View Full Version : Kodak Industrex MX125 x-ray film

Ian Greenhalgh
7-May-2013, 22:06
Hi folks

A while back I picked up a box of this stuff, 100 sheets of 15x40cm, paid almost nothing for it. I chop it up into 12 sheets of 6.5x9 from each big sheet so the whole box is enough for 1,200 sheets of 6.5x9, for a cost of 1.08 pence per 6.5x9, which is as cheap as your ever going to find.

It's only sensitive to blue so can be worked with under a red safelight, which is how I'm able to chop it up, red safelight and scissors.

It's double-sided, emulsion both sides, this is a slight drawback as it results in slightly less sharpness than a conventional single-sided film. On the upside though, the grain is almost non-existent, in fact, it's got less grain than any other film I've tried, even Tech Pan and microfilms have more grain than this has.

It's also very high contrast, so I use stand development with very dilute developer to get continuous tone and ameliorate the contrast. I've tried several developers and the results don't vary much. Unlike most films it develops to completion so you have to make sure you get the exposure close to right as you can't do any pushing or pulling in development. I rate it at ISO 12, which appears to be it's actual speed.

Tonality is less good than the films I usually use such as Fomapan 100, FP4 and APX 100, which is inevitable with a blue sensitive only film, the look you get is very vintage, a throwback to the late 19th century when emulsions were only sensitive to blue and UV light.

I wouldn't use this film for serious work, but for lens testing and learning to shoot in the required style it's proved to be very useful. I'll still use it, just not for everything.

First up, here's some shots with my Angulon 6.8/65, everything shown is using my Century Graphic 23.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304050001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304050001WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304050002WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304050002WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304280001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304280001WEB_1.jpg)

Those three were in gray, dull light, in good light this film becomes pretty contrasty, again with the Angulon:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1305070001WEB_3.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1305070001WEB_3.jpg)

Ian Greenhalgh
7-May-2013, 22:06
These two were just before sunset with lovely light, Kodak Enlarging Ektar 4.5/100, second one is wide open:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304220001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304220001WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304220002WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304220002WEB_1.jpg)

Ian Greenhalgh
7-May-2013, 22:07
These are all with my Xenar 3.5/105:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304100001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304100001WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304100002WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304100002WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304160001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304160001WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304200001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304200001WEB_1.jpg)

Ian Greenhalgh
7-May-2013, 22:07
These are with my Pullin Pulnar 2.8/100, light was not good so the tonality leaves something to be desired:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304120002WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304120002WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304130001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304130001WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304130002WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304130002WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304130003WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304130003WEB_1.jpg)

Ian Greenhalgh
7-May-2013, 22:08
These are with my Mamiya 2.8/80 in much better light, so tonality is improved:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304060001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304060001WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304060002WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304060002WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304070003WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304070003WEB_1.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304070004WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304070004WEB_1.jpg)

Ian Greenhalgh
7-May-2013, 22:09
These were with the Xenar 3.5/105 again, light was very good. I used a pair of ND4 filters and exposure was 60 secs, the film seems to have quite a high reprocicity, moreso that FP4 for instance:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1305030001WEB_5.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1305030001WEB_5.jpg)
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1305030002WEB_3.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1305030002WEB_3.jpg)

Finally a portrait, I used my Tominon 4.5/135. The tonality is less than ideal for portraits, my dad's skin isn't as dark as it looks to be here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304020001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1304020001WEB_1.jpg)

I hope that gives a decent insight into how blue sensitive x-ray films work for pictorial shooting.

Andrew O'Neill
8-May-2013, 09:36
Really nice job with this difficult film, Ian. It would have been nice if you posted this here:

This was the original x-ray thread started by Gene McCluney.
Will you be printing these in the darkroom or scanning/printing? You could always try stripping of the back emulsion to improve sharpness. Procedures are outlined in the above thread.


8-May-2013, 10:06
These are interesting. MX125 is an industrial x-ray film and seems similar to the mammography films I'm experimenting with now. The films have a very steep characteristic curve in order to resolve dense masses, and build up density fast. I think an EI of 12 is close to the mammo films, too.

Do I see some pronounced edge effects from the stand development in your scans? I'm trying some low-contrast developers in an effort to find something that works for rotary processing. Your results are excellent and make me think it might be worth trying some semi-stand processing.

Ian Greenhalgh
8-May-2013, 10:44
Cheers guys, these represent the good ones, a lot of sheets were rejected, and I still only get a 50% 'hit' rate - half go in the bin without even scanning.

Hi Andrew, I wish I still had a darkroom, sadly I'm limited just to scanning. I ummed and ahhed about whether to post this in that thread but I figured since there were a lot of images, it might be hijacking. I'll pop over to that thread and post a link to this one.

Hi Barry, a very steep curve is indeed what this film appears to have, most of these results are with Microdol-X diluted 1:3 and used at 20C, this gives continuous tone with just about any film, it's haw i develop microfilms like Agfa Copex and high contrast films like Tech Pan and Kodalith. I ran out of Microdol and had a shelf full of other devs to use up so I switched to Ornano ST20 diluted 1:10 and still get similar results, just a bit less shadow/highlight detail than with microdol. I'm thinking of trying Dektol with this film soon, see how that tames the contrast which can be excessive in bright light.

Edge effects, can you point out where you're seeing them then I can tell you what caused them. My old Epson Perfection 3200 is on it's last legs and often gives me some ghosting on the left hand third of the frame, I need a new scanner asap. Also, I have done some playing around with Silverfx on some of them and used the structure setting, that could also be at fault.

8-May-2013, 11:01
Ian-- Thanks for the helpful details. Examples of the "edge effects" can be seen in the church steeple image (5th from top) where I see what looks like a thin bright halo around the steeple. I also see something in the photo of the tree-lined path (5th from bottom) with what looks like density bleeding into the sky around the tree branches. Some other images have similar issues, but maybe it's the scanner.

Ian Greenhalgh
8-May-2013, 11:25
You're most welcome Barry. It's the scanner, sadly. In some cases I've probably exacerbated it with over-zealous processing. A newer Epson is on the shopping list.

Andrew O'Neill
9-May-2013, 11:31
Hi Andrew, I wish I still had a darkroom, sadly I'm limited just to scanning. I ummed and ahhed about whether to post this in that thread but I figured since there were a lot of images, it might be hijacking. I'll pop over to that thread and post a link to this one.

Not hijacking at all. Nice to keep it all in one place.

10-Nov-2015, 15:12
Ian, do you know of a US retailer for this film? The usual suspects (ZZ medical etc.) don't seem to carry it.