I just built the same system as in Tim Layton's blog. Took me 4 hours, from cutting the wood and assembling it to painting, then installing the tracks. It's in my workspace. Will test it when I complete editing my updated carbon transfer videos.
Oh I see, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if they pop up often on the second hand market. Would work just fine for most processes!whatever those things are called you use for pcbs
I bought me those Barrina's as touted here and am getting ready to build a new UV box. I noticed that these strips are encased in some sort of clear PET-like plastic cover. Wonder if there is any concern regarding those yellowing over time as well as just unnecessarily absorbing a bunch of radiation. I was checking if I could get rid of it before I install them - probably can cut them out.
Any opinions?
:Niranjan.
My first set of these strips have been in service for a bit over two years. About 5 months ago, I added a second set of strips to my box. I see no difference in the plastic covers on the strips.
Two years is not all that long in the grand scheme, so only time will tell for sure.
--- Frank
Does anyone have average times for exposing salt with the Barrina LED tubes? I have 8 of the Barrina's and they generally take a long time (easily upwards of 50min or so) with salt, and that's with the printing frame 2-3 inches away from the light (might try closer). I'm thinking of buying 8 more and spacing them closer together (as ih Tim Layton's more recent video). I also have a 100w 365nm LED spotlight which seems to be a bit faster with salt. I'd prefer 365nm over 395nm in the Barrina's but unfortunately that's not an option. In my relatively brief testing Kallitypes took much shorter exposure times, up to around 12 min. Different process, obviously, but the shorter exposure times can make a difference when considering overall workflow and which process might be preferred.
Does anyone have average times for exposing salt with the Barrina LED tubes? I have 8 of the Barrina's and they generally take a long time (easily upwards of 50min or so) with salt, and that's with the printing frame 2-3 inches away from the light (might try closer). I'm thinking of buying 8 more and spacing them closer together (as ih Tim Layton's more recent video). I also have a 100w 365nm LED spotlight which seems to be a bit faster with salt. I'd prefer 365nm over 395nm in the Barrina's but unfortunately that's not an option. In my relatively brief testing Kallitypes took much shorter exposure times, up to around 12 min. Different process, obviously, but the shorter exposure times can make a difference when considering overall workflow and which process might be preferred.
Maybe others using in-camera negatives can chime in with general times for salt....
I'm using in-camera negatives (developed with PyrocatHD)
Hi Niranjan, Frank,
I have a Richard Ritter contact frame w/glass. I'm using in-camera negatives (developed with PyrocatHD) and, while times will vary by negative, in general I don't see anything as short as the < 10 minute times you and Niranjan are reporting, which is interesting -- but maybe the use of in-camera negatives is the distinguishing factor? The longer times are consistent with my experience when I first started salt with T5 UV fluorescent's (weekend workshop sessions), which were typically at least 30 minutes. Paper is COT320, and I'm using a 12% silver nitrate solution.
I've salted a few more sheets and will soon try exposing more negatives. FWIW, I'm also seeing from 25 - 50+ minutes for exposing collodion chloride POP with the 365nm LED spotlight.
Maybe others using in-camera negatives can chime in with general times for salt....
PS: BTW, Hi Frank -- met you at VCP back in July (you were telling me about Cuprotypes) and have one of your panoramic prints of rocks and waterfall and have been wanting to say a belated thank you!
Carl
I bought one of these at Sandy King’s recommendation.
it works fine for 8x10 I haven’t tried larger.
The problem with these lamps is the form factor. The big bezels make it impossible to gang them up to cover larger sizes. To cover even 8x10 without falloff, you need to raise them up a foot or two above the frame. Because the intensity of light rapidly declines with distance, that translates into long exposures. And with your processes, long times create the possibility of variation from print to print depending on coatings and humidity.
My solution is another off-the-rack solution from Amazon, made by Onforu. The lamps come in 5x15-inch modules. I have four, covering 15x20 in all, for a cost of about $120. They hang 5-6 inches over my vacuum frame. My exposures for kallitypes is 22 seconds.
The Onforu lamps are at 390nm, not 365nm. That's clearly not an issue for kallitypes and I assume for other iron-based processes. I gather it is an issue for photogravures. I do not know about salt prints.
Onforu UV LED lamps from Amazon
Overall, I've had good results with PyrocatHD for mixed-use negatives not terribly inclined to change
Hmmm, I have that same Everbeam LED as recommended by Sandy King.
with your processes, long times create the possibility of variation from print to print depending on coatings and humidity.
The short of it is that if you get long exposures with that unit, then all I can say is that I don't doubt your observations and the fact that someone else reports much shorter exposures with another unit of the same power rating (and another process) just doesn't say much.
If you are saying that some vagary of build quality might account for the difference between exposure times
Salt prints take longer than kallitypes.
the inverse square law says that light intensity reduces by the square of the increased distance.
the glass (which acts as a UV filter)
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?