It might be "voodoo", notice the obnoxious quote marks, but the OP had a problem with bad prints and the new bulb fixed it. Bulbs are $12 and paper is $2 a sheet, using fresh bulbs is a no-brainer....EC
Is it usually the bulb? I'm having a similar issue with a beseler, except I'm getting into the couple of minutes to tens of minutes for exposures. I don't think the negatives are particularly dense or fogged for that matter, and I'm not really sure why I'm getting such long times for any of them.
Is it usually the bulb? I'm having a similar issue with a beseler, except I'm getting into the couple of minutes to tens of minutes for exposures. I don't think the negatives are particularly dense or fogged for that matter, and I'm not really sure why I'm getting such long times for any of them.
It might be "voodoo", notice the obnoxious quote marks, but the OP had a problem with bad prints and the new bulb fixed it. Bulbs are $12 and paper is $2 a sheet, using fresh bulbs is a no-brainer....EC
The OP did not post that he had "bad prints", his only complaint appears to be extremely long exposure times.
I certainly enjoy quick printing times - I often print 4x5 at 20x24 and the times can get rather long. A fresh bulb where there is no tungsten metal vacuum deposited on the inner surface of the bulb can certainly help keep times short.
But I'm still interested in how you projected bad prints and a loss of "sparkle" into this situation.
Looking inside the LPL 7700 I use, I see a Philips Photocrescenta 240v 75w bulb. Searching the web for replacement bulbs I see a UK ebay seller offering what appears to be the same style of bulb but from a different manufacturer. Were I to decide to replace the current bulb, can anyone with experience say if the ones at the link are just as good? Are the Philips bulbs still made?