 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / May 2005Beginner's Questions About Safelight
I currently got three questions about safelight in B&W printing: 1, I'v told that normal safelight, such as those produced by AP, can not used for variable-grade papers such as those produced by ILFord. I'v also heard Kaiser provides some filter-based safelight dedicated to those kink of papers. I want to ask whether this is true? 2, AP's safelight costs about $20 here. what's the essential difference between AP's and those normal red bulbs? more precisely, I want to get your opinion about whether i should save $20 in B&W printing. 3, I'v heard one can build a DIY LED safeligt? is it suitable for variable-grade papers? Best Regards, - narke I am not familiar with either the AP or Kaiser safelight, so this is general. Graded papers are sensitive to blue and near UV light, variable contrast paper of all makes is sensitive to green light. So, some older safelights made for graded paper are not safe for variable contrast paper but any safelight safe for VC paper is also safe for graded paper. The standard filter for both graded and variable contrast papers now is the Kodak OC. Similar filters are sold by Ilford and others. This filter has an greenish brown color. Red safelights are safe for all types of paper. Actually, they are probably safer than the OC but are less pleasant to work under and not visuallly as bright for the same light output. Red bulbs, as opposed to an enclosed lamp with a filter on it, may not be safe. It depens on what has been used to color the glass. The bulbs may be visually all red but still have enough blue output to cause fog. Sodium vapour lamps, like the Thomas safelight, may cause fogging because they are so bright if the auxilliary filters or flaps are not used. Unsafe safelights can degrade the image without causing obvious fog. Both Kodak and Ilford have published test methods which show up this sort of degradation. Kodak's is described in publication K-4 which should be available on their web site, Ilford's test is on their web site. -- Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com > The standard filter for both graded and variable contrast > papers now is the Kodak OC. You left out Azo. Kodak recommends the OC for all papers and that includes Azo. Apart from Azo, they make only VC papers; so what else would they recommend? Dan dan.c.qu...@att.net wrote: > > The standard filter for both graded and variable contrast > > papers now is the Kodak OC. > > You left out Azo. Kodak recommends the OC for all papers > and that includes Azo. Apart from Azo, they make only VC > papers; so what else would they recommend? Dan The OA filter can be used with Azo, I believe. Who is AP? Graded enlarging paper is sensitive to UV, violet, blue, and a little bit to green. Variable-contrast paper is sensitive to UV, violet, blue, and green. Use an OC filter (Kodak) or equivalent in a conventional safelight enclosure for most papers in use today. > I currently got three questions about safelight in B&W printing: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > - > narke > Who is AP? AP is spanish brand that makes lot of stuff for the darkroom. It's sturdy and reliable. I've all of my plastic tanks made by AP and they're so fine that I think better than PAterson One. Plus they have a nice film reels and they're also compatible with paterson... Ciao, Stefano Bramato -- ed io imparo... did you all mean that a well made red safelight will do the job for VC or variable graded paper? - narke Yes, but it is almost useless. You really don't want to look at prints under red light. First, it's hard on your eyes, second it's hard to judge prints. Don't do it. > did you all mean that a well made red safelight will do the job for VC > or variable graded paper? > > - > narke UC wrote, > You really don't want to look at prints > under red light. First, it's hard on your eyes, second > it's hard to judge prints. Don't do it. but i need to put the paper on proper position of the baseboard. I used No.2 (dark red) safelights for years for pinting. Its bright enough to see what you are doing and is safe for any B&W paper except panchromatic types. I agree, however, that the OC or Ilford 902 is a better choice. I've found that I can't really judge prints under the safelight anyway. I try to calibrate my eye by what I seen after the prints dry with what I think I see while they are developing. Some papers have emulsions which are fairly strongly colored. Those look different after they have been in the fixer for a minute regardless of the safelight. Also, all papers look different after they have dried. The effect, called dry-down, varies with the surface and the emulsion but all papers have it to some degree. The main requirement of a safelight is to allow you to get around without bumping into things while not fogging the paper. -- Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com > I used No.2 (dark red) safelights for years for printing. Its bright > enough to see what you are doing and is safe for any B&W paper except > panchromatic types. I need to see well in the darkroom when using the paper cutter, and I like to see well at all other times. A good red safelight can be _much_ brighter than an OC. The world becomes absolutely monochromatic and very high contrast. If the world isn't red or black with no color at all then the safelight filter isn't much good. I have found the red Kodak filter (#1?) to be pretty awfull: at 15 watts; 4 feet; 45 degree incidence; type 'B' housing, it will fog and fail the coin test in four minutes. The Jobo safelight will also fog paper in a few minutes when used a few feet away. An OC filter with a 7.5 watt bulb will pass the test. But I can't see squat and cutting paper and ortho film is hit or miss. With practice I can judge a print: make the shadows so they look dead black but the rest of the print looks kinda OK. Judging in the developer is useful as it tells me I can chuck the print now, no point wasting fix or stop on it. In early years I used square safelights with 15 watt bulbs and a red thick acetate (?) WWII army surplus filter cut from 12x12 sheets. Never had problems and couldn't understand what all this safelight fuss was about. One of these days I will try to redeem the #1 Kodak filters with a round of Rubylith.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ I use the medium red Kodak filter with 15 watt light. It is fine for me. I have had no fogging problems. Of course, if the exposure time is more than a few seconds, I turn off the light during exposure. My developer is more than 4 feet from the light, so that is not a problem either. Francis A. Miniter > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > I use DYMO label tape on my paper cutter to mark the sizes I always cut my paper, I can do it without any light at all. Signaturedarkroommike ---------- > > > I used No.2 (dark red) safelights for years for printing. Its bright [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > One of these days I will try to redeem the #1 Kodak filters with a > round of Rubylith. I've been using the "amber fireball" type of safelight ever since they were first introduced back in the 70's. They are very bright and very safe. Bright enough to read a newspaper at four feet. Essentially, they are just a lightbulb (which I put in a utility lamp socket). Each bulb lasts for many thousands of hours, and I've never had one fog paper except once when some of the coating scraped off and some white light got through the small hole. I colored it with red wax pencil, and that fixed it. I've used a variety of graded and variable contrast papers, as well as RC and FB. No fogging with any of them. So the $20 or so that they cost is well worth it. I've bought a total of four bulbs in 30 years. >I use DYMO label tape on my paper cutter to mark the sizes I always cut my >paper, I can do it without any light at all. > > > I've been using the "amber fireball" type of safelight ever since they > were first introduced back in the 70's. They are very bright and very > safe. I used the large version - a 4" (?) spherical bulb dipped in coating. Agreed: very bright and very safe -- think I will get one again, OC filters being so bloody dim. Another that works well is the clear red 25W bulb: size and shape of a standard light bulb but made from red glass. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > I need to see well in the darkroom when using the paper cutter, and > I like to see well at all other times. I'm with you though you did'nt mention yellow and yellow/orange. I've those and have a very easy "to see well at all other times", as well as paper cutting, level of lighting. Dan > UC wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > but i need to put the paper on proper position of the baseboard. You misunderstood. The OC-type filter will give you better illumination. You don't want to look at prints under red light because it will strain your eyes and because it's hard to judge the density of the print. On 4/27/2005 12:55 PM UC spake thus: >> UC wrote, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > illumination. You don't want to look at prints under red light because > [...] it's hard to judge the density of the print. ... which doesn't really matter, since nobody (generally speaking) judges prints under safelight anyhow: judging prints is done under normal room illumination (or brighter). Since (again generally speaking) one always develops prints to completion, there's no need to bend anxiously over the print under red safelight wondering "Is it ready yet? is it done yet?". So use an OC filter if you want more light, or a red filter if that suits you better. OK either way. SignatureIt's a good guess that one of two things is going to happen in the coming days and weeks: Either Bolton goes down—-or we start learning a lot of unpleasant things about Sen. George Voinovich. - _Slate_, 4/19/05 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2117028/) Not the point. You can tell whether you even want to bother going further with the print if it's way too light or too dark...with the OC safelight. It's a lot harder with red. Besides, red is hard on your eyes... > On 4/27/2005 12:55 PM UC spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It's a good guess that one of two things is going to happen in the > coming days and weeks: Either Bolton goes down--or we start learning > a lot of unpleasant things about Sen. George Voinovich. > > - _Slate_, 4/19/05 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2117028/) > but i need to put the paper on proper position > of the baseboard. If you really want to see well in the darkroom, work with GRADED papers. A brightly lit room using yellow/orange safelights is possible. You probably would not believe how high a level of lighting is possible using GRADED paper. No strain at all. Dan No you don't, that's what the easel is for. Some RC papers will lie flat enough without an easel to be used in the fashion you suggest but not all and no FB papers will stay flat enough to be in focus across the image, buy an easel, I bought three boxes of easels recently at a camera show for $5.00 (or make your own, it's really simple). Signaturedarkroommike ---------- > UC wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > but i need to put the paper on proper position of the baseboard. >> did you all mean that a well made red safelight will do the job for VC >> or variable graded paper? > Yes, but it is almost useless. You really don't want to look at prints > under red light. First, it's hard on your eyes, second it's hard to > judge prints. Don't do it. Noone in his right mind judges prints under a safelight of _any_ color. Paper is to expensive to do this. I bougth two large red ceiling lights (about 120x40cm) with two red fluorescent tubes and a red filter. These were made by Meteor (an old german company that made machines and accessories for repro shops) and are exceptionally bright. My tests with MCP directly under one of these (about 1m away) showed first reactions (lower gradation) after 4min exposure. Martin "No-one in his right mind judges prints under a safelight of _any_ color. Paper is to expensive to do this." You sure as hell can tell if it's about right under an OC. I sure can! >"No-one in his right mind judges prints under a safelight of _any_ >color. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > One of the varieties of white light is good for judging prints. I have in my darkroom (a) normal tungsten lighting; (b) a 50 degree K elvin light; and (c) flourescent light. If I want to judge a print that combination is what I use. The point the others were making, Michael, is that no safelight, red or orange, is sufficient to judge a print. And I agree. If I over or under expose a print, I want to develop it to completion so that I can judge exactly how much to alter the exposure next time. Making a snap decision to remove it from the developing tray under whatever safelight without having the patience to let it go to completion and viewing it properly reduces the probability that the next iteration will be correct. My time is valuable, so I spend it wisely if I can, and spending it on finishing task A before going on to task B has proved to be the best use of my time. Francis A. Miniter > did you all mean that a well made red safelight will do the job for VC > or variable graded paper? The Kodak Wratten #0C (amber) or the Ilford S 902 safelights are a better choice for almost all papers than a light red #1A safelight because they are brighter. There is a temptation with dim safelights to use the safelight at a closer distance than the recommended 3 or 4 feet (0.9 to 1.2 metres). Using a red safelight too close negates any extra safety gained by its deeper colour. Some graded papers can be used safely with the #0A (greenish yellow) safelight filter. It is quite a bit brighter (visually) than the #0C filter and thus may actually be safer for suitable papers because you can increase the working distance and still have a bright enough light to work. The Forte VC papers are supposed to have sensitivity farther into the green part of the spectrum than other brands of variable contrast papers and thus the Kodak Wratten #1A light red safelight is recommended for them. The #1A safelight should be safe for all papers (except colour and panchromatic papers) provided that you aren't tempted to use a shorter than recommended working distance. The primary purpose of the #1A safelight is for slow orthochromatic films such as the lith type films. Other red safelights include the #1 for fast colour-blind materials such as the recently discontinued Kodak Commercial Film, and the #2 safelight for fast orthochromatic materials such as Ilford Ortho sheet film. (Ilford's equivalent of the #2 filter is #906). Both of these filters are much too dim for developing paper, they are used for developing film by inspection. You should look at: - general info + curves <www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/safelight.pdf> - How safe is your safelight (general info) <www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/pdf/k4.pdf> -Curves for Kodak Wratten safelight filters <www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/ti0845/ti0845.pdf> Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > I currently got three questions about safelight in B&W printing: > > 1, I'v told that normal safelight, such as those produced by AP, can > not used for variable-grade papers such as those produced by ILFord. > I'v also heard Kaiser provides some filter-based safelight dedicated to > those kink of papers. I want to ask whether this is true? > 2, AP's safelight costs about $20 here. what's the essential difference > between AP's and those normal red bulbs? more precisely, I want to get > your opinion about whether i should save $20 in B&W printing. > > 3, I'v heard one can build a DIY LED safeligt? is it suitable for > variable-grade papers? I don't know what the AP safelight is like. The key thing with VC paper is that it sees both green and blue. IIRC Forte calls for a red safelight. Some of the other companies may also. Personally I use a red one because it just seems right. But the only way to know if a safelight is safe is to test it. If you can get LEDs that have light output in the right range and you can do the work then yes you can make your own safelight. OTOH you can get a Premier 5x7 safelight for about $27 from Freestyle. You won't save much by making your own. Nick > I currently got three questions about safelight in B&W printing: > > 1, I'v told that normal safelight, such as those produced by AP, can > not used for variable-grade papers such as those produced by ILFord. > I'v also heard Kaiser provides some filter-based safelight dedicated to > those kink of papers. I want to ask whether this is true? I thought the same thing too about two years ago when I bought one. I did lots of research and and got lots of answers here and all that I could find is that the red lens of the AP safelight was ok for all B&W paper except the panchromatic stuff. Note the ones I did buy here (in Israel) had a sticker with a Jessop's part number FWIW. > 2, AP's safelight costs about $20 here. what's the essential difference > between AP's and those normal red bulbs? more precisely, I want to get > your opinion about whether i should save $20 in B&W printing. If you are talking about the red bulbs that one usedto use for "mood" lighting, they are not the right color and they are not 100% red. Philips sells a photograpic quality REDlight bulb, but here it was more than the AP safelight and whole lot of little night light bulbs. > 3, I'v heard one can build a DIY LED safeligt? is it suitable for > variable-grade papers? If you get the right LEDS. Not too difficult if you want to spend some time with google, both the sensistivity of the paper and the color of the LEDS is well published. The hard part would be to get them in small quantites, you would have to order them from a reliable parts vendor and not just buy a bad of "red leds". Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: 972-2-679-6896 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 VoN Skype: mendelsonfamily Greetings; For most (not all) paper printing in black-and-white, including the VC papers from Ilford and Agfa et al, I have found after experiment and testing that a *pure* red filter, even around a flourescent tube, works safely in the darkroom. However, in composing the enlargement under the enlarger, you really do not want an "easy-to-see" safelight, since you need to be able to concentrate on the projected negative image on the plane that your paper will lie upon. Lots of red light will impair your focussing abilities, amongst other things. I have two sets of safelights for monochrome work: a dull red/amber which allows one to see (once you are dark-adjusted eye-wise) the details of the projected negative image, and a second (tube-light with totally-encompassing RED filter) for work thereafter once I have taped the board area and can easily place the paper into the correct position. If I am going to make a number of print exposures from the same neg, then I leave the red light on, and it has never affected any of my prints. That I have checked by doing the same prints in the dull light and the (brighter) red light. What you have to make sure of, is that the red filter is truly a mono-wavelength filter, not just a piece of red gift-wrapper or whatever. Finally, it comes down to familiarity with your own working environment; I also do colour work in trays, which precludes even the red safelight of course; a few touches of "glow-paint" on bench edges etc., quickly lets you know your darkroom layout without any safelight at all. I would recommend an experiment in your own circumstances with (e.g.) coins placed upon paper prior to your safelight being switched on, if there's a coin difference, then you know your "safelight" isn't "safe". That will not cost much paper, either. My regards, F.C. Trevor Gale. >>I currently got three questions about safelight in B&W printing: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Geoff. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.