Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,985   Posts: 1,523,961   Online: 835
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,412
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Loris Medici View Post
    you actually don't need to know the absolute UV energy at all, why would you?

    Regards,
    Loris.
    No of course we don't need to know. I would just like to know because I have this meter and well... why not encourage such an investigation if someone's willing to do it?

    I think it might be an interesting way to compare different carbon tissues in a far less empirical manner. Afterall... "we have the technology"

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    640
    Working in arbitrary units isn't "empirical" at all; you still do it by the numbers and in an exact manner... Working with a light integrator is much more absolute and exact than using a UV lightmeter (in the context of exposing UV sensitive material that is...); UV meters can measure the UV energy at a specific "point" of time whereas light integrators do it for the "whole time continuum / range" of the exposure (think of exposing in sunlight with a mackerel / buttermilk sky and lots of wind...), and in my book that's more exact. (Again, where the context is exposure...) Besides, let me remind that sometimes (often, in the context of alt-processes...) you can't rely on someone else's "absolute" numbers at all! Don't get lost in minute details, you need to see the whole picture... (For instance; in carbon printing, there are a myriad of details which has to be taken into account / that will affect the end result such as: The type / hide source / bloom / batch / percentage / volume per given area of gelatin, type / make / amnt. of the pigment, type / strength / application method of dichromate, drying time / RH, tissue support / final support ect. ect. Unfortunately, you simply can't fix them all so that they're identical to someone else's. Therefore & again, what's the point?)

    Regards,
    Loris.
    Last edited by Loris Medici; 02-07-2012 at 05:49 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Changed the place of an explanation for sake of clarity, then added a last note

  3. #13
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,156
    Images
    46
    Wait. A light integrator is likely to be an expensive piece of equipment attached to an expensive vacuum-frame/UV light source device.

    So a UV "light meter," if it is cheap enough, and if used on a fairly clear, sunlit day with a glass frame...

    This might be a reasonable system.

    I would add a Stouffer step wedge to any system. With a step wedge, you can tie in the results of any try to the next attempt.

  4. #14
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,412
    Images
    2
    Thank you Bill for seeing some potential in all of this. The light meter I bought is $180 new, but I found it on eBay for $40. Not bad, and there are lesser units out there; specifically those aimed at sunburn/skin-cancer prevention.

    Loris, certainly working from an integrator isn't empirical, but few people are using these. Instead they're probably using fluorescent bulbs, mercury lamps, the sun, etc, and to use these you must rely on experience, as bulbs age & the wind blows. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and obviously it's been working pretty well for the last 160 years.

    But the fact that alt.process printers can't say, on average we need X millijoules/cm² of UV to expose this process, seems like a gap in our understanding (and perhaps nothing more). Dependant on the factors you mentioned, certainly there will be wide variability, but wouldn't you like to know the extremes?

    I don't disagree with your points at all, I just don't see the point of being so critical. Scientists the world over study the most minute minutia imaginable, and after a while it all adds up to something meaningful.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    640
    I didn't mean to be critical in a negative sense, just wanted to point out it's useless for practical matters: See, even if we were able to say "we need X millijoules/cm² of UV to expose this process" that wouldn't mean much, because the needed energy would still depend on a myriad number of additional parameters - which may be impossible / impractical or not wanted to reproduce... That's my point.

    Regards,
    Loris.

  6. #16
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,624
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Loris Medici View Post
    ...See, even if we were able to say "we need X millijoules/cm² of UV to expose this process" that wouldn't mean much, because the needed energy would still depend on a myriad number of additional parameters - which may be impossible / impractical or not wanted to reproduce... That's my point...Loris.
    That was my thought, too. It is difficult to talk to other carbon printers about the finer details as our pigments, pigment load, sugar load, sensitizing techniques (and strengths), our negatives, type and age of the UV bulbs, etc. are all over the place.
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  7. #17
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,156
    Images
    46
    One of the things that makes daylight unattractive as a UV source is its inconsistency.

    Would it be useful to read the meter and say 'Yup - light's good and strong today - think I'll try 15 minutes'?

    By keeping notes of the meter number and the times, pretty soon you can work up a chart for the materials you are working with.

    Then any day... you can check your chart for the basic time that goes with the meter reading.

    When I use a meter in the darkroom, I use it for only one purpose: To set the aperture so I get a base time for my test strip around 32 seconds. I think this kind of attitude towards the meter would be appropriate... Use it to get in the ballpark.

  8. #18
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,412
    Images
    2
    Well I think we're all in agreement in reality. Truth be told, I just think it'll be interesting to know roughly the exposure requirements and compare it to say, holography. (that's what led me to mJ/cm² in the first place)

    Also, we can say, well Vaughn's tissue requires 250 mJ/cm², and Loris' only requires 175... and ask why is that? Right now our only option is to say, well, I expose it from for 20 minutes from 3 feet away from 24 black-lights under a contact frame with 1/4" soda-lime glass and the relative humidity is always 60% and behind the bulbs I've sprayed Krylon's metallic luster paint which has a reflectance of about....

    aaggh!!!

    So, I just want to see what a little regularity might bring to the understanding of carbon and other processes. And if people ever take aims to increase sensitivity, we'll need to have a benchmark.

    Ultimately though, like Bill says, being able to step outside and get in the ballpark is probably the most useful thing you could do with one of these meters.

  9. #19
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,372
    Images
    4
    nuArc and other graphic arts integrators aren't calibrated in any sense other than they are set to count down at around 1 second/unit with a fully warmed new lamp. A 1KW unit counts down at 1 second/unit and a 6KW unit counts down at 1 second/unit - a 6:1 variation in what a unit is equal to. However, given that lamps are consistent when new it is possible to transfer exposure information between like models.

    Sunlight is very constant - 1 KW/square meter is known as 'the solar constant'. Of course it changes with time of day - but between, say, 10:00 am and 4:00 pm [more in summer] exposure times will be very consistent. Be sure to keep the printing frame pointing directly at the sun. Clouds attenuate UV less than they do visible light so exposures will be about the same with hazy clouds. Moving clouds and heavy cloud cover can be problematic. You can, as Bill mentioned, correlate exposure meter readings to UV exposure times for cloudy days even though an exposure meter doesn't read UV.

    UV monitors for sunbathing aren't very accurate - they pretty much tell you the UV is high, medium or low, something one can see for oneself. I tried using one for cyanotypes and the results were pretty miserable.

    Interestingly the ratio of UV to visible light is highest when the sun is just below the horizon - that isn't to say there is a lot of UV, just as there isn't a lot of visible light. The UV is scattered from the sky overhead and it is also polarized. The combination makes for very saturated colors when photographing flowers.
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    ...
    So, I just want to see what a little regularity might bring to the understanding of carbon and other processes. And if people ever take aims to increase sensitivity, we'll need to have a benchmark.
    ...
    Sorry but understanding carbon has nothing to do with the mJ/cm2 value of your UV light; it's all about knowing the principles of the system (in whole) and working out the optimum parameters / workflow that gets well with you and your materials, plus, which also gives the technical excellence / artistic results you're after... The more you get into minute details the more you move away of understanding the process as a whole. Just print, and print, and print; knowing the key parameters / principles and a couple of real printing trials / good note taking is worth thousands pages of nonsense theory! (Don't get me wrong; I'm a computer programmer and I also do a lot of operations research at work. I like math and models a lot, BUT, as a matter of fact, past a certain level, math and models can't give you what real / hands-on experience can bring; alt-process printing is mostly intuitive, rather than being strict / rigid / theoretical / reasoned / calculated...)

    Regards,
    Loris.
    Last edited by Loris Medici; 02-09-2012 at 03:59 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Fixed a couple of typos...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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