|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Steve Jacobson wrote: > > Fortunately, glass is not a very good transmitter of UV, and I would expect > the scanner glass to reduce the UV component even further (but probably not > eliminate the higher-frequency UV). So I would expect that a certain small > percentage of UV (400 nm - 375 nm) gets through and might cause some small > amount of fluorescence of the scanned material. I don't believe UV below > 375 nm even gets through the glass. I don't have a UV meter, otherwise I > would measure the UV from my scanner. If someone else has one, I would be > interested in having them measure the UV. I don't think fluorescence is a > big problem, but I haven't tested it. > ... > > The question gets even more interesting because all the 5000K light sources > discussed on this list and those I saw at the Seybold show (with the > exception of a few halogens) were fluorescent, and these will emit some UV > (even the sun emits UV, as those who lay out in the sun too long will > testify). Thus, the viewing characteristics under either artificial of > natural daylight will probably cause some fluorescence of the inks, and > might be similar to the scanner. Viewing though a piece of window glass > will probably reduce the UV to what the scanner produces, and "look" the > same to the scanner as it does to the viewer. > Does this mean that for contact printing Platinum, in which I want UV, I'd better get a vacuum unit rather then relying on glass for making the contact? Pam -- Pamela G. Niedermayer Pinehill Softworks Inc. 1221 S. Congress Ave., #1225 Austin, TX 78704 512-416-1141 512-416-1440 fax http://www.pinehill.com - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users