UV glass in negative carrier

Discussion in 'Enlarging' started by michael_r, May 7, 2012.

  1. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,573
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Any reason NOT to use UV glass in a negative carrier (Saunders VCCE diffusion head - quartz halogen)? It's not that I want UV glass per se, just that one of the particular glasses I'm experimenting with only comes a UV coating.

    Is there even a meaningful amount of UV-range light in the system? I'm just wondering because I suppose if there was, and you filtered it out, and further assume enlarging paper sensitivity extends into that range, you'd need longer exposures, or even slightly different filtration with VC papers (need to boost contrast slightly due to filtering of some blue-violet spectrum.
     
  2. Bob-D659

    Bob-D659 Member

    Messages:
    1,300
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Location:
    Winnipeg, Ca
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Shouldn't make a difference, most halogen bulbs made these days already have a UV blocking coating on them already. On the other hand, quartz capsule halogens can put out a lot of UV if you run them hot enough.
     
  3. Sal Santamaura

    Sal Santamaura Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Location:
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    No reason NOT to. In fact, I suspect doing so would be beneficial. Of all enlarger light sources I'm familiar with, halogen lamps are the only ones that emit UV.

    See page 81 of Ctien's Post Exposure


    for the full explanation of why you might experience focus shift with certain enlarging lenses in this situation.
     
  4. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,573
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yeah I started a lengthy thread a while back on here regarding that residual-short wavelength focus shift thing. I ran detailed tests (initial tests posted in the thread) and found zero evidence of it in my system with the papers I use. There was some disagreement in the thread regarding whether the amounts of UV-range light (if any) in quartz halogen systems is anything more than trivial. In the end I'm not sure we answered that particular question.

    I think you're probably right though, I can't see how it would hurt to use UV glass. In fact, I'm just thinking, doesn't the base of TMax 100 filter UV? In the end I guess as long as you standardize for a certain set of equipment you're fine.

    Thanks Bob and Sal. I'll include this particular glass in my experiments.
     
  5. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,483
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Most tungsten/halogen light source in enlargers that I am familiar with have a UV filter somewhere in the system. Maybe incorporated into the light box if you don't see an obvious glass in front of the lamp.
     
  6. Sal Santamaura

    Sal Santamaura Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Location:
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Indeed it does. Yet another reason the glass won't hurt if that's the film you're printing from.
     
  7. chimneyfinder

    chimneyfinder Member

    Messages:
    90
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Location:
    Cardigan, We
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Certainly there is heat absorbing glass in some enlargers - in my Devere condensor head it has a slight green cast - but I don't know if it filters UV as a by product. I suspect there would be no stong reason to suggest that a UV filter would be detrimental to the projected image and I would think it would have good enough optical quality when sandwiched to the negative.
    Regards, Mark Walker.