Weird thought. Could a "home tanning" type of sun bed/lamp be used for uv exposure? Usually abundant on the second hand market, and presumably with even light they could be a cheap solution to uv exposure for alternative processes?
Weird thought. Could a "home tanning" type of sun bed/lamp be used for uv exposure? Usually abundant on the second hand market, and presumably with even light they could be a cheap solution to uv exposure for alternative processes?
Yes, it would work but the heat generated would be a problem.
Cheap UV LEDs are a better solution. Do a search engine request for "DIY LED UV Exposure box"; there are many sources...
The one I saw had a fan on it. LED is such a point source of light, is it really better? And the light output in lumen isn't really that good. Nah, it will be fluorescent tubes or discharge lights for me.
I exposed all my Van Dyke browns using a small facial tanner I bought on ebay. I modified the time so it was either on or off and connected it to a plug timer. That way I could expose for hours at a time in the middle of the night, when I wasn't even in the room. See Signs and Fragments gallery on my website below.
Great reply. This was mostly a theoretical question, and I am surprised that not more people are doing this. Two sunbeds and you could do a 40x50" print .
Weird thought. Could a "home tanning" type of sun bed/lamp be used for uv exposure? Usually abundant on the second hand market, and presumably with even light they could be a cheap solution to uv exposure for alternative processes?
Yes, better collimation is a crucial benefit for pigment processes (gum, carbon etc) and intaglio, where dot gain and "blowdown" (as Calvin Grier calls it) come into play. Anything diffuse is basically a non-starter for such processes in particular if you're working with digital/inkjet negatives.LED is such a point source of light, is it really better?
I would also be wary about electricity expense.
Nah. If you print all day and all week, then yeah, it adds up. But most of us here are hobby printers and it's hard to rack up a large utility bill by just running a UV exposure unit. Moreover, the net energy efficiency in terms of Watt electrical power input per logD unit of density is similar for fluorescent (typical tanner) UV and LED UV. Only HMI is drastically less efficient since it's broad-spectrum and most of its energy is dissipated in the form of heat.
I was referencing cliveh's suggestion about running a lamp/printing for several hours during a night.
Weird thought. Could a "home tanning" type of sun bed/lamp be used for uv exposure? Usually abundant on the second hand market, and presumably with even light they could be a cheap solution to uv exposure for alternative processes?
I would also be wary about electricity expense.
I was more concerned about relative efficiencies of your light source choices.
There is a good chance that those sun lamps generate way more heat and visible light than they do UV, so the suggestion that they be left on for hours may end up costing quite a bit more in each use when compared to some of the alternatives.
It was meant to indicate that if you are comparing costs, factor in cost of operation.
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?