Today I got this thing (you call it "solarium" too, don't you) into my house. Confirmed that it's working, turning it on directed away from me, since I don't have any dedicated UV protection for my eyes.
Now, looking closer to it, it does look very useful, in that the box (some 3 feet high, some 1 1/2 wide) can be turned and angled in any direction, even face down to the floor, or if you raise it, facing down a table etc. Being on wheels makes it very easy to move about too. Primo: As mentioned earlier, my idea is to exchange the UV tubes for regular fluorescent tubes, or tubes best suited for photography. At the back of this unit it reads: "Philips Type HP 3127F. 240w 6 x TLK 40w/09." The tubes themselves carry the designation "TLK 40w/09". In a lamp shop they only carry 18w tubes, and the man said he didn't know about any stronger tubes by this dimension (ca 58 cm, a bit less than two feet). My understanding, or assumption, is that the "sockets" onto which the tubes are fitted, simply feeds the tubes regular voltage, and that putting 18w tubes in their places , simply will produce 6x18w, in a similar way you can exchange regular tubes or bulbs. Would the type designation cited above, change anything? Like this solarium for unknown reasons to me, somehow require these specified tubes and no others? Or do you think I can safely exchange these tubes as planned? Secundo: Will ordinary sunglasses with specified UV-protection be enough to protect your eyes from UV lights such as these, or do you need some special glasses/protection? Thanks, Lasse From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 12:28 AM Subject: Q: Studio lights on a zero budget > Today I ran into a second hand Philips "UV-A" fluorescent light unit. > I seems to be one of those tanning machines. > > What made me interested in it, was > 1) the wheeled type of metal construction (a simple one) which allows you to > conveniently move it about, > 2) Six 40w (totalling 240W) fluorescent tubes fitted into a box, mirrored to direct > the light out of it; > 3) the fact that there seems to be levers to adjust the light power; > 4) the fact that this box fairly easily could be lowered or raised or turned into > various angles to direct the light in desired directions; > 5) the assumption that maybe some sort of simple reflector screen probably could be > fitted to it instead of the lights; > 6) the price of some $15 US; > > Now the fluorescent tubes fitted to it are ones aimed at tanning. (They are > UV-lights, right?) There was a warning sign about using it (carefully read the > manual before using etc) - I guess there is a risk about getting burned or maybe > your eyes might get hurt etc. > Right or wrong I thought these tubes may be interchangeable with other types of > tubes which might be more useful for photographing purposes. > I was thinking that this whole thing may come handy for home studio use, for > producing light maybe in portrait shooting or table top shooting, or to be used for > reflectors. > I am well familiar with how film reads fluorescent light. > However, sooner or later I will buy me a digital SLR, probably the D*ist as the > price comes down. Having learned a bit about setting white balance I was thinking > that fluorescent light may be a lesser issue with digitals. > > My question is: > 1) Generally, how does the idea sound to you, who may know a bit more about these > types of lights than me? > 2) Do you think those tubes can be replaced with other types of fluorescent tubes of > same power? Any reason not to? > 3) Would it's power adjustment capabilities work just as well with other types of > tubes? > 4) Am I possibly missing something else? > > Thanks, > Lasse
