Which paper are you using for testing? I know some of them (Slavich, for example) specifically state that only red light is safe. For those I use a DIY 635nm red LED safelight.
Your description sounds thorough and correct to me. Is your tape lifting up from the heat perhaps? Is it truly opaque? I suppose you could try temporarily covering the outside of the outer filters with some taped down red Rubylith. What you need to find is some level of baseline configuration that works so you can then work backwards from that to isolate the problem.
Ken's right, something sounds outta whack. Sorry to be mr obvious, but, any reason to not buy this? Sorry if you're aware of this, but if not...
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/42135-Thomas-Bandamp-W-Safelight-Filter-Set-(FBD)
Dear Sundowner,
Probably a stupid suggestion on my part but are you sure the fogging is from the safelight rather than another source?
Neal Wydra
The filters are wrong. The pair on the moveable vanes should be two sheets of the Rosco #19 with diffusion, but the bottom pair should be a sheet of Rosco #3406 and #3407 with diffusion. This matches the filters that are sold commercially for this safelight.
I dunno' Greg. For b&w all I use is a single layer of Roscoe #19 Fire between glass sheets without any diffusion. The Roscoe spectral transmission chart says this should be sufficient. And for both my CD and pre-flashed fogging tests of Ilford MGIV, it is.
This filter is located in the lower filter position. The vanes contain only sheets of black mount board. That allows me to adjust down to total darkness for easel framing and focusing.
Ken
Some thoughts -
1) Test Neal's thought that the fogging may be coming from something other than the Thomas Duplex - try a fog test with the light off, to make sure that your darkroom is dark when the lights are off.
2) I use an Agfa Sodium Vapour light - which is similar, but smaller than the Thomas Duplex. My lights take a long time to warm up, and until they are warmed up, will fog paper - I turn the safelight on 20 minutes before I start printing to allow it to stabilize - are you doing your test immediately after turning the light on?
3) Are there flourescent lights in the room (even if they are turned off). It may be that the light from the safelight is exciting the phosphors in the flourescent lights and they are emitting light which is fogging your paper.
I don't know what you have been reading, but I purchased a set of filters from Thomas Duplex and cut them open to find the Rosco gel numbers still printed on them.
The filters are wrong. The pair on the moveable vanes should be two sheets of the Rosco #19 with diffusion, but the bottom pair should be a sheet of Rosco #3406 and #3407 with diffusion. This matches the filters that are sold commercially for this safelight.
I dunno' Greg. For b&w all I use is a single layer of Roscoe #19 Fire between glass sheets without any diffusion. The Roscoe spectral transmission chart says this should be sufficient. And for both my CD and pre-flashed fogging tests of Ilford MGIV, it is.
This filter is located in the lower filter position. The vanes contain only sheets of black mount board. That allows me to adjust down to total darkness for easel framing and focusing.
Ken
I tried that after your posts in the other thread. I had fog after very short times. I test using Kodak's method of using safelight exposure before a medium gray exposure, and again after a medium gray exposure on separate pieces of paper. Using the filters I mentioned gave me safe times after exposure of up to three minutes with the vanes fully open, and well past seven minutes with them fully closed. With just the #19 filter in place I had safe times of less than one minute fully closed after the paper received printing exposure. Just my experience.
I should note that I was using Ilford MGWT paper. Regular MG gave slightly longer safelight times, though I don't know why since printing times are shorter with MG than MGWT.
And, yes, I was meticulous about other sources of light being an influence. Even the glow from my watch face was eliminated from the darkroom first.
Might these second two filters be intended for different materials? I'm really curious regarding your observed results.
From the generated line spectrum of an LPS lamp the extra blues and greens caused by the inclusion of the argon/neon Penning mixture are readily apparent. And a look at the #19 Fire filter chart shows that it should be almost perfectly opaque to those wavelengths all by itself. For standard OC-rated b&w materials this filter should work fine. And in practice, at least for me, it does.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what additional safeness the other two filters would add, given their respective charts. Especially in the green regions for VC papers. Filter #3407 in particular allows a substantial percentage of blue-greens and greens to pass. This should be an obvious risk factor for VC papers if the #19 were not present.
Well, we need a cross-reference between Thomas' "edge tape color" based ID scheme, and the various gel colors, but as a clue, here are the official instructions from Thomas (I scanned the sheets that came with mine):
I purchased a set from Freestyle while Thomas was still in business. I bought a yellow tape, a red tape, and a black tape. I took them apart a few years later to see if they were filters I could replace myself for less money. In the yellow tape filter I found two sheets of gel filter material. One had the number 3407, the other 3406. I recognized them as Rosco filters from my sample book. The red tape had "ROSCO 19" printed on the edge of the filter. The black tape did not have any markings, but were the same colors as the yellow tape, but used more layers of filter material inside. All of them used the tissue paper that comes with Rosco filters as the diffusion material.
The numbers were not present in both filters of a pair. I don't think they were intended to be left on the filter material when cut and put in place. I had a very old set of Thomas Duplex filters, and they were different material. It was far too old and faded to tell what they once were. It is possible that the filters sold for these safelights now and just before Thomas Duplex stopped selling their lights are made by someone else and they just use what they think may work, but if you buy a set of filters from Freestyle or KHB Photographix, these are what you get.
You could always buy a set, open them, and tell us what is in them. If they are different than what I have, then I was sold the wrong filters. But I doubt it.
This is the part that confuses me...
And it's confusing me as well. The #19 filter should cut off virtually ALL of the blues and greens. In other words, when in place you should see no blue and/or green bands at all.
Before my successful (pre-fogged) safelight tests I fired up the Duplex, let it warm for ~30 minutes, then looked at the CD reflections unfiltered. In addition to the massive yellow sodium doublet, I saw the much, much fainter blue and green spikes. I also saw the extra deep red spike.
Then while looking directly at those spikes I interposed a single layer of #19 filter. The blue and green spikes disappeared. When I removed the #19, they returned. Back and forth.
Later, when I performed the safelight test I was able to leave a sheet of Kentmere Bromide #3 graded paper out for ~30 minutes with no hint of fogging.* As you may know, bromide papers are very fast. It should have responded to any blue light present. But it didn't. It remained pure white. (Even checked with a reflection densitometer to factor out my subjective eyes.)
So as I said, I too am confused.
Also keep in mind that if you use a cover sheet of Rubylith you will likely be filtering out all of the yellow sodium light as well. At least in a perfect world. I've never tried it myself, so I don't know how much will pass. Maybe only that secondary red spike I mentioned above?
Ken
* Apologies, as I earlier identified the test paper as Ilford MGIV. It was actually the Kentmere Bromide. The Ilford was used for my red LED safelight testing.
I simplified the solution in my 10x10' darkroom. I use the supplied yellow/tan filter over the tube. I inserted black foam core in the vanes to attenuate the light. I have never had a problem with fogging in the 20+ years I have used this light.
Go with the filter sold by manufacturer. Rosco gels come in large sheets and the code number is printed only in one corner. Depending on where the cuts are made, it may or may not show up.
I use the gels in green and blue as VC filters for Aristo cold light head using all the grades of each, 1/8 to full. The man who made Aristo heads put me on to it.
I did another safelight test this morning. First, I used a CD as Ken spells out to check for other colors of light. With the vanes wide open, and the Yellow tape filter in place in the bottom, the Red tape filter in the vanes, I saw no color except yellow. Still with the vanes wide open, I exposed two pieces of paper to the safelight, one was flashed before the safelight exposure, the other afterwards. Both showed signs of fog after 3 minutes in the flashed area, none in the borders. Both showed fogging at 7 minutes in the flashed area, none in the borders. My previous test was done in a different darkroom and I cannot guarantee there wasn't a light leak.
I expect better performance with the vanes fully or partially closed.
Hmm...
If the set of filters you are using, regardless of where they came from or what material they are made of, are successfully removing all of the extraneous higher wavelengths above the sodium D-lines doublet at ~589nm, then the only other immediate explanation is that the paper emulsion sensitivity is bleeding over to some degree into that wavelength. Either because it was designed to do that, or it has aged to do that.
Or something else silly is going on. Like, say, a leaky paper safe. When I did my testing I did take new sheets of fresh paper directly from the box it came in while in total darkness, then held them in a clamshell safe that I also occasionally use to store loaded film hangers, while the Duplex warmed up. I don't really think this is it, but it is a very slight possibility.
I am now looking for some time here to go down to my darkroom and also repeat the CD wavelength check. Maybe tonight.
Perhaps my color vision is slightly different than his and I missed the very faint residual green line that 'Sundowner' observed. Since I tested on Kentmere Bromide, which should be blue-sensitive only, I would still have seen no fogging if, as he observed, all of the blue was removed.
Tests on VC paper (which I haven't done under the Duplex) would be a different story however, if there was some minor residual green remaining. And I do note that if one looks at the Rosco transmission chart for the #19 filter, there IS a very slight transmission of greens. It looks to maybe only be 2-3%. But it's definitely there, if the chart is accurate.
For the record, of late I've been using only the red LEDs because I got into working with some Slavich graded bromide, and that paper is marked as red-only safe. Then when using MGIV I've just continued with those LEDs.
Ken
My paper is a brand new box of MGWT, the paper is taken from the box, not a safe. PM me your address and I will send you some of the filter material I am using, which is the same stuff in the filters sold by Freestyle and others for these safelights. You can try it out yourself.
And as I said, I get some fogging when the vanes are wide open after three minutes, but closed down, I get much longer times while still bright enough to work easily.
I should note that I am using these Kodak instructions to perform the test.
Defective #19 filter?
Do you have both the top and bottom filters? If you are only using the top filters, that may be the source of the problem.
Here's what I did...
Covered both slots with a single layer of filter material.
Filter material was Rosco #19 Fire polyester.
Filter material was not sandwiched between glass sheets.
Here's what I saw...
Both blue bands gone.
A single reduced green band still visible, the 1 red band still visible.
The sodium yellow intensity was moderately reduced.
Here's what I did...
Covered both slots with a double layer of #19 filter material.
Here's what I saw...
Both blue bands gone.
Both green bands gone.
One red band still visible.
The sodium yellow intensity was severely reduced.
And here's what I think...
All my original observations were made using the DVD for the movie The Hunt for Red October.* I now see that different discs have very different reflection characteristics. My original observations showed no residual blues or greens through a single layer of #19. Using the FWAAF disc I now see a definite residual green band.
My original paper fogging tests were made using only pre-threshold-exposed Kentmere Bromide #3 sheets. This should be a blue-sensitive only paper. It showed no fogging even after 30+ minutes.
Based on what I saw tonight, I now need to try Ilford MGIV VC blue/green paper to see if that residual green band makes a difference. Based on Sundowner's results, I would expect it to fog on the low contrast end to some detectable level when using my single sheet of #19 material. Then I need to try doubling up the sheets.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?