# Hidden treasure:) now I need help!!!



## Krazy (Sep 17, 2012)

My company was called out to an abandoned warehouse for unknown chemicals. Upon inspection I found a fully functional darkroom of my dreams!
3 enlargers, photo paper all sizes I can think of (more then likely bad by now), three types of safe lights, and much much more!


My question falls on the safe lights. I found a case of 48" fluorescent tube cover type (red and orange). Since I have loads of fluorescent lighting in my basement the right size I will be using them. 
What is the right watt for the florescence bulb i need to use with them?


----------



## timor (Sep 17, 2012)

Well...test them.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 17, 2012)

Basically as low as possible is what you're looking for. If you could get a bulb that put out the light of a 30 watts incandescent (whatever lumens that is) you'd probably be in fine shape, but I bet they don't even make the tubes that wussy. Less light, less chance of fogging your paper. Everything (your cell phone, light leaks in the enlarger, stray reflections off the walls, all sources of light) are small amounts of fogging waiting to happen. This includes safelights, which are "safe" but not magical (and keep in mind that one paper might react more strongly to your safelight than another - so what used to be "safe" might not be later!).

Your goal is to keep these light leak sources as low as possible. It'll be dark, but your eyes will adjust


----------



## Krazy (Sep 17, 2012)

timor said:


> Well...test them.



I tried using a 40 watt and it seemed to work nicely, but I know if the light is too bright it might wreck the printing process.


----------



## timor (Sep 17, 2012)

Test is not that much if the light will work. Set up a darkroom with developer and fixer and then take one piece of paper, mark it No.1 and just fix it right a way, take second piece (mark it No.2) of paper and place it under enlarger or somewhere close to it emulsion up. Leave it for one minute exposed only to the safety light of the darkroom then develop for 1 min. if it is RC paper or 3 min. if it is FB paper. Fix it, wash both papers for 10 min, dry it and then compare colour. The No.2 should be as white as No.1, if it is darker it means, that your safety light is too strong or the red filter on it is inadequate.


----------



## bogeyguy (Sep 17, 2012)

If the tube covers are 48" you will be stuck using 32 or 40 watt 48" bulbs.


----------



## timor (Sep 17, 2012)

The only way wuold be to increase the density of the cover.


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 17, 2012)

timor said:


> Test is not that much if the light will work. Set up a darkroom with developer and fixer and then take one piece of paper, mark it No.1 and just fix it right a way, take second piece (mark it No.2) of paper and place it under enlarger or somewhere close to it emulsion up. Leave it for one minute exposed only to the safety light of the darkroom then develop for 1 min. if it is RC paper or 3 min. if it is FB paper. Fix it, wash both papers for 10 min, dry it and then compare colour. The No.2 should be as white as No.1, if it is darker it means, that your safety light is too strong or the red filter on it is inadequate.



The only thing I'd do different is to keep 1/2 half the sheet covered. For me, it's easier to see even the slightest change


----------



## amolitor (Sep 18, 2012)

I'd leave it out for well over a minute, as well.  I'd give it, say, 5 minutes as a baseline, and also see what happens at 10. Remember, fog sources will add up. Just verifying that the safelight by itself won't bugger up the paper white in 60 seconds doesn't tell you that the safelight plus the enlarger light leaks plus the timer plus whatever else won't bugger up the white in 60 seconds. Also, paper tends to sit under the safelight for more than 60 seconds in normal processing (yes, I develop face-down, but still).


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 18, 2012)

amolitor said:


> I'd leave it out for well over a minute, as well. I'd give it, say, 5 minutes as a baseline, and also see what happens at 10. Remember, fog sources will add up. Just verifying that the safelight by itself won't bugger up the paper white in 60 seconds doesn't tell you that the safelight plus the enlarger light leaks plus the timer plus whatever else won't bugger up the white in 60 seconds. Also, paper tends to sit under the safelight for more than 60 seconds in normal processing (yes, I develop face-down, but still).



You could even do this on a single sheet just like a test strip. Your first exposed strip would become your longest exposure down to the last strip that would never become exposed. This way you could tell if and when fogging occurs by comparing it to the base. I would divide a 8x10 sheet into 5 - two minute seqment's


----------



## orlovphoto (Dec 10, 2012)

Congrats on your find!

DON'T toss that paper - whatever you do, don't throw it out! If you don't want to tinker with it PM me and we can work something out


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 11, 2012)

I posted this in another thread, but if the paper is "outdated" don't toss it away..use this process instead:

The additives you are interested in are bromide and carbonate. Potassium Bromide will clear the whites. (reduce fog). Sodium carbonate will set the blacks. Use either or both. Expect increased exposure times. Mix both to 10% solutions. To a working tray of print developer, mq type (Dektol), say 3 liters total, add a couple of tablespoons of additive. Adjust as you print. Additional bromide used to be  common. It was packaged under the title, BB solution. For further help, refer to 'Lootens On Photographic Enlarging and Print Control'. With old paper, the bromide may be enough. A big advantage of working like this is the fact that old paper is aged, and very stable, whereas fresh paper is green and not mature. Good luck.


----------



## amolitor (Dec 12, 2012)

What measurable effects does the "green and not mature" nature of fresh paper have?


----------

