Sounds good to me. I am considering a similar setup and actually growing some plants inside, no not those kind of plants, can't smoke the weed anymore.
If this system could also work for alt process printing, that would be fantastic.
Please update as you get it working.
Originally Posted by adelorenzo
Not that much "UV" coming out ... super blue, yes (410-430nm ... not UV in my book, starts at <400nm) ... the real UV LED's are still expensive and they have even less output.
This said, super actinic + 365/395nm UV should be an interesting combination for alternative printing. But fluorescents are still less expensive when it comes to photons/$.
A couple of pics of a little exposure box. It uses three 1w 395nm leds. No science in making one 30 times more powerful.
In one issue of the Post Factory Journal Judy Seigel ran a test to determine light distribution of tubes. In the final test she put black tape on every other tube and laid teh coated paper directly on the tubes. When developed there was no evidence of banding. As a result, I lowered my tubes to 1" above my printing frame to speed up printing time. I have nver had a problem with banding.
So, yes what you are looking at should work very well.
So I ended up going with one of these Virtual Sun six bulb T5 units that cost about $150 delivered to my door in Canada (via eBay). I spent another $100 on four ATI True Actinic bulbs.
The nice thing about this unit is that the two outer bulbs are on their own switch. Right now I am only doing 8x10 so I just use the inner section of four bulbs. I set it up on a couple of cardboard blocks that came with the packaging and slide my printing frame underneath, the print is probably sitting about 3-4 inches from the light source. Add a couple of more bulbs and you've got a unit that can do up to 16x20 prints for less then $300.
So far the results have been excellent. I've just done a few salt printing experiments so far but I'm planning to try Kallitypes in the near future.
This is a really good find, thanks! Do you think there would be any benefit to switching to blacklight bulbs?So I ended up going with one of these Virtual Sun six bulb T5 units that cost about $150 delivered to my door in Canada (via eBay). I spent another $100 on four ATI True Actinic bulbs.
The nice thing about this unit is that the two outer bulbs are on their own switch. Right now I am only doing 8x10 so I just use the inner section of four bulbs. I set it up on a couple of cardboard blocks that came with the packaging and slide my printing frame underneath, the print is probably sitting about 3-4 inches from the light source. Add a couple of more bulbs and you've got a unit that can do up to 16x20 prints for less then $300.
So far the results have been excellent. I've just done a few salt printing experiments so far but I'm planning to try Kallitypes in the near future.
I'm glad I saw this. I needed to make a UV box for upcoming demos that I will be doing t museums in the future. This is so much less of a hassle than building one. 6 bulbs shipped to me are only 130 and the unit is 120. So for $250.00 I have a nice unit that I can do carbon prints with. All the sizes I shoot. I'll just use it for 8x10's for now. Thanks for this info!
Before you make, consider the Arista UV units at Freestyle. They are well made and work very well. I have the 16x20 version. All metal construction, don't get hot and have very even illumination. I think they are worth the investment if you are going to do a lot of alt processes.
From what I've read the blacklight (UV) bulbs would give faster printing times but the actinic bulbs may give better contrast. I based my choice on this article by Sandy King:
http://sandykingphotography.com/reso...s-for-printing
That's what I figured too. By the time you buy all the ballasts, bulbs, and then build a box you're looking at a lot of time and money.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks