Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,775   Posts: 1,484,484   Online: 881
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,301
    [quote="sanking"]
    What I wanted to do was point out that these tubes are in fact highly efficient in printing alternative processes.

    All alt.processes ?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    [quote="roy"]
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    What I wanted to do was point out that these tubes are in fact highly efficient in printing alternative processes.

    All alt.processes ?

    Yes, the BLB tube is efficient with all alternative processes, at least all that require UV light for exposure.

    For efficiency (= printing speed) with iron processes (Cyanotype, Pt/Pd, Kallitype) I rank light sources as, 1) BL, 2) SA,/AQUA, 3) BLB, and 4) NuArc 26-1k.

    For efficiency (= printing speed) with dichromated colloids, 1) BL, 2) BLB, 3) SA,/AQUA, and 4) NuArc 26-1k.

    The difference is due to the fact that the iron processes have some sensitivity in the 410-30 nm range, and the BLB filters all light above about 407 nm whereas the SA and AQUA put out quite a bit of radiation in this range. With dichromated colloids, on the other hand, virtually all of the useful radiation is below 400 nm.

    The BL is the best all-around tube for alternative printing, and is usually less expensive than the BLB, but the actual difference in printing speed is extremely small. And I will say this again, the peculiar nature of the BLB light highlights dust and lint particles and makes them easy to see and remove. I would say without question that in my case the use of the BLB (and I switched from BLs) has lead to less dust spots on my prints.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    North of Calgary, Alberta. Canada
    Posts
    166
    Hi folks,

    Recently I attended a workshop with Ian and viewed some of his cyanotype prints. He has properly convinced me to try contact printing my 4x5 negs with the cyanotype process (less expensive) as a learning step before attempting to do Pt/Pd printing when my kit arrives at Christmas.

    My question is can I use my Richeson brush (read expensive ...perhaps just for Pt/Pd brush) for the cyanotype testing....

    or..... should I just use another cheaper brush that I already own for experimenting?

    Kind Regards,
    Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

  4. #14
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  5. #15
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,280
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    I picked up a set of brushes in a kitchen supply store - the type used for greasing pans and such. I expected to be able to discard them after use (van Dyke, salted paper, cyanotype), but they clean easily, too. Total cost about $1 for 3 brushes...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    405
    Images
    7
    Jim,

    since you know what my prints look like you can judge for yourself if cheap paint brushes work well enough.

    Although I actually prefer slightly used brushes.. gives rougher brushing which is something I like.

    cheers,
    Ian

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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