What kind of paper and how old was it? Also, did you test it for fogging as @Paul Howell suggests? Ensure to test not just for visible fog, but also changes in contrast in the high values (low densities).I recently developed a bromide-iodide paper that came out fogged under the red light.
Same for Foma, but this is the other way around and that actually is not as likely, since there's usually no clear reason why a paper's sensitivity would be higher in the red part of the spectrum than in the green part. For red (and IR) sensitivity, the emulsion would have to be specifically engineered, and to then cut out green sensitivity would require additional measures on top of that. So it's an unlikely combination esp. for a regular enlarging paper.Slavich was safe under red and fogged under amber. So yes it is possible for a red safe to fog some papers.
This is technically incorrect, but you typically have more leeway since the paper doesn't develop to completion. So in practice you could approach it this way, but you may still run into problems under certain circumstances.. (But that doesn’t count, since as far as I know Lith process doesn't suffer from safelight fogging.)
Not 'only' - they include orange. It's not ONLY red. See above for the explanation.they only go as far as orange.
That's not a full proof of absence of fogging. A safelight test should include testing for effects on the high values/low densities of the tonal scale.The whites always come out perfectly clean.
It will perform no better than a red safelight, but given the difference in human spectral sensitivity, it may appear brighter at the same absolute brightness as the red light, so you may be able to get away with less light. However, since you also are more likely to hit some of the wavelengths the paper has some trailing sensitivity to, the net effect can still be that you increase problems instead of reduce them.I’ve found an old Paterson lamp with a yellow-green filter among my gear.
It's an old Kaiser lamp, a white light with an insertable red filter, in a plastic housing.What kind of light is it? Is it an LED-based source or a white light with a red filter?
I would suspect the safelight is not giving you a clean red spectrum.
From this conclusion above, do I take it that Foma Retrobrom is the exception to the usual red light safety recommendations? For some reason Retrobrom needs a lower level of red light intensity than the rest of the Foma range of all of the Ilford range?So maybe two possibilities: Not “red” enough, and/or red enough but too strong.
lots of talk here when a safelight test and a test for fogged paper will tell the tale.
I'd recommend more testing and less talking
Doremus
I'd recommend more testing and less talking
Thanks, everyone.
The paper in question is Foma Retrobrom, from a recently opened pack.
I’ve been using Lith developers with this paper for years under the same red light without any issues. (But that doesn’t count, since as far as I know Lith process doesn't suffer from safelight fogging.)
A few days ago, for the first time, I tried developing Retrobrom with a traditional developer, and that’s when the fogging appeared. I checked the datasheet and found it strange that red light wasn't mentioned under 'Safety Lighting'. In the datasheets for their other papers, Foma explicitly mentions red light if it is considered safe—whereas for Retrobrom, they only go as far as orange.
I am using the same red lamp to print on Ilford MG and Foma VC papers without any problems. The whites always come out perfectly clean. I should add that this red light is extremely dim; it takes a couple of minutes for your eyes to adjust just to see the outlines of objects.
I’ve found an old Paterson lamp with a yellow-green filter among my gear. Should I give that a go, or would it just be a waste of paper? Foma says “yellow-green, amber, or orange are recommended.”
I agree, this is where I would start. Maybe try a different red source. Mine is an ancient deep red glass lamp that blocks out nearly anything but deep red. It has never fogged any paper to a degree that I can detect.
Although not directly related to your Foma paper, I did develop some Ilford Ortho film under this light for ~8 minutes and saw light fogging. However, changing film in a minute or so is completely harmless.
So maybe two possibilities: Not “red” enough, and/or red enough but too strong.
So I switched to led red ligths, two strips. Very economical, more powerful and completely safe.
Thanks everyone for all the input.
I’ve been in the darkroom this afternoon to install a second socket for the safelight a bit further away from the wet area, I'll run the test this week and see what the verdict is.
Could I ask you which LED strips you’re referring to? I’ve seen a model on Fotoimpex, but they aren't exactly cheap...
Molt bé, molt bé.I bought them from ledbox.es.
I would suspect the safelight is not giving you a clean red spectrum.
5050 is the size of the actual SMD LEDs; 5050 = 5.0x5.0mm form factor. These SMD LEDs by themselves are not waterproof. LED strips can be waterproof if they're encased in a silicone kind of gunk. This is done with various kinds regardless of the SMD size. If you want waterproof, then look for that spec and ignore the form factor of the LEDs themselves as it's entirely unrelated to the waterproofing. A darkroom safelight does not require waterproof LEDs, but if it gives you peace of mind, the waterproof strips are barely more expensive.Red LED strips of the 5050 type are waterproo f
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?