Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,587   Posts: 1,545,836   Online: 1132
      
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    61
    Images
    2

    dumb one, reason I cant use an enlarger

    hoke-dok.. any or (what is) the reason that an Enalrger cannot be used to print the Albumen-Silver Nitrate prints ? :o

  2. #2
    David William White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,182
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    32
    Speed of emulsion is WAY too slow. You'd need to leave the enlarger on for...like...a week.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Because the emulsion is sensitive primarily to UV light, something that a conventional enlarger with a tungsten or even a cold cathode lamp does not produce in sufficient quantities.
    Frank Schifano

  4. #4
    David William White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,182
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    32
    ^ better answer

  5. #5
    23mjm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Rocklin, California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    450
    Images
    9
    What if you rig a UV light source into an enlarger???? Would that work.

    Danger this posting was just out of curiosity!!!

  6. #6
    David William White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,182
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    32
    Lots of threads on UV boxes, as these alt processes are generally contact prints. I don't know if you could get enough UV illumination into such a small place without frying your negative in the process. Contact prints seems to be the way to go, and it seems so much easier to use the enlarger to make an enlarged negative for contact printing, either on traditional film, on ortho/litho film, or even on paper negatives (a la Fox-Talbot).

    UV boxes still require long exposures, 20 minutes, one hour, etc., but they do give you consistency from session to session from the same contact negative. However, backyard sunlight is still much faster, way cheaper, more fun, and is the traditional way these things were done.

  7. #7
    23mjm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Rocklin, California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    450
    Images
    9
    Thank you for the answer---it was just curiosity--I can't ever find time to do traditional darkroom stuff now--let alone try something new.

  8. #8
    tim_walls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Croydon & Leeds
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,037
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by 23mjm View Post
    What if you rig a UV light source into an enlarger???? Would that work.

    Danger this posting was just out of curiosity!!!
    Off the top of my head, I think you'd struggle with focusing - the thought has crossed my mind before now as well, though! Making internegs/enlarged negatives for contact printing alternative processes is very much on my to-do list, but being able to use the enlarger directly would be rather convenient

    (I'm assuming that focusing with a regular bulb and then switching in a UV bulb and keeping the focus the same wouldn't work because the focus at UV wavelengths will be different from visible, but I've no idea if that assumption is true...)
    Another day goes under; a little bourbon will take the strain...

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    61
    Images
    2
    LOL, only a week eh!!
    Ok, I thought it was indeed realted to UV, I should read up on how regualr enlarging paper differs. I have access to a UV box at school, and of course to the Sun (If I behave myself). hehe.

    Thanks for the replies to my dumb question!!

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by tim_walls View Post
    Off the top of my head, I think you'd struggle with focusing - the thought has crossed my mind before now as well, though! Making internegs/enlarged negatives for contact printing alternative processes is very much on my to-do list, but being able to use the enlarger directly would be rather convenient

    (I'm assuming that focusing with a regular bulb and then switching in a UV bulb and keeping the focus the same wouldn't work because the focus at UV wavelengths will be different from visible, but I've no idea if that assumption is true...)
    Not only the focus problem. The enlarging lens itself would block most of the UV radiation even if you could manage to generate enough of it up top. Greater minds than ours have thought this out many times over, I'm sure. If there were a way to do it, I suspect that we old timers would have heard about it.

    As an aside, there are specialty taking lenses designed especially for UV photography. They are very rare, and very expensive, and require "substantial" amounts of UV radiation. See this link and this for information on the UV Nikkor 105.
    Last edited by fschifano; 04-06-2009 at 03:09 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Frank Schifano



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin