AZO Lightsource

bmac · May 22, 2004

I'm finding that my 65w grow light isn't working out too well. My print times are real slow.

Where would you suggest getting a 3002 R40 light? The only one I have sfound so far is at Dead Link Removed for $43 plus shipping. Sounds a little high for a light bulb, but then again, This isnt a standard 60w bulb.

Any leads?

Aggie · May 22, 2004

Brian want a real big supply of light bulbs? I haave I think it is 24 around 5 feet long light tubes that are in my broken un repariable light talbe. If you want them they are yours. I'm taking the rest of it to the dump this weekend.

David A. Goldfarb · May 22, 2004

You can use an ordinary bulb. That's all that Weston had. Lately I've been using a small halogen desk lamp with the UV filter removed, and my times are usually on the order of 15-45 sec.

c6h6o3 · May 22, 2004

http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/productdetail.jsp?xi=xi&ItemId=1611594050&ccitem=

If, for any reason, you can't get the link to work, search on Grainger Item # 2V411.

Hope this helps.

noseoil · May 22, 2004

You might try this one as well. Don had mentioned that he was able to cut his printing times quite a bit with a smaller output of the corrct spectrum of light.

http://www.bulbman.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=135

Donald Miller · May 22, 2004

BLB bulbs such as the F15T8BLB will dramatically reduce your printing times. However, these lamps do not have much visible spectral emission. Incandescent bulbs such as the 65 watt BLB screw in bulb will not work well. Another lamp that will expose Azo is a mercury vapor HID lamp. However these do require a ballast to start the lamp. I use both 300 and 150 watt reflector floods but they have a lot of wasted light since the greatest portion of the light output from these lamps will fall out of the spectrum that exposes Azo.

I am working on developing a light source that will have substantial UVA output and a visible componant as well.

glbeas · May 22, 2004

Possibly used like the Minolta Beseler color head in which there was a separate lamp for focusing. Use of a small white light source between the BLB bulbs may be practical.

Aggie · May 22, 2004

If you want something fantastic for azo, you should check out the new light source head for enlarging azo. I saw it at the LF conference. It's pricy at $1100 for the new enlarger head, but the prints were great. Michael Smith knows the guy. They shared booth space.

Alex Hawley · May 22, 2004

Brian, why not use a standard R40 type reflector bulb? I've been using a 120W screwed into a standard socket about 4 ft above the table. Works fine. Michael Smith has been using a 300W R40 for years.

mark · May 22, 2004

ebay has a good selection of lights. I have been getting my hydroponics bulbs at dirt cheap prices. If I can get a 1000 watt HID bulb for a paltry 45 bucks(last summer's price) I bet others are pretty cheap too.

bmac · May 22, 2004

What SPF would you have to wear while working with a 1000w HID bulb?

mwtroxell · May 23, 2004

I've been using a R40 65w floodlight/bulb in a reflector from Home Depot. I hang it 3 feet above the contact print frame and the times are around 9 - 13 seconds. The bulb cost around $5. I only started printing with Azo this year so maybe I'm missing something but why would you buy a special bulb?

Donald Miller · May 23, 2004

bmac said:
What SPF would you have to wear while working with a 1000w HID bulb?

I wouldn't worry about that. Just change my race to african american.

Donald Miller · May 23, 2004

mwtroxell said:
I've been using a R40 65w floodlight/bulb in a reflector from Home Depot. I hang it 3 feet above the contact print frame and the times are around 9 - 13 seconds. The bulb cost around $5. I only started printing with Azo this year so maybe I'm missing something but why would you buy a special bulb?

My experience seems consistant with most others in that when the density range of the negative is consistant with the exposure scale of Azo paper that the negative exhibits enough density to require fairly lengthy exposure times.

bmac · May 23, 2004

I am beginning to think that the source of my exposure issues is not with my light, but with the glass in my home made print frame. It is 1/4" thick, maybe it is the type that blocks UV... I'll try it with another piece of glass tomorrow.

Brian

glbeas · May 23, 2004

bmac said:
What SPF would you have to wear while working with a 1000w HID bulb?

At work the platemaking units that used UV light sources had curtains to block exposure to the operator. It's also recommended to use yellow UV blocking glasses when working with such bright UV sources, see the dentists office when they UV cure that polymer filling. UV gun has an orange filter ring around it and the operator wears the glasses.
Upshot is if you build a high output UV light source for your alternative processes you really do need to take steps to protect yourself, especially your eyes, from the higher energy light.

noseoil · May 23, 2004

Brian, 1/4" sounds a bit on the thick side. If it is normal float glass, it will reduce the U.V. light quite a bit. Just as an experiment, try using the thinnest glass you can find that is available (single strength window pane), even if it does not give the compression of thicker glass. This may affect print quality adversely, but it will tell you if there is a problem immediately from glass thickness.

What size prints are you making? A sheet from a regular picture frame that is the correct size will work. You could also try leaving one edge of the print and negative exposed to light without the glass, to see about times and exposures as a comparison test.

philsweeney · May 23, 2004

I use a vacuum frame but in the past used 1/4" plate glass with no problem. Yes the 300W lamps are expensive. I use the 45watt reflector lamps at about 12 seconds for most proofs from pyrocat negatives. Some of my ABC negatives, that are technically overdeveloped, require the 300w lamp. For other printing I have a 1000 watt HID installed, you certainly won't need that for AZO.

bmac · May 23, 2004

noseoil said:
Brian, 1/4" sounds a bit on the thick side. If it is normal float glass, it will reduce the U.V. light quite a bit. Just as an experiment, try using the thinnest glass you can find that is available (single strength window pane), even if it does not give the compression of thicker glass. This may affect print quality adversely, but it will tell you if there is a problem immediately from glass thickness.

What size prints are you making? A sheet from a regular picture frame that is the correct size will work. You could also try leaving one edge of the print and negative exposed to light without the glass, to see about times and exposures as a comparison test.

I'll try the regular picture frame glass. I am doing 8x10's with a 65w grow light about 2' above the print frame. 145 second exposures right now. Something is up...

Donald Miller · May 23, 2004

bmac said:
I'll try the regular picture frame glass. I am doing 8x10's with a 65w grow light about 2' above the print frame. 145 second exposures right now. Something is up...

What is the peak density on your negatives? What is your density range on the negative? If the negatives are overexposed and then developed to the proper density range the printing exposure times will be lengthened.

bmac · May 23, 2004

Donald Miller said:
What is the peak density on your negatives? What is your density range on the negative? If the negatives are overexposed and then developed to the proper density range the printing exposure times will be lengthened.

You've got me!

The printing session I did the other night was a simple film speed test. I set up a Kodak Grey Scale target and a grey card, set my meter for 400 (it was TMY) and did exposures at the exposure reading, then +1 and then +2. I did three sheets at each exposure.

I then split them into three batches.

Did one for the time Sandy gave me for Pyrocat and TMY, one at -20% and one at +20%.

There is the distinct possibility that I over exposed the AZO, but with my visual densitometer (my eyes ) I am seeing that with my materials and my processes the negative exposed for Sandy's time with +1 exposure (efs 200) is giving me the negative with the best tonal range from pure white to maximum black.

Not sure where to go next...

mark · May 23, 2004

I have thought about printing with my grow lights. I could get a tan at the same time. Actually, in the reflectors I have, there is no exposure to the bare bulb at all, it is recessed a fair bit. All of the light is reflected down. They would be a good light source because the reflectors are also designed to give even illumination over a specific area. I have the brightest room in the building.

I was not recomending the use of the 1000 watt bulbs but was thinking there are really cheap ways of getting specialty light bulbs. The only exception are BL bulbs.

Donald Miller · May 24, 2004

bmac said:
You've got me!

The printing session I did the other night was a simple film speed test. I set up a Kodak Grey Scale target and a grey card, set my meter for 400 (it was TMY) and did exposures at the exposure reading, then +1 and then +2. I did three sheets at each exposure.

I then split them into three batches.

Did one for the time Sandy gave me for Pyrocat and TMY, one at -20% and one at +20%.

There is the distinct possibility that I over exposed the AZO, but with my visual densitometer (my eyes ) I am seeing that with my materials and my processes the negative exposed for Sandy's time with +1 exposure (efs 200) is giving me the negative with the best tonal range from pure white to maximum black.

Not sure where to go next...

Brian,

I would have to agree that Sandy's tests are undoubtedly accurate. A plus one development would normally be accompanied with the same film speed as a normal exposure (possibly a 1/3 stop increase in film speed...that would indicate an EI 400 to EI 500). I noticed that you indicated an EFS of 200 for a plus one development exposure. Am I understanding that you are adjusting your meter to 200 for exposure calculations? That would seem to me to be overexposing the film by about one stop. Are you using incident or spot metering?

Normally film speed (for exposure calculations) would be adjusted to a higher EI for expansion development and adjusted to a lower EI for contraction development.

If the film is actually being rated at 200 then the overall density would become greater and lead to increased printing times. If, instead, you are rating the film at 400 and using spot metering and placing your shadows on Zone IV then you are also effectively derating the film below the 400 speed since the 400 EI would be based on a Zone I exposure. This increased low value density will have a detrimental effect on obtaining the appropriate density range (contrast) on the negative.

I don't know that any of the above considerations apply to your situation. I am just mentioning them in the event that they may be. I have no experience with a 65 watt grow light. Therefore I don't know what your printing exposure times would most likely be.

PaulH · May 24, 2004

? This is what I use. Cost around $30. (I hope I got the image here. I'm going to post it and see what happens.)

PaulH · May 24, 2004

Gee, it worked! Don't know where the ? came from, though. I got mine from a local electrical supply store.

AZO Lightsource

bmac

Aggie

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

c6h6o3

noseoil

Donald Miller

glbeas

Aggie

Alex Hawley

mark

bmac

mwtroxell

Donald Miller

Donald Miller

bmac

glbeas

noseoil

philsweeney

bmac

Donald Miller

bmac

mark

Donald Miller

PaulH

Attachments

PaulH

AZO Lightsource

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency