Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,540   Posts: 1,544,300   Online: 889
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Amund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    902
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Peters
    I emailed jandc and they recommended 40-60 watts about 5 feet away for starters....I ordered some of the nuance and will report my comparisions with AZO on the forum.

    Wow,if so, it means that Nuance is almost as slow as Azo, with regular enlarging paper even a 15w bulb is too strong.
    Contact printing with a strong light source makes it easier to see the negative when dodging and burning.
    Amund
    __________________________________________
    -Digital is nice but film is like having sex with light-

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    360
    Well, with AZO I am using a 150 watt - 300 watt so...I think the AZO is much slower, but will report back on my findings.

  3. #13
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,179
    Images
    6
    40-60 watts @ 5 ft. would yield intolerably long exposure times with Azo. Nuance is, after all, enlarging paper albeit slow enlarging paper it would seem. But in no way is it in the same ballpark as Azo. I use a 300 watt R40 photoflood 3 ft. from the paper and some of my negatives need more than 1 minute of exposure.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    360
    Yes, 300 watt azo, 40-60 nuance....not in same ballpark.....

    Also, timing depending upon heaviness of stain/developer use.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3
    40-60 watts @ 5 ft. would yield intolerably long exposure times with Azo. Nuance is, after all, enlarging paper albeit slow enlarging paper it would seem. But in no way is it in the same ballpark as Azo. I use a 300 watt R40 photoflood 3 ft. from the paper and some of my negatives need more than 1 minute of exposure.

    I have never used Nuance so can not compare it in tems of printing time to AZO. However, I print AZO with a 60 watt RD-40 flood 3 ft from the printing frame and my exposures are in the 20 second range for well exposed and developed negatives. For printing enlarging papers (Ilford Galerie) I substitute the RD-40 with a 7.5 watt bulb plus ND filtration of 0.60 and printing times are in the 20 second range.

    For purposes of comparison it would be helpful if printing times with a specific bulb were stated in terms of some standard, say a Stouffer transmission step wedge. There is a pretty wide range in how people expose for shadow density and this can create a difference of two or more stops in printing time.

    Sandy

  6. #16
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,179
    Images
    6
    I'm not really interested in comparing them as long as I know roughly what power bulb to buy. I'll get the lowest wattage R40 I can find. If that's too hot I'll diffuse it with something.

    I think we can all agree that my 300 watt combination light source and space heater is not an appropriate choice for contact printing on Nuance.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Yorkville, Il
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    324
    I have a box of various wattage bulbs I keep hidden so no one else in the house uses them for the actual intended use.

    Mike

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