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

[Mark MacKenzie]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Mark MacKenzie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...