Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.8)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:51:08 -0800
Received: from saf.tzo.com ([216.55.16.67]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.8) with SMTP
          id 138467593; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:51:05 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.61 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2004011700490581323 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:49:05 GMT
Received: (qmail 28603 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2004 05:51:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Carl?Cook.olywa.net) (64.42.61.40)
  by e4500a.atgi.net with SMTP; 17 Jan 2004 05:51:01 -0000
Message-Id: 
X-Sender: clcook{at}mail.olywa.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:54:21 -0800
To: 
From: Carl Cook 
Subject: Re: Compact fluoro lamp in enlarger
In-Reply-To: 
X-Orig-Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Orig-Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Your examples don't look too bad at all, although the prints are on the 
gray/muddy side.

Basically, it looks like you are creating a cold light head. There are 
printers who swear by them. Some say a cold light covers up minor 
imperfections in the negatives like minor scratches and blemishes. I found 
this to be true to an extent. True cold light heads use tubes that are more 
on the blue side of the spectrum rather then the green of regular 
florescent lights.

My own experiences with a cold light head on a Beseler 23c were quite good. 
On fiber paper, I really liked the prints, and could tell them apart from 
those made with the regular condenser head. The problem was that normal 
contrast filters really don't work with the cold light head because of the 
colors of the filters. Special contrast filters are available though I have 
never used them. Prints made with VC paper and no filter came out looking 
like something between a 2 1/2 and a 3 filter (with condenser head prints).

Looks like you might be on to something -- if you come to enjoy prints made 
the cold light way. Good luck! I hope you will post more samples as you 
experiment --

Carl



At 05:06 PM 1/16/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>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
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to wclistserve{at}fanciful.org with
>UNSUBSCRIBE photo in the message body on a line by itself.
>To contact the list admin, e-mail Tom.Lebens{at}fanciful.org
>---------------------------------------------------------------------

e-mail: clcook{at}olywa.net
http://www.clcookphoto.com

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5