Kodak X-Omat Duplicating film for LF?

[Drew Bedo]

kODAK Film X-OMAT Duplicating 8" X 10"

Anyone ever use any of this film? In days past I used a Kodak film called "Ektascan" tThat was used in Ultrasound and Nuclear medicine to capture images off a CRT. It was processed in an automatic processor and the chemistry was compatible eith Tri-X. The hospital photographers used to just run 35mm and 220 rolls of Tri-x right through behind our big films without any problems. The Processor and chemistry were labeled with this Kodak "X-Omat" brand.

I loaded 8x10 sheets in standard holders and rated it at 200. Ran it through the processor at work or took it to a lab for standard processing as Tri-X. Worked really well, back them.

So now I have found a listing on E-Bay with this same brand, Kodak X-Omat, and wondered if it can be made to work for LF imaging.

anyone have any experience?

[mdarnton]

Interesting. Just reading around:
Coated front and back
Brown safe light ( = not panchromatic)
$1.50 a sheet, or even more, depending.

It sounds like a more expensive version of the Fuji HR-T x-ray film (40 cents a sheet) I use.

[EdWorkman]

Drew
I can't relate experience with that exact brand o of dupe film
I can give some experience in general however.
When I ran out of discontinued Kodak Direct Dupe film I tried some generic Xray dupe- not even labeled as X ray dupe but the no-notch, round corners gave it away.

It is slower than Direct Dupe
It can be contrasty
Contrast can be modified by developer dilution- I have used concentrated liquid developers for paper and for film
As you would know, the paper developer gives higher contrast than film developer
Developer times seem to be less than those recommended for Direct Dupe but......
I have used the Xray dupe to make projection dupes from old 116 size negs to 5x7 is, so I could burn and dodge- up to 6 minutes or so
It has a long shelf life. I gave some to a buddy of mine and he still is using it
Recently he had a quality issue. In trying to dupe 122 size negs he got black thin marks, but not in 8x10 and it went away after after a week or two of repeated frustrations.
I can only think it was short cat hairs by appearance ????
I hope you find this information helpful

regards
Ed

[Drew Bedo]

OK, good to know.

As I posted, above, the film I was hoping it to be was single emulsion and virtually the same as Tri-X in spectral response and development chemistry.

So not a good option then.

Anybody know of anything similar to the old "Ektascan" other than Tri-X?

[Drew Bedo]

Thanks Ed. The hope was that this might be similar to the old "Ektascan", which was similar to Tri-X in spectral response and development chemistry.
BTW, the Ektascan film sheets did have one rounded notch and rounded corners.

So then, the film in question is probably not a good choice.

[Oren Grad]

Threads merged.

[seezee]

I'm confused. I'm using Ektascan for a project right now — it is not discontinued. Why not just buy some (https://www.zzmedical.com/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html) instead of looking for something like it?

[Eugen Mezei]

If I understand it correctly, it is a direct positive film. Anyone exposed it in camera and got slides?