[Alt-photo] experience with UV light meters

Damiano Bianca damiano.bianca at gmail.com
Tue Nov 13 21:10:17 UTC 2018


Pay attention to temperatures of lamps.
In my experience 2 degrees C may change UV emission of 5% and more.
Lamps have undulatori emission
Damiano

Il mar 13 nov 2018, 16:56 John Isner via Alt-photo-process-list <
alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org> ha scritto:

> I just want to make sure everyone who read my earlier post about my
> problems with the PPM-2 reads this:
>
> The erratic intensity readings from the PPM-2 were caused by a faulty
> 4-foot extension cable.  After replacing the cable,  the PPM-2 behaved
> properly.  I had to repeat all the tests I had done.  But at least I can
> now rely on the results of those tests.    Thanks to Ian Parker of
> lighmeasure.com for helping me diagnose the problem.
>
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM John Isner <john.isner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone tried the Light Controller LC2 System from Ian Leake Studio
> > <https://ianleake.com/light-controller-lc2-system/>?  If so, how do you
> > like it compared with the PPM-2 meter, which seems to be somewhat popular
> > on this listserv?  A big advantage of the LC2:  it has an optional power
> > controller that can turn off the exposure unit when it reaches a
> specified
> > dose, while the PPM-2 must be watched.  Of course you pay a lot extra for
> > that power controller!  I assume both meters do an equally good job of
> > measuring dose.
> >
> > The PPM-2 displays instantaneous intensity as well as total dose.  For
> the
> > last two days, I have been testing my UV exposure unit with a borrowed
> > PPM-2.  I initially thought a plot of Intensity vs. time would tell me
> > something about my bulbs.  But I find the intensity display to be less
> > useful than I had hoped.  The numbers move so erratically that it is hard
> > to spot a trend.  If the PPM-2 displayed a 5-second moving average, it
> > would be more useful.
> >
> > One conclusion I have reached, after running many tests with the PPM-2,
> is
> > that my UV unit (fifteen  actinic fluorescent tubes, five electronic
> > ballasts, all less than six months old) is behaving very erratically.
> For
> > ten minute exposures, even with a long preliminary warm-up, the dose can
> > vary as much as 2/3 of a stop.  This tells me I MUST switch from
> time-based
> > exposure to dose-based exposure.  The question is whether I should I go
> > with the PPM-2 or the LC2 system.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
>

Il 13 nov 2018 4:56 PM, "John Isner via Alt-photo-process-list" <
alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org> ha scritto:

I just want to make sure everyone who read my earlier post about my
problems with the PPM-2 reads this:

The erratic intensity readings from the PPM-2 were caused by a faulty
4-foot extension cable.  After replacing the cable,  the PPM-2 behaved
properly.  I had to repeat all the tests I had done.  But at least I can
now rely on the results of those tests.    Thanks to Ian Parker of
lighmeasure.com for helping me diagnose the problem.


On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 3:35 PM John Isner <john.isner at gmail.com> wrote:

> Has anyone tried the Light Controller LC2 System from Ian Leake Studio
> <https://ianleake.com/light-controller-lc2-system/>?  If so, how do you
> like it compared with the PPM-2 meter, which seems to be somewhat popular
> on this listserv?  A big advantage of the LC2:  it has an optional power
> controller that can turn off the exposure unit when it reaches a specified
> dose, while the PPM-2 must be watched.  Of course you pay a lot extra for
> that power controller!  I assume both meters do an equally good job of
> measuring dose.
>
> The PPM-2 displays instantaneous intensity as well as total dose.  For the
> last two days, I have been testing my UV exposure unit with a borrowed
> PPM-2.  I initially thought a plot of Intensity vs. time would tell me
> something about my bulbs.  But I find the intensity display to be less
> useful than I had hoped.  The numbers move so erratically that it is hard
> to spot a trend.  If the PPM-2 displayed a 5-second moving average, it
> would be more useful.
>
> One conclusion I have reached, after running many tests with the PPM-2, is
> that my UV unit (fifteen  actinic fluorescent tubes, five electronic
> ballasts, all less than six months old) is behaving very erratically.  For
> ten minute exposures, even with a long preliminary warm-up, the dose can
> vary as much as 2/3 of a stop.  This tells me I MUST switch from
time-based
> exposure to dose-based exposure.  The question is whether I should I go
> with the PPM-2 or the LC2 system.
>
_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org


More information about the Alt-photo-process-list mailing list