreamy but sharp at the same time. It makes you look hard at it, then rewards you for it.

[Steven Scanner]

Thanks unixrevolution (Oh, I should call you Erik), it does look like something I've never seen before. The apple with banana's photo was just enough exposed to see a faint image. A 30sec shot with my DSLR managed to record an image.

Today I had a spare half an hour to try daylight exposure. Either half an hour is to much time or I over exposed it while taking out the GITD plate. I've got to finish the plate holder first.

[Sevo]

Today I had a spare half an hour to try daylight exposure. Either half an hour is to much time or I over exposed it while taking out the GITD plate.

Probably the latter (i.e. ambient pollution). As the GITD paint lose stored energy, they'll pretty much behave like filling a sieve with water - it will be peak exposure intensity (and fast read-out) that matters, not duration, and any exposure times longer than the time it takes to lose half the charge after being flashed are effectively wasted.

[unixrevolution]

Probably the latter (i.e. ambient pollution). As the GITD paint lose stored energy, they'll pretty much behave like filling a sieve with water - it will be peak exposure intensity (and fast read-out) that matters, not duration, and any exposure times longer than the time it takes to lose half the charge after being flashed are effectively wasted.

Okay, silly idea.

What if you mounted a small digital still camera to the front standard inside the bellows, just above or below the lensboard? Take the exposure, then as soon as the shutter's closed, take a photo with the internal digital camera and a remote release on some pre-set focus distance and manual or autoexposure. It may have a little unwanted extra perspective, but you'd get a picture of the just-taken photograph at maximum intensity.

I mean, why bother taking it to a dark place to photograph it, losing intensity all the way, when it's already in a dark place? Even my 4x5 monorail has space inside for a compact digital camera.

[Steven Scanner]

I like silly idea's. :)
That is a good practical idea. However, I've got a view camera. It can tilt, shift, rise and fall. So placing the digital camera on the lens board requires ajusting the board before I take a digital photograph. My plan is to build a box where I can slide the film cartridge in on one end and place a DSLR on the other end. All light tight. Eventually, I'm looking for a way to use the GITD technique to make an analogue image.

[Vincent Pidone]

Any scanner that can scan transparencies does it by turning off the internal light and switching on a light in the scanner's lid.

Find a used or cheap scanner that can handle transparencies and leave the lamp in the lid covered and you can scan your glow in the dark paint.

[unixrevolution]

I like silly idea's. :)
That is a good practical idea. However, I've got a view camera. It can tilt, shift, rise and fall. So placing the digital camera on the lens board requires ajusting the board before I take a digital photograph. My plan is to build a box where I can slide the film cartridge in on one end and place a DSLR on the other end. All light tight. Eventually, I'm looking for a way to use the GITD technique to make an analogue image.

Wouldn't printing your GITD image on analog media take you right back to your problem of not wanting to keep darkroom chemicals around?

I do like the DSLR box idea. I just thought with the digicam inside the camera you could avoid as much loss of luminance from the GITD paint as possible.

Regarding the scanner idea, Vincent: Do transparency scanners use the whole scanning bed?

My solution in that case would be to get a *very* cheap flatbed scanner and clip the leads to the lamps.

[Vincent Pidone]

Unix,

It depends on the scanner.

The width of the lamp in the lid is the issue.

Based on price: cheap ones do 35mm and maybe 2 1/4 by however long the scanner bed is .

Mid range will do 4x5" (4 inch wide lamp), and expensive ones will do 8x10" (8" lamp).

I suspect that you could try a 35mm transparency scanner with the lid removed and provide your own lamp.

Maybe only some of the sensors work for transparencies, I'm not sure.

It might be worth checking for the several threads about building a scanner based camera back, as they have probably tested this stuff already.