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

[SergeiR]

Nice Sergei, perhaps I am imagining similarities.

I'm still here and working!

You are influential.

8) thanks, yeah.. it was that kind of day when i shot it.. I am now curious about waiting for relatively cloudy (dark) day here in Dallas and make few shots of 1-12 hr long..

[SergeiR]

from this morning

good display of colour sensitivity of Kodak CSG

tea rose was dark-dark-dark red. Leaves obviously green. Shot in shadows.


Scan-130803-0006www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

[Bazz8]

Nice shots It is good film tray developed?
We just developed in the 8x10 trays one neg at a time
and no scratches Steve had a 8x10 squeegee and wiped of the
excess water after fixing and no scratches.
regards
Bazz8

[gavjenks]

I wanted to figure out how much each 8x10 x-ray photo cost with chemistry added for processing. Here is my assessment… others may vary depending on actual film used and type of chemistry…

Fuji HR-T: 100 sheets $35
PMK: one hundred liters (One liter per sheet of 8x10) $60
TF-4: ten liters (One liter per ten sheets of 8x10) $107
TOTAL $202 for 100 sheets of film.

Notes:
All prices include shipping from supplier to my home.
I’m going on the assumption that one sheet of 8x10 Fuji is equivalent to two rolls of film (160 square inches for both sides). Using the TF-4 published capacity of 20 rolls per liter, it works out to ten sheets per liter.
I’m also tray processing the developer which needs at least a liter to slosh the film


So, it roughly costs $2 per shot.
I think I can reduce that a bit if I can figure out how to make my own fixer.
Bill

Using the following tube design, you can process an 8x10 sheet evenly in daylight with LESS than 0.25 liters of each chemical (which is sufficient to not become exhausted on that one sheet. I get by just fine with 4 oz. of similar chemicals per 4x5, which is about 1/4 less than this. If you want more, just decrease the inner tube diameter a bit, but a whole liter is silly much), and you can make this yourself for $10 in plumbing parts or so. It's just a 2" PVC class 200 tube inside of a 2.5" one, held together with a bushing. You roll each piece of film so that the emulsion side is facing inward, slide it into its tube, and then fill with enough chemical to cover the film but not completely full. Then you can put the cap on and invert the tube back and forth for extremely effective and evenly distributed agitation. Bushings are usually flat on the end, too, so you can stand it upright and let it sit, too.

The nominal 2.5" pipe actually has an internal diameter of 2.6 or so inches, which is enough for an 8" wide sheet of film to not overlap itself at all.

Note that if you are processing with lights on, beware that PVC is somewhat transluscent. I have found that spraypainting black and then wrapping with heavy black duct tape or gaffers tape makes it completely opaque though.



So your $167 would be more like $40.
This does require one sided film though, which means either mammography film or scraping your film with bleach, etc. Depending on how much you value your time, that could be somewhere between maybe $20 to $65 more expensive per sheet than the film you quoted (There is an 8x10 sony mammography 1 sided film for $1 a sheet)

Let's say $40 more for film to compromise. Total still ends up being $115 instead of $202. Of course even less if using powder mixes or DIY chemicals, etc. Could probably get down to $0.75 a sheet.

[Gene McCluney]

Wow, 69 pages devoted to the topic I started. I'm amazed!!

[SergeiR]

8x10 Symmar-S, 7m, Rodinal 1+100, rotary.

I keep seeing this, its almost like outdoors with sun Kodak CSG is about iso 200, and indoors with flash - about 100.


Soul cage island - 1 by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

[Bazz8]

Took 3 shots yesterday in our Spa area ,it is under lazer-light and some shade cloth
which evens out the light considerably.
Scan of contact print: paper Agfa MCmat
the foreground leaves were fiery red and bits of black, the bush on the lh side was a pale green
the lattice is permapine and pale green.
tray developed rodinal!;100 7MIN light source enlarger

[SergeiR]

8x10 scan


Soul cage island - 2 by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

and print of it (contact + screens + lith developer) I actually shot whole series with idea to lith print them, and i am so glad it finally starting to work


Soul Cage Island. Print by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

[ScottPhotoCo]

Well, the testing and experimentation has begun and I have processed my first two sheets of film. Here are the details:

8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then at 10 mins for 30 seconds
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Late afternoon direct sun
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro using the Epson software with no additional adjustments
Shot one at 100 asa and a duplicate at 80 asa
Individual details for exposure below each image


Ektascan_BRA_100fs80-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Shot at 100 asa. 1/100 at f 6.3


Ektascan_BRA_80fs50-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Shot at 80 asa. 1/50 at f 6.3

General observations:
Not bad for a first test. Even in the overexposed image there is detail in the highlight areas. Perhaps I will try shooting at 125 asa to see how things compare. Processing in Adinol at 1:100 seemed to work fairly well. The grain is quite smooth. Overall I am quite happy with the potential for this inexpensive film.

Next steps:
I have 2 more subjects shot using the exact same set-up and exposures still to process. I think that I will process the same way for the same times to compare how the differing objects and light angles look on this film.

Any thoughts or recommendations from you all?

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Try one at 160 and at 125. I've been shooting at 160 when I'm in good outdoor light. 80 in deep shade.