Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.8)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:06:18 -0800
Received: from ns5.tzo.com ([216.55.16.67]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.8) with SMTP
          id 117778312; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:06:16 -0800
Received: from 67.95.238.9 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2004011619041757923 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:04:17 GMT
Received: from QTHBHRGM [67.95.238.194] by mail.netway.net
  (SMTPD32-8.05) id AC75D4E1007E; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:06:13 -0700
Message-ID: 
From: "Richard Prentiss" 
To: "photoecho" 
Subject: Compact fluoro lamp in enlarger
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:06:20 -0700
X-Orig-MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Orig-Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02B9_01C3DC53.0FBDD040"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

I recently adapted a compact fluoroescent lamp to  my
Beseler 23 enlarger. It is a 100 watt equivalent output
in place of the original 75 watt tungsten. After being
run for 15 minutes, the lamp housing is just pleasantly
warm to the touch. As the upload prints show, the
contrast varies markedly from the original type of
lamp. Because of its method of operation, it seems
to make much more blue light.This seems to be the
reason that the exposure varies so much with the
contrast filter. Having a $15 lamp that last for
thousands of hours sounds much better than a $15
lamp that could pop after a few hours running time
and is best bought by mail order. Maybe using a
permanent filter would bring the contrast range closer
to normal.
Rich
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5