X-ray Film example and comparison. [Archive] - Page 2

Andrew O'Neill

8-May-2010, 15:01

sanking

8-May-2010, 16:28

It's sharp enough for contact printing. Yes, it's due to emulsion on both sides. My carbon prints look very nice. I've never tried to enlarge with it and I don't entend to.
I don't understand how a formalin pre-soak would work as a hardener. Wouldn't the film have to be dried first so that the formalin can "harden" the emulsion?

Also, placing a sheet of glass in the developer tray is a good idea, but my trays are flat bottomed and smooth, so not necessary. The key is to use minimal, gentle agitation. I tried the ziplock bag method, and it worked very well.

I was thinking that if you could run the film in the formalin pre-soak before processing it would make it easier to handle the film without scratches. But it might not work as the formalin could render the emulsion useless so I just wondering if anyone had actually tried a pre-soak. Maybe this has already been answered but the thread is very long.

Sandy

Jason Greenberg Motamedi

8-May-2010, 19:30

As I understand it, the formalin presoak is primarily for "tropical" or high temperature development, and prevents the emulsion from swelling. I have no idea if this would help with xray film.

Regarding the (lack of) sharpness, only on rare occasions do I see the sort of bleeding highlights I would expect from the second emulsion causing halation. Rather the emulsion (for lack of a better adjective) seems thin--lacking body and depth--which often means that the "razor" sharp edges are absent. Of course, this is largely irrelevant with most alt processes. I do notice however that when I use studio strobes or in contrasty and directional outdoor light, the film is notably sharper than when I with diffuse light.

Andrew O'Neill

8-May-2010, 19:51

And I imagine the type of light used in the exposure system would have an effect on sharpness. A point source system like halogen perhaps would be slighty sharper than a a bank of uv flourescent tubes.

Andrew O'Neill

9-May-2010, 18:09

Today I developed a sheet of x-ray film in a zip lock bag but this time I inflated the bag with air after I poured in 2 litres of developer. It was then placed in an 11x14, flat-bottomed tray. Why did I inflate the bag? This way the top side of the bag won't touch the film and makes agitation a lot easier. Because I blew in air from my mouth, the temperature of developer after development rose from 20C to 21C. I now know that I am full of hot air...
A bit of water in the same tray set to 20C should control the temperature.
Film is scratch free.
Sandy, if you read this I'll bet you could develop a 20x24 sheet in a black plastic 20x24 photo paper bag.

EdWorkman

10-May-2010, 09:57

Andrew
What developer and why so much?
Please and thankyou
And Jason , don't forget the stripping of one emulsion side technique- that should tell us if it's the diffusion due to the base or the emulsion- my WAG is that a slow ortho emulsion should/would/could be pretty sharp on its own.
But NO GUESSING

Jason Greenberg Motamedi

10-May-2010, 10:37

...And Jason , don't forget the stripping of one emulsion side technique- that should tell us if it's the diffusion due to the base or the emulsion- ...

Somewhere earlier on this thread someone reported stripping one side of the emulsion, and as I recall, the difference in sharpness did not appear significant.

evan clarke

10-May-2010, 11:46

I tried a goofy thing a while back just for fun. I added 4 grams of glycin to D76 and it knocks the contrast on identical sheets back about 1 stop.. It's easy to do and I just ordered some 11x14 x-ray film to play with so can contribute more once I have exposed and developed some...Evan Clarke

EdWorkman

13-May-2010, 10:10

I just finished developing a sheet of Blue in a ziplock bag. Pyrocat HD in glycol .75-.75-100 oz. 15 min 68 degress agitate by flipping the bag 3 cyles , 15 sec per minute. I poured 16 oz in the bag and inserted the film. This amount let the film sit just above the level of liquid [ 10 '' horizontal, 8'' vert] until turned it flat.
NO SCRATCHES as reported,
but
a strip of high density along one edge- could possibly be not procedure related, but that edge was nearest the bottom of the bag, hmmmm.
Bad news- I did a presoak in a different bag and transferred the wet neg to the develope bag, leving my prints in the middle of the top long edge of the neg, sigh.
Neg try will be presoak in the bag and pour the developer onto the film. As pyro is so dilute I fear/expect Mackie lines, i hope the presoak will solve that. But I have to think on this more before I jump in again. The neg is still wet, so no conclusions about how it will print on VC- I think I might increase develope time a bit. As I struggled to get the neg into the bag, I pulled it out and trayed it in TF-4 fixer.
If I just had several more thumbs.

Andrew O'Neill

17-May-2010, 09:01

I decided to check out this films response to long exposures. Someone earlier said that this film is not affected by reciprocity effect. Not true.
Please see attachment of curves for 1, 10, and 100 second curves. The 1/8s curve is my reference curve. You can see that there is considerable speed loss even at 1 second.
I also carried out a tonal/colour response comparison with conventional b/w film. I'll upload later.

Andrew O'Neill

17-May-2010, 10:10

I forgot to mention that the film was Green Latitude type and was exposed under my enlarger with a 31 Stouffer step tablet. ND filters were used rather than stopping the lens down. Developed in Rodinol 1+50. Tray.

BetterSense

17-May-2010, 16:16

FWIW, I made some ~10s exposures on CXS green latitude, tungsten light, side-by-side with some Fomapan 100, and found the Green latitude substantially faster than the Fomapan 100 at those conditions. The fomapan shots were unusable; the xray film shots were thin but usable. Of course Fomapan 100 has really poor reciprocity characteristics as many have found, but CXS green latitude was better.

Andrew O'Neill

17-May-2010, 18:36

Fomapan 100 must be pretty bad then. Out of all the films that I have used, the x-ray film has the worst reciprocity characteristics.

Andrew O'Neill

20-May-2010, 17:07

Andrew O'Neill

21-May-2010, 12:57

Here is a rough tonal/colour sensitivity comparison between X-ray and TMY-2.
Green does appear slightly lighter and yellow and beyond, darker.
I do not have a film scanner, so please excuse the poor quality.

evan clarke

21-May-2010, 13:19

You guys got me!. I received a 100 sheet box of 11x14 green latitude Kodak film today. At least it's only $.50 a pop!!..Evan Clarke

Accordionist

26-May-2010, 11:08

Hello, could artificial light from clasic mirror lightbulbs cause strong underexposure when used with green sensitive film? I have done some portraits with these bulbs, and the film is allmost clear. (face is in zone 2?) When i prolonged the time for maybe 3EV it looks much better. Thank you...

Andrew O'Neill

28-May-2010, 17:22

May I ask why you placed the face on zone II?

BetterSense

29-May-2010, 18:10

Indeed. Zone II plus 3EV would still be about a stop under, at least it seems to me.

As I said above, I have shot some still lifes with this film, lit with plain tungsten lightbulbs. Despite the tunsten color balance working against it, it was faster when shot this way, than Foma 100 which I shot side-by-side with xray. So I'd say that it works fine under tungsten.

Accordionist

31-May-2010, 00:41

May I ask why you placed the face on zone II? No, the face FALL in zone II :) I want only to say, that there is only very minor texture on the negative. Sorry, i wrote it maybe wrong. (my English is weak) I have used exposure from incident light. And everything was underexposed... So, when the film is not sensitive to reds and the light from the bulbs is also reddish - this is maybe the problem...

Jim Fitzgerald

4-Jun-2010, 07:19

Does the lack of sharpness come from the coating on both sides? And is all of the xray film coated on both sides? Jim Fitzgerald is using this stuff for carbon transfer printing, which is a very sharp process, (with ULF negatives at that) and I can not imagine that he would be using the stuff if it did not give sharp results.

Sandy King

Well, everyone I'm back. Sorry for the delay. Computer problems and life events in the way.
I have gotten great results using the green sensitive film for my carbon work. The film is very sharp (in my opinion). I've used old and new lenses and love what I get.

Jim Fitzgerald

4-Jun-2010, 07:24

I would be very grateful if any x-ray green latitude film users the next time you're out shooting, if you could apply my reciprocity effect data to your exposure. Works for me, but curious to know if it would work for you. Thankyou. :)

Andrew, thanks for this info. Next time I'm out I'll give it a try. In the past I've not used any reciprocity factors in my exposure and have been very satisfied with the results. So i'll see what happens.

Jim

Andrew O'Neill

5-Jun-2010, 16:22

Jim, how long are your exposures usually?

Jim Fitzgerald

6-Jun-2010, 07:06

Jim, how long are your exposures usually?

Andrew, they can generally run from about 20 seconds to a couple of minutes or more.

Jim

jan labij

3-Oct-2010, 10:02

I read this whole series of posts only because x-ray film comes on a thicker base than the arista ortho I usually use. I was afraid the thin base arista ortho would sag or buckle in 8X10. I was turned off by the scratch problems 'till I read about the zip-loc bag process, which sounds so promising I'm going to have to try it.

Andrew O'Neill

3-Oct-2010, 10:17

and be very careful loading your film holders.

WayneStevenson

19-Oct-2010, 23:05

The scratches are really bothersome. I definately do not enjoy them on my film. Had an idea to throw a sheet through my Durst print processor to see what happens. Then decided I didn't want emulsion stuck to all of my rollers........

But for the hell of it, I just gave Dektol (1:2, 18C) a go on two frames I shot and it works great. Zero scratches on the second sheet in the minute they were in the trays. Cutting back that time in there, cuts back on the risks of scratching.

Bottom sheet scratched up some on the bottom of the tray. And it was just laid there. Stand developed for the duration. So I'm thinking there isn't any way around those scratches. Though it does look like that one sheet on bottom protects the next sheet from becoming scratched up. Like I said, zero scratches.

Negatives look great but are still drying. I'll try to do some prints tommorow to really see how good it worked.

venchka

20-Oct-2010, 05:07

Could you keep a sheet of fixed out film to place on the bottom and protect the sheet being developed?

Jim Fitzgerald

20-Oct-2010, 17:24

Guys, 8x10 in hangers in tanks. Zero scratches.

Jim

Brian Bullen

20-Oct-2010, 18:45

Could you keep a sheet of fixed out film to place on the bottom and protect the sheet being developed?

Yes, it works very well. I have used this method for 11x14 and 8x10 before I got hangers and scratches were pretty much eliminated. The film does have to be flipped so each side is evenly developed but if the film on the bottom of the tray is larger than the sheet you're developing, it's easy.

WayneStevenson

23-Oct-2010, 10:40

Doing a marathon print session in my darkroom late last night and had a last-minute urge to grab an exposed sheet and feed it into my Durst processor before I shut her down. Worked very well but I did end up with minor scratches (not deep into the emulsion) where it came into contact with something. They're very uniform lines so I'll see if I can track down what caused it and see if it's something that can be remedied.

Hangers definately would be the best remedy. But I haven't found any shops these days carrying any........Plenty of tanks. No hangers to go with them.

Andrew O'Neill

24-Oct-2010, 22:11

The scratches are really bothersome. I definately do not enjoy them on my film. Had an idea to throw a sheet through my Durst print processor to see what happens. Then decided I didn't want emulsion stuck to all of my rollers........

I prefer to use a ziplock bag with developer poured inside. The bag combo is placed in a flat bottom tray. Puff a bit of air inside the bag, seal, and Bob's yer uncle. You won't need as much solution as you would with the hanger/tank method.
I'm currently working on some xray green latitude film and pyrocat-hd curves using 1+1+200 and 1+1+100 dilution. I also have curves for Rodinol. works very well with this developer. A few months ago I generated some reciprocity data that has been serving me well. I do believe I posted it here somewhere.

AF-ULF

16-Nov-2010, 09:53

When developing large prints in the darkroom, I place a sheet of glass in the tray the same size as the bottom of the tray. This has eliminated scratches on the prints. Would the same thing work for x-ray film?

Question: The X-ray film I am looking at comes in 1. Medium speed green; 2. Half speed blue; 3. Full speed blue and 4. High speed green. I get the difference between the blue and green. Does the speed of the film make much difference in the final image? Is the high speed more contrasty? Anyone know the equivalent EI rating for the medium/half speed films and the high/full speed films?

dfoo

20-Nov-2010, 19:51

Michael Roberts

21-Nov-2010, 08:31

And, for those ULF sizes...

Ziploc® Brand Big Bags are available in three big sizes:
•L equivalent to 3 Gallon (11.4L) 1.25 FT. x 1.25 FT. (38.1cm x 38.1cm) 5ct.
•XL equivalent to 10 Gallon (37.8L) 2 FT. x 1.7 FT. (60cm x 51 cm) 4ct.
•XXL equivalent to 20 Gallon (75.7L) 2 FT. x 2.7 FT. (60cm x 82 cm) 3ct.

jon.oman

9-Dec-2010, 09:48

Two questions on development. Since x-ray film has an emulsion on both sides, should you use twice the normal amount of developer? (I'm thinking of developer exhaustion.) For replenishment in a deep tank, would you need twice as much replenisher?

Thanks!

cosmicexplosion

10-Dec-2010, 01:34

[QUOTE=Andrew O'Neill;641882]I prefer to use a ziplock bag with developer poured inside. The bag combo is placed in a flat bottom tray. Puff a bit of air inside the bag, seal, and Bob's yer uncle. You won't need as much solution as you would with the hanger/tank method.

great thanks:) :) :)

cosmicexplosion

10-Dec-2010, 01:35

[QUOTE=AF-ULF;649920]When developing large prints in the darkroom, I place a sheet of glass in the tray the same size as the bottom of the tray. This has eliminated scratches on the prints.

great idea thanks:) :) :)

mdm

29-Dec-2010, 15:49

I prefer to use a ziplock bag with developer poured inside. The bag combo is placed in a flat bottom tray. Puff a bit of air inside the bag, seal, and Bob's yer uncle. You won't need as much solution as you would with the hanger/tank method.
I'm currently working on some xray green latitude film and pyrocat-hd curves using 1+1+200 and 1+1+100 dilution. I also have curves for Rodinol. works very well with this developer. A few months ago I generated some reciprocity data that has been serving me well. I do believe I posted it here somewhere.

Andrew, may I ask your agitation routine and pyrocat dilution when developing in ziplock bags?

Andrew O'Neill

8-Jan-2011, 10:01

Andrew O'Neill

8-Jan-2011, 13:55

If you are a carbon printer (or alt printer for that matter), who requires a negatives with long DR's, then stripping the emulsion away from the backside of xray film is not a good idea. I took a negative that had a DR of 2.20, stripped it ending up with a DR of 1.00. So to get more DR, I developed another sheet for twice the time getting a DR of 2.31. Not much of an increase in DR. After stripping the DR was 1.13. The stripped negative also had poorer tonal separation, especially in the highlights (worse for the film that received extended development) than the unstripped negative.
Contact printed, unstripped xray film in carbon looks pretty good. Not as sharp as TMY, but acceptable.
No stripping for me.

jon.oman

8-Jan-2011, 15:17

WayneStevenson

9-Jan-2011, 21:03

Yes. You've doubled the surface area to be developed so you need to factor that in for your chemistry.

As for replenisher, is it not based on how much film you have developed? In which case you would replenish sooner.

mdm

9-Jan-2011, 23:28

Sorry but just reading your question now...

Pyrocat-hd is diluted 10ml's part A + 10ml's part B + 1000ml's water. Film gets constant agitation for one minute, then about 5secs every 30 sec for remaining time. My development time is quite long as they are intended for carbon transfer printing.
I have also had success with a much stronger dilution (500ml's water instead of 1000ml's). Development time is cut from 17:00 to 8:00. My normal EI is 125.

Going down to the darkroom now to see what stripping of the emulsion on the backside of the film will do for me...

Thanks for your reply. Sorry, I dont seem to be subscribed to this thread and only read your answer now.

I have been having trouble with marks in the sky or wherever there is a large area of a paler tone, except with 1:1:200 Pyrocat M.

Anyway I need negs with a density range of +-log 3 so am going back to BTZS tubes and 1:1:50 as sugested in another thread with 12-15 min.

Thanks

jon.oman

10-Jan-2011, 10:00

Tri Tran

14-Feb-2011, 21:38

Here are few images from X ray film for your to preview. I process them in a 20x24 tray, 4 (8x10 ) sheets at a time. 6 min with D76. Great density for Carbon/ Platinum Print.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3476/crystalcove4.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/crystalcove4.jpg/)

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8149/crystalcove3.jpg (http://img137.imageshack.us/i/crystalcove3.jpg/)

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5866/crystalcove1.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/i/crystalcove1.jpg/)

Jim Fitzgerald

14-Feb-2011, 21:52

Tri, very nice. Good to see the other one. easy as can be!

Randy

15-Feb-2011, 08:00

Jim Fitzgerald

15-Feb-2011, 08:12

Randy, Tri and I shoot green sensitive x-ray film. I'm not sure what agitation he uses but in the tray we were rocking it while talking under the red safelight. I wasn't paying close attention. We were also doing some of my first 14x17 negatives. We both use ISO 80 metering the shadows to Zone IV. I'm not sure of his dilution but I'm sure Tri will chime in. Tray developed and I do mine in tanks in Pyrocat-HD.

Randy

15-Feb-2011, 08:39

Jim and Tri, in the tray, you didn't flip the film during agitation?

Also, was the tray flat on the bottom or did it have ridges? Some have said you must use the flat bottom trays to minimize scratching of the emulsion.

Michael Batchelor

15-Feb-2011, 17:41

TT, can you offer your type of X-ray film (green...blue?) and the ISO you are using?
Also, your agitation method and dilution in D-76?
I just got a 100 sheet box of the CSX Green sensitive but haven't opened it yet.

I'm also curious if it's double sided film like the box I bought. I've tried the chlorine bleach trick to remove the back side image, but it's a lot of trouble.

If this is double sided, is this with both images intact? Or do you remove the one not facing the lens?

Tri Tran

16-Feb-2011, 07:49

Hi Micheal,Randy
I process them with normal ridge tray, flip the neg during processing is recommended . Both emulsions are intact.

Michael Batchelor

16-Feb-2011, 14:03

Hi Micheal,Randy
I process them with normal ridge tray, flip the neg during processing is recommended . Both emulsions are intact.

Have you made any contact prints from them with both emulsions still on?

The chlorine bleach trick works pretty well, frankly, but it is an awful lot of trouble. If both images are in reasonable focus, then it is merely a density building mechanism. But I've only shot 4 sheets of the film so far.

What I found is that in my drums I have to be very careful pulling the film out, since the emulsion facing the outer wall is easy to scratch. Not an issue if you're removing it anyway, but that's more work than developing the film.

Jim Fitzgerald

16-Feb-2011, 16:27

Michael, no bleach, no drums. Simplify your life. Tray, D-76, red safe light on and develop for 6 minutes or so till done. Develop by inspection. Simple.

Ron McElroy

16-Feb-2011, 16:43

So since development is under a red safe light, then I assume all handling of film can be done in the same conditions?

Vaughn

16-Feb-2011, 16:48

I cut down the film under a faint red safe light.

I try to keep the red light to a minimum when developing -- film does seem to gain some sensitivity when first in the developer -- I stand so my shadow is over the dev tray for the first half or so of the dev time.

The developer I use is fairly cheap, so I use a good amount in a ribbed tray -- the film never touches the bottom.

Vaughn

j.e.simmons

16-Feb-2011, 17:46

There is also available an x-ray safelight filter that fits the Kodak bullet safelights.
juan

toolbox

18-Feb-2011, 14:12

I just read this entire thread...and ordered a pack of the blue film in 8x10 :D. Fantastic info here guys...many thanks to everyone who contributed!

Jim Fitzgerald

18-Feb-2011, 15:27

At $.25 a sheet if you mess up it doesn't cost you much. I think it is a great way to learn.

cosmicexplosion

18-Feb-2011, 19:51

where is the best place to get x-ray film?

Jim Fitzgerald

18-Feb-2011, 20:04

CSX online.com. Just google them. You can use their csx brand. I buy their green sensitive and shoot it at ISO 80.

deadpan

19-Feb-2011, 10:43

Maybe i'm just missing something, but when I google them I get only Acura csx results. When I google csx xray film all I get is threads here and on APUG. Any help?

CSX online.com. Just google them. You can use their csx brand. I buy their green sensitive and shoot it at ISO 80.

Roger Thoms

19-Feb-2011, 10:56

Maybe i'm just missing something, but when I google them I get only Acura csx results. When I google csx xray film all I get is threads here and on APUG. Any help?

Yeah it took me a little googling, my first attempt yielded lots of results for rail freight.

http://www.cxsonline.com/text/subcatalog.tmpl?command=showpage&sn=807889&category=1001&cart=12981415929866338&location=1001

Think Jim just wants us to work a little.

Roger

deadpan

19-Feb-2011, 12:02

Thanks,

as soon as I arrived at the site, I remembered I had already stumbled upon it a while ago...and then subsequently ruled it out, as i'm based in the UK :(

"Most items ship out of Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
We only ship to the US and Canada."

Yeah it took me a little googling, my first attempt yielded lots of results for rail freight.

http://www.cxsonline.com/text/subcatalog.tmpl?command=showpage&sn=807889&category=1001&cart=12981415929866338&location=1001

Think Jim just wants us to work a little.

Roger

Ralph Weimer

19-Feb-2011, 15:57

www.kellysearch.co.uk/i/instrumentation/x-ray-film

A number of x-ray film distributors in UK, even listed by region. Just ignore the little survey and scroll towards the bottom of the page.
RW

Curt

19-Feb-2011, 22:19

I'm going to have to order some 11X14, I'm working each day on my 11X14 View camera even though I don't have a regular holder, only two glass plate holders which have the same outside dimensions. I'm going to have to make regular film holders.

The camera is going to be made using the hardware, where appropriate, from a Kodak 2D model. It's not my last 11X14, I plan on making a true flat bed design, but in the mean time I'm getting this done. I've got the back frame, bases, front uprights made and the rest won't present any problems. I have the bellows material from Porters, they don't carry it now, I'm making a bellows for it. I have the gg and springs so it's an assembly project. Since there isn't a rack and pinion to be made it save a lot of time.

When I make a publicly presentable model out of fine hard wood and hand made hardware with a bellows from Camera Bellows UK, I'll show pictures. I'm making a 5X7 and an 11X14 after this one is done. I got luck and have springs, glass, and a Canham new bellows for the 5X7. It's going to be a "Wista" type clam shell, flatbed model made of some 30 year old Honduras Mahogany I have in two nice planks.

I'll have to start practicing with the X-Ray film I got from CS in 8X10 while I finish the 11X14. I'm planing to use my RD Artar 19", I have two of them, one in a shutter and one in a barrel. I have a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar in a shutter too that would work, I have others but haven't decided or checked to see which might work. Jim beat me out of a nice lens on eBay a while back, I was distracted away and he got it for next to nothing. It's a good thing, I didn't know that he was bidding and to bid hard on something with someone you know and like would be really bad. I hope that lens works out for you Jim, I forgot to ask if you have used it yet.

It's so cold in the shop right now that I figure out what step is next, plan it out and go and do it then get out of there. It's amazing how cold a table saw or shaper top can get. Also I bring the wood in at night so the moisture content doesn't change radically. That's woodworking, the first camera I made was in an apartment. It is a cherry and brass "Wista" type 4X5. The bellows is still light tight after decades of disuse. The first one is the most difficult, but now I have a shop so it's easier to work, except in the cold when I'm too lazy to fire up the pellet stove.

Jim, that BIG camera turned out very, very nice, what a joy to look at and use. I can't make it to Joshua Tree unfortunately but someday I'll see it in person I hope. You never know what will happen.

Curt

Gene McCluney

20-Feb-2011, 11:59

I am amazed that this little old thread I started years ago is still going strong.

reyno bundit

20-Feb-2011, 16:13

http://www.asomerville.ltd.uk/xray-film_1.html

shipping 7 pounds in the mainland u.k

Andrew O'Neill

20-Feb-2011, 18:07

Yup. It's all your fault Gene! Thanks for starting this thread and getting me as well as others hooked on xray film.

Gene McCluney

20-Feb-2011, 20:24

Yup. It's all your fault Gene! Thanks for starting this thread and getting me as well as others hooked on xray film.

My pleasure, and its about time I get fired up with it again. I have found that "some" X-ray film sizes are not "exactly" like comparable sheet film sizes, hence can be a tight fit into traditional sheet film holders. 7x17 comes to mind. It is cut a wee bit bigger and tends to buckle in the holder. Very frustrating, since it needs to be shaved down, and any excessive handling can bring scratches.

Jim Fitzgerald

20-Feb-2011, 20:32

Gene, sorry to hear that but it is good to know.

cosmicexplosion

21-Feb-2011, 03:17

i just found a chinese site that has 8x10 for .17 a sheet...

minimum order 5000 sq.mtr!!!!

toolbox

22-Mar-2011, 10:14

Finally got a chance to develop my blue x-ray film this past weekend... I cut it up for use in my 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 baby Speed Graphic (got 5 sheets per 8x10 :)). I developed it in a Yankee tank that I've had good luck developing 4x5s in. I used divided D-76 (Photographers Formulary recipe) for 5 minutes in each bath. Results were ok, but the grain seemed like it was unusually big/heavy--to the point it really affected the ability of it to resolve detail. That might be fine in an 8x10 neg, but it's a problem in a format this size... Just wondering if anyone else has had this problem? I've been developing TMax in this DD-76, and the results have been great. Do I need to try another developer?
Cheers,
Scott

Vaughn

22-Mar-2011, 10:33

7x17 comes to mind. It is cut a wee bit bigger and tends to buckle in the holder. Very frustrating, since it needs to be shaved down, and any excessive handling can bring scratches.

And 14x17 can not just be cut in half for two 7x17's -- slightly small. At least for Agfa X-ray and the 7x17 holder I have.

grahamcase

24-Mar-2011, 19:33

For any Canadian shooters (Especially those in BC's lower mainland) there is a dealer in North Vancouver that sells Kodak and Agfa X-Ray film. It seems more expensive than the US counterparts, but they have a storefront, so you can drop by and try it out: http://www.canadianxraysupplies.com/xray-film.php

gth

25-Mar-2011, 17:09

Does anyone here have experience with Kodak Min-R EV or Kodak Min-R S Mammography Xray film?

Andrew O'Neill

25-Mar-2011, 18:01

Graham, thanks for that!

camerabrain

25-Mar-2011, 18:34

can you use other developers other than xtol? I have sprint developer,diafine,and hc110

EdWorkman

25-Mar-2011, 19:14

gth
NO
But mammography film is supposedly single side emulsion
Sizes seem to be limited
And more costly
If it's cheap to you, please try it and report
-
camerabrain
Like I said- use what you have- HC110 would seem like a pretty sure bet.

Andrew O'Neill

26-Mar-2011, 10:08

can you use other developers other than xtol? I have sprint developer,diafine,and hc110

Yes. I've developed xray film (green latitude) in pyrocat-hd, rodinol, D-76, and D-19. All diluted more than normal, especially D-19. I'm using this film just for carbon transfer printing. You shouldn't have any problems in the developers that you have on hand... I've never used diafine, though.

Robert Hughes

26-Mar-2011, 10:55

I've used D-76 with green sensitive xray film, it works just fine. Xray film is easily scratched, though, so handle with kid gloves, or perhaps baggies.

Andrew O'Neill

27-Mar-2011, 13:29

i just found a chinese site that has 8x10 for .17 a sheet...

Do you have a link?

Raidahl

28-Mar-2011, 03:24

Do anybody know any place to make orders about x-ray films here in Europe?

K. Praslowicz

9-Apr-2011, 06:30

Michael Batchelor

9-Apr-2011, 13:07

Two quick 8x10 self portraits I did with Fuji 100NIF Xray last night.

http://img.kpraslowicz.com/share/self-port-diafine.jpg
Exposed at 100ISO, developed in Diafine

http://img.kpraslowicz.com/share/self-port-hc110.jpg
Exposed at 100ISO, developed in HC-110

These look pretty good. There seems to be a number of types of 100 NIF emulsions.

Are any of these designations on the film? (No, I don't know what they mean, I just found them with Google.)

AX(Q-AX)　
MG-SR(G-S)　
C Type (Q-CT)
He-Ne Laser Image Film
LP-670T (QHN-670T)
Mammography Film
CM-H (Q-CMH)

K. Praslowicz

9-Apr-2011, 13:16

These look pretty good. There seems to be a number of types of 100 NIF emulsions.

Are any of these designations on the film? (No, I don't know what they mean, I just found them with Google.)

http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/8x10-fuji-xray-film-p-384.html T2 Blue RX is what I'm using.

camerabrain

14-May-2011, 17:02

I have used the Fuji blue x ray film the higher speed stuff (Fuji RX Full Speed Blue Film)and shot it at 800 then developed it in Diafine with Saran wrap in the bottom of the trays to prevent scratches, with excellent results. I tried shooting it at 200 its supposed speed and developing with HC110 mixture B and it came out like crap. Too too dark. Has anyone tried this with Hc110 and got good results?

K. Praslowicz

14-May-2011, 17:05

I have used the Fuji blue x ray film the higher speed stuff and shot it at 800 then developed it in Diafine with Saran wrap in the bottom of the trays to prevent scratches, with excellent results. I tried shooting it at 200 its supposed speed and developing with HC110 mixture B and it came out like crap. Too too dark. Has anyone tried this with Hc110 and got good results?

I've been getting good results with HC-100 in studio portraits. Dilution H at 68 degrees w rotary processing.

K. Praslowicz

15-May-2011, 09:22

I tried shooting it at 200 its supposed speed and developing with HC110 mixture B and it came out like crap. Too too dark. Has anyone tried this with Hc110 and got good results?

Also, just to make sure, you aren't judging the negative density without stripping off the back layer of emulsion are you?

EdWorkman

15-May-2011, 10:00

I always found that B was too "hot" for [forTriX]
Dilute it more if you can't cut development time.
"its supposed speed"- is a starting point, not a standard
Strip or don't strip, but if it's not boiler plate [assuming "too dark" means a dense neg, not a print from a very thin neg] try a print to see what you really have

EdWorkman

15-May-2011, 10:03

Hey K.P. very nice success

WayneStevenson

13-Jun-2011, 22:09

I've been mainly shooting High Speed Blue CXS.

HC-110b worked great for me in both tray, and rotary. Found Rodinal really easy to work using the times listed I think on page 1 of this discussion as well. Xtol and T-Max work good too. Heh. I think I mentioned Dektol working great too.

Doubt you'd find anything that doesn't work with this film so use what you usually use.

joselsgil

14-Jun-2011, 00:48

I have a newbie question about the X-ray film. I plan on using the half speed green film as my Betax no. 4 shutter is very slow.
This film is considered ortho, so can it be handled under red safelight conditions? Meaning, can it be loaded into the film holders under safelight or is it like a pan film that needs to be handled in total darkness?
I'm thinking that if it can be handled under red safelight, I might cut some 8X10 down to 5X7 and 4X5 and try it on my smaller camera backs.

Thanks for sharing your info, this thread has been very helpful.

Jose

Wooohooo, I just hit my 50th post and today (June 14th), is my 50th B-day. My brain still thinks I'm 13 years old, my body tells me another story. :D

Jim Fitzgerald

14-Jun-2011, 06:52

Jose, yes, you can load, un-load in the red light. Just be careful doing so. I think a lot of people scratch the negative during this process. Also, be careful trying to cut this down for the same reasons.

Jim Fitzgerald

22-Jun-2011, 16:23

So this thread was one that needed examples. Here is a recent shot. If you have been following this thread you already know what I shoot and how i develop. This is a carbon print.

Michael Batchelor

23-Jun-2011, 06:40

Also, just to make sure, you aren't judging the negative density without stripping off the back layer of emulsion are you?

I've been doing a few experiments with half speed blue film, and I've tried both stripping the emulsion off the back and leaving it on to increase density.

The biggest issue I have is that I scratch the back emulsion loading and unloading about 10% of the time.

But I haven't really done enough testing to know which I like better.

Does everyone here tend to strip the back emulsion? Or do some folks leave it in place?

Michael

Tri Tran

23-Jun-2011, 07:04

Why do extra work ? Xray film has some defective sheets once in a while...scratch, unsual coated marks but is minimal. They sure are passed the quality control .
My negative most of them came out flawless, I kept the air compressor next to my film loading station to clean all the holders before loading the film. Through out the process please remember wash your trays, filter your developer ! More handling = more scratches with Xray film .

Jim Fitzgerald

23-Jun-2011, 07:41

I agree with Tri on this. Also, the bigger you go as in 11x14 and 14x17 you have to be even more careful.

K. Praslowicz

23-Jun-2011, 08:25

I'm currently loading mine in a far too small changing bag and rotary
Processing. The back layer tends to be unevenly developed and looks like a cat went after it, so I'm much forced to strip. Once I move into my new apartment, tray processing and non-bag loading will be an option so maybe I won't have to anymore.

nolindan

23-Jun-2011, 18:41

i just found a chinese site that has 8x10 for .17 a sheet...minimum order 5000 sq.mtr!!!!

$16,469

96,875 sheets of film ...

Jim Fitzgerald

27-Jun-2011, 20:38

Okay, here is one of several images I shot on green sensitive x-ray film. This stuff is the bomb!! This is a carbon transfer print, of course.

Tri Tran

27-Jun-2011, 21:28

Okay, here is one of several images I shot on green sensitive x-ray film. This stuff is the bomb!! This is a carbon transfer print, of course.

I like this batch tissue tone a lot. It looks very classy .I hope you took note for this recipe. Well done Jim.

Curt

27-Jun-2011, 21:56

Jim, what pigment did you use?

I had a fantastic time at the workshop in Canada with Vaughn. I have one 11x14 filmholder 99% done. The wood is acclimating for the run after all evaluations have been completed on the working model, which is usable but in a different wood species.

Nice image there.

Curt

Jim Fitzgerald

28-Jun-2011, 06:57

Thanks, I do love the tone in this image as it fits the mood of the church and scene. Now Tri, come on now you know I always keep good notes! That was one of Vaughn's first comments to me and as I recall I have said the same thing to my students. I put a little extra in the black cat.

Curt, nice going if you are building your own film holders. Let me know how they work when you get them done. That is very difficult to do.

mgeiss

10-Aug-2011, 16:33

Here are some 8x10" pinhole images taken on Fuji HR-U green sensitive film.
Developed in Rodinal 1+100 for 6 minutes, backside emulsion stripped using chloride bleach.
Exposure was measured around ISO 50-100 depending on the light.

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk01.jpg

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk03.jpg

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk04.jpg

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk06.jpg

mgeiss

10-Aug-2011, 16:35

Another two:

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk07.jpg

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk10.jpg

BarryS

10-Aug-2011, 16:49

Outstanding work, mgeiss. It shows how much you can do with a simple camera and inexpensive film.

Jay DeFehr

10-Aug-2011, 17:22

mgeiss, bravo! Well done, indeed. Inspiring! What were your exposure times like?

jon.oman

10-Aug-2011, 19:00

I agree, nice images!

Jim Fitzgerald

10-Aug-2011, 19:57

never seen the need to do the stripping. Never done it and my images print just fine. KISS is how I work.

Jay DeFehr

10-Aug-2011, 20:06

I'm definitely going to try the stripping, along with a few other wild ideas I have. Thanks for the tips. I'll let you know if I learn anything useful.

mgeiss

11-Aug-2011, 02:52

Thanks for your comments!

@Jay
Exposure was between a few seconds in sunlight and a few minutes on cloudy days. The camera has an f/300 pinhole and i usually add some exposure for reciprocity effects.

@Dann
Yes, the stripping works just fine. A few seconds and all that is left on the backside is a nice clean film base.

@Jim
It depends on how you develop the film. I use Jobo Expert drums when i have more than one sheet to develop, or a Jobo 1520-1530 combo for single sheets. When the wet films are taken out of the drums, I get big scratches on the back almost every time. I never got to like tray or tank processing and don't have a permanent darkroom.

Jim Fitzgerald

11-Aug-2011, 06:37

So there is the problem. If you are going to shoot x-ray film you need to use flat bottomed trays or tanks. I use tanks for the 8x10 and trays for my ULF stuff. Remember you can scratch the film loading and unloading. It amazes my how people scratch film, but they do.

mgeiss

11-Aug-2011, 07:38

I don't see it as a problem much, it's just two minutes more work with every sheet and soon becomes routine. I don't need the extra density from the second emulsion either, so for me there's no need keeping it. :)

I know many people prefer tanks or trays, but I really like the expert drums for anything 4x5" or larger.

Besides that, I use it only for pinhole imaging and do my normal 8x10" work on Efke.

Scott --

11-Aug-2011, 07:53

And for the stripping, you tape the negative, good side down, to a sheet of glass and paint on the bleach mix, then rinse off, right? Or has the protocol evolved?

Think it's time I pull the trigger on some green 10x12...

Jay DeFehr

11-Aug-2011, 07:59

Danke, herr Geiss! I only tried drum development of X-Ray film once, with exactly the results you describe- I got a perfectly developed negative with huge scratches on the back. Now I wish I hadn't thrown that negative away!

Andrew O'Neill

11-Aug-2011, 08:06

If you intend to use xray film for alternative processes such as carbon, you should not strip the backside emulsion as you will end up with a negative with half the density range. No problem if you are printing on VC or graded papers silver papers.

mgeiss

11-Aug-2011, 08:15

Dann,

I didn't use anything but pure bleach (Danklorix brand here in Germany) yet. I tape the sheet to a piece of glass and keep it horizontally. I haven't experienced any problems with this method and just use a soft 2" brush to apply the bleach, wait a few seconds to let the bleach work and give it a short rinse. Most of the time, there will be some spots left, where the emulsion didn't go away, so I do a second run. After that, I rinse again and wipe everything with a soft, damp and lint-free cloth.

Scott --

11-Aug-2011, 08:35

never seen the need to do the stripping. Never done it and my images print just fine. KISS is how I work.

Jim, I work with a hybrid workflow (for now), so scan my negatives. Also, I do daylight drum developing, and have no facilities for tray developing, so a scratched back emulsion is going to happen. So stripping looks like it might be the way to go for me. I might try carbon one day, and have a proper darkroom to develop in, but today ain't the day...

Ari

11-Aug-2011, 08:36

I have a question regarding this topic, as I don't print carbon. Since I strip the emulsion on x-ray film, I always expose my film as if it had only one emulsion layer. How much additional exposure would be required to print carbon with one emulsion layer?

Dann,
I'm not sure how much you are already compensating for the stripped emulsion.
Once I found the film's speed, in my case ISO 320, I treated it like regular film, at least with regards to exposure.

Vaughn

11-Aug-2011, 11:23

A salt print made with an 8x10 negative -- blue sensitive x-ray film, developed at the hospital's lab.

Andrew O'Neill

11-Aug-2011, 14:14

I have a question regarding this topic, as I don't print carbon. Since I strip the emulsion on x-ray film, I always expose my film as if it had only one emulsion layer. How much additional exposure would be required to print carbon with one emulsion layer?

I tried exposing more as well as developing more. Exposing more did nothing but give me a negative with waaaaaay too much base + fog. And you can only go so far with over-development before you get too much base + fog. I only tried this with pyrocat-hd. Maybe with a high contrast developer such as D-19, it might work. Wanted to try it, but have been too busy making carbon prints rather than experimenting.

Very, very nice salt print, Vaughn!

Jay DeFehr

11-Aug-2011, 15:32

Andrew,

I'm sure I can get plenty of contrast and Density Range one side of X-Ray film for carbon printing by developing in 510-Pyro. My developing times are short, and so there's a lot of room for increased development. I'm not sure why increased exposure would produce fog, unless by fog you mean excess density. Since I plan to increase development significantly, I'll decrease exposure to compensate for the increased development. To extend density range it's important to keep the low densities low while extending the higher densities. Increasing exposure is contraindicated in this scenario.

cyberjunkie

17-Aug-2011, 10:24

I found two boxes of 18x24cm mammography film.
This is what i found online:

"HDR-C Plus Mamoray film is a single-sided orthochromatic mammography film that is part of the Agfa HealthCare film / screen system for mammography. The film uses both Split Emulsion Layer (S.E.L.) and the Cubic Crystal technologies. Agfa’s Split Emulsion Layer technology provides the Mamoray HDR-C Plus film with three emulsion layers on one side of the film. Each layer consists of monodispersed Cubic Crystals of identical size.
A particular strong point is the system’s high dynamic range. For every image, the contrast is optimized for each density range. Equally, the system provides excellent visualisation of details which are further enhanced by the masking effect of high maximum density in the non-image area adjacent to the skin-line."

It should be less contrasted than standard double-sided X-Ray film, and the three-layer emulsion should be a nice solution for pictorial photography (wide range of illumination level on the same picture).
There are very few mammography film available, so i guess that somebody had the chance to test the Agfa HDR-C.
What's the best EI/developer combination i should start with?
Are the results comparable with modern orthochromatic film?
I don't like the rounded corners and the lack of notch codes: the former is not a really a problem, while the notches could be punched under red light.
If the film turns out to be usable, then i have 200 sheets for every kind of test, bellows checking, film holders checking, experimenting with developers, etc. for a very affordable price. After that, i should still have a lot of sheets left :)
I am not going to do any alt. technique in the near future, just scanning (with stitching) and contact printing on silver paper, so the contrast of the negative should be kept under control.

have fun

CJ

gbogatko

17-Aug-2011, 11:58

I'm getting good results developing "green latitude" using Dektol at 1:10 by inspection. I'm going to try the bleach next.

Joe Forks

21-Aug-2011, 07:31

I wish xray were available in 12x20, but it is not, that I am aware of.
It is available in 24x24 and 10x12 though, which gives me two options.

1) splice two sheets of 10x12 together - emulsion on both sides though, how do I keep them in place? A small piece of tape or two on the backside at the splice?

2) cut down 24x24 - I've heard it over and over this stuff scratches easily.

Are either of these viable options if I want to play with cheap film? Or am I SOL? I mean for the chump change they are asking I might play anyway, just thought I'd get some feedback first before I place an order.

Vaughn

21-Aug-2011, 16:20

2) -- I tape down a clean sheet of paper on the cutting board to reduce the possibility of scratching while cutting down 14x17 x-ray to 7x17, 11x14 or 8x10. Seems to help.

Thanks Andrew -- I might be printing it and the negs of my other two sons in platinum.

Vaughn

tgtaylor

22-Aug-2011, 09:56

I've been following this thread over the years with only a passing curiosity since I shoot 4x5 for which high quality B&W film is still "reasonably" priced. However a couple of months ago I took the plunge and purchased a Toyo 810G and X-ray film suddenly became a viable choice to shoot a lot of images with that camera that I wouldn't ordinarily do because of the cost. So yesterday I ordered a 100 sheet box of Kodak's green sensitive x-ray film: http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/8x10-kodak-xray-film-p-419.html

I have one question that hasn't been addressed in this thread so far: How long do the negatives last before they start to fade? I ran across this issue yesterday while searching the web for a Kodak Data Sheet on the film. Supposedly X-ray negatives fade over time. If that is correct then is that fading do to the chemical processing they typically receive in the health care environment and would the standard B&W processing that we photographers use would prevent that fading?

Finally, here's an interesting local (San Francisco) news feature on a local ULF photographer that uses X-ray film that was broadcast last week: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8310514

An exhibition is currently at Inclusions Gallery in San Francisco thru 9/18/2011 where a Discussion/Q&A session will be held this Thursday from 7-9PM. The artists Reception was held this past Saturday and the gallery curator told me that the place was completely packed with people standing out on the sidewalk.

Thomas

Robert Hughes

22-Aug-2011, 10:33

How long do the negatives last before they start to fade?
If you fix and wash them properly, they should last as long as the acetate backing does.

here's an interesting local (San Francisco) news feature on a local ULF photographer that uses X-ray film that was broadcast last week...
How they fit last week's film sheets into a broadcast stream I'll never know.

tgtaylor

22-Aug-2011, 20:18

If you fix and wash them properly, they should last as long as the acetate backing does.

From what I have been able to determine, practically all x-ray film manufactured in the past 30 years is on a polyester base and not acetate.

Here is a quote from the reference that I ran across yesterday regarding fading - actually fogging:

"X-ray film will fog slowly with time, the extent depending markedly on how well it is stored. This fogging, along with the optical density of the film base, will generate a low density in the toe section of the Characteristic Curve." See http://www.e-radiography.net/radtech/f/film.htm.

Finally, here is a link to the Kodak Data sheet that I found: http://www.taldent.ee/est/med/filmid/mxg.pdf

Thomas

Cor

23-Aug-2011, 01:34

From what I have been able to determine, practically all x-ray film manufactured in the past 30 years is on a polyester base and not acetate.

Here is a quote from the reference that I ran across yesterday regarding fading - actually fogging:

"X-ray film will fog slowly with time, the extent depending markedly on how well it is stored. This fogging, along with the optical density of the film base, will generate a low density in the toe section of the Characteristic Curve." See http://www.e-radiography.net/radtech/f/film.htm.

Finally, here is a link to the Kodak Data sheet that I found: http://www.taldent.ee/est/med/filmid/mxg.pdf

Thomas

It's true that Xray film builds up B+F slowly before exposure (seen it happen at the lab when we used a lot of it for autoradiography), but after processing there is no reason that the negative is as stable as normally processed negatives..maybe the grain size is smaller than standard film..

I guess fading after processing is due to sloppy processing (running the developing machine too long with exhausted fixer, washing too short etc..)

best,

Cor

EdWorkman

23-Aug-2011, 08:42

That word they are using on the film section"
"supercoat"
I don't think it means what they think it means.
How about overcoat or last, soft, coat

Andrew O'Neill

26-Aug-2011, 18:22

I'm sure I can get plenty of contrast and Density Range one side of X-Ray film for carbon printing by developing in 510-Pyro.

That's good to know. I'll have to try some single sided xray film. Thanks Jay.

andrew

tgtaylor

26-Aug-2011, 18:27

My doorbell just rang and UPS forked them over:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6083/6084415898_1e5b2c93cf.jpg

Michael Roberts

26-Aug-2011, 19:14

Joe, I think the 24x24 is cm not inches. I think you have three options:
1. buy 14x36 and cut down to 12x20; leaves a piece of 11x14 as well
2. use two sheets of 12x10 side by side; yes, use clear tape if needed to hold into place
3. cut 14x17 down to 12x17 and tape down one end to center in your 12x20 holder

I wish xray were available in 12x20, but it is not, that I am aware of.
It is available in 24x24 and 10x12 though, which gives me two options.

1) splice two sheets of 10x12 together - emulsion on both sides though, how do I keep them in place? A small piece of tape or two on the backside at the splice?

2) cut down 24x24 - I've heard it over and over this stuff scratches easily.

Are either of these viable options if I want to play with cheap film? Or am I SOL? I mean for the chump change they are asking I might play anyway, just thought I'd get some feedback first before I place an order.

tgtaylor

27-Aug-2011, 08:27

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6083/6084415898_1e5b2c93cf.jpg[/QUOTE]

FWIW, the above Kodak ClinicSelect Green X-ray film was until recently named KODAK Medical X-ray Film / 5156 / MXG and the data sheet that I linked to in my earlier post is for this film. Incidentally the films current manufacturer, Carestream Health HQ'd in Rochester, was formerly Eastman Kodak Company's Health Group.

Thomas

Michael Batchelor

29-Aug-2011, 07:05

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6083/6084415898_1e5b2c93cf.jpg

FWIW, the above Kodak ClinicSelect Green X-ray film was until recently named KODAK Medical X-ray Film / 5156 / MXG and the data sheet that I linked to in my earlier post is for this film. Incidentally the films current manufacturer, Carestream Health HQ'd in Rochester, was formerly Eastman Kodak Company's Health Group.

Thomas[/QUOTE]

And this is single sided coating or double sided coating? I looked at the website link and either I'm a dummy or it didn't say.

MB

desertrat

29-Aug-2011, 07:39

I have a box of the Kodak High Speed Green X-ray film in 8X10. I believe it's the same stuff, except the emulsion is faster. Mine is double sided. Mamography film is single sided, but comes in weird sizes. I think most 8X10 medical X-ray films are double sided.

Scott --

7-Sep-2011, 07:35

Question: How finicky are holders for nominal film sizes? Mammo film is available in 24x30cm, but not 10x12". How close is close enough?

EdWorkman

7-Sep-2011, 10:29

Gotta do your own homework on that one, probly. Close enough for hand grenades surely.
But 10x12in is 25.4x30.48 cm so it doesn't sound all that close to us former engineers.
Now if there is about that much extra space in a 10x12 holder, you might just have a serendipity, by not having to sliiiiiide the film in, but tape it at the edges under the safelight. no wait, set it under the thingy on one side and get more tape room , less tape on the other. [ that's my fantasy plan for a 14x36 inch holder -did I say fantasy?]

Philippe Grunchec

7-Sep-2011, 10:52

http://www.foma.cz/foma/dokumenty/RadioProdukt.asp
http://www.foma.cz/foma/produkt/ndtsystemy.asp?seznam=indux

Are Foma X-ray films available in the US? They have medical (including mammo) and industrial types: what is the difference?

Philippe Grunchec

10-Sep-2011, 04:16

@ Scott: their Indux films do come in 10x12, but I don't know yet (I asked Foma) what these Industrial X-Ray films are!...

SMBooth

6-Nov-2011, 03:40

desertrat

6-Nov-2011, 08:50

OK going to bump this to the top again, I see a lot about developing the film here but not on normal printing. The MXG (Kodak, Green Sensitive) Ive just got has a real blue base to it, will this cause much of a problem using normal VC papers?
I've recently used Kodak high speed green film with Arista VC RC paper. The contrast filters for the paper seem to work more or less normally with the blue base of the film. Here is a thread on X-ray film images in the Image Sharing subforum:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=80011

I posted a couple of images printed on the VC paper.

Foma 120 roll film also has a blue base, although not as deep blue as the X-ray film, and VC printing filters seem to work OK with the Foma also.

Andrew O'Neill

8-Nov-2011, 06:33

smbooth, xray film prints fine on VC papers. The image that I posted in the thread mentioned by desertrat of the abbey tower is on Ilford Multigrade. I should also mention that the image of the vaulted ceiling is a carbon print.

Andrew O'Neill

10-Nov-2011, 08:00

Exposed a couple of green latitude film one through a wratten #11 (green) and the other through a #15 (yellow) filter. Regular factor applied for each. No colour image for reference, but labelled objects Y, R, LG, etc.

Curt

10-Nov-2011, 18:34

Andrew O'Neill

10-Nov-2011, 21:17

Curt, I prefer the #11.

Curt

11-Nov-2011, 06:28

I agree, it snappier and visually brighter.

Fragomeni

29-Nov-2011, 18:59

Someone touched on this a few posts back. The sizes listed on the most commonly listed source's website (http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/xray-film-fuji-xray-film-c-28_103.html?page=1&sort=20a) are without the units of measurement. I'd like to try some x-ray film in my 20x24 camera. Can it be had in that size? I was planning on buying the listed 24x24 and cutting it down but then I saw the post saying that the listed film is in fact 24x24cm not inches. By comparing the prices and sheet counts between the different options they list, it looks like the 18x24 is also cm and not inches. It looks like the 14x17 is the largest sheet they carry. Can anyone confirm that the 14x17 is actually in inches?

I remember (at least I think I remember) a while back seeing a video of some guy shooting a 20x24 using x-ray film (I'll try and see if I can find it). That means that either he must have found a source for 20x24 X-ray film (maybe a zoo has something like this for x-raying elephants haha) or he was piecing it together from smaller sheets. Any insight? Any source for 20x24 size film?

This thread trails back several years and is ridiculously long but it has been very useful and is a testament to the power of collectively building knowledge over time and across geographic limitations. Bravo to you all.

Jim Fitzgerald

29-Nov-2011, 21:14

I shoot 14x17 inch green x-ray film. I have not seen any 20x24 inch x-ray film. Does it exist????????

Tri Tran

30-Nov-2011, 06:27

They are not available for this size 20x24 Xray film nor custom order through CSX I already asked. They are listed but in CM metric system.There is ortho film ar 3 ISO that you can use.

jp498

1-Dec-2011, 09:12

No experience with this vendor yet, but I visited http://www.ksrxray.com/index.html and wrote to xrayman511@aol.com and asked:

I am looking for single-emulsion (single sided) 14x17 xray film. Is
that something you sell? I'd be using it for photography, and many
other photographers would like single sided film too if it's
available.

They wrote back:

The cost for 14x17 single emusion is $ 99.00. the price will be going up january 1st.

Might save the effort of stripping or dealing with scratches if it is indeed what he's stating. I might order a box.

Tav Walraven

2-Dec-2011, 16:04

I shoot 14x17 inch green x-ray film. I have not seen any 20x24 inch x-ray film. Does it exist????????

Jim....

This morning I ordered a box of 25 sheets of Fuji green sensitive in 14"x36" from zzmedical. Bryan was a great help and did mention that on their site where is shows 24x30, that is cm, not inches. But the 14x36 IS inches. Somewhat confusing and happy I talked to Bryan before ordering. This is the largest size they have. I also ordered a box of 100 Kodak MXG in 11x14 for $71.00. So at least from zz, there is no 20x24 inch film. They also have this expensive (only because you have to buy a case of 500 sheets) of this film as it states that the "gradation reproduction" is equal to silver halide films. Jim, have you thought about this one? Comes 14x17 for $1.50 a sheet................
http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/14x17-fuji-dihl-dry-laser-film-p-809.html

Tav

SMBooth

2-Dec-2011, 16:58

That looks like a write to film, as opposed to develop out film. Never seen silver halide film that can be load in daylight..

Gene McCluney

3-Dec-2011, 06:54

Jim....

They also have this expensive (only because you have to buy a case of 500 sheets) of this film as it states that the "gradation reproduction" is equal to silver halide films. Jim, have you thought about this one? Comes 14x17 for $1.50 a sheet................
http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/14x17-fuji-dihl-dry-laser-film-p-809.html

Tav

That is a material for use in a laser-printer for making final images from digital x-ray photography, not light sensitive. You could say it is akin to printer paper, but transparent.

Jim Fitzgerald

3-Dec-2011, 07:33

I have a box of 14x36 x-ray film that believe it or not I bought to use for carbon transfer tissue! For some reason I went brain dead in exposing and developing my last few batches of 14x17 film. I set up a still life yesterday and made some development changes and got things sorted out. I find that with the 14x17 one needs to be very careful with exposure. Especially when it comes to reciprocity. I frequently work with very long exposures in the dark forest and long exposures are tough to nail down.

Brian C. Miller

4-Dec-2011, 19:15

Has anybody tried MRI film?

BioFlex MRI Film 8x10" 100/bx (http://www.interscience.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_adam.tpl&product_id=1038&category_id=62&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=60) for $215. "One Sided for radioisotope and chemiluminescent imaging where bands are tightly packed."

jon.oman

7-Dec-2011, 09:38

I find that with the 14x17 one needs to be very careful with exposure. Especially when it comes to reciprocity. I frequently work with very long exposures in the dark forest and long exposures are tough to nail down.

Jim,

Do you have some information on reciprocity? A starting point for green laditude? Is it simular to a conventional film?

Thanks,

Jon

Tim k

7-Dec-2011, 14:31

Jim,

Do you have some information on reciprocity? A starting point for green laditude? Is it simular to a conventional film?

Thanks,

Jon

Andrew O'neill put up a chart over on APUG
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/76797-x-ray-film-reciprocity-effect.html

jon.oman

8-Dec-2011, 06:52

Andrew O'neill put up a chart over on APUG
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/76797-x-ray-film-reciprocity-effect.html

Thanks for the link Tim! That answers my question.

Andrew O'Neill

8-Dec-2011, 09:39

I've used that data in the field and it has worked well for me. At 10s and beyond, I cut back development by about N-1/2

jon.oman

8-Dec-2011, 13:50

I've used that data in the field and it has worked well for me. At 10s and beyond, I cut back development by about N-1/2

Thanks Andrew!

domaz

9-Dec-2011, 10:24

I noticed that several sites also have 8x10 x-ray film. This could be an attractive way for me to test my new 8x10 setup. Does the film load straight into standard 8x10 holders without any trimming?

jon.oman

9-Dec-2011, 11:41

I noticed that several sites also have 8x10 x-ray film. This could be an attractive way for me to test my new 8x10 setup. Does the film load straight into standard 8x10 holders without any trimming?

I don't have to trim the film to load it. You can't beat the price!

You can also work under a red safelight, which is nice......

GeorgesGiralt

12-Dec-2011, 07:44

Hello Guys,
I plan to go the X-Ray film route.
In the last couple of days, I've read the whole of this thread. Now, I'm confused.
May I ask if you can put up a digest for me, done by the Master of the process ?
I think this will be beneficial to everyone as a "state of the art".
My questions are :
1) What kind of film is best for portraiture and landscape and available in 2011, now with the near complete digital X-Ray conversion.
2) Developing in a Ziploc bag : Detailed instructions needed, I did not get it right, sorry
3) cutting film : as one can process with safe light on, will it be possible to cut all the stack at once using a guillotine, this way risking to scratch only the upper and lower sheets ? (I've found 24x30 cm X-Ray film for cheap which, obviouly, will need to be cut in smaller sizes)
4) Outdated film : Will it go bad rapidly or will it be usable if past one or 2 years ? (If I buy a 100 sheet box, once cut, it will represent years of consumption and my freezer is already full... so film will be in the fridge)

Many Many thanks in advance for your help !

EdWorkman

12-Dec-2011, 13:07

1. Your taste, and milage, may vary- it's cheap enough to try blue AND green.
2. Decide if you will put the developer in the bag first, or pour it in. I can't remember what I tried. But I did mess with a sheet of film and a bag in full light, to see how it fit, how to hangle it etc. Once you get the bag sealed it's very straightforward- you can lay it flat, then flip it over for agitation etc.
3. Do you cut regular film in a stack now? I find my guillotine makes the film drift- most folks who have reported film cutting use a rotating slide thingy, from the stationers'.
4. at the price, so what ?? AFAIK we haven't been doing this long enough to know, but perhaps folks have tried outdated film and can report.
Dump your angst and jump in :>)

Dcohio

14-Dec-2011, 06:47

I've only used the green sensitive in 5x7 so I can't comment on the blue or cutting down sheets to other sizes. I do develop in 1 gal freezer bags. A few things I've noticed developing with are since there is an emulsion on both sides the bags have to be perfectly dry if you will be putting the negs in 1st prior to developer. I have noticed some uneven development and strange lines in negs only when the bags were damp. I believe this to be from the emulsion swelling at different rates. I also read that that in the 1st part of development that the Negs become slightly sensitive to red and I have to agree. I have rearranged my darkroom since my addition of a new enlarger ( I haven't even had a chance to use it at all since getting it) and my wet side is closer to my safe light and on the last batch of negs I have gotten some additional exposures on a couple negs. The only reason I know this is because 2 bags I accidentally left with the little white spot for writing on up and I could see it in the neg. I will be moving my safe light to help eliminate this. I've also read that a presoak is needed with X-ray film. I really havent had any issues yet but Im planning on trying it once I have some time off from work. I've been on 7 12hr shifts for awhile. I'm drained and dreaming of fishing and shooting some pics. Not sure how much of either I will be able to do with the holidays coming up.

Andrew O'Neill

15-Dec-2011, 14:03

I used to develop xray film in a large ziplock bag (and I believe I gave instructions on this thread) but now prefer flat-bottomed trays. I have never gotten scratches or scuff marks (intermittent agitation), using pyrocat-hd.

GeorgesGiralt

28-Dec-2011, 15:34

Hello !
I've got 100 sheets of Agfa CP-BU New and a 100 more of Ortho CP-G Plus both in 18x24 cm size.
As I was printing in my darkroom, I souped one sheet of Ortho in the tray of Bromophen developer I use for prints. Film came out unscratched but fogged.
So my questions are :
--As I use Kodak 8x10 safe-lights (actually fitted with an orange Ilford 902 filter for their range of Multigrade papers) I would like to know the Kodak number of the red filter to use (Agfa Healtcare has no info on this).
--Will I be able to use safe-light for the CP-BU which is a blue sensitive film ?
--What kind of developer would be best (pick from HC110, D76, Ilford PQ, Agfa Rodinal or a do-it-yourself one) ?
Now I've to cut the sheets to fit my 5x7 and 9x12/4x5 film holders and go testing !
Thanks for your help.

EdWorkman

29-Dec-2011, 11:23

If you go back far enough here, and on APUG you will find lots of experience reports.
Like
Some folks have experienced a little fogging. i use a thomas, fairly closed , with printing on VC and my body blocks direct illumination- i haven't seen any fog, plus i loaded the film in safelite- boy is that a pleasure.
A good developer is the one you have- if you don't have one, start with D-76.
Jim Fitzgerald likes pyrocat- he does carbon transfer. YMMV
Congratulations on no scratches. Try blocking off half the safelite before you spend money on a new filter

Corran

22-Jan-2012, 16:41

Hi guys. Great thread! I just purchased an 8x10 to toy with and the first thing I thought was to get some x-ray film to save some money.

Anyway, I had two questions:

1. I know the cheaper film with emulsions on both sides technically shouldn't work with BTZS tubes. However, would it work if I get some mesh or something to line the inside of the tube to lift up the film? I don't have a ton of space to do tray development.

2. I was interested in the "tri-color" process discussed in another thread where you use R, G and B filters on 3 separate b&w film shots and combine them in PS to make a color picture. Apparently you can take just 2 and a plain one and take the "difference" of those from the plain sheet. So...if you shot a green x-ray sheet, a blue one, and a normal shot of like Delta 100, could you make a color shot from those?

Tim k

22-Jan-2012, 16:59

#1. I dont see how, this stuff is soft. If you figure out how let us know.

Andrew O'Neill

22-Jan-2012, 17:24

Both sides of xray film need to be developed. By placing mesh inside the tube will only screw up that side of the film. But you could always strip that side of the film with ammonia. If you are planning on alternative printing, I wouldn't recommend it as there would not be enough density range. Sorry but I have no experience with tri-colour printing. I do know that yellow, green, and blue filters work fine with xray film (I use cxsonline green latitude stuff). I feel confident though that what you propose would most likely work. It certainly would be cheaper than using three conventional sheets of film.

Corran

22-Jan-2012, 17:28

Thanks for the responses. So I didn't catch this earlier in the thread (well, it's 45 pages!) - I can just screw up the second emulsion all I want if I'm stripping it off anyway?? That makes things easier. I'm used to stripping Polaroids so I already have the process down.

Andrew, what effects do you get with those filters on that film?

Andrew O'Neill

22-Jan-2012, 17:30

I take it you will be scanning the film in to make your colour prints? If so, then strip away!

Corran

22-Jan-2012, 17:32

I'm planning on scanning but also contact printing (silver). I want to try alt processes sometime but I'll figure that out later.

Andrew O'Neill

22-Jan-2012, 17:35

Stripping the negative is fine for scanning and contact printing on silver papers. Did you have an alt process in mine?

Corran

22-Jan-2012, 17:39

I want to try everything :D
But pt/pd and carbon intrigues me. But I know nothing about them so I'm not worried about it right now.

Jay DeFehr

22-Jan-2012, 17:40

#1. I dont see how, this stuff is soft. If you figure out how let us know.

Agreed. The emulsion is very soft when wet. I think a screen would leave marks. What might work, is the following:

Make a tube out of bubble wrap that will fit inside your BTZS tube. If you can put the film inside the bubble wrap tube, and put the bubble wrap tube inside the BTZS tube, you might be able to avoid scratches, which mostly occur on removing the film from the tube. If the BW is too thick, there won't be room for the film, so you need small bubbles, but I think you do need bubbles, as they will keep the sleeve from collapsing during development, like a sock falling down, and they'll allow (theoretically) developer to get to both sides of the film. On the other hand, it might leave a bubble pattern on your film. No guarantees.

I've had best luck with a pane of glass in the bottom of a tray. I suppose a glass/ceramic cake/casserole pan would work, too.

If you're feeling very experimental, try the ziploc method. Put your film in a ziploc bag, pour in your developer, zip, and turn the bag over, end for end a few times every few minutes until your film is done. Pur out eh developer, rinse, fix, wash, all in the bag. This is tedious because the handling a bag full of liquid is awkward, and zipping/unzipping is kind of a pain, but it definitely works and won't scratch your film if you're careful removing it from the bag. Development has to be done in the dark, or under safe light. I've developed a lot of film this way, but it's always messy. What's needed is a lightproof, mylar zip-lock bag with a lightproof valve for pouring chems in and out. That would be a useful item.

UberSquid

23-Jan-2012, 07:44

I've been playing around with Kodak Latitude x-ray film for a few weeks now and I'm finally getting some results that I like. I've been shooting it at asa 100 utilizing a spot meter an the zone system. Development has been in small trays Rodinal 1:200 for six minutes then stripping the back side with bleach. (Developing info received from this site)

The high contrast has actually been a life saver a few times! The other day I was out shooting when it was really overcast and my subject was comparably flat. The Foma that I shot came out unprintable but the x-ray film had decent contrast and I got, almost, the exact image I was looking for! The only problems I'm having seem to be with the extreme ends of the range. I'm using a number 1 filter to print but I'm still having issues with shadows and highlights.

Any suggestions? More diluted developer? Longer or shorter development times? I extended the development by 20% and really didn't see much difference in the negative which leads me to believe that I need to drop my development time. I'm still fairly new to the dark room and really new to x-ray in general so any advice is appreciated. I've never gone off the map like this and with no hard documentation for this film I'm not sure where to go with my experimentation next.

Thanks!

Jeremiah

Jay DeFehr

23-Jan-2012, 08:55

UberSquid

23-Jan-2012, 09:48

Jeremiah,

I've not worried about controlling contrast because my printing process likes a lot of contrast, but if I was, I'd try my low contrast developer. I formulated it for use with Lith film, but it should work with X-ray film, too. The developer is still a work in progress, but the following should work for X-Ray film:

TEA (triethanolamine) 75ml
Ascorbic acid 1g
Phenidone 7g
TEA to 100ml

Dilute 1:100

Develop test negative by inspection to determine development time.

If you're interested in trying this, PM me and I'll give you the basic instructions for mixing, etc. This stuff works really well with Lith film, and since it's so simple, it's easy to tune for any specific use, either by dilution, or by altering the ratio of phenidone to ascorbic acid. Keeping properties are generally very good, but depend somewhat on the way the concentrate is mixed and stored (it should be as dry as possible). The concentrate will last at least a year, under almost any conditions, and considerably longer if some basic precautions are taken. Good luck with your experimentation!

I'll admit a bit of trepidation when it comes to mixing my own developers. Not because I'm worried about messing it up but because I'm afraid of what it would lead to. You see, if I get involved in the chemistry of photography that deep, the next thing you know, I'll have maxed out my credit card at the chemical supply house, I'll have a spare bedroom full of chemicals and be taking courses at the university in chemistry. It will spiral out of control, my wife will leave me and take the cats.

So you can see, the only good that can come out of this is me getting rid of the cats!

Jay DeFehr

23-Jan-2012, 09:59

I'll admit a bit of trepidation when it comes to mixing my own developers. Not because I'm worried about messing it up but because I'm afraid of what it would lead to. You see, if I get involved in the chemistry of photography that deep, the next thing you know, I'll have maxed out my credit card at the chemical supply house, I'll have a spare bedroom full of chemicals and be taking courses at the university in chemistry. It will spiral out of control, my wife will leave me and take the cats.

So you can see, the only good that can come out of this is me getting rid of the cats!

Understood! We should always err on the side of caution where impulsive/obsessive behavior is a risk. And you're probably in deep enough with LF X-Ray film!

UberSquid

23-Jan-2012, 12:24

Out of curiosity though, where does one find such chemicals? I'm sure that they could be ordered online but I'm wondering about local supply. If I could find a local supply of raw chemicals then it would make sense to start mixing instead of ordering my packaged chemicals from the internet.

I've found the local co-op to be a great source for other projects but they assure me that they don't have Phenidone.

Jay DeFehr

23-Jan-2012, 12:46

UberSquid

23-Jan-2012, 12:56

Hello slippery slope!;) I don't know where local is for you, but if you were in Seattle you could pick up some phenidone at Glazer's, and ascorbic acid at Madison Market, among many other places, I imagine. The TEA is the difficult one. I get mine from The Chemistry Store (http://www.chemistrystore.com/Chemicals_S-Z-Triethanolamine.html), by the gallon. You can get ascorbic acid there, too. I get most of my other chemicals from Artcraft Chemicals (http://www.artcraftchemicals.com/products/). Even with shipping, compounding your own chemicals can be far less expensive than buying commercial products, and you gain access to a world of formulas not commercially available, like the one posted above. Ok, enough preaching. Let me know if I can enable you...er.....help.

I live in Bloomington Indiana. It's a college town but for all intents and purposes it's a small rural town that likes to think it's not so no chemical supply depot here. Indianapolis is an hour away so I can drive up there to procure materials I just need a direction to go in. Since chemical photography isn't really mainstream anymore it's not like there are photo warehouses in major cities like there used to be. With other projects I've found the similar industries that use the components that I need such as getting Argon from a welding supply shop. I didn't know if there was anything similar in photo chemical supply.

Jay DeFehr

23-Jan-2012, 13:12

Poke around the Chemistry Store a little and you'll see it's not really a photo chemical supply-- more like a soap and cosmetics supply-- but you can still get 2 of the three ingredients for my developer there, along with many others useful in compounding photo processing chemicals. If there's something similar in Indianapolis, you might give them a try, but you're not likely to find the phenidone. But 100g of phenidone will last a very long time, and costs little to ship.

Dakotah Jackson

23-Jan-2012, 13:42

The question now is when will someone put this together with images, film supplier links, recommendations and user info and put it in the articles section of the Home Page?

Jay DeFehr

23-Jan-2012, 15:33

The question now is when will someone put this together with images, film supplier links, recommendations and user info and put it in the articles section of the Home Page?

Volunteering?

Corran

30-Jan-2012, 20:24

Actually, having just done my first developing, stripping, scanning, and soon contact printing of x-ray film, I'm considering doing a write-up and possibly a video to describe the process. The results so far: pretty stunning. I'm using 8x10 Fuji green-sensitive x-ray film and tried some different dilutions and times for Rodinal and finally got a really great, full-scale negative.

Corran

30-Jan-2012, 20:39

And here's a sneak-peek:
(Taken with Fuji Super HR-T with Nikon 300mm f/9 @ f/45 for 2 seconds and developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 6 minutes)

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/0005 (Custom).jpg

jon.oman

31-Jan-2012, 08:09

Corran

31-Jan-2012, 08:21

Thank you! I did do a contact print last night and I am quite happy with the finished product.

dsphotog

2-Feb-2012, 14:11

Which Xray film (blue or green) for the most pleasing & natural skintones in portraits?

Jim Fitzgerald

3-Feb-2012, 07:48

I've used green and I like the look.

fsphotography

3-Feb-2012, 12:59

Does anyone know if Dupont Cronex mrf-33 xray film is still available,and where i can get it? Also, who is a supplier Fuji Super hr-t xray film?
Frank.

Corran

4-Feb-2012, 02:42

csxsonline provides the Fuji HR-T film.

Here is an example of a portrait on HR-T green-sensitive film. Excuse the light leak. I'm also NOT a portrait photographer, this was done on a whim.

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/0007s.jpg

Jim Fitzgerald

4-Feb-2012, 06:52

Here are some portraits of my son's. All shot on Green sensitive x-ray film and printed in carbon transfer. One is natural light and the other is lit with my 2,000 watt Fresnel. Both of these were shot with my 14" Darlot.

eink

9-Feb-2012, 10:10

I love all of your images and tips. I am new to this kind of photography but wanting to give it a go. However, there seem to be some problems in finding a supplier of x-ray films in the UK. Has anyone got any experiences of this? It seems like the US suppliers only ship to the US.. Would really appreciate any help.
Thank you,
Elin

SMBooth

10-Feb-2012, 00:15

premortho

25-Feb-2012, 18:15

Thank you! I did do a contact print last night and I am quite happy with the finished product.

You hit the exposure right on the button----look at those luminous shadows! The old school rule for Regular (blue sensitive) and Orthchromatic (green sensitve) was, expose for the shadows, develope for the highlights.:cool:

Gerald Figal

3-Mar-2012, 18:56

For all those who were wondering if double-sided x-ray film could be processed in a drum (and for those who warned against it), I'm pleased to report that I actually tried two 8x10 Agfa Green X-ray film sheets just now is my 11x14 Unicolor Print Processing Drum and I had--judging by the negs that are drying now--even development. No mottling, no streaks.This kind of drum has ridges on the wall that keeps the film suspended for flow on both sides. I figured that especially since the x-ray film is thin and lighter than normal film, it would float fine. It did. The results look identical to the tray processing I've done.

WayneStevenson

4-Mar-2012, 09:50

I've tried the drums. I get even development but those ribs scratch the hell out of the emulsion.

I've stuck with glass in a tray, stand develop in Dektol. 1 minute. Only problem is when the negative suctions to the glass. I've been planning to nip the corners from the glass to give me somewhere to grasp. But the only time I remember I want to do it, is when I'm cursing as the clock keeps ticking on me. 20 extra seconds (still have to be gentle to not scratch the emulsion) is a long time when you have a 1 minute development time. Heh. Contrast ramps up big time on me.

Eventually you have to panick. Heh. And then you scratch as you can see in the top corner on that CXS Half-Speed Blue.

69516

Corran

10-Mar-2012, 21:36

Jay DeFehr

10-Mar-2012, 22:47

Jim Fitzgerald

11-Mar-2012, 09:56

I discovered today that my Fuji Super HR-T green-sensitive x-ray film apparently has pretty good reciprocity characteristics. I shot a couple of 30-second exposures with no extra compensation and they came out perfectly. I don't know if in this huge thread anyone has done any reciprocity tests so I thought I would post this. I will be trying out some longer exposures to see just how good this stuff is. I'm surprised it was even good out to 30 seconds.

I have recently experienced the same thing with my green sensitive x-ray film. I was adding reciprocity from a post that Andrew O'neil (I think) put up about this. I have gone back to not adding any and my negatives are much better. After about 30 seconds I just doubled the exposure and it seemed to work fine. X-ray film is a totally different animal.... at least I think so.

Vaughn

11-Mar-2012, 10:38

Jim, have you used the Adox 25 ASA film? We used a few sheets in the redwoods. Rated it at 25, gave a one minute metered exposure exposures at 2min, 4min, and 8min -- as I had heard it had steep reciprocity failure. The 2 min exposure was printable, the 4 and 8 minutes were not over-dense and should have been usable, but the image fell apart in the highlights. I had also heard that the film did not take well with over-exposure...now I know why! Too much exposure (as with the pure white branches in the sun in the background of this image) causes the film to spread out the exposure. Either the anti-halation coating can't handle it, or there is some sort of bleeding of light (or chemical reaction) in the emulsion from over-exposed areas into the surrounding areas of the emulsion.

But the result was that these highly defined bright branches became visual mush. I certainly learn my lesson with that film! The reciprocity failure was in the "normal" range and the 2min exposure had enough shadow detail (placed on Zone III). It will make exposing high SBR situations such as we had in the redwoods tricky.

Has anyone seen anything like this in X-ray film? It has no anti-halation layer...and even more, sticks another emulsion where the anit-hal layer would be! Has anyone seen a limit to the amount of exposure the types of X-ray films can take before there is some loss of definition in the highlights (best seen when a white and a black are next to each other)?

Another thought -- perhaps a pyro type developer might help with the Adox 25. If the spread of exposure around over-exposed areas in the emulsion is more from a chemical reaction happening during development that bleeds into or contaminates the areas in the emulsion around it, then a tanning developer might harden the emulsion enough to prevent this "bleeding" within the emulsion.

Jim...have you noticed any difference in x-ray negs developed with non-pyro and with pyro developers?

I got to get out of the house!

Vaughn

Andrew O'Neill

11-Mar-2012, 10:53

After about 30 seconds I just doubled the exposure and it seemed to work fine.

So then you are compensating then, Jim?
I still use the reciprocity data that I posted a while back. I prefer my shadows to be full of light, rather than black voids. I give compensation up to 32 seconds. After that, I don't bother, as the film's DR seems to flatten out resulting in negatives that look grossly overexposed. My tests have shown that the green stuff that I use has bad reciprocity characteristics. The curves don't lie... but then it does come down to the image and personal preferences.

Andrew O'Neill

Corran

11-Mar-2012, 11:48

Andrew, exactly what film are you using? From my reading it seems that the various films from Fuji, Kodak, Agfa, and generic brands too all vary to a broad degree, not to mention with what development techniques are used!

I did not know you had done some reciprocity tests on x-ray film. Do you have a link to these?

I can categorically state that with a 30-second exposure on the Fuji Super HR-T there was NO loss of shadow detail, for me, rated @ ISO 50, developed in a BTZS tube w/ Rodinal 1:100 for 6:30 and stripped. Which is great news for me because I'm stopping down a lot and having resultant longer exposures with 21"/28" lenses.

Vaughn

11-Mar-2012, 12:25

I have only used the blue-sensitive (Agfa) and I was surprised at how the differently it reacts in different light situations. Tests at 400 and at 800ASA, taken as portraits in open shade, the 400ASA yielded very dense, over-exposed negs. At 800 the negs were dense, but very printable. These first tests were developed at the hospital. The light on the subject(s) was almost all blue light from the sky.

Under the redwoods, the working ASA seemed to be closer to 100. I used 400 and had under-exposed negs but originally blamed in of poor reciprocity. But it just might be the difference in the color of the light that is lighting the scene. So when I have exposed this type of x-ray film, I take note if there is a lot of blue sky adding light to the scene and adjust accordingly.

Vaughn

Richard Rankin

11-Mar-2012, 12:38

Jim Fitzgerald

11-Mar-2012, 13:16

Vaughn, I have used Efke 25 for years in all my formats except 14x17. The only problem I've had with bleeding of the highlights is when I shoot a heavily backlit scene. I have an image from Yosemite that I will eventually nail that has highlight density that is about 3.30. I over developed the neg a bit so exposure time in the Nuarc is at 1300 units! That is pushing 40 minutes. The detail in the neg is amazing and it is there I just have to print it right. I always use Pyrocat-HD with my Efke and with the x-ray film I use Pyro or D-76 and I have not noticed much difference at least visually. Printing the x-ray negs seems to be the same regardless of developer. I believe that it is true that if you over expose the Adox/ Efke you will build density real fast to a point of where it is just not usable. Some of my best negative shot in the Redwoods when we last worked together were shot on Efke 25 with the 8x20. 10 minute exposures at F-64 and the neg's and carbon prints are some of my best. I love using this film in the Redwoods as the slow exposure allows the light to wrap around the scene and give an added 3-d quality to the light. It was great when there was no wind to boot, remember!!

Andrew, maybe it is the way I meter? I try to keep my shadows open and full of light as well. Zone III and let the blacks fall where I wish them to. Using the Pyro I know I can hold the highlights. Seems like if I give it to much exposure I loose all of my contrast. Could be the lens, ISO rating and the different light that I shoot in. I'm not one for extensive testing and I think it is me as curves do not lie, I agree. I did test a still life set up using my Fresnel and a CFL for light and noticed that the negs were virtually the same. I believe for me I have been overexposing my film as I rate it at 80. Maybe Vaughn is right in that it has different speeds in different lighting situations.

Andrew O'Neill

11-Mar-2012, 14:51

Seems like if I give it to much exposure I loose all of my contrast.

Very true! I found this out as well. Jim, if they way you work works, then keep doing it. I'm not crazy about testing but I do feel that it is necessary to really know your materials.

WayneStevenson

11-Mar-2012, 16:24

Just move the glass with the film, from the developer tray into the stop. It's much easier to handle a plate than a sheet of film.

Heh. Don't know why I didn't think about that. But giving it some though, I am worried about any developer between the bottom emulsion and glass. There is no way for the stop to reach it.

Jay DeFehr

11-Mar-2012, 16:44

Heh. Don't know why I didn't think about that. But giving it some though, I am worried about any developer between the bottom emulsion and glass. There is no way for the stop to reach it.

There's no problem with the stop reaching the back side. Think of it the other way around-- if you didn't want stop on the back side of the film, how effective would putting the negative on a piece of glass be in preventing it? Not very effective, it turns out. The stop gets to the back side the same way the developer does in the developing tray. Give it a whirl!

Vaughn

11-Mar-2012, 18:18

Jim -- thanks. The 2 minute negative was exposed under a 750W self-ballasted reflector Merc Vapor lamp. I hope I don't have to write that again! We went for an hour and the print was a little over-exposed -- some Sodium carbonate was used to reduce the print. The tissue was 6gr lampblack paint to 750lm water and 90 grams of gelatin -- brush sentitized w/ 2% Am Dicho. It might look good at 4%. I do not have the print available to scan. Carbon prints were properly exposed using the 4 minute exposure negative, but the highlights (it was a back-lit scene) were unsharp in what I thought was an unpleasant way. The prints looked almost locally solarized in the highlight areas.

A second image was made the same day using the same film, but more out in the light along the creek and without the large dark areas needing detail as the other image needed. The negative with one extra stop printed nicely. The one with an additional stop exposure I did not bother trying as the neg did not look good due to the over-exposure.

As a rule of thumb, I expose by finding the largest shadow area I want detail in and expose that on Zone III. I figure there will be smaller areas that will fall into lower zones to give the print some snap. Then, hopefully I read my lab notes on processing successful negatives (or failures) with similar SBR and develop at the dilution and time that seems best.

Vaughn

Jim Fitzgerald

11-Mar-2012, 18:28

Vaughn, this is what I do when exposing my Efke-25. I just finished printing a negative from Yosemite. The valley in fog. A great scene. I posted the digital shot on FB. My print was exposed @ 1400 units on the Nuarc 26 1ks. About 40 minutes or 50 I'm not sure. Two 700 unit exposures. I used a 16 gram tissue and 1 1/2% dichromate. Natural lighting was soft and had no real contrast extremes. I managed a great print with this combo. Only problem is a little pigment in the small piece of sky in the image. I can crop that out as it is not much and the image is worth it. I reduced the print as well to give it some pop!

Back-lit scenes are tough to expose and especially print. I feel that you are right on the edge and keeping the highlights tame is not easy even if one is developing by inspection as I do.Love to see the prints. They sound great. I love the challenge of back-lit work. Tests one's skill.

Randy

22-Mar-2012, 16:35

I have finally gotten around to some testing with X-ray film. My motivations are strictly artistic and economical. I just can't afford panchromatic 8X10 film any more...good gosh! And I still have some HC-110 left so that is my developer of choice...because I still have some left.

My initial test was in coffenal cm. Negs were virtually un-usable. Way to thin.

All below are 8X10 Green latitude CSX exposed at 50 ISO, processed in HC-110 "H" (1:63) in trays with a 1 minute water pre-soak (don't know if I should have done that or not) for 8 minutes @ 68 degrees F, agitating about every 60-90 seconds by taking the bottom sheet and moving it to the top, going through the stack of four sheets that were in the soup.

I did have a safe light on (a small 15-20 watt red bulb like you might get in a small armature darkroom kit) and the bulb was covered by a white hanky and about 6 feet away from my processing station, which was in the tub that I was leaning over. No direct light from the bulb fell on the negs, only light reflecting off the ceiling. I did get some fog. I can clearly see a slight outline on one sheet of the sheet that was on top of it. I will greatly dim my safe light in the next process, or eliminate it all together.

The scratching was significant but I did not take particular care to avoid them. I was aware scratching is a problem and some have employed means to avoid that. I used ribbed 8X10 trays, but my scratches were almost entirely near the film edges - very few were more than an inch away from the edge, which leads me to believe they are occurring as I life the bottom sheet to move it to the top of the stack. I may be allowing it to drag on the top lip of the tray. I may just have to process one sheet at a time.

Any way, here some scans:

No-name 13" f/9.5 Petzval
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52893762/img568a.jpg

300mm Caltar-II S
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52893762/img569a.jpg

The next two were exsposed on the same sheet using the 1/2 dark slide method to get a 4X10.

Konica Hexanon GRII 150mm @ f/45
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52893762/img570a.jpg

Konica Hexanon GRII 150mm @ f/9 (wide open)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52893762/img571a.jpg

All in all, I like the results. The exposures were very close to what I would like to get with panchromatic films and they are...sharp enough?

coisasdavida

22-Apr-2012, 15:23

This is an amazing thread.
Thanks to all involved for so much information.

I just got myself some 5x7" MXG and some 8x10" KODAK EKTASCAN B/RA Film / 4153 (single sided emulsion).
I'll try to post comments after I try them out.

IAphotog

30-Apr-2012, 19:51

AFAIK, the current Sony digital slr cameras use the same Minolta Maxxum lens mount designed for Minolta Maxxum 35mm film SLR cameras.

Yes, Sony dslr lenses use same mount Minolta Maxxum lenses.

Patrick

premortho

18-May-2012, 08:12

I'd like to find some 5X7 x-ray film, and not have to go to Brasil to find it. Who sells it in the U.S.A.?

Andrew O'Neill

28-May-2012, 11:42

How about here: http://www.provisionenterprises.com/index.php?_a=category&cat_id=3

Jon Wilson

2-Jun-2012, 19:41

Has anyone tried the green x-ray film in a jobo recently? I decided to try 11x14 Fuji x-ray film given its cost was about .50 a sheet. I have a 3063 drum with the jobo insert. Do you think it will have streaks using the jobo insert? We will find out in any event.

Jim Fitzgerald

7-Jun-2012, 08:43

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jun-2012, 09:03

Since this film has emulsion on both sides, the developer will not be able to get to the side of film that's against the tank. You will most likely end up with a lot of mottling on that side... Would be okay if you are planning on stripping that side...and then scratches wouldn't be a problem, either.

Jon Wilson

7-Jun-2012, 15:19

Jim, I too have been concerned it would be scratched to smithereens. But, the one sheet I was able to develop yesterday does not appear scratched. I am going to look at it closer and hope to get the sheet scanned/printed.

Since this film has emulsion on both sides, the developer will not be able to get to the side of film that's against the tank. You will most likely end up with a lot of mottling on that side... Would be okay if you are planning on stripping that side...and then scratches wouldn't be a problem, either.

I developed my first sheet yesterday with Ilfosol 3 (5:30) and used my 3063 with its 11x14 jobo insert. I did not notice any scratches, but the film may need more fixing or stripping of the emulsion from one side for the developed sheet does not look like a typical developed sheet of film for it has a bluish tint to it. Is that normal? If not, does it need to be fixed more?

Andrew, I know having waded through this thread you have posted how you strip the emulsion from one side. Could you describe your method for doing it so that it is near the top of the thread?

In any event, I am stoked at the price of this film.....mine cost me about .50 per sheet which is nothing compared to the Real McCoy (Ilford, Kodak, etc.).

Thanks guys.

Jon

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jun-2012, 18:04

Jon,

It was actually someone else who posted their procedure. It's pretty simple, so here goes: Tape down your negative with the side that was not facing the lens, facing up. Tape it down with duct tape. Run your finger nail along the edge of the film, pushing the tape down. You don't want ammonia reaching the emulsion on the other side!! Dip a brush (I use a cheap foam brush) in household ammonia and apply it to the negative. The emulsion strips quickly. With a damp sponge, wipe away excess ammonia/emulsion. Then wipe with a wetter sponge. Examine to make sure all emulsion has been removed. Remove from glass and wash in a tray.

Because stripping literally removes half of the negatives density range, you will have to develop longer than your normal time.

andrew

Jim Fitzgerald

7-Jun-2012, 18:08

Jim, I too have been concerned it would be scratched to smithereens. But, the one sheet I was able to develop yesterday does not appear scratched. I am going to look at it closer and hope to get the sheet scanned/printed.

I developed my first sheet yesterday with Ilfosol 3 (5:30) and used my 3063 with its 11x14 jobo insert. I did not notice any scratches, but the film may need more fixing or stripping of the emulsion from one side for the developed sheet does not look like a typical developed sheet of film for it has a bluish tint to it. Is that normal? If not, does it need to be fixed more?

Andrew, I know having waded through this thread you have posted how you strip the emulsion from one side. Could you describe your method for doing it so that it is near the top of the thread?

In any event, I am stoked at the price of this film.....mine cost me about .50 per sheet which is nothing compared to the Real McCoy (Ilford, Kodak, etc.).

Thanks guys.

Jon

Jon, that is the way it looks. IMHO stripping is a waste of time. Just print through it. Now I'm a carbon printer and it has never been any problem for me. I've printed from negatives developed in D76 and Pyrocat-HD. Just learn how to use it for how you will print. It is cheap enough to experiment with. Find what works for you. Everyone does it a little different. You have the basics. That is all you need.

Andrew O'Neill

8-Jun-2012, 09:09

IMHO stripping is a waste of time

Even if you enlarge with it? Not a waste of time. Contact printing? Yes, it would be a waste of time then.

Jon Wilson

8-Jun-2012, 10:40

Even if you enlarge with it? Not a waste of time. Contact printing? Yes, it would be a waste of time then.

Thanks guys. This helps. The 11x14 would be contact printing. Smaller formats would be available to me for enlargements, so I will plan to "strip" those negs. BTW, is the bluish tint to the Fuji green X-ray film normal appearance after it has been developed and not stripped?

Andrew O'Neill

8-Jun-2012, 12:26

Yes, the film base is blue... even before you develop it.

Bill_4606

9-Jul-2012, 20:01

First of all, thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. Your experiences have created a de-facto manual for working with x-ray film. I recently decided to try it because of some interesting potential qualities I'll mention in a few lines. Your collective wisdom and willingness to share have provided a sort of "kick start" into working with x-ray film.

Now for my hair-brained idea. X-ray film has the image exposed on two layers of emulsion -- the side facing the lens being the primary image and the so-called back side being the secondary image. It occurred to me that the secondary image would be a bit fuzzy due to the image passing through the primary emulsion and the base material. This is really an unsharp secondary image (hopefully the lights are going on and you know where I'm going with this).

It may be possible to relatively easily create a built in unsharp mask for the primary image.
The trick (I think) will be to reduce (possibly proportionally) the secondary image.

The result (again, I think) will be improved contrast in the shadows and better acutance overall.

There have been several suggestions for removing the secondary emulsion by mounting the negative on a glass plate -- great idea. I'm now working on a reducing process that is controllable using that setup. For calibration, I'm shooting a white wall with a 4x5 Stouffer Step Tablet sandwiched on a sheet of Fuji Green X-ray film using an older wood film holder. The older film holder's internal guides has more slop so I can insert the two sheets of film together.

Using a controlled exposure, I can measure the developed and reduced film density on my old densitometer.

I think I have the process down -- I'm working on the reducing chemistry now. I need something that I can control the emulsion reduction -- Clorox Bleach is not a good idea -- It wasn't consistent enough except in strong working solutions and then it seemed to only consitently strip everything off.. I also splattered some on my shirt and pants -- now the wife is involved ;-(
I'm ordering Farmer's Reducer to see if that will give me better control over reducing the unsharp mask denesity -- something like maybe one half stop per minute.

Bill

Jay DeFehr

10-Jul-2012, 07:03

Bill,

I too have thought of ways to exploit the double sided image -- I've even tried to develop them separately. For me, the second image works best as a retouching mask. I've played with pencils, dyes, abrasives, knives, and even thickened ferricyanide bleach. There's a lot of potential there, but it takes practice.

Mark MacKenzie

10-Jul-2012, 07:04

Bill, thanks for the post.
I also bought the Fuji Green XRay film and was surprised at the blue base. So I admit to quickly trying to ballpark the exposure development and exposed at 100 and developed in HC-110 Dil B for 6 minutes then another shot for 3 minutes. Both are overly dense to my eyes but I haven't tried to bleach the one emulsion off, yet. The 3 minute neg is closer but I will try Dil H next time. I do have some scratches but I hope only on the bottom side.

Any suggestions as to dev times for Multigrade IV type contact printing appreciated.

Corran

10-Jul-2012, 08:46

I'm doing exclusively MG IV contact prints and I'm getting great results with Rodinal and stripping one side.

Mark MacKenzie

10-Jul-2012, 09:24

Cool...how long do you process in Rodinal and what do you expose at? And you are talking the Fuji Super HR-U? Thanks...

Bill_4606

11-Jul-2012, 10:42

The unsharp masks that I make with "regular" film are pretty much the same as what should result from the X-ray film. I pin register a sheet of film - emulsion side to the back side of my original negative. That separates the two emulsions by only the thickness of the negative base. Putting more distance between does work for some pictures but you run the risk of causing an halo effect between high and low density areas in the photo and the image looks a bit artificial or outright strange. The mask doesn't look fuzzy to the eye ... Just much less dense. That's why I think the X-ray film will provide a subtitle crispness and a bit more shadow definition if I can control the density of the secondary image effectively... Time and experimentation will tell...
Thanks to all for your comments.
Bill

Corran

11-Jul-2012, 19:04

Cool...how long do you process in Rodinal and what do you expose at? And you are talking the Fuji Super HR-U? Thanks...

My standard right now is shooting at ISO 50, developing in Rodinal 1:50 for 7 minutes, and stripping the rear emulsion. This is Fuji Super HR-T. I think that's a good starting point...I usually print my negs for 11 seconds with a #3 filter and they come out very nice. Check out my blog for some shots and more info.

Mark MacKenzie

12-Jul-2012, 05:49

Enjoyed the blog, Bryan. Watch out for the alligators.

Mark MacKenzie

12-Jul-2012, 05:56

The Fuji HR-T is listed as "High Contrast" Green sensitive. The HR-U as just Green sensitive. Has anybody played with both? The HR-U I just shot seems plenty high contrast but I overdeveloped it and haven't stripped the one side yet.

Corran

12-Jul-2012, 08:01

Enjoyed the blog, Bryan. Watch out for the alligators.

:)

I didn't realize there was an HR-U. They don't sell it on cxsonline apparently. But I guess the Rodinal keeps the contrast controlled because I never have problems with contrast. It's too little contrast sometimes if anything.

Mark MacKenzie

13-Jul-2012, 06:12

http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/xray-film-c-28.html That is where I found mine. Shipped fast and no problems.

I think if I get a chance I will cut up an 8x10 sheet into 4x5's and do a better job of testing. I stick to HC-110.

Corran, I noticed the shot with your wollensak wide angle looked really nice with lots of detail and that large neg look...

Corran

13-Jul-2012, 07:20

Thanks, but I've cropped about 15% of the edges to get rid of the corners which were atrocious...I might've had a dud because my 159mm just never sharpened up in the corners even at f/45.

Bill_4606

16-Jul-2012, 19:09

The unsharp masks that I make with "regular" film are pretty much the same as what should result from the X-ray film. I pin register a sheet of film - emulsion side to the back side of my original negative. That separates the two emulsions by only the thickness of the negative base.
Bill

Well, there's nothing like putting a theory to practice that shows what a bonehead you can be.
Does anyone see where I went wrong in my last statement above? When you contact print the original to make the unsharp mask, the resultant mask it a positive!
My X-ray film "unsharp mask" is a negative just like the original. Actually it is just a copy... Nothing else.
As suggested by others the secondary image might be good as a selective mask to dodge or burn in an area. Or as a spotting mask. But it's of no use as a contrast mask.
Thanks for tolerating my well intentioned but miss-guided idea.
Bill (back to the drawing board)

Mark MacKenzie

16-Jul-2012, 20:16

There must be some advantage to messing around with one side emulsion. Wouldn't it change neg density so you can have selective contrast by bleaching away certain areas for higher tones? Just an idea...

Jim Noel

19-Jul-2012, 07:51

Does anyone know where I can find a list of single sided X-ray film?
Thanks,
Jim

desertrat

19-Jul-2012, 08:41

Does anyone know where I can find a list of single sided X-ray film?
Thanks,
Jim

I think the answer to that is buried way deep in this thread. From what I've been able to gather, single sided films are only available in odd sizes and are way more expensive than ordinary double sided medical films. Examples would be mamography films and industrial films for radiographing welds and metal parts. My own experience is that emulsions on both sides isn't such a bad thing, but I haven't tried any single sided films.

Michael Batchelor

20-Jul-2012, 21:03

quikphotography.de

24-Jul-2012, 01:55

I seem to recall that there was some 8x10 single sided green sensitive. But it's a search finding it in the thread. Probably easier to find it at the supply houses.

It's true the single sided was way more expensive for some reason unfathomable. And the reversal duplicating film was expensive too.

If you're looking at those you may as well look at Ilford. That's superb film for little extra cost. Or some of the other "real" camera film.

The cheap stuff is the double sided xray film.

I am really surprised about the fact that single-coated X-ray film is so expensive in the US. I live in Germany and get single-coated X-ray Film (for mammography) at an approximately 40% higher price than double-coated usual X-ray film (43,00 € to 30,00 € for 100 sheets 18x24cm). The only drawback is that only metric sizes are available here so I had to purchase some extra holders just for this specific film.