New Incandescent Bulbs

arigram · Jul 7, 2009

I've read concerns about the disappearance of the old bulb due to the stricter new environmental laws in the EU, US and other countries, which might have an effect in the printing process.
Well, Philips is trying hard to keep their business, so they made some upgrades:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html?_r=1

The question thought still stands: Do we really need this type of lighting to continue with our printing?

Akki14 · Jul 7, 2009

I've been buying quite a few of these halogens-that-look-like-bulbs. They're common enough to be found in supermarkets here in the UK. They're pretty good and I like them because they're bright.
Not sure how they'd be in enlargers because my enlarger already takes a halogen-type bulb (but the sock and pin kind).

PhotoJim · Jul 7, 2009

We certainly can't use compact fluorescent bulbs. They require minutes to warm up to full brightness, and don't have a full spectrum of light which creates issues with colour printing. Also, their lives are very short indeed when they are turned on and off frequently. I would wager that a good percentage of compact fluorescents used today are misused in places like bathrooms, pantries, etc. where bulbs are on and off quickly. (This is true of traditional fluorescents, too; they work best when they are on for a half hour or more each time they are turned on.)

These new halogen-incandescent cross bulbs are interesting, though. I don't see why they wouldn't work well. I think a person would have to reappraise filtration and exposure time, but they ought to work otherwise.

Ektagraphic · Jul 7, 2009

Interesting bulbs...

BetterSense · Jul 7, 2009

I have those in my bathroom. Bulb-in-a-bulb. I imagine the output spectrum is not that of a true blackbody, but peaked at certain spots because of the halogen-ness. Should work ok in an enlarger though.

Anscojohn · Jul 7, 2009

Like Heather, I have used enlargers which operate with halogen bulbs. I do not see a problem.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 7, 2009

AND, right when you switch a CFL or fluorescent tube on they suck more power than incandescent bulbs. I really hope that the standard bulbs stick around, because I print with a condenser enlarger and have no intention to ever switch. I did purchase 10 150W and 5 250W bulbs, just in case. That would give me plenty of time to find an alternative.

- Thomas

PhotoJim said:
We certainly can't use compact fluorescent bulbs. They require minutes to warm up to full brightness, and don't have a full spectrum of light which creates issues with colour printing. Also, their lives are very short indeed when they are turned on and off frequently. I would wager that a good percentage of compact fluorescents used today are misused in places like bathrooms, pantries, etc. where bulbs are on and off quickly. (This is true of traditional fluorescents, too; they work best when they are on for a half hour or more each time they are turned on.)

These new halogen-incandescent cross bulbs are interesting, though. I don't see why they wouldn't work well. I think a person would have to reappraise filtration and exposure time, but they ought to work otherwise.

PhotoJim · Jul 7, 2009

I'm tempted to buy a cache of incandescent bulbs.

I know most people aren't big fans of taxation, but I think a better response to encourage the development of more efficient bulbs would be to tax inefficient ones (and put the tax revenues into lighting research, by all means). That would allow them to stay on the market but drive away all but the most ardent users.

I'm relieved to see some technological development here, though. Perhaps my fears of the bulbs being gone completely were unfounded.

Ralph Javins · Jul 7, 2009

Good morning;

The complaint about incandescent light bulbs is almost amusing. The chief argument is their "efficiency;" they "waste" over 95 percent of their energy as heat. No more than 5 percent of the energy results in light.

To which I reply; "So?" Where are the light bulbs located? They are inside the house. Out here, we normally heat our houses. That energy converted to heat is not "lost;" it stays inside the house and helps also to warm the house. If anything, the major effect is to reduce the "on" cycle time of the heating system, but the overall energy consumed to keep the house inside temperature comfortable for us remains the same. I admit that in Arizona in the summertime, this effect may not be what you want, but up here in the Pacific Northwest, it does come in handy.

As others have pointed out, it may be time to get a few more lamps put away in reserve to keep the old condenser type enlargers going.

Regarding a comment in the New York Times article mentioned, Light Emitting Diodes (LED) are not yet used in "street lights," the high-power lights on poles that light up the roadway surface at night, but they are used in traffic signals at our intersections. In that application, the LED traffic signal displays reduced our electrical power consumption at our intersections by 90 percent. Over their expected lifetime, these traffic signal displays pay for themselves with the saving in electricity. There are some down side arguments to this, though. We no longer go out to each intersection once per year to perform routine maintenance and checking of the traffic signals. That was more than just changing the light bulbs. We also replaced broken parts, missing screws, tightened mounting hardware that loosens in the wind over months of constant vibration, and other things. That preventive maintenance is now lost. The functional reliability of our traffic signals is now somewhat less.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 7, 2009

Ralph Javins said:
Regarding a comment in the New York Times article mentioned, Light Emitting Diodes (LED) are not yet used in "street lights," the high-power lights on poles that light up the roadway surface at night, but they are used in traffic signals at our intersections. In that application, the LED traffic signal displays reduced our electrical power consumption at our intersections by 90 percent. Over their expected lifetime, these traffic signal displays pay for themselves with the saving in electricity. There are some down side arguments to this, though. We no longer go out to each intersection once per year to perform routine maintenance and checking of the traffic signals. That was more than just changing the light bulbs. We also replaced broken parts, missing screws, tightened mounting hardware that loosens in the wind over months of constant vibration, and other things. That preventive maintenance is now lost. The functional reliability of our traffic signals is now somewhat less.

Here in Minnesota where the winters are cold, the old style traffic lights with bulbs had enough heat in them to melt the snow off in the winter. The Light Emitting Diodes don't. So it may become a safety hazard in a snow storm unless they come up with a device to actually melt the snow.

archphoto · Jul 7, 2009

In Holland LED's are used in trafic lights aswell and function great.
If the city decides to lower maintenace rates complaints will follow from the public, however the lights themselves need less replacement and are more reliable.
Using LED's in the darkroom is a thing I want to experiment with when I get to build my darkroom.

Peter

Thomas Wilson · Jul 7, 2009

Ralph Javins said:
Good morning;

That was more than just changing the light bulbs. We also replaced broken parts, missing screws, tightened mounting hardware that loosens in the wind over months of constant vibration, and other things. That preventive maintenance is now lost. The functional reliability of our traffic signals is now somewhat less.

Absolutely correct!!

Having spent the last nine years in the commercial & electrical and lighting industry, I can assure everyone that the unintended consequences of reducing maintenance costs is, by definition, a reduction in maintenance.

This will eventually be measured and calculated in terms of acceptable deaths per mile driven.

Fred De Van · Jul 7, 2009

arigram said:
I've read concerns about the disappearance of the old bulb due to the stricter new environmental laws in the EU, US and other countries, which might have an effect in the printing process.

Do we really need this type of lighting to continue with our printing?

I read that article and was immediately alarmed because the object is to make the bulbs more efficent. The problem will arise with low output applications like safelights. It is already difficult to find incandecent bulbs at less than 40 watts. Safelights are often 25, 15 or even 7.5 watts, and any increased output would create an un-safelight. It is unlikely that anybody would start making new safelights of any kind. We may all have to go to a Thomas, (not necessarily a bad thing and Fred Thomas is an old and dear friend) but they are quite expensive. They are not "incandescent" (as defined by the law) but Freestyle list the replacement bulb alone for one of those at $109.99. With my tight budget I am always in fear of my ancient Thomas needing a bulb replacement.

Thomas Wilson · Jul 7, 2009

Fred De Van said:
We may all have to go to a Thomas, (not necessarily a bad thing and Fred Thomas is an old and dear friend) but they are quite expensive. They are not "incandescent" (as defined by the law) but Freestyle list the replacement bulb alone for one of those at $109.99. With my tight budget I am always in fear of my ancient Thomas needing a bulb replacement.

Fred,
you are correct. The lamps in the Thomas Duplex are not incandescent, they are H.I.D. (High Intensity Discharge).
More specifically, they are Low Pressure Sodium lamps, not to be confused with High Pressure Sodium lamps.

If you can tell me the wattage, I can put you in contact with a distributor who will sell them to you directly. It's probably an 18 watt or perhaps even a 35 watt. Either way, you should not have to pay more than $40.00-$50.00 for one.

Or, just Google: 18 watt low pressure sodium lamp.

eddym · Jul 7, 2009

PhotoJim said:
...I would wager that a good percentage of compact fluorescents used today are misused in places like bathrooms, pantries, etc. where bulbs are on and off quickly. (

You're not married, are you Jim?

ann · Jul 7, 2009

just saw an article in the paper with regard to this issue and it seems that some manufactors are coming up with a bulb that is still tungsen but falls under the new guide line.

i need to go back and read more carefully.

eddym · Jul 7, 2009

Aren't "cold-light" enlarger heads a form of flourescent bulb?

CBG · Jul 8, 2009

Ummm .. If I get it right, all halogens are incandescent - but a special type of incandescent. Halogens have been commercially mislabeled as not incandescent as a way to make the public understand that they are somewhat different from ordinary incandescents. It's sort of like squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All halogens are incandescent, i.e. all rely on a glowing resistive filament, but not all incandescent have the halogen atmosphere that prolongs the life of that filament.

CBG · Jul 8, 2009

I'm stocking up in a big way on photo and household bulbs I will need, and sourcing more energy efficient types wherever possible. Some uses just don't seem amenable to high efficiency bulbs.

Safelights however may be able to go very "green" (pardon the anti-pun). I'm testing "SuperBright" brand LED red bulbs for safelighting. The brightness seems good, but I haven;t tested the fogging yet. So far, just to do other more critical tests, I just stuck the red LEDs behind red safelight filters to be safe.

gmikol · Jul 8, 2009

I love these bulbs. I am slowly replacing traditional incandescents with these. More light and less heat in the fixtures. Also, due to the slightly higher operating temperature of the filament, the color temperature is slightly higher (Philips says 2900K vs. 2800-2850K for a typical 100W soft-white light bulb). It seems small, but it seems noticeable to me.

This is something to keep in mind if you're replacing some other standard-base bulb. With a little more blue in the light, VC papers might shift a bit, so test, test, test...

I'll gladly buy any high-efficiency incandescent bulb that comes out, as long as they're not playing tricks with emissive coatings on the bulbs that would make the output "spiky".

--Greg

archphoto · Jul 8, 2009

As for 15W lamps for darkroom lights: why not use lamps for fridges ?
I have never seen anything other than the traditional incandescents in them.
If your darkroom lamp has a big socket replace it with a small one, it is not that dificult.

My biggest worry right now would be the lamps for the enlarger heads if they do use the "wrong" type of lamp.
Finding a good replacement for them, esp the condensor type could get hard, in a difusor box you would have more options.

Peter

Wade D · Jul 10, 2009

There are LED's mounted in standard sockets which are bright enough to use in the enlarger but they are quite expensive. In my case a diffuser panel would be needed so the condensers wouldn't project an image of the LED's. For now I have stocked up on PH212 bulbs for the old 45M. Maybe in the future someone will invent a fiber optic solution that will store sunlight for use in the enlarger even at night. All of you inventors get busy!

Steve Smith · Jul 10, 2009

Although there are LED theatre type lights (and I have posted about them for enlarger use). Proper theatre lighting is going to be incandescent for a very long time so these types of bulbs will be available.

There are plenty of options here which could be adapted to enlargers: http://www.bltdirect.com/products.php?cat=247&nm=Theatre+Lamps

(or more correctly, have the enlarger adapted to them).

Steve.

AgX · Jul 10, 2009

Here is something official (by the European Commitee) on those bulbs to be banned:

Dead Link Removed

Quote:
Special purpose incandescent lamps (e.g. those used in household appliances such as ovens or
fridges, traffic lights, infrared lamps etc.) are meant to be exempt from the measure, as they
cannot fulfil the efficiency requirements and most of the time there is no alternative lamp
technology.

This of course is only applicable for part of us Apuggers, but as a major market it shows a bit of the direction production will take. Furthermore you would still be able to import banned bulbs I guess.

rmolson · Jul 10, 2009

CLF

I made the mistake of replacing a 15 watt safelight bulb with a 15 watt CLF, ONCE! The output is nearly equal to a 40 or 60 watt lamp. fog city big time! Never again.

New Incandescent Bulbs

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency