Use of X-ray film: technical discussion with example images

[mdarnton]

I quickly solved all my developing problems with hangers. No scratching, no uneven-ness, with double-sided film. I use only the Kodak 4a hangers, on which the u-section of the frames are tapered like an open-based V, so that they don't rest or stick against the film except at the very edge, but this still stops some developing nearby if I stand develop, so I agitate at 0,5, and 10 minutes for 15 min developing. I'm using D23 diluted 1:6, which was someone's suggestion early on in the x-ray developing thread, and haven't seen a reason to change. I've been using plastic 1 gallon 5x7 tanks with floating lids, and the developer stays good for at least 2 weeks in these--probably more, but I haven't tried. Four tanks (D76, D23, stop, fix) fit neatly into the plastic boot tray from next to my front door, so any mess is contained, and when it's not in use, I slide it all to the back of the counter, out of the way.

The negs are quite contrasty, but good, and they camera-scan better than regular film (see examples just above) and since I'm gearing up for carbon printing, they're probably going to be just right.

[premortho]

Now I tend to get up on my soapbox on the subject of orthochromatic film. It is "real film", just different. The only readily available orthochromatic large format film, other than Ortho-plus from Ilford is X-ray film, and process film, like Arista. The problem with Ilford is it is no longer readily available in 5X7, and it is very expensive. Pan film is just orthochromatic emulsion plus red dye to make it react to red light. There are other minor differences, but basically that's it. Now, to make things even more complicated, there are still various degrees of orthochromatism. Blue X-ray film is less orthochromatic than green. Just thank God we have all of these choices. If you like the landscape and/or portrait photography look of the 1880's up to the early1920's, blue x-ray should work best for you. If you like the Weston era (for want of a better name) look, try green. Uh-oh, I haven't mentioned my creds. My grandfather started me developing ortho film in the mid 1940's. I never got used to doing the darkroom work in the dark. I have never used any metheod except tray development. One at a time. When I worked on a newspaper, they used tanks. But if I had one for the rotogravure section in the Sunday supplement section, I'd do it by hand, in a tray. I should add, I used Ansco Plenachrome Film Packs for day work (Hot news). But I always used sheet film, Plenachrome, for rotogravure work.

[premortho]

I've been playing around with some x-ray in preparation for some salt prints. This was one that I shot recently and just scanned. Any idea what might be creating the artefacts in the sky area. I develop in a ziplock bag...could these be as a result of holding the bag too close to the safe light when inspecting? It was quite a short development time (5 mins)...could it be too short a development and as a result should I dilute my developer (PMK by the way) to allow for longer development?
Attachment 119718

We used to call those
"Tide Marks" It is an agitation problem. I've never done any kind of LF developing except in trays. One at a time. I do it the old, old fashioned way. Like plate development. Emulsion side up in a dry tray. tilt one end of the tray up a little, then pour 6 or so ounces of soup rapidly, but not hastily along the upper side. If you do it too fast, you may get air bubbles, too slow = different development top to bottom. Once the whole sheet is covered, agitate by raising one edge of the tray, and letting it down for 5 seconds or so, than keep on for the other sides (all four) of the tray. Let it rest for 30 seconds to one minute, repeat. Repeat every minute until negative looks a little over developed. A pretty accurate way to check development progress is when you think it's gone far enough, pull it out of the tray, look at it through the backside at the safelight. If it looks good, rinse it, hypo bath and rinse in at least in 6 changes of water for a total of a half hour or more. You still won't know if it's right until it has dried. Tide marks, when done this way, is usually from in-adequete agitation. Or "dropping" the tray during agitation.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't think that's true. If you cut the density in half everywhere, you still have the same range of tones, it's just half the density. That's important for alt. process but not traditional silver printing or scanning. Am I wrong?

I disagree about degraded tonalities but that's of course an opinion.

Readings with a densitometre will verify halving of the DR. I did it a few times to verify it. Also, side by side comparisons showed muddy tones and more grain with a stripped negative. No good for alt printing (carbon transfer, kallitype) imo.

[Craig Tuffin]

Thank you for this! One more question though...how do you avoid uneven development when you have an emulsion side still in contact with the bottom of the tray (double emulsion film) and slow agitation? and how often would you then flip the film?

We used to call those
"Tide Marks" It is an agitation problem. I've never done any kind of LF developing except in trays. One at a time. I do it the old, old fashioned way. Like plate development. Emulsion side up in a dry tray. tilt one end of the tray up a little, then pour 6 or so ounces of soup rapidly, but not hastily along the upper side. If you do it too fast, you may get air bubbles, too slow = different development top to bottom. Once the whole sheet is covered, agitate by raising one edge of the tray, and letting it down for 5 seconds or so, than keep on for the other sides (all four) of the tray. Let it rest for 30 seconds to one minute, repeat. Repeat every minute until negative looks a little over developed. A pretty accurate way to check development progress is when you think it's gone far enough, pull it out of the tray, look at it through the backside at the safelight. If it looks good, rinse it, hypo bath and rinse in at least in 6 changes of water for a total of a half hour or more. You still won't know if it's right until it has dried. Tide marks, when done this way, is usually from in-adequete agitation. Or "dropping" the tray during agitation.

[Craig Tuffin]

This sounds perfect but I can't find any 11"x14" hangers other than the ones at Wolfe supplies and they won't ship one hanger here to me here in Australia for under $100. Anyone with such a hanger they don't want....I think it's time I put a WTB in the classifieds section...

I quickly solved all my developing problems with hangers. No scratching, no uneven-ness, with double-sided film. I use only the Kodak 4a hangers, on which the u-section of the frames are tapered like an open-based V, so that they don't rest or stick against the film except at the very edge, but this still stops some developing nearby if I stand develop, so I agitate at 0,5, and 10 minutes for 15 min developing. I'm using D23 diluted 1:6, which was someone's suggestion early on in the x-ray developing thread, and haven't seen a reason to change. I've been using plastic 1 gallon 5x7 tanks with floating lids, and the developer stays good for at least 2 weeks in these--probably more, but I haven't tried. Four tanks (D76, D23, stop, fix) fit neatly into the plastic boot tray from next to my front door, so any mess is contained, and when it's not in use, I slide it all to the back of the counter, out of the way.

The negs are quite contrasty, but good, and they camera-scan better than regular film (see examples just above) and since I'm gearing up for carbon printing, they're probably going to be just right.

[analoguey]

I reduce the contrast of the negative by cutting the time in the D-23 (using constant agitation) and then transferring the film to the second bath with intermittent agitation. The carbonate keeps the remaining D=23 working but it gets used up quickly in the heavily exposed areas, keeps working in the lighter exposed areas, a classic compensating technique. Some refer to it as a split D-23 but that's really inaccurate as the D-23 still has the alkaline accelerator in it. So far it has been my most successful method for reducing the inherently high contrast of the x-ray film. This negative printed on on Grade 3 paper, which is a good indicator.


Bill

So the second bath is basically the carbonate solution, but with whatevr d23 on the negative still being active - is that what you mean?

I havent used any of the D-xx developers, barring Dektol(IIRC, an old D-xx formula?), so I am not familiar with their properties.

Would the negative be printed on a lower grade paper otherwise? (to counter the high-contrast?)

[analoguey]

This sounds perfect but I can't find any 11"x14" hangers other than the ones at Wolfe supplies and they won't ship one hanger here to me here in Australia for under $100. Anyone with such a hanger they don't want....I think it's time I put a WTB in the classifieds section...

Use a bunch of clothes hangers, instead, maybe? Usually about that size, arent they?

[premortho]

Thank you for this! One more question though...how do you avoid uneven development when you have an emulsion side still in contact with the bottom of the tray (double emulsion film) and slow agitation? and how often would you then flip the film?

Well, as everybody who reads these knows (and are sick and tired of hearing about) I use Kodak Ektascan film. For two reasons. It is single sided, and it has an anti-halation backing. I use double sided "blue" film when I want that 1890's landscape look. I don't flip it over, I just pick it up in the tray so as to get developer action on the bottom. I've also tried using print tongs to pick it up and turn it over. But I'm not so skilled at that, and I end up wearing some of the developer. But I found that concentrating on developing just the top, and let the bottom look after itself and then bleaching off the back side, or bottom side works pretty good for me. A little trick I use is I just use a scizzors to "nip" off the upper right corner when I load the sheet film holders. That way I always know where the "up" side (the side that faces the lens) is.

[premortho]

Well, as everybody who reads these knows (and are sick and tired of hearing about) I use Kodak Ektascan film. For two reasons. It is single sided, and it has an anti-halation backing. I use double sided "blue" film when I want that 1890's landscape look. I don't flip it over, I just pick it up in the tray so as to get developer action on the bottom. I've also tried using print tongs to pick it up and turn it over. But I'm not so skilled at that, and I end up wearing some of the developer. But I found that concentrating on developing just the top, and let the bottom look after itself and then bleaching off the back side, or bottom side works pretty good for me. A little trick I use is I just use a scizzors to "nip" off the upper right corner when I load the sheet film holders. That way I always know where the "up" side (the side that faces the lens) is.

Well, to add to the above on nipping the corner, always do the upper right corner. If you do it some other way, you'll be apt to make a mistake some day when you load film that has notches. As far as I know, all non-double emulsion film has the code notches in the upper right corner, which you load so that the emulsion faces the lens. We wouldn't want to get into any bad habits, now would we?