Film fogging issues with "new flourecent" bulbs...

scootermm · May 27, 2009

For about 4 weeks now, I've had some VERY strange and inexplicable film fogging issues with Efke PL100 and PL50.
I was getting a very weird fogging on the film. It wasn't banding that is sometimes found in Efke/Adox films, it was an even fog covering the entirety of the fill 12x20 and 8x10 sheet. It registered as about 0.45 - 0.65 on the densitometer and as I said, covered the entire sheet. The boxes were brand new and the film still within date.
I tried everything to remedy and determine the problem, mixed up new dev, new fixer, and even used distilled, thinking perhaps my tap water had changed. I tried new trays, ordered new boxes of film, patched the heck out of my camera bellows, etc etc.
All in all I probably exposed and developed 8 sheets of 12x20 and 15 sheets of 8x10 trying to solve the problem.

Nothing seemed to work.

(ironically) a light bulb went off in my head.
I had recently swapped all the light bulbs in my apartment to use the newer coiled high efficiency bulbs. The whole apartment complex had given out free bulbs in order to be "more green".
So naturally I had changed out even the one light bulb in my darkroom and was now using one of the newer energy efficient bulbs.

So I got into the darkroom and let my eyes adjust to the darkness and then looked up at the turned off light bulb and it had a VERY bright glow even tho it had been off for a good 10 mins. In the total "darkness" I took out a sheet of 8x10 film and held it up close to the bulb, dev it real quickly, and bam intense fogging in the middle of the sheet.
Apparently, when I was in total darkness and loading my 12x20 and 8x10 holders, I was actually fogging each and every sheet as I loaded them.
I've since changed out the bulb and voila, no more fogging.

The newer energy efficient bulbs have the possibility of fogging film pretty badly. Be warned.

I didn't see any reference to this in my searches during the problem solving stages, so hopefully I didn't miss or overlook what has already been mentioned.

PBrooks · May 27, 2009

All flourecents do this, also they contain mercury which no good. The smart choice is LED no matter what the cost.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 27, 2009

Thanks for the warning, Matt! And the real world example of one of the problems they constitute.

As mentioned by PBrooks - LEDs will hopefully replace these awful mercury bulbs, and I'd be surprised if they were not. I work for a company that produces LED lighting for commercial buildings, and Wal-Mart in China was one of our test facilities. I saw a sample of those lights and they are VERY bright in a standard workshop fixture. To the point that I had to squint, but at proper distance the light was very neutral. You can get any color you like, and they have an exceptionally long life span, and are as close to 100% efficient as you can imagine. There's very little heat emitted from these (Which presents an interesting problem in states like Minnesota, where they're replacing old traffic lights with LED variants. The snow in the winter doesn't melt on the housing anymore).

I yearn for LEDs coming down in price for my own purposes.

DannL · May 27, 2009

In keeping with traditional methods might I recommend . . .

http://www.alpharubicon.com/primitive/oillampsstryder.html

.

AgX · May 27, 2009

As said above that rather long low intensity `afterglow´ is typical for fluorescent lights. In case this could be strong enough to be harmful for handling unshielded film one could devise some casing or veil for that fixture for those instances.

What struck me some time ago was that an incandescent lamp (Philips, 230V, 40W, G9, UV-free) showed a rather strong afterglow like that of fluorescent lamps. I explained it to me by the UV-shielding bulb. (Philips did not reply on my question on that issue...)

Photo Engineer · May 27, 2009

This afterglow is indeed a problem which has been dismissed even here on APUG as being a myth, but it is true. But, there are fluorescent bulbs that have no afterglow that can be used in the darkroom.

Also, be forewarned that these fluorescents contain mercury which is a powerful fogging agent. If you should break a bulb, a good cleanup is virtually mandatory. Two have broken in our home all on their own. I have bagged them and sealed them to prevent toxic exposure or photographi contamination.

PE

domaz · May 27, 2009

Is the afterglow a property of the bulb or the ballast? I've never heard anyone complain about cold light heads having an afterglow after they are turned on- so I'm guessing it's the ballast?

Bruce Watson · May 27, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
This afterglow is indeed a problem which has been dismissed even here on APUG as being a myth, but it is true. But, there are florescent bulbs that have no afterglow that can be used in the darkroom.

Absolutely. I've got florescents in my house that have afterglow problems, and some that do not. My main ceiling light in my darkroom is a florescent with an electronic ballast. I load film holders right under it, boxes and boxes of Tri-X and TMY-2 without any fogging.

But the high efficiency circline T-5 bulbs with electronic ballasts in my bathrooms glow for a long time after turn off, seems like hours.

The lesson here is to never take anything for granted -- even darkness. Test *everything* to be sure.

Photo Engineer · May 27, 2009

The problem of afterglow is due to the fluorescent material used by the tube. These are called phosphors and resemble those used in TV tubes. Heavy metals assist in fluorescence.

Kodak used Deluxe Cool White bulbs for minimum afterglow and maximum simulation of sunlight. They still had some afterglow IIRC and another type was used in the labs when any were used at all. Most all lights were tungsten for safety.

PE

CBG · May 27, 2009

I've seen fluorescent tubes afterglow too. It's no myth.

Lee L · May 27, 2009

I have used GE Chroma 50 and Philips C50 (both 5000K) 40 watt fluorescent tubes in my darkroom. Both phosphor sets have significant afterglow. I turn them off well in advance of film loading/unloading. I also have some LED cluster bulbs that run off 120VAC. The circuits in these lamps sometimes allow low level current bleed or perhaps run the LEDs for a while from bleeding capacitors in the drive circuitry. So be careful with those types of LED lamps as well.

Lee

Jim Noel · May 27, 2009

cold light heads are not fluorescent - they are neon.

Nicholas Lindan · May 27, 2009

The afterglow is due to the type of phosphor used in the bulb. Traditional flourescents run on 60 cycle AC and flicker on and off 120 times a second. This isn't normally a problem, but some bulb makers use a long persistence phosphor to minimize any strobe-light like effects.

Compact fluorescents operate at several hundred thousand cycles per second, don't have the strobing problem and thus don't require a long persistence phosphor. However, some makers use long persistence phosphor in all their bulbs, I imagine to reduce inventory.

The CFL bulbs I have in the darkroom have no afterglow - I don't know who makes them, they were Costco's brand-of-the-month.

I have had fogging problems from the glow of the red neon light used on power strips - I have these all taped up with electrical tape, along with any LEDs on battery chargers and radios.

You should be able to find a CFL that doesn't exhibit afterglow.

I ambivalent on the subject of CFLs. In the winter, when I am heating the house, they save no energy. However, in the summer they do help keep the house cooler in the evening, and if the airconditioner is going the energy saving is substantial.

BetterSense · May 29, 2009

CFLs and LEDs for that matter have a terrible output spectrum. I refuse to use them in the vicinity of anything photographic and use the Reveal(tm) incandescent bulbs, despite the cost, and the fact that I live in TX. When a more efficient lighting device is invented that isn't inferior in light output, I will switch.

AgX · May 29, 2009

What is so `revealing´ with those special incandescent lamps?
I mean they either have a filter layer (typically bluish) on the bulb or reflector or they filament is chosen in a way that the lamp is overrated for the given voltage, pushing the output to the blue side. Or have I missed something?

Tom Kershaw · May 29, 2009

I have five 100W halogen bulbs in use for white lighting in my darkroom. My most substantial lighting issue is making sure extension board LEDs etc remain taped up.

Tom.

Doremus Scudder · May 30, 2009

Check out the forum here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=22418166 on the spectra of Reveal and similar incandescent bulbs.

For me, good ol' soft-white incandescent bulbs do just fine. CFLs I avoid for a number of reasons. Although more energy-efficient, I can't really believe they are environmentally sound or healthy. Afterglow and fogging is just one more reason not to use them.

What's wrong with the natural, black-body spectrum that our eyes have evolved to react to and compensate for?

Best,

Doremus Scudder
www.DoremusScudder.com

David Brown · May 30, 2009

BetterSense said:
I refuse to use them ... , despite ... the fact that I live in TX.

:confused:

What does living in Texas have to do with it?

JBrunner · May 30, 2009

My biggest beef is the output spectrum. It's hard to make decisions based on viewing under a discontinuous spectrum, especially the combination of greens and magentas that hang around both ends of the CFLs aside from their main output. Flo's are fine for many things, but for judging prints not so good, especially color. My house is entirely CFLs except for the darkroom. I understand the many good reasons to use them, but the most ardent proponents should realize their are situations and applications where they aren't the best.

wildbill · May 30, 2009

A short while ago LADWP (los angeles dept. of water&power) put a "green" bag on everyone's door. It consisted of a green fabric back, two cfl's, a data sheet about cfl's, and little gauge showing how to conserve energy. The data sheet showed the output of the cfl compared to standard incandescent bulbs, the cost ($5+/-) per bulb, and how much you'd save on energy bills. California is supposed to be in financial crisis and they give everyone $10 in fricking cfls made overseas?
I've yet to see a cfl or led made in the usa. How is taking an overseas product likely made in a sweat shop by children and shipping it thousands of miles, green? How many of these bulbs will actually be disposed of properly?

Andrew Moxom · May 30, 2009

cfl's are nasty.... They maybe green to use, but the reason they are made out of the country is the chemicals in them. Imagine the by-product consequences of manufacturing and the fines those companies would get stateside... Much easier to turn a blind eye in the 3rd world or developing countries especially with the cheapness with which they are made. I am against them due to the mercury content. Green in one way and completely 180 degrees in the other when it comes to disposal. We are being fed a crock. I do not find the CFL's last any longer than regular bulbs either and appear to be changing out just as many as I did with regular incandescent bulbs. Once LED's are up to snuff and cheap, that will be the way to go.

Photo Engineer · May 30, 2009

I'll keep saying it! DON'T BREAK ONE IN THE HOUSE!

PE

BetterSense · May 30, 2009

David Brown said:
:confused:
What does living in Texas have to do with it?

In a colder climate, running incandescents wastes no energy, because you are also using energy to heat your house, and the excess heat (all 97% worth) that incandescents produce just takes a load off your heating bills, so incandescents are actually no less efficient than CFLs, possibly more efficient.

But when you live in a hot climate where it's summer 9 months of the year, and you are running your air conditioning, the inefficiency of incandescents gets you coming and going. I might have 500W or more of incandescents going in my house at any time...that's like running a space heater, and the air conditioning at the same time. CFLs make much more sense in hot climates; in cold ones they are actually not more efficient at all.

wildbill · May 30, 2009

We're using them on a job right now, Top Model, for their low power consumption. The problem is that out of the dozens they bought us, several didn't work right out of the box. Then finding the same brand of replacements becomes an issue since different brands/models don't match. Cfl's don't come on instantly, can't be dimmed and they also break pretty easily and aren't durable enough for show business. We had several 4ft ring lights with cfl's that traveled to location in a truck last week and 75% of them were broken. Someone got a pretty nasty gash resulting in 8 stitches.

Photo Engineer · May 30, 2009

You know, this is about the third thread on this in the last 2 years with the same general trend but leaning more against CFFs as time passes and people find their inherent faults. Maybe they should be merged to show the gradual trend from mildly pro to mildly (it seems to me) con.

I hope the guy that got cut also got checked for mercury in the wound.

PE

Film fogging issues with "new flourecent" bulbs...

scootermm

PBrooks

Thomas Bertilsson

DannL

AgX

Photo Engineer

domaz

Bruce Watson

Photo Engineer

CBG

Lee L

Jim Noel

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

BetterSense

AgX

Tom Kershaw

Doremus Scudder

David Brown

JBrunner

Moderator

wildbill

Andrew Moxom

Photo Engineer

BetterSense

wildbill

Photo Engineer

Film fogging issues with "new flourecent" bulbs...

Advertiser

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency