What is the aversion to using a proper safelight?

[Roger Cole]

Yes, that was the point! I see this all the time - these false economies of photography. Photography is not unlike many, if not most, other hobbies, it costs some money. There are ways to save, of course, but some of them - again, in my opinion - are not wise. Safelights, obviously. Old, outdated film and paper, with an unknown history, because it's 50 cents cheaper. That sort of thing. How many threads have we seen about "what can I get at Home Depot to use for prints trays"? Because print trays are so exotic and rare (and thus, expensive) apparently.

As my sig line said in the old days: Photography is not for the faint of wallet.

Cheers, y'all.

That used to be true of outdated film or paper. Now it's often the case that we pay MORE for it, just because it's AVAILABLE. I have a nearly full box of 4x5 E100SW in my freezer, dated 2006 but frozen since new and I think it's good - I'll find out soon when I develop the first sheets. I have packs of both Panalure and Ektalure in my freezer, both necessarily outdated but I bought them at more than they cost new because they aren't available new. Ektalure I wanted to try because I've heard how good it is, the Panalure (the later Panalure II) I've used for printing color negs in black and white and know it works very well for me. Alas, no one makes such a paper any more.

Print trays actually DO get expensive when you get into large sizes. I have regular trays but when I wanted to step up to 16x20 I did look for what I could use. Anything I found that would work was going to cost as much as store brand trays from Freestyle so I bought those. But they do become both more expensive and more rare as sizes go up.

Photography is not extremely cheap, but nor is it all that expensive compared to the things people also spend money on. One thing about having a really expensive hobby (which photography is not) is that it makes all your others look cheap.

[Ken Nadvornick]

Yes. I've used a Thomas Duplex in my darkroom for over 20 years with no adverse effects.

That's why I questioned your results.

Understood.

But one does not need "skilled and trained technicians using calibrated equipment" to detect red, green or blue light. Afforded sufficient intensity, your eyes are already calibrated to do that. And I trust your skill—and honesty—to make that simple observation.

When you performed the observation did you see any red, green or blue components in the overall output spectrum?

I'm genuinely curious about this...

Ken

[Ken Nadvornick]

Leigh??

The reason I'm asking is that for the last several years every time the topic of safelights has come up—and it's does so repeatedly as new people decide to start darkrooms—I have been giving this same advice for sodium and LED safelights. I am also acutely aware that APUG is an often used and excellent searchable reference for real-world information and advice. I use it frequently myself for this very purpose. So it becomes very important that the information and advice we all give is as accurate as possible.

If someone should challenge me on some point because they think I may be wrong, or because they think they have a better solution, then it becomes my responsbility to revisit my conclusions to verify that I am not in error (which I did last evening by rechecking my Duplex before replying to you), or verify that their way is indeed better. And if I am wrong I must then raise my hand and correct my error to save people any possible grief (or wasted money) down the road.

So... if your answer is that you observed and saw no other colors, then something else in my system may be causing me to be the outlier and I must find out what that is and probably revisit my standard safelight advice. I do realize that my observations have taken place on only a single discharge tube.

But if your answer is that you observed and can confirm my observations, then you, me and Professor Niece make three concurring results and therefore increase the chances that the effect is more general in nature, and that the standard advice need not be revisited and is still worth taking.

It basically just boils down to integrity.

Ken

[Leigh B]

Hi Ken,

No, I did not do the test that you described in #51.
I don't use the safelight without the filters installed, so the results would be irrelevant.

- Leigh

[Ken Nadvornick]

I thought you did, based on your direct answer in #58 to my direct question in #57. Sorry, my mistake.

Could you try it for me, please?

It takes only a couple of minutes. Testing without any filters will factor out the effects of filters that are old, faulty, incorrect, or recycled. In other words, if there is no green or blue light emanating from the bare bulb to begin with, then there can be no safelight-induced paper fogging by that mechanism. Unless the sensitizing dyes in the paper are faulty, and I'm guessing that's not the case.

This information would be of direct value to new darkroom workers considering a Duplex, since these safelights are now discontinued and only used ones are generally available on the market.

It really is a very, very quick and easy visual check.

Thanks Leigh,

Ken

[Leigh B]

Ken,

I will not do the test as described because...
1) The light is not used with the filters removed, so the results would be meaningless; and
2) The safelight is mounted to the ceiling in an area that is not readily accessible without removing cabinetry and plumbing,
so removing and re-installing the internal filter would take most of a day.

- Leigh

[Ken Nadvornick]

I will not do the test as described because...

Or...

3) You already did the test and can't bring yourself to raise your hand and talk about what you saw.

(Your Duplex looks very easily accessible here. The pull chain for the adjustable vanes is visible at the top, just right of center. No surrounding cabinets or plumbing appear to need removing at all. But I guess you have your reasons. Or will now find some new ones.)

And so with your above flat out refusal to supply any observations to the contrary to support your challenge, my original observation regarding the fogging tendencies of LPS tubes, and my workaround advice to mitigate that fogging, stands.

Sadly, you and I have been down this road before.

Ken

[Leigh B]

How dare you call me a liar, asshole.

You're not worth a lie.

[Ken Nadvornick]

Nevertheless, it is what it is.

I gave you every opportunity to back up your snarky challenge, and you wouldn't—or couldn't—do it. Even carved out a face-saving context for you retreat into, if need be. Now you're trying to shift the subject into something where you're the victim? Sorry. Perhaps a nice technique in formal debates or political discourse, but it won't work in this context. Facts are, sometimes inconveniently, facts.

My characterizations stand.

And my apologies for this mess to anyone still following this thread. I really did try to take the high road and give every benefit of the doubt. But trying to engage intellectually with some people is like trying to clean up spilled mercury with a fork. Very very frustrating, and in the end not much gets accomplished anyway.

(You may have the last word, if you feel you need it. Please try not to make it foul-mouthed...)

Ken

P.S. As I was typing this I received a PM from another APUG individual. I won't identify that individual, but here is a quote (see chart #S8 at the bottom of the linked page):

"If you look at this image, you can see a small green and blue component, as well as a moderate red spike in the IR region:

http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Documents/SO%20Spectral.htm

These probably derive from the neon and argon gas which are included in the tube to help start it up. From my own experience with low pressure Na tubes, they definitely start with a pinkish/purple glow. I've also examined the lamps with a diffraction grating and spectroscope, and have seen green and blue emission lines, as well as the sodium doublet."

Please note that final sentence. It is what it is, Leigh...

[polyglot]

Absolutely true.

That's why the references I gave were real-world tests run in laboratories under controlled conditions, by
skilled and trained technicians using calibrated equipment.

Not their eyeballs in a basement.

- Leigh

You're talking about perfect sodium emissions, not Thomas Safelight emissions. Clearly (from the multiple independent observations of several other strong lines) it's likely that the Thomas bulbs have more than just sodium in them, e.g. due to contamination while filling or other gases used to permit easier starting.

If an eyeball in a basement can observe the additional lines, they've got to be pretty significant in magnitude.