X-ray seems to work. Not seen one in real life.
Why is it so cheap?
Is it made of the same stuff as normal film?
I know it's coated on both sides.
Cheers.
A
X-ray seems to work. Not seen one in real life.
Why is it so cheap?
Is it made of the same stuff as normal film?
I know it's coated on both sides.
Cheers.
A
through a glass darkly...
Not all x-ray film is coated on both sides. Double coated x-ray film is problematic because of low resolution. I use radiographs of small fishes to examine some skeletal features -- clearing and staining gives better views, takes longer and is more work -- and ones shot with high speed (double coated) film are very hard to read.
X-ray film is (or was) a field quite as wide as photographic film - that is, about the only common property they have is that the bulk are unsensitized, while a few exceptions (screen and intensifier films) are green sensitized.
Things to be aware of apart from double sided ones (which fare better on a pinhole camera, by the way): There are (or were) films with a wash-off opaque coating so that they can be handled in light, which are absolutely useless for photography. Other films you'll want to avoid are those sealed in light-tight sterilized envelopes or with integral intensifier sheets - while they could theoretically be stripped of their pack prior to exposure, these (photographically detrimental) features add quite considerably to their price.
What's normal film? This is an orthochromatic film which means it is not sensitive to red at all...which means you can load the film holders and develope under a ruby red light. It has at least one less dye in the emulsion,as compared to panchromatic film, which seems to reduce grain size. It can also be brutally sharp. I use a light yellow filter to hold back the sky enough to print clouds. I like the way it renders color. But if there is a lot of red in the scene, I use something like tri-x (panchromatic). Unfortunatly, it's 10 times more expensive per sheet, so I don't use pan film very often.
Bookmarks