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

[Andrew O'Neill]

In regards to D-23, it works fine. Try diluting it 1+1 to 1+3.

[HT Finley]

In regards to D-23, it works fine. Try diluting it 1+1 to 1+3.

Thanks. I didn't want to go the Rodinal route because it would only be any good to me for the 8x10 XRay film. For all the other film I shoot, it's just too grainy. I was turned off of Rodinal in 1974 and never touched it again. D-23 has much more versatile usability.

[Andrew O'Neill]

You should find that the xray negative won't be nearly as grainy as Rodinal, due to its high sodium sulfite content. I have also tried two-bath D-23 with sucess. Will you be wet printing on silver papers?

[HT Finley]

You should find that the xray negative won't be nearly as grainy as Rodinal, due to its high sodium sulfite content. I have also tried two-bath D-23 with sucess. Will you be wet printing on silver papers?

Yes--ordinary photographic paper and Dektol.

[TheToadMen]

Yes, in fact it ONLY works with a single side emulsion. I used to only use mammo film which is one sides, but now I also do it with double sided emulsions since I learned how to strip off the side that touches the wall with bleach after developing (it is horribly messed up, but if you just strip it, it doesn't matter).

Interesting idea. Do I understand this correctly?
- expose the film
- normal develop the film
- afterwards strip the back side of the negative with bleach?

Doesn't it affect the emulsion on the good side, or is it just a matter of carefully bleaching? How do you do this?
Thanks,
Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

[gavjenks]

Interesting idea. Do I understand this correctly?
- expose the film
- normal develop the film
- afterwards strip the back side of the negative with bleach?

Doesn't it affect the emulsion on the good side, or is it just a matter of carefully bleaching? How do you do this?
Thanks,
Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

I think it is described in this thread a few times, but yes, you strip it after processing is all completed (because that's when the other emulsion is most hardened and resilient).

All i do is lay a piece of glass in my sink so it is diagonal. Then splash some water on the surface, slap the film good-side-down, rub it around a little bit to free air bubbles (if your glass is clean, this won't scratch it at all), and push and sweep with my fingertips to also release air bubbles, leading to a decent seal. This water seal alone is sufficient to keep bleach off of the good side if you're careful.

Then I use a common cleaning sponge (soft side) with some bleach squirted on the edge full strength. I hold one corner of the negative with my left hand and sweep middle to edge on the opposite corner and then pick up the sponge and return to middle again (so you're never pushing from outside in, which could push bleach under the lip). Repeat 20 swipes, then hold another corner and sweep the opposite of that 20 times, for all 4 corners. You can see the emulsion being removed, so if 20 sweeps doesn't do it then keep going till it's gone.

Avoid moving the negative around on the glass, because it can glide into and over an area with bleach on it. that's why you want a firm hold on the corner opposite your sweeping direction, so you don't shift the film unnecessarily. i also always sweep the bottom corners first, to minimize the time that bleach is at the top of the glass and is thus being potentially pulled under the film by gravity etc.

Drop sponge in the sink and immediately flush hands and film and the entire glass sheet with copious amounts of water (few seconds of faucet running and splashing it around). Then pry up one corner of the film with fingernails, flip it over and flush directly in the faucet in case any bleach got behind at all.

Now rinse in distilled water or dip in photo flo or whatever you normally would do, and hang to dry.


If you're in a confined space with a less-than-stellar fan, like an old bathroom, i suggest opening the door before doing this. Bleach fumes can be strong, and at this point, the film is developed already, so light doesn't matter.



After a few sheets of practice, I quickly got to the point where I have a nearly 100% success rate in not accidentally bleaching any portion of the good emulsion side whatsoever.

Please note that this is probably terrible for the environment. Ideally, you should be collecting your silvery-infused bleach liquid in a container somewhere, for electrolysis at some point to reclaim the silver metal (tiny bit of $$ but also stopping it from polluting. Same with used fixer)

[rdelung]

I used Pyrocat MC in a Jobo with Fuji Green. I used an EI with a green/yellow filter of 50 for landscape, and there was plenty of shadow detail, but then the Kodak film is no doubt different. I'll have to give the R09 a try, especially given how cheap it is to use.

[rdelung]

Just a question, I'm new to the large format x-ray film thing. I'm shooting with a 8x10. I just purchased a yellow 4in x 4in filter. You mentioned a yellow green filter. Is this a combination, or a yellow and green filter together? Thanks,
The Seattle guy...R.W.Delung

[SergeiR]

Just a question, I'm new to the large format x-ray film thing. I'm shooting with a 8x10. I just purchased a yellow 4in x 4in filter. You mentioned a yellow green filter. Is this a combination, or a yellow and green filter together? Thanks,
The Seattle guy...R.W.Delung

Its a single filter, at least in my case. I am sure you can get it done as two, it just probably will end up eating more light.

Btw, if you dont mind me asking - where, and how much it was? :) (i am looking for one)

[TheToadMen]

I think it is described in this thread a few times, but yes, you strip it after processing is all completed (because that's when the other emulsion is most hardened and resilient).

All i do is ...

Thank you for your patience and the explanation (I haven't read all the 688 posts in this thread yet).
I was thinking about getting me some Fuji X-ray film since it is cheap and available in 18x24 cm format, but I wondered how to handle double coated film.
Now I know :)

[redrockcoulee]

I've taken a different approach to X-ray development...
I have been using a Jobo for paper development and have become very comfortable with processing film/paper without a darkroom - I wanted something similar to x-ray film.
In the end I bought a Paterson Orbital tank. Not cheap for what it is, but it allows me to process x-ray film without scratches.
As an insurance against internal motion, I use two small balls of blu-tack to hold down 2 diagonal corners.
So far - seems to work really well.
I can only process one 8x10 sheet at a time, but that is a fine trade-off for no scratches.
[http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2879/9677259593_99bd4d38cd.jpg

I think I will try this for 5X7 and Whole Plate. I got an Orbital processor and motor for free and they look like they have not been used although a corner of the box is bent.

I will try my first go at developing X-ray film this week in the Combi tank for my 4X5 s I shot last weekend.

[HT Finley]

I'm going to go in another direction on my developer trials. After a lot of study and pondering, I'm going to see what I can get out of Willi Beutler's developer.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Which film will you be trying out?

[redrockcoulee]

Which film will you be trying out?

We have a couple boxes of Fuji HR-T one 8X10 and one 14X17 which will be used for cutting down to 5X7 and WP, except my wife figures one of her cameras will take a full sheet of the larger size. She has a pinhole camera made from an IAMS cat food tin and if that is not big enough we have several of the larger size dog food cannisters.

We are going to try to perfect a system this fall and winter as the plans are for three weeks on Vancouver Island next June.

[rdelung]

Hi there SergeiR: The mount that I have will only take a Ambico 3 x 3.25 in. Its a Yellow K2 new filter. I found this on ebay, and it was the only one, so I grabbed it up. It was $11.98 total. Now I just have to make up an adepter that can hold the mount to my large lens barrel. I looked at the rubber band thing, and it doesn't talk to me. So I came up with an idea of cutting out a piece of high density foam about 1.5 in.
thick, and mounting it to the filter mount back. The trick will be to make the hole just snug enough to grab to the lens barrel. I think it should
work. The entire thing doesn't weigh very much. I'll keep you informed if you like. BTW, I know that Novosibirsk is in Russia, but do you live in
Dallas Texas? A Russian co-worker of mine wanted me to ask. Thanks, Randy DeLung ( the other Randy ) aka The Seattle guy.

[SergeiR]

Aha :) thanks. Thought it was fleabay but hope springs eternal :) you can also buy Cokin Z holder or cheap Lee holder knockoff, and just glue one of adapter rings onto lens :) i mean yeah it will butcher lens, but it will save you from rubber-banding it ( or you can make wooden cutout with felt and pull on blah.. )

I do live in dallas, tx, but i am from nsk and go there every few months :)

[kmack]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2860/9766321865_ac1d9efac9_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kmccmack/9766321865/)
HuntingCreek (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kmccmack/9766321865/) by kmccmack (http://www.flickr.com/people/kmccmack/), on Flickr

Hunting Creek in the Cunningham Falls park.

Salt print on water color paper. Untoned. Sodium Chloride with a gelatin sizer. Kodak B/RA Film metered for 12ISO developed in RO9 1:50, rotary processed 8min at 72ºF.

I never seem to be able to get a decent scan of my salt prints.

[Mkillmer]

My daughter, dressed as Mexican painter, Frida Kahlo...
101880
Fuji HRT (green sensitive) under studio strobes

[UlbabraB]

Wonderful portrait, great mood!

[Mkillmer]

From the same sitting:

101902


Exposed for ISO 100 and developed in paRodinal (home made Rodinal) for 4 minutes in a rotary tank.

[Mkillmer]

Here's an example of a paper negative and an X-Ray negative.
Same setup and lighting...
Paper Negative (ISO 3)
101934

X-Ray Negative (ISO 100)
101935

Not much between them, IMHO. The paper has a slightly different response curve, doesn't show the shadow detail as well as the X-Ray, but the paper is somehow more... mellow.

[Thad Gerheim]

I'm not sure if this post belongs here, but this is for free stainless steel tanks and x-ray film holders for 10"x12" film developing.
They were used by the local veterinarian here in central Idaho. Would prefer pick-up if you just happen to be coming through Challis, Idaho.

[Tin Can]

That's a nice offer. Tanks are hard to find.

I have some and am too far away, but I wonder if the Vet got new ones or went Digital?

Do you know the situation?



I'm not sure if this post belongs here, but this is for free stainless steel tanks and x-ray film holders for 10"x12" film developing.
They were used by the local veterinarian here in central Idaho. Would prefer pick-up if you just happen to be coming through Challis, Idaho.

[Thad Gerheim]

That's a nice offer. Tanks are hard to find.

I have some and am too far away, but I wonder if the Vet got new ones or went Digital?

Do you know the situation?

The Vet went digital, which makes me wonder if there are a lot of these sitting in storage units from Veterinarians and Dentists.

[SergeiR]

Kodak CGS , exposed for 150 ISO (to prove me theory about UV rich sources), development 7.30 1+100 R09, rotary

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3724/9866872113_a7c7105bc9_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9866872113/)
Scan-130921-0002www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9866872113/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Tin Can]

and the answer is? :)



Kodak CGS , exposed for 150 ISO (to prove me theory about UV rich sources), development 7.30 1+100 R09, rotary

[SergeiR]

and the answer is? :)

ah. Sorry. Yes. Paper neg do same - you roughly x1.5-x2 base ISO rating to get same negative as if you working with flashes or indirect shade (think balcony or patio with serious overhang.. so it pick up reflected light + got extra shade)

[jharr]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7358/9929113154_e7ae6c410b_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/9929113154/)
Berries (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/9929113154/) by James Harr Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/harrlequin/), on Flickr

http://jamesharrphoto.blogspot.com/2013/09/ornamental-shrubbery.html

[-88-]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7422/9822133404_f226911ecf_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14064287@N06/9822133404/)
P9187113 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14064287@N06/9822133404/) by -88- (http://www.flickr.com/people/14064287@N06/), on Flickr

Kodak T-Mat

[mario errico]

Hi,
I have been watching this Thread for a while. I am finishing a basement darkroom and planning to get into large format, mostly 4x5 and a little 8x10. I have a general question about the use of xray film: Is there a summary page for all the great discussion which has happened in this forum? I am only aware of another forum on xray film here, the one on Images taken with xray film. Also, are there more forum on the subject of xray film?

Many years ago (almost 30 now!) I was shooting Kodak Technical Pan at 25ASA and processed in Technidol Liquid. The incredible rendition of continuous tone of the Tech Pan makes me want to try again with large format, but, the film is essentially unavailable now. I was wondering what experience people have with rendering continuous tone with xray film and if what suggestions people might have, type of film ("blue" vs. "green"), exposure, type of developer, etc. As you can see, I have not read through most of the posts here but I am slowly catching up!

Thanks in advance,

Mario

[UlbabraB]

The Vet went digital, which makes me wonder if there are a lot of these sitting in storage units from Veterinarians and Dentists.

Yeah, I picked up a 14x17" hangers + vertical tanks setup from a local Vet the past year.

[Holdenrichards]

http://u1.ipernity.com/36/06/79/26120679.a6fe9f6a.640.jpg

http://www.ipernity.com/home/holdenrichards/
1903 Eastman View No. 1 - Agfa Repromaster 185mm - f/45
Kodak X-Ray - 8x10 Film
Dektol 1+10 - Unaltered Negative Scan

[tenderobject]

Hello guys! I haven't finished reading this thread about X-ray film but i'm sure it's worth the read.

By the way, i have some questions. I just shoot my first test shots on my 8x10 camera using X-ray film. I just found some of the images has some leaks that i'm still unsure where it came from. The main culprit could be the red light that we used in the darkroom. Is this film really senstive that even a DIY redlight could fog the film? I have real safe life in Iran that i could use when i get there. I'll make some more tests again this week..

We used sa DIY ala Kinoflo continuos light, 8x10 with 250mm lens for the test shoot. I've developed the film with parodinal 1+100, a stopbath and a fixer that we usually use for normal film. Is stopbath really necessary for xray film? I've shoot the film at EI 50 and it's a bit overexposed and not contrasty. So next time i'll try to use EI100 with the same chemistry setup. The film is very sensitive with scratches but i'm starting to like the process and the character of this film. I think i'll just use this film until i finish the box i have and see if i would continue using it. :)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1385963_718027958210901_633087876_n.jpg https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1157449_718027948210902_606156383_n.jpg

8X0 Kodak Master View, 250mm Fujinon 6.7, Fuji HRT Green, Handcolored in photoshop.

[SergeiR]

Try to use hardening fixer. Helps with emulsion a bit, imho

as of red light.. i dont use light when loading/processing my X-ray, and i cant say for fuji. But on few occasions i did this with Kodak CSG under my red light made out of led and red gel - i didnt have any issues. Your leaks seems to come more from sides and kind of form vignette. Simpe thing to do is to try to cover camera with dark cloth when/while you exposing file. Also i suggest checking lens board & etc. This is exact effect that you would have when looking on the image through lens and there is parasitic light coming from all sides - center of image is pronounced and rest is kinda fades out.

[tenderobject]

Thank you Sergie!!! I think i have to check on my DIY lensboard as well! Forgot about that!!

About the hardening fixer. I had scratches while processing the film because this is my first time. I had problem with the trays found out it has some spikes there. Hopefully next test would be much cleaner than this one.. :) But the scratches, leaks and dusts gave this portrait a different look. I will keep on reading here and post my journey with 8x10 and x-ray film! Man, i love the images posted here by you and others here! Very inspiring!


Try to use hardening fixer. Helps with emulsion a bit, imho

as of red light.. i dont use light when loading/processing my X-ray, and i cant say for fuji. But on few occasions i did this with Kodak CSG under my red light made out of led and red gel - i didnt have any issues. Your leaks seems to come more from sides and kind of form vignette. Simpe thing to do is to try to cover camera with dark cloth when/while you exposing file. Also i suggest checking lens board & etc. This is exact effect that you would have when looking on the image through lens and there is parasitic light coming from all sides - center of image is pronounced and rest is kinda fades out.

[Tin Can]

If you need to tape things, try to get and use Gaff tape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaffer_tape

I want to murder our ancestors that used masking tape on cameras and I can't get it off!

[tenderobject]

I have to buy another roll of gaff! Thanks for reminding me Randy!

[SergeiR]

I want to murder our ancestors that used masking tape on cameras and I can't get it off!

typical timetravelling rookie mistake :P
If you went and killed them then you wouldnt ever be born and thus wouldnt go and kill them.. and... :)))))

[Tin Can]

:(


typical timetravelling rookie mistake :P
If you went and killed them then you wouldnt ever be born and thus wouldnt go and kill them.. and... :)))))

[Harold_4074]

I want to murder our ancestors that used masking tape on cameras and I can't get it off!

Another possitly useful factoid: smear the tape with GoJo or similar mechanic's hand cleaner, wait a few hours, and then remove the tape and residue. This worked on some barndoors that had tape residue baked onto to them from years past.

[Tin Can]

I'll try it. very old masking tape is everywhere.

One guy used white, medical looking tape to label many leather things, it takes the leather skin right with it.

I like good tape, I got some 3M 924 ATG Transfer tape today, I may tape a DIY camera together with it. Testing it tomorrow.


I want to murder our ancestors that used masking tape on cameras and I can't get it off!

Another possitly useful factoid: smear the tape with GoJo or similar mechanic's hand cleaner, wait a few hours, and then remove the tape and residue. This worked on some barndoors that had tape residue baked onto to them from years past.

[GF1973]

103027

CEA GREEN X-RAY FILM DIY 4x5 CAMERA CAFFENOL

[SergeiR]

I'll try it. very old masking tape is everywhere.

One guy used white, medical looking tape to label many leather things, it takes the leather skin right with it.

I like good tape, I got some 3M 924 ATG Transfer tape today, I may tape a DIY camera together with it. Testing it tomorrow.

cloth based? Bandaid-like but in loooong rolls.. Loved this stuff as a kid - hate as adult.. Not a lot could be done to clean this bastard off the leather, afaik :( sorry, man. That glue is very good .

[rdelung]

103119103120103121
Sergei, As per our talk earlier, I have made a foam attachment for my filter holder. Its just high density foam with a thin wood backing.
It seems to work OK. The only trick is to make the foam hole just smaller than the barrel of the lens. Very cheep, and usable. I hope
this helps someone else out, as it did me. The West Coast Guy. RWDelung

[ScottPhotoCo]

103119103120103121
Sergei, As per our talk earlier, I have made a foam attachment for my filter holder. Its just high density foam with a thin wood backing.
It seems to work OK. The only trick is to make the foam hole just smaller than the barrel of the lens. Very cheep, and usable. I hope
this helps someone else out, as it did me. The West Coast Guy. RWDelung

Clever. I like it!

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Holdenrichards]

103119103120103121

Very clever!

[Mkillmer]

Hi All,
I don't know where else to ask this...
The only recent x-ray emulsion I have shot with is fuji HRT (green). I've just emptied the box so I'm looking at getting some more film. Specifically, I'm buying some IBF low contrast green film. There are so many different types around!
Has anyone compared he different manufactures/types of film? There's agfa, kodak, fuji, ibf and many many more manufacturers.
Interested in hearing comparisons.
Mark

[Mkillmer]

Interested in hearing comparisons.
Mark

Also interested in seeing examples!

[Mkillmer]

Here is my example of IBF-Medix RX-G.
My comparative observations are:
-Very similar to Fuji HRT - Slightly slower? Maybe ISO 80
-Same development Chemicals/process as Fuji HRT - in this case raRodinal 1+50 for 4 minutes
-Emulsion is softer than Fuji HRT
-This is my first image but:
-Seems grainer than HRT
-Lots of scanner artefacts

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2841/10409829604_ce6017fd71_c.jpg

[tenderobject]

This is nice. I've shoot my first 8x10 with Fuji HRT @ iso50. It was a bit overexposed.. 6-7 minutes development using paRodinal 1+100. I think i should adjust my ISO and keep on using the dillution. Anyone tried 1+100 using paRodinal? Thank you!


Here is my example of IBF-Medix RX-G.
My comparative observations are:
-Very similar to Fuji HRT - Slightly slower? Maybe ISO 80
-Same development Chemicals/process as Fuji HRT - in this case raRodinal 1+50 for 4 minutes
-Emulsion is softer than Fuji HRT
-This is my first image but:
-Seems grainer than HRT
-Lots of scanner artefacts

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2841/10409829604_ce6017fd71_c.jpg

[Mkillmer]

This is nice. I've shoot my first 8x10 with Fuji HRT @ iso50. It was a bit overexposed.. 6-7 minutes development using paRodinal 1+100. I think i should adjust my ISO and keep on using the dillution. Anyone tried 1+100 using paRodinal? Thank you!
That sounds about right - I've used 1+100 dilution at ISO 100 and it worked fine. I moved to 1+50 because it was fast and *maybe* there was a minor contrast improvement.

[Holdenrichards]

http://u1.ipernity.com/38/10/31/27491031.337c3cc9.640.jpg?r1

A contact print made onto Ilford MGIV FB from an 8x10 x-ray negative (Kodak Ektascan)

[Tin Can]

Eureka, a real contact print. Thank you and looks great!




A contact print made onto Ilford MGIV FB from an 8x10 x-ray negative (Kodak Ektascan)

[Holdenrichards]

Eureka, a real contact print. Thank you and looks great!

Thanks Randy!

[-88-]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3828/10357179326_62bbcc7c09_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14064287@N06/10357179326/)
2013032 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/14064287@N06/10357179326/) by -88- (http://www.flickr.com/people/14064287@N06/), on Flickr

Kodak T-mat
Graflex 4x5 + doppel-anastigmat 120mm

[Rick A]

I just recieved a package of Vedco high speed blue, anybody have experience with it? I'm anxious to start, should I(or could I) use any other blue sensitive data I can find? Thank you up front for some help.

[EdWorkman]

Just DO IT
Xray is cheaper than paper
Call it FP4 and develop accordingly for starters, then adjust
You probably will appreciate the practice in any case, given susceptibility to scratching, so practice being careful at the same time

[skuuterboy]

103447

This is my favorite image from the first shoot I've done in 8x10. The film is Kodak Ektascan B/RA rated at 100 and processed on a Jobo in Rodinal 1:200 8' -the camera is a Toyo 810G and the lens is a Plaubel Anticomar 4.2/300 wide open.

[Jody_S]

103447

This is my favorite image from the first shoot I've done in 8x10. The film is Kodak Ektascan B/RA rated at 100 and processed on a Jobo in Rodinal 1:200 8' -the camera is a Toyo 810G and the lens is a Plaubel Anticomar 4.2/300 wide open.

I like it.

[Holdenrichards]

103447

This is my favorite image from the first shoot I've done in 8x10. The film is Kodak Ektascan B/RA rated at 100 and processed on a Jobo in Rodinal 1:200 8' -the camera is a Toyo 810G and the lens is a Plaubel Anticomar 4.2/300 wide open.

Nicely done!

[Glass Key Photo]

I am intrigued by the photos I am seeing here. Any good sources for X-Ray film?

[Mkillmer]

This is my favorite image from the first shoot I've done in 8x10. The film is Kodak Ektascan B/RA rated at 100 and processed on a Jobo in Rodinal 1:200 8' -the camera is a Toyo 810G and the lens is a Plaubel Anticomar 4.2/300 wide open.

Looks great- how do you process in the jobo and avoid scratches?

[skuuterboy]

The Kodak Ektascan is coated on one side only so I don't have any issues with processing the film in the Jobo.

[jon.oman]

I am intrigued by the photos I am seeing here. Any good sources for X-Ray film?

http://www.cxsonline.com/text/subcatalog.tmpl?command=showpage&sn=256017&category=1001&cart=13825651212337544&location=1001

[plaubel]

Hello,

i will start xraying soon, since i have seen your amazing photographs here.

Normally, i use Xtol 1+2 for my negatives; may Xtol work with Xray, too?
Or have i to use R 09 for more sure results ?

Thanks,
Ritchie

[imagedowser]

Richie, Do it both ways and post your results, I'd be interested in seeing the difference. Were all flying blind with some of this.... Bill

[plaubel]

Hello, Bill,

"I'd be interested in seeing the difference"

I do believe, but i m not sure, if this is the answer i looked for :-)
But you re right, i have to figure out.
Xtol at first, because its here.
I will post my results then.

Thanks,
Ritchie

[EdWorkman]

Like I said, and I did try
I have a book about developers
LOTS of formulae
And with most, development time ranges are given for various classes of films, such as 'medium speed" etc etc.
So repeating my advice of previous posts, and reflecting my limited xray film experience
Try a film speed, I've said Plus X but there isn't any anymore, so I've said FP4 times as a starting point
Folks on here have reported EI 80-200 for various tries, close enough
[So for Xtol 1+2 - hmm I think one needs the original Kodak recommendations for more then 1+1 dilution, but I use 1:2 for my best compromise between time and economy]
Those kinds of start points should get you in the ball park, such that a coupla trials will get to a good result.
It's cheeeeeeeeep film and you can work under a safelight- worry about teeny fog effects after you have found your seat in the park
There really is not anything exotic in this stuff

[plaubel]

It's cheeeeeeeeep film and you can work under a safelight-
There really is not anything exotic in this stuff

Thank you, Ed,

this are obvisiously some nice advantages of the xray film.
I will start with some shots in different Iso and by changing development, i will see.
The more i shoot, the more i can learn about the "real" Iso and right development.
I really enjoy starting with this stuff.

Ritchie

[imagedowser]

Ritchie, Maybe this is closer to what your looking for..... Iridescent Light, The Art Of Stand Development By Michael Axel, available from Blurb. This is the best book I've seen (and own) on stand development, which very little has been posted about, involving xray film. One of Axel's favorite formulas, apparently, is comprised of a combination of xtol and rodinal..... 200 ml xtol, 800 ml distilled H2O, 3 ml Rodinal, 1/4 tsp Borax, 10gms Ascorbic acid (chemical, not vit C) this formula is for 3 hr stand. Increase Rodinal to 10ml for one hr and 5 ml for two hr stand keeping everything else the same. I would guess a rating of 100 for one hr, 200 for two hr and 300 for three hour stand.... since you'll be working under safelight, you can snatch earlier if it looks like your over developing.... I haven't done stand with xray yet so this isn't in stone.... if your interested in stand dev get the book, it's worth the read. It's an "eye opener". Best, Bill

[plaubel]

Ritchie, Maybe this is closer to what your looking for..... Iridescent Light, The Art Of Stand Development By Michael Axel,
if your interested in stand dev get the book, it's worth the read. It's an "eye opener". Best, Bill

Bill, it seems, that Mr. Axel has experience in using chemicals like Miraculix :-)
Thank you for the tip, this must be a great book.
I haven t practice stand development before;normally i use rotation, clipping the sheets easily in the big drums of my old "Unitub", and i hope, that this doesn t scratch my xray sheets.But after reading this thread, i m in doubt because of scratching...
I will figure out this, too.

Okay, i have to start with ordering some sheets today :-)

Ritchie

[blueribbontea]

104109104110 I have been inspired by this thread and bought a package of Ektascan 8X10. Both these images were taken with my C-1, a 300mm Paragon 4.5 lens in a compound shutter, the portrait at f8 and the fence at f32. I develop the film in very dilute HC110 (1-19). So far I am very impressed with this film and it contact prints nicely on Lodima Grade 2. I have done some more negatives in Caffenol and they are very nice.

[EdWorkman]

Excellent
Thanks for sharing
regards
Ed

[Jim Noel]

I assume the 1-19 is from stock, not from syrup.

[blueribbontea]

I assume the 1-19 is from stock, not from syrup. No: I keep a small bottle of the syrup at the sink and patiently wait for it to settle at the bottom of the graduate, for accurate measurement, then make my dilution. Throw it away when I'm done. I only develop one neg at a time and have been doing 2 negs per batch. The Caffenol negs I did this weekend look very good and I might stick to that for a time.

[blueribbontea]

If Jim, you mean 1-19 as one part stock to 19 water, yes that is the dilution I use. I just don't have a bottle of stock mixed.

[blueribbontea]

104130 One more, Ektascan in HC110 1-19. C-1, 300mm Paragon wide open at 4.5. Not critically sharp. I wanted to see how the Paragon did wide open.

[blueribbontea]

104145 One more, this Ektascan negative was developed in Caffenol, In a reduced Sodium Carbonate version. This is a bad scan of a contact print on Brovira grade 4, though as the paper was about 20 years old, I'm guessing it has been reduced in contrast quite a bit. The Caffenol seems to be a good developer for this film so far. This was a 2 minute exposure at f22 with the Ilex Paragon 12 inch lens.

[jharr]

Under-exposed
Under-developed
Missed the focus
Scratchy negative

Still like it.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7427/10719789505_2e7560e29a_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/10719789505/)
Boris (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/10719789505/) by James Harr Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/harrlequin/), on Flickr

[Bazz8]

Scan of contact print
Kodak 2D 8x10
270mm G-Claron
exposure 1.5sec@ f45
Dev Rodinal 1+100 9min 51sec
tray developed constant 15 sec rock tray every 30 sec
Foma paper print gloss 8x10104313

[jharr]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7365/10766785056_bb841d613f_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/10766785056/)
Deer Stalker (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/10766785056/) by James Harr Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/harrlequin/), on Flickr

[Shen45]

Scan of contact print
Kodak 2D 8x10
270mm G-Claron
exposure 1.5sec@ f45
Dev Rodinal 1+100 9min 51sec
tray developed constant 15 sec rock tray every 30 sec
Foma paper print gloss 8x10104313

Good to see you are back in the darkroom Bazz. Was that from the SE trip?

[Bazz8]

yes Steve the surviving neg from my inadvertent dilution of the chemicals
1:1000 was a little underdeveloped:o
Highlight detail is good using no filter will try a yellow-green next exposure
Bazz

[Andrew O'Neill]

This little gem is walking distance from my house, just across the tracks. I was talking to the owner this morning. He has been there for 0ver 40 years. Recently he has been pressured by the city to close down. He is the only auto wrecker left in Port Coquitlam.
I used Kodak X-ray, single-sided 8x10, developed in Obsidian Aqua. It developed beautifully, with very sharp edges. Slightly cropped. I intend to print it in carbon.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Looking at the image I posted late night, it's not as sharp as the scan... Anybody good at scanning? I have a 750V and wet mount scanned it... Saved it as a jpeg, roughly 8x10in, 72dpi.

[plaubel]

Hello,

8 sheets shot, developed and printed -

first results now, with green Fuji HRE 13x18 cm, tested at Iso 50 and Iso 100, developed in Xtol (rotation).
It may work, but i have to continue and to proove.

Using two red Osram Deko LED -spots in my darkroom is too much, i gave one sheet some minutes of this light and it shows reaction.
Next time i try only one spot.

I m sure, that your inspiration here gives me a nice film for my 24x30 cm Reisekamera, which i want to tune up at 30x40cm :-)

having fun with my new toys,
Ritchie

[Bazz8]

Try and get hols of a Wratten No.2 filter(Orthographic) This is what I use and
keeping 1mtr away from the film produces no fogging.
Tray Dev is simple glass in bottom of tray 1 sheet at a time
1:100 Rodinal produces good results,gently rocking the tray every 15 sec
No scratches this way so far
Bazz8

[jharr]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2864/10848414845_009dfd6e90_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/10848414845/)
de-los-muertos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/10848414845/) by James Harr Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/harrlequin/), on Flickr

http://jamesharrphoto.blogspot.com/2013/11/dia-de-los-muertos.html

[Michael Cienfuegos]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2864/10848414845_009dfd6e90_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/10848414845/)
de-los-muertos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/10848414845/) by James Harr Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/harrlequin/), on Flickr

http://jamesharrphoto.blogspot.com/2013/11/dia-de-los-muertos.html

I really like this image, being out of focus makes it very eerie, really cool. Did you find this in Old Town? I didn't go this year.

m

[Corran]

It's been awhile since I contributed here. My new Wista 8x10 sadly had a knob go missing so I haven't been using it. Still trying to get a replacement part from Nippon.

Anyway, I've been using Acufine a lot lately, as it seems to give me beautiful tonality and a speed increase, compared to Rodinal. So today I shot some 8x10 portraits in a controlled environment to do a test.

This is Fuji HR-T, rated at about 80 or 100 ASA, shot with a 300mm f/5.6 Symmar-S. Developed in straight Acufine in a tray for 2 minutes. Not stripped:

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/810-0168ss.jpg

[Bazz8]

Now looks real good

[Peter De Smidt]

Wow, Bryan. 2 minutes in a tray? It looks great with even development, which I would've expected to be a challenge.

[Corran]

Well it's not perfect. This is also my first tray-developed nenative ever.

I think my temperature was a little hot. Next time I might make sure I am at 68F and go for 3 minutes.

[Ari]

Next time I might make sure I am at 68F and go for 3 minutes.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Acufine work the same way on most films regardless of development temperature or time (as long as you adhere to a recommended minimum temp/time)?
Or am I confusing it with another developer?

[Corran]

I have heard that said of Diafine, but (at least in my experience) the temperature does matter with Acufine.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I believe you are thinking about Diafine, which I think was developed by the same person.

[Ari]

Thanks for clearing that up, guys.

[Bazz8]

Test shot of red roses
fuji HRT 8x10105007

[jharr]

I really like this image, being out of focus makes it very eerie, really cool. Did you find this in Old Town? I didn't go this year.

m

Thanks Michael. No, this was at Kobey's Swap Meet at Sports Arena. The OOF also sort of messes with the scale. These were probably 8 or 10 inches high.

~J

[Bazz8]

105206105207
First shots with 8x10 FujiHRT
Kodak2D
G-Claren 270mm
Scan of Contact prints
NB: If any one can give me simple directions to upload shots through my Flicker a/c
I would be most appreciated,I have got the link to work but not open a link only.
Regards
Bazz8

[D-tach]

105206105207
First shots with 8x10 FujiHRT
Kodak2D
G-Claren 270mm
Scan of Contact prints
NB: If any one can give me simple directions to upload shots through my Flicker a/c
I would be most appreciated,I have got the link to work but not open a link only.
Regards
Bazz8

On your Flickr page click this button and select the size you want to link to, copy the text like in the example

105210

On this forum click the Reply button and then the Insert Image button, there click 'From URL' and do not check the 'Retrieve remote file and reference locally'. Then press Preview post to see if it works

105211

[Bazz8]

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5507/11002581395_d395dfce68_b.jpg

Scan of Contact Print
Agfa Fibre MATT
Kodak 2D
Lens: G_Claren 270mm

Thanks for the assistance Gentlemen
more impact for sure.
Bazz8

[Bazz8]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3750/11002745584_95c498c6f7_b.jpg
Kodak 2D G-Claron 270mm lens
Fuji HRT 8x10
Scan of Contact Print:)

[Bazz8]

Thank you the process was almost right I was doing except view all sizes,
perhaps the moderators can remove the smaller versions please.
Bazz8

[Bazz8]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3717/10968107845_f51b223732_b.jpg
Scan of Contact print
Agfa fibre Matt
Kodak2D G-Claron 270mm lens
Fuji HRT 8x10
Yellow filter used

[Corran]

Hey guys, I think I'm on to something.
Doing some more tests with Acufine. I shot some today in overcast light, a good solid N, no harsh contrast or anything. I rated my standard Fuji HR-T green-sensitive film at 50 and developed in Acufine straight for 2.5 minutes in a tray at about 72 degrees F (not stripped):

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/810mill-0180ss.jpg

Notice the trees! They don't have that bright infrared look!! I was pretty amazed when I saw this image appear in the tray. I'm not sure what it is with the Acufine but it's taming the contrast and spectral sensitivity in such a way as to make this film look pretty dang near normal. It might also be the edge effects from the Acufine but I'm getting some pronounced bloom or spherical aberrations at larger magnifications. I think it would benefit from stripping if going for a large print.

I think this is definitely better results than Rodinal or Pyrocat HD, the other developers I've used.

[Jim Cole]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3750/11002745584_95c498c6f7_b.jpg
Kodak 2D G-Claron 270mm lens
Fuji HRT 8x10
Scan of Contact Print:)

Nice one, Bazz!

[Bazz8]

Thanks Jim loving this film and format

[HoodedOne]

Finally had some time to develop some images, I shot almost a month ago.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3705/11038080514_1ed9becabd_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoodedone-photos/11038080514/)
2013-HRT-008.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoodedone-photos/11038080514/) by HoodedOne (http://www.flickr.com/people/hoodedone-photos/), on Flickr

Fuji 8x10 X-ray film, no digital correction

Camera: Cambo SC2 8x10
Lens: Apo-Ronar 240/9 w. Yellow filter
Exposure: 1s @ f11
Development: Rodinal 1+100, 6.30 min. @ 19C


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2849/11038131103_d414182495_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoodedone-photos/11038131103/)
2013-HRT-009.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoodedone-photos/11038131103/) by HoodedOne (http://www.flickr.com/people/hoodedone-photos/), on Flickr
Fuji 8x10 X-ray film, no digital correction

Camera: Cambo SC2 8x10
Lens: Apo-Ronar 240/9 w. Yellow filter
Exposure: 1s @ f22
Development: Rodinal 1+100, 6.30 min. @ 19C

[premortho]

Love the scenic one. Demonstrates why one uses a yellow filter. Where was this taken?

[HoodedOne]

Love the scenic one. Demonstrates why one uses a yellow filter. Where was this taken?

Thnx. This was taken in the southern part of the Netherlands. It's just a couple of minutes walking from my home.

[Randy]

Bryan, what do you think of the grain size? I have been using HC-110 1:63 @ ISO 200 for a while now. The grain is quit evident. Was hoping there was a developer that resulted in finer grain.

[Corran]

Well it seems pretty fine to me. Here's a 50% crop of one of the shots with some sky for easy grain comparison. The scan was originally an 80mp image, so this would be akin to like a 60+ inch image on your screen:

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/810mill-0178c.jpg

[Andrew O'Neill]

It might also be the edge effects from the Acufine but I'm getting some pronounced bloom or spherical aberrations at larger magnifications.

That could be halation due to the fact that there is no anti-halation layer.

[Corran]

That's true Andrew but I've never seen it so pronounced until these shots...which is very strange. I've shot a box and a half of this stuff and not seen much if any bloom.

[Wayne]

This is great. I do think you are onto something with the Acufine. I would never have guessed this is x-ray film.



It's been awhile since I contributed here. My new Wista 8x10 sadly had a knob go missing so I haven't been using it. Still trying to get a replacement part from Nippon.

Anyway, I've been using Acufine a lot lately, as it seems to give me beautiful tonality and a speed increase, compared to Rodinal. So today I shot some 8x10 portraits in a controlled environment to do a test.

This is Fuji HR-T, rated at about 80 or 100 ASA, shot with a 300mm f/5.6 Symmar-S. Developed in straight Acufine in a tray for 2 minutes. Not stripped:

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/810-0168ss.jpg

[Bazz8]

Nice shots HoodedOne I am yet to use a Yellow filter for outside shots.
Nice effect using the yellow filter brings out the sky nicely,Tomorrow I am off the Kangaroo Island
for 9 days hopefully the Sth.Australian harsh sky will co-operate to give me some sky detail:)
Bazz8

[Tin Can]

Real real X-Ray!

http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/arie-vant-riet-nature-xray-art

[Bazz8]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3799/11501619006_2204f08357_b.jpg
Scan of print, agfa MC111 Matt
First Print from my trip to Kangaroo Island
Tee trees from the bank of the Chapman River
Camera: Kodak 2D 8x10
Lens: G-Claron 270mm f 11 due to windy conditions( 15-20 knots)
Film Fuji Green 8x10
Contact Print
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3799/11501619006_2204f08357_b.jpg
Scan of print, Fomabron Varient 111 paper

[Bazz8]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7425/11501612266_0cb94e309e_b.jpg
Scan of print, agfa MC111 Matt Version 1
another Print from my trip to Kangaroo Island
Cape Border Lighthouse
Camera: Kodak 2D 8x10
Lens: G-Claron 270mm f 11 due to windy conditions( 15-20 knots)
Film Fuji Green 8x10
Contact Prints
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3809/11501610336_6afe13a3f3_b.jpg
uneven Development but still serviceable neg

[Gregg Obst]

107265

My first X-Ray film shot on 4x5.

Fuji Super HR-T 30 green medium speed X-Ray film. Purchased as 8x10 sheets and cut down to 4x5 using Fiskars 12" rotary paper cutter under 11 watt Kodak Junior red safelight bulb.
Calumet 45nx with a Fujinon-W 210 F5.6 lens in a Copal B shutter.
1/4 second @ F16 with the film rated at ISO 100(ish).
The statue is outside in our backyard next to a small waterfall and pond we have and it was drizzling at the time.
Developed with Mod54 in Paterson 3 reel tank using Rodinal 1:100 @ 20 degrees Celsius for 6 minutes. Tap water stop bath. Ilfor Rapid Fixer, Photo-Flo, hung up to dry.
Scanned with Epson V600 in two parts and merged back together in Photoshop CS5 using PhotoMerge function.

Final cost per 4x5 sheet... about 11 cents. Still lots of room for improvement. The experimenting rolls on...

[northcarolinajack]

Old farmhouses are disappearing quickly in this area. This one was burned to make way for a new housing development. I suppose this is progress, but I would like to see more of the old homes saved as part of our history.
The photograph was also made to test my refurbished 7x11 Kodak camera with a new bellows. Since I had no 7x11 film I was testing Fuji green x-ray film. I did have a small light leak, so the shot is cropped a small amount.

Camera – Kodak View #2 7x11 with a Goerz Celor Lens
Film – Fuji x-ray green processed in HC-110

[gbogatko]

I have been having very good results using Stoëckler formula developer (aka 'divided' D-23). My mix is
Bath A: 7g of metol plus 100g of sodium sulfide per liter of solution,
Bath B: 10g borax per liter.
I mix it up in gallon jugs, so each portion * 4.

I dev under red safe lite as follows:

68F (20C)
Bath A: dev by inspection until the highs just barely appear -- that's right, just barely appear. Lots of agitation. it takes between 1.5 and 1.75 mins for the first sign of something happening.

Bath B: 4 minutes. Resist the temptation to agitate. Just let things catch up. Turning the film over is OK and probably a good thing, but not that often.

With this method, I get a neg that doesn't have to be stripped and still has manageable density.

These are scans -- Silver prints are next.

107316

107317

107318

[northcarolinajack]

This is another Fuji shot made with Fuji green x-ray film, stripped. The flowers are artificial flowers of unknown variety.

Camera – Kodak View Full Plate with a B&L Projector Lens
Film – Fuji x-ray green processed in HC- 110

[gbogatko]

Another from today. Same developer -- divided Stoëckler. Film is Kodak Ektascan, which is one sided.
This time it was about 1.75 in bath A (the highs were just appearing, then 6 min in bath b.

107338

[Gregg Obst]

Another from today. Same developer -- divided Stoëckler. Film is Kodak Ektascan, which is one sided.
This time it was about 1.75 in bath A (the highs were just appearing, then 6 min in bath b.

107338

Now that is a winner right there. Beautiful throughout. I think you may be onto something with that combination.

[imagedowser]

Greg, +1 ...... "the winner"

[SergeiR]

8x10 kodak CSG, 7.30m , R09 1:100

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3832/11650982044_6622d93dd3_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/11650982044/)
Scan-131230-0004www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/11650982044/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Ari]

Beautiful, Sergei!

[StoneNYC]

8x10 kodak CSG, 7.30m , R09 1:100

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3832/11650982044_6622d93dd3_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/11650982044/)
Scan-131230-0004www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/11650982044/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

Wow dude. Just wow!

[StoneNYC]

Real real X-Ray!

http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/arie-vant-riet-nature-xray-art

I can't believe that nobody has commented on this it's freaking amazing wow! Thanks for sharing!

[Tin Can]

My opinion counts little here.

It is great imaging.


I can't believe that nobody has commented on this it's freaking amazing wow! Thanks for sharing!

[Tin Can]

Yes, Sergei does incredible work. Absolutely beautiful.



Beautiful, Sergei!

[Gregg Obst]

Beautiful, Sergei!

I have to agree. That's really well done. I really like those catchlights in the eyes and the quiet expression you captured.

[SergeiR]

Thanks folks :)

[plaubel]

Now, this is my first result in using x ray film.
I'm sorry for the bad scan from the photograph.
It isn't sharp, because I tried to get some blur by using only the rear lens of a Tessar.

Fuji Super HRE, 13x18 cm ( 5x7" )
Kodak Xtol 1 plus 2, nearly 15 minutes

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/leavenfq07mrbv3.jpg (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/leave1498vh0yj6.jpg


Cheers,
Ritchie

[ImSoNegative]

great first attempt, better than mine

[ImSoNegative]

Wow dude. Just wow!

+1

[plaubel]

Thanks, I have had good luck.
Next one wasn't able to scan, so I took a cheep digital camera.
I hope, it's not to dangerous to your eyes.
Blur is much better now - I used a rear lens of a Xenar 240 mm

HRE and Xtol again

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/blii6ivawlp8y5.jpg (http://www.fotos-hochladen.net)

[a3721a]

my firstone;)
fuji green xfilm
D23 1:3
107541

[Bazz8]

Nice shot it,s addictive

[Bazz8]

Fantastic Shot if only I could print like that

[a3721a]

Thank you
Another
Girl holding flowers
Green Fuji X-ray
D23 1:3
107542

[jon.oman]

my firstone;)
fuji green xfilm
D23 1:3
107541

I really like this one!

[a3721a]

107631
FUJI BLUE x ISO50
D23 1:3

[a3721a]

thanks jon;)

[a3721a]

FUJI blueX iso 50 d23 1:3
107815107816

[northcarolinajack]

When I saw the tin that contained Sweet Snuff it took me back about 70 years. My Grandmother Harris “dipped” Sweet Snuff and used “tooth brushes” made from twigs from sweet gum trees. I remember when she ask if I could find a sweet gum tree and bring her cuttings so she could make the brushes. I did not understand then, or now, how anyone “dipped”, let along use the sweet gum cutting, frayed at the end for taking the snuff to her mouth.

Camera – Kodak View Full Plate with a 5x7 back
Lens – 210mm Congo with a Packard Shutter
Film – Fuji Green X-ray processed in HC- 110 at 100 to 1




www.facebook.com/pages/Jack-Harris-Photography/109348465760954

[a3721a]

108008Fuji Green X-ray D23

[Michael Batchelor]

When I saw the tin that contained Sweet Snuff it took me back about 70 years. My Grandmother Harris “dipped” Sweet Snuff...

Man, no kidding. I remember this stuff too. Many, many of the women in eastern NC dipped snuff instead of smoking, my grandmother included.

Somewhere I have an old tin of "Sweet Society" snuff, with the paper torn exactly like this to make a little spoon to dip.

[Bazz8]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2848/11878790785_944f58b97b_b.jpg
One of the only trees out of brush and cover on Kangaroo Island,
Scan of Contact Print,Kodak 2D-270mm G-Claron Lens K2 Filter
Paper: Agfa Fibre Matt

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3727/11878788105_1fd41c1a71_b.jpg
The Gorge near Adelaide,
Scan of Contact Print,Kodak 2D-270mm G-Claron Lens
Paper: Foma Variant Gloss(Resin)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3821/11879644886_ab7ee355b1_b.jpg
The Gorge near Adelaide,
Scan of Contact Print,Kodak 2D-270mm G-Claron Lens
Paper: Foma Variant Gloss(Resin)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5525/11879070553_3af004d00b_b.jpg
The Gorge near Adelaide,
Scan of Contact Print,Kodak 2D-270mm G-Claron Lens
Paper: Foma Variant Gloss(Resin)

[StoneNYC]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2848/11878790785_944f58b97b_b.jpg
One of the only trees out of brush and cover on Kangaroo Island,
Scan of Contact Print,Kodak 2D-270mm G-Claron Lens K2 Filter
Paper: Agfa Fibre Matt

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3727/11878788105_1fd41c1a71_b.jpg
The Gorge near Adelaide,
Scan of Contact Print,Kodak 2D-270mm G-Claron Lens
Paper: Foma Variant Gloss(Resin)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3821/11879644886_ab7ee355b1_b.jpg
The Gorge near Adelaide,
Scan of Contact Print,Kodak 2D-270mm G-Claron Lens
Paper: Foma Variant Gloss(Resin)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5525/11879070553_3af004d00b_b.jpg
The Gorge near Adelaide,
Scan of Contact Print,Kodak 2D-270mm G-Claron Lens
Paper: Foma Variant Gloss(Resin)

Those moving water shots are so extreme, it's almost a little confusing trying to figure out what's happening in the image, wow

[Bazz8]

Thanks Stone.

[Barry Kirsten]

Great work, Baz.
I'm tempted to try x-ray film myself, except that I see it's very hard to tame. You're doing well!

Where do you get your x-ray film in au?

Regards,

another Baz

[Bazz8]

Great work, Baz.
I'm tempted to try x-ray film myself, except that I see it's very hard to tame. You're doing well!

Where do you get your x-ray film in au?

Regards,

another Baz

It has been a journey,I decided to build a 8x10 camera so I bought the seperate pieces of a Kodak 2D
from John Shui and others , got a set of bellows and a lens I decided to go for the Fuji Hrt except in Au no 8x10
only 180x240 so I got 100 sheets from fuji about $45 then a retailer got involved and the price went to $110
which impressed me no end LOL
I have sourced 8x10 from Ebay US from several suppliers knocking me back which is a pain so $30-35 box 100 8x10
around $64 postage so still around the $100 mark. I have tried Australian suppliers and received we don,t sell to the public
line, I am going to contact China instead and see how that goes! For some obscure reason many American sellers will not deal
with Australia ( I suspect the FBI or CIA) lol their loss.
I have been assisted greatly through a mentor who introduced me to BTZS which I use for my 5x4 Arista 200 we used a Btzs
file for Ilford FP4 and did a test print or two to fine tune the file which is on my I-Phone now
so film speed in shade 39 approx in the bright sun I have one on the software showing film-speed 50-60
developer Rodinal 1:100
around 4-5 minutes
development in trays ( 15 sec rocking of the tray sideways and forward and back after neg in tank
15 sec every minute until dev complete) with glass in the bottom of the dev tray
the shots you have seen are the first that I have used a water bath of 2 minutes prior to development
I will continue this as the negative was much better to contact print with ,
stop 20 -30 sec( 3:1 vinegar)and fix 1 minute
I do one at a time,I do not shuffle negs which probably accounts for the tales of easy to scratch origins
I use a Kodak 1A safe light and this stuff it totally blind to the red safe light.
I could list the dozens of mistakes I have made but that's all part of the process.
If you are over in SA any time send me a email and we will have to catch up or if I am over your way
I will send you a email
regards
Bazz8

[Bazz8]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2869/11884322375_f9449d982a_b.jpg
Cape Borda Museum: available Light shot exposure 4min50 sec.
Camera Kodak 2D 8x10 G-Claron lens 270mm
Fuji HR-T

[photoevangelist]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3701/11920170555_88ff4e71d7_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/)
Tony (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)

Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangars

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Kodak Selenium Toner 1:20 4 min.

[Ari]

Frickin' awesome, Lee!

[ScottPhotoCo]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3701/11920170555_88ff4e71d7_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/)
Tony (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)

Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangars

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Kodak Selenium Toner 1:20 4 min.

Superb!

[Tin Can]

Very nice Lee, but what is the whole story?

I am still nowhere close to these results.

Back to slop for me...



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3701/11920170555_88ff4e71d7_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/)
Tony (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)

Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangars

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Kodak Selenium Toner 1:20 4 min.

[Bazz8]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3701/11920170555_88ff4e71d7_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/)
Tony (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)

Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangars

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Kodak Selenium Toner 1:20 4 min.

Good Shot,and eye contact

[StoneNYC]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3701/11920170555_88ff4e71d7_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/)
Tony (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)

Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangars

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Kodak Selenium Toner 1:20 4 min.

Damn, it's all I got

[Holdenrichards]

http://u1.ipernity.com/40/44/85/29564485.efc55437.640.jpg
First trip out with the Fujinar f/4.5 250mm. I loved using this lens, its sharp and bright even in the ground glass. And having a shutter is definitely a plus. First Fuji glass for me, I think there will be more!

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/holdenrichards/29564485
1897 Ak-sar-ben Camera - Fujinar 250mm - f/45 - Kodak B/RA X-Ray - Dektol 1+10 - Unaltered Negative Scan

[SergeiR]

Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)

Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangars

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Kodak Selenium Toner 1:20 4 min.

Welcome back :) With nice one.

[Corran]

Nice one Lee, good to see you!

[photoevangelist]

http://u1.ipernity.com/40/44/85/29564485.efc55437.640.jpg
First trip out with the Fujinar f/4.5 250mm. I loved using this lens, its sharp and bright even in the ground glass. And having a shutter is definitely a plus. First Fuji glass for me, I think there will be more!

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/holdenrichards/29564485
1897 Ak-sar-ben Camera - Fujinar 250mm - f/45 - Kodak B/RA X-Ray - Dektol 1+10 - Unaltered Negative Scan

Very nice, Holden! I really miss seeing your work on Flickr. I don't get over to ipernity much. I know a lot of photographers made the switch back in May.

[photoevangelist]

Thanks for all the comments, guys! The last x-ray I shot was probably back around summertime with the 7x17 camera. The processing of the larger negatives really frustrated me. I needed a break from x-ray film. I was also doing a project with color 8x10 of the Daegu city monorail and busy with a Kickstarter project that didn't pan out fully.

This portrait was taken in mid-December. It was great to great to get out and play with the 8x10 and x-ray film again. I was feeling rusty and couldn't remember everything I was doing. I was going by instinct to be honest. I usually take my notepad and write my exposures down. I didn't this time. It was either f11 or f16. I thought I may have been overexposing my negatives too much (since I didn't use a yellow filter for this portrait, when I had with the students' pictures back in the Spring), so I decided to go for Rodinal 1:100 (40 ml of Rodinal + 4000 ml water) this time at the same times I was doing before: 4 min. This actually proved to be beneficial! I was printing these contact sheets with an Ilford Multigrade #2 or 2 1/2 filter instead of a #1/2 or #1 filter this time around.

I had some problems with processing though. We can't see them here, but on another portrait session I did outside on New Years Eve. (Perhaps, I'll continue to do x-ray work in a controlled lighting environment with the 8x10). I'll scan those prints and post a few in a few hours. I was getting hangar processing marks along the film edges (you'll see what I mean when I upload those). If I had an 8x10 enlarger, it would easily be cropped. But since I don't, all the errors are shown in the contact prints. I guess I could scan the negative and crop it out too, but this year I'm really trying to keep my black and white work in a darkroom workflow. When I scan negatives, I find myself uploading more work without thinking about the editing process (good ones vs. best ones), spending the extra time in the darkroom printing the images allows me to spend more time with an image and help me determine if it resonates with me.

[Holdenrichards]

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/]Tony (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/11920170555/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)

Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangars

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Kodak Selenium Toner 1:20 4 min.

Thanks Lee, This image of yours is really superb. I have had very good luck contact printing
X-ray. I have found filtering it a bit helps.

[premortho]

Hi there!

Does anyone have any experience with KODAK MIN-R S mammo film or ORWO HS-11 film? I just got a box each other by gift.

I did read the full thread (really!). I tried to develop that mentioned films in many way, but I'm failed yet now.
The negatives are so dark. Almost black. The photo on negative is very very thin independently by the used EI (80,64,50,25)... My safe light is safe - I did a test for made sure.

How have to look an x-ray negative (double coated) if it developed properly? How dark? Etc... I guest there is different from the ordinary BW nagetives... Maybe anyone can upload a photo from a properly developed, double coated negative before peeling ? (Not a scan, photo I mean...) It can help me a lot! :)

I tried to develop the MIN-R S film in Rodinal 1:100, HD-11 stock, HD-11 1:10, in 1:50 diluted paper developer (it was the closest result what I wait) but I'm failed to made a negative what I seen in this forum :(
I don't have tank but tray. I have some experience in developing sheet films in tray with good results, but the x-ray films what I have are beats me.

Thanks!
ps.: sorry for my bad english!

I didn't see see anything wrong with your English. If the negatives are dark, it means they are over exposed. Or over developed. This makes for a thin print. A good negative is no different than a good negative with panchromatic film. You should be looking for the same quality of negative. Because green x-ray film is orthochromatic just really means it is blind to red light. Other than that, it's film. Your developers sound right, which is why I said over exposed. If you are having trouble with double sided film scratching during development, try putting a sheet of glass in the bottom of the development tray. I put the sheet of film in the tray after I put in a pint of developer mix. Then I only rock the tray in four different directions under the red safelight until the negative looks a little too dark. Then it goes in a water stop bath, then the hypo. I rinse the neg in about 8 changes of water over a 30 minute period. The reason to go a little past where the neg looks right as it will lose a little "pop" in the fixer. Over exposed combined with over developed causes soot and whitewash prints. One of the biggest advantages of ortho film stock is your ability to develop by inspection.

[premortho]

I should add that you should take your fotos all at the same time of day to start with. The reason for this is that orthochromatic film is blind to red light. So the speed rating changes during the day, being slowest at early morning and late afternoon. So fix one problem at a time. That's why I reccomend shooting at the same time of day at first. In the old days, they never put a film speed on the box because of this change of speeds depending on the time of day. Try a couple of more sheets, and if you have any questions, we will be more than happy to help you.

[gbogatko]

Okay. Here are two files:

1. A scan of the neg as a color positive. As-is.
108797

2. What the picture looks like after some cropping and not-a-lot of PS level setting.
108796

Lens: Kodak 305 portrait
FILM: ordinary CSX green film.
ISO: 200
Metering: incident meter setting, held next to the doll face
Developer: d23 (stoeckler) 2-bath: bath 1: 5mg metol, 100mg sodium sulfite - bath 2: 10mg borax. One liter each.
Bath 1: 2 min. Bath 2: 5 minutes.
No Stripping.

After bath 1, the very-highs are just starting to appear. Bath 2 brings the highs up a little more, but really works on the shadows.
The result is a neg that is usable for easy scanning -- the density is such that the highs aren't screaming, and that's without stripping. I havn't tried it yet, but I imagine it'll do well at grade 1 or 2 as well.

I've played with other developers such as d76 and dektol and this 2-bath method is the best I've found so far.
Good news is that the chemicals -- metol and sodium sulfite -- are cheap and very available in bulk. And Borax is normal 20-mule-team.

George

[SergeiR]

So... the key in first: right exposing and don't over developing!

IMHO it takes a lot to actually overdelop properly exposed film, unless you got insanely aggressive developer.
I left film, both xray and regular in rotating development for hour/two without getting any ill effects with Rodinal, EFG , 110HC (different dillutions).
Only iffy one i didnt like was Pyro HD.

But then i am no expert of course ,nor do i use zone system.

[premortho]

You see how his negative of the dolls looked? That is what you should shoot for. What I meant about developing a little darker than what looks right in the tray is just let it develop in the tray a little longer than you think of as "perfect". That's so it doesn't get lighter than "perfect" in the hypo. The more you develop under a red safelight (which you said you already tested), the easier the whole process will be for you. Don't turn on any whit light until the negative has been in the hypo for at least half the time it takes to completely fix it. Hopefully this will help you get along. If you don't have time to go out to photograph, try doing still lifes in your home. If the only time you have is in the evening, do your still life work under lights. If all you have is white lights, try two more steps of exposure, because "white" incandescent bulbs emit a lot of red light, which you will remember the film is blind to.
Sergei! I just wondered about your photos! :) I did read your test with Rodinal vs Pyrocat and it's convinced me.
There was a big mistake by me when I did my own developing tests: I forget the fact that the 1:100 diluted Rodinal is tired after 2-3 sheets of film :( I t was a very deer error, it's coused a lot of false come-off about my kind of x-ray film ISO's for example. It seems I was too excited. I have to get slower.

Unfortunatelly I don't have enough spare time to photography, but I revisited my whole process from the photo taking to the developing methods/times and I just starting the whole from the beginning so no more experimentation by my own head, just doing what you're did and then refine the developing times/ISO rates! :) Consequently!!!!!!!! It's may would be easier if I could have same kind of films then youre, but as soon I'll get by my friend in USA. (In my country could not get "CXS" films)

So thank you Sergei, premortho for your advices and gbogatko for the raw scan! It's helped me a lot! :)

ps.: I guess I will take a try with the gbogatko's 2 tray developing process too if I could get the chemicals (it's hard in Hungary)... But first with Rodinal...

[ScottPhotoCo]

Ok, finally got an x-ray film image that makes me happy.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3813/12126090625_e22bcb4d3e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12126090625/)
12Dagor_Xray_f6.8_012014_WM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12126090625/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr

12" Dagor + Deardorff V8 + Kodak Mammography Film
7 minutes at 68 degrees. Rodinal. Trays.

[Ari]

It makes me happy, too; beautiful!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Tim, great. Congratulations! What dilution for the Rodinal?

[Tin Can]

Me 3!

oops, sorry,

+1

[ScottPhotoCo]

Thanks guys! Lots of failures for one good one. I hope I can repeat it.

Jim, I used 40ml to 2l of distilled water.

[premortho]

Looks like a good exposure to me. Looks like the lens does not quite cover the film, but hey, it works. Congratulations.
After I revisited my whole process finally I've got a nearly good x-ray photo... (relatively to the previous).

Primax RTG-G green latitude film @ ISO50 (source:http://medical-line.hu/mtermek/xray_film_green.htm just for hungarians)
DIY 18x24cm camera, unknown 210/f:9,5 brass lens @f11 1/50s with an compur shutter from an old Beier Precisa ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldlipi/sets/72157637508965354/ )
Develop: (too old) Rodinal 1:100, 7 min@22C, semi stand in trays
"Scan": exposed side of the negative in Canon Pixma MP282 multifunkcional home printer @600dpi (not a real scanner)
109178

I promised to myself, I don't do anything while my fresh developer is not coming :)

[premortho]

Rodinal lasts a long time in the original bottle. I've heard of people using previously opened Rodinal that was 50 years old with good results.
Looks like a good exposure to me. Looks like the lens does not quite cover the film, but hey, it works. Congratulations.

[Ari]

After I revisited my whole process finally I've got a nearly good x-ray photo... (relatively to the previous).


109178



Only on this forum does a photo like this not arouse any questions. :)

[gth]

Only on this forum does a photo like this not arouse any questions. :)

:rolleyes:

[MonkeyTreeSupreme]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3813/12126090625_e22bcb4d3e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12126090625/)


Beautify elegant shot!

[czmielek]

Hi to everyone following this thread
Here is my first x ray film test Agfa ORTHO CP-G PLUS (green sensitive) :) I have some experience with high contrast technical film so I have decided to use diluted paper developer. My choice was neutol 1:30 Developed in a tray with red light on for 3:00 minutes. The result looks promissing

http://www.aparaty.tradycyjne.net/konkurs/13910029511378.jpg

[djdister]

Posted this in an older x-ray thread and did not get any feedback. I have a real "x-ray newbie" question (or two). I recently acquired a hundred sheet box of GE/Agfa Structurix D4 5x7 film. First I noticed that there is no notch code (duh!), and after research found that it has emulsions on both sides of the base (see attachment), but I'm not sure the film is completely symmetrical - the brochure says "To achieve a rugged surface, the top layer has received the matting agent." Which "top layer" - are there two top layers?

Anyway, should I assume that it doesn't matter how I load this in the film holders with the double emulsions?

Does anyone else have firsthand experience with this particular x-ray film? I haven't seen it referenced in any of the x-ray image threads, other than one mention and no actual shots. Any other insights about handling this film would be appreciated.

109419
Thanks,

[HoodedOne]

Wow, great looking image czmielek.
Beginners luck ?? :)

[czmielek]

Most of x-ray films have emulsion on both sides with very few exeptions. This means they are very easily scratched. My Agfa ORTHO CP-G PLUS has one side a little more mated than the other. It is very hard to notice before the development but easier after. This may be the case with your film djdister. I have noticed absolutely no diference in image quality shooting on either side so it does not matter how you put it into the holders.

[SergeiR]

Ok, finally got an x-ray film image that makes me happy.

12" Dagor + Deardorff V8 + Kodak Mammography Film
7 minutes at 68 degrees. Rodinal. Trays.

Nice one, indeed

[SergeiR]

Hi to everyone following this thread
Here is my first x ray film test Agfa ORTHO CP-G PLUS (green sensitive) :) I have some experience with high contrast technical film so I have decided to use diluted paper developer. My choice was neutol 1:30 Developed in a tray with red light on for 3:00 minutes. The result looks promissing

Back in days of my childhood we used same methol hydrochinon (spelling is off, i am sure) developer for both paper and film. Kept whole process way tidier ;)

[czmielek]

Diluted paper developers are very helpful with high contrast films. In my example I see some uneven development on the window frame and the wall probably due to short development time. I will try to keep it in a tray for 1 minute longer next time.

[djdister]

Most of x-ray films have emulsion on both sides with very few exeptions. This means they are very easily scratched. My Agfa ORTHO CP-G PLUS has one side a little more mated than the other. It is very hard to notice before the development but easier after. This may be the case with your film djdister. I have noticed absolutely no diference in image quality shooting on either side so it does not matter how you put it into the holders.

Thanks for the note. In the light, one emulsion side does look a bit darker than the other, but I'll just go and shoot some sheets and see what I get.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Hello all!

As I don't have a dedicated darkroom space (small house in SoCal) it is very time consuming to set-up and tear down my bathroom darkroom to tray process my x-ray film. I have been wanting to try drum processing for a bit so I picked up a Jobo Expert Drum and a manual roller to give it a shot. I'm using Kodak Mammography film (Ektascan) so I don't need to worry about 2-sided emulsion. I have been using Rodinal/Adonal at 100:1 and getting fairly good (but not consistent) results in the trays.

Have any of you tried drum + continuous agitation to process your x-ray film?

I figure I'll try the following:

Rodinal 100:1 for 9 minutes at 20 degrees. 5 minute pre-soak.
XTOL 1:1 for 7 minutes at 20 degrees. No pre-soak.


I also have HC-110 (liquid form) and D-76 (powder form) here as possibilities. :)


Any other suggestions?

[Carl J]

Hi Tim,

I've been using rating my single-sided Kodak B/RA at 50iso and processing for 6 minutes in Rodinal 1:100. Unicolor drums. Approx. 2 min. presoak in the drum. YMMV.


Hello all!

As I don't have a dedicated darkroom space (small house in SoCal) it is very time consuming to set-up and tear down my bathroom darkroom to tray process my x-ray film. I have been wanting to try drum processing for a bit so I picked up a Jobo Expert Drum and a manual roller to give it a shot. I'm using Kodak Mammography film (Ektascan) so I don't need to worry about 2-sided emulsion. I have been using Rodinal/Adonal at 100:1 and getting fairly good (but not consistent) results in the trays.

Have any of you tried drum + continuous agitation to process your x-ray film?

I figure I'll try the following:

Rodinal 100:1 for 9 minutes at 20 degrees. 5 minute pre-soak.
XTOL 1:1 for 7 minutes at 20 degrees. No pre-soak.


I also have HC-110 (liquid form) and D-76 (powder form) here as possibilities. :)


Any other suggestions?

[Leigh]

Back in days of my childhood we used same methol hydrochinon...
Would I believe Metol Hydroquinone ?

- Leigh

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've developed single-sided Kodak B/RA in BTZS tubes. Works very well. Pyrocat-HD and Obsidian Aqua. I don't bother with a presoak.

[SergeiR]

Would I believe Metol Hydroquinone ?

- Leigh

yup. thats the one.

[ndg]

Hello all!

As I don't have a dedicated darkroom space (small house in SoCal) it is very time consuming to set-up and tear down my bathroom darkroom to tray process my x-ray film. I have been wanting to try drum processing for a bit so I picked up a Jobo Expert Drum and a manual roller to give it a shot. I'm using Kodak Mammography film (Ektascan) so I don't need to worry about 2-sided emulsion. I have been using Rodinal/Adonal at 100:1 and getting fairly good (but not consistent) results in the trays.

Have any of you tried drum + continuous agitation to process your x-ray film?

I figure I'll try the following:

Rodinal 100:1 for 9 minutes at 20 degrees. 5 minute pre-soak.
XTOL 1:1 for 7 minutes at 20 degrees. No pre-soak.


I also have HC-110 (liquid form) and D-76 (powder form) here as possibilities. :)


Any other suggestions?

I use the Jobo 3005 expert drum, green film with emulsion on both sides and Rodinal. Develop 4(four) 8x10 sheets at a time. 4 cc of Rodinal per 8x10 sheet. That gives me 16cc of rodinal. I mix that to give me 800 cc of devloper (so 1:50). 10 cc of Rodinal per 8x10 sheet is the eecommendation but 4 cc works for me. I tried 2 cc of Rodinal per 8x10 sheet and did not like my results. Jobo recommends 800 cc of developer for 4 sheets in the 3005. I do not presoak but develop for 6 min. I like the images I get.

[SergeiR]

Hello all!
Have any of you tried drum + continuous agitation to process your x-ray film?


thats how i process mine. Not in jobo though. Dont like stripping.

[Andrew O'Neill]

SergeiR and ndg, you both get consistent, even development? How on earth does developer get to the backside evenly? I've only done rotary with BTZS tubes and I have no experience with Jobo. In the BTZS tube, the film sits very loosely, developer never gets back there to do its job evenly. Usually end up with a mottled mess.

[StoneNYC]

SergeiR and ndg, you both get consistent, even development? How on earth does developer get to the backside evenly? I've only done rotary with BTZS tubes and I have no experience with Jobo. In the BTZS tube, the film sits very loosely, developer never gets back there to do its job evenly. Usually end up with a mottled mess.

Wondered that myself...

Also, stupid question, I've only shot 4x5 but picked up some 11x14 cheap and I'm trying understand THE BOX it's AGFA and is perforated and right there on the ripped perf is the film in a plastic black bag, I know they are light resistant but not PROOF as far as I understood?

Anyway shouldn't it come in a normal 3 part light trap box?

Seems strange?... Or is this how all ULF is?

[Tin Can]

I use only Kodak X-Ray and there is no perf, but a ribbed section you are supposed to cut or tear through the middle of, not below it. I still screw it up after 4 boxes, but Kodak has enough 'bag' even cutting below the right spot to fold it up and slide it into the top load box.


Wondered that myself...

Also, stupid question, I've only shot 4x5 but picked up some 11x14 cheap and I'm trying understand THE BOX it's AGFA and is perforated and right there on the ripped perf is the film in a plastic black bag, I know they are light resistant but not PROOF as far as I understood?

Anyway shouldn't it come in a normal 3 part light trap box?

Seems strange?... Or is this how all ULF is?

[Andrew O'Neill]

11x14 Xray? If so, then yes. That is how it comes. Don't worry, it's pretty safe. I've even got a box of 14x17 and have had no problems with light leaks. Are you going to shoot it as is or cut down to 4x5?

[ScottPhotoCo]

Hi Tim,

I've been using rating my single-sided Kodak B/RA at 50iso and processing for 6 minutes in Rodinal 1:100. Unicolor drums. Approx. 2 min. presoak in the drum. YMMV.


I've developed single-sided Kodak B/RA in BTZS tubes. Works very well. Pyrocat-HD and Obsidian Aqua. I don't bother with a presoak.


I use the Jobo 3005 expert drum, green film with emulsion on both sides and Rodinal. Develop 4(four) 8x10 sheets at a time. 4 cc of Rodinal per 8x10 sheet. That gives me 16cc of rodinal. I mix that to give me 800 cc of devloper (so 1:50). 10 cc of Rodinal per 8x10 sheet is the eecommendation but 4 cc works for me. I tried 2 cc of Rodinal per 8x10 sheet and did not like my results. Jobo recommends 800 cc of developer for 4 sheets in the 3005. I do not presoak but develop for 6 min. I like the images I get.


thats how i process mine. Not in jobo though. Dont like stripping.


I use only Kodak X-Ray and there is no perf, but a ribbed section you are supposed to cut or tear through the middle of, not below it. I still screw it up after 4 boxes, but Kodak has enough 'bag' even cutting below the right spot to fold it up and slide it into the top load box.

Thanks all for the feedback. Are you all using continuous agitation?

[gbogatko]

George!
It is possible you are misswrote the receipt? Or it's an 1:1000 dilution?
My stoeckler D-23 receipt is same as you wrote but in grams instead milligrams...
Thanks!

Triple ugh. Yes. grams, not milligrams.
I've been thinking too much of millimeters. :)

George

[ndg]

Thanks all for the feedback. Are you all using continuous agitation?

Yes, I use the lowest setting my Jobo.

[ndg]

SergeiR and ndg, you both get consistent, even development? How on earth does developer get to the backside evenly? I've only done rotary with BTZS tubes and I have no experience with Jobo. In the BTZS tube, the film sits very loosely, developer never gets back there to do its job evenly. Usually end up with a mottled mess.

Andrew, it was actually Sergei's work that sold me on the idea of trying Xray film in the Jobo. I'd be lying if I said I knew why I didn't get a scratched and mottled mess of 8x10 sheets. I don't and I'm happy with that. I might try and figure it out when I have more time on my hands. If you have a Jobo, give it a shot.

[StoneNYC]

I use only Kodak X-Ray and there is no perf, but a ribbed section you are supposed to cut or tear through the middle of, not below it. I still screw it up after 4 boxes, but Kodak has enough 'bag' even cutting below the right spot to fold it up and slide it into the top load box.

Ribbed/perforated, it tears...

So the black bag in it's own is enough to protect from light? Even if my box is next to a window?

[StoneNYC]

11x14 Xray? If so, then yes. That is how it comes. Don't worry, it's pretty safe. I've even got a box of 14x17 and have had no problems with light leaks. Are you going to shoot it as is or cut down to 4x5?

Depends on if I can get an 11x14 holder.

Looking for a CHEAP 8x10 and 11x14. Starting there, and going up when I can find a lens that is for ULF and also isn't as much as my car... (And my car has 240,000 miles on it, and the company (saab) went out of business) so that tells you how much it's worth.... Right now it's just an experiment with a rudimentary "box camera"

The 8x10 hasn't arrived yet.

BTW... WHY is X-ray film so cheap? It had double emulsion, shouldn't it have twice the cost?

[Andrew O'Neill]

I suppose because not as much goes into it compared to panchro film... sensitizing dyes, anti-halation layer, and probably other layers for this and that.
ndg, I don't have a jobo as I like to keep things simple/primitive. There must be something unique about jobo drums, I guess.
On another note, I've been using both single and double-sided films, and I prefer the double-sided green stuff, as far as tones go, but not as sharp as single-sided. It's razor sharp.

[StoneNYC]

I suppose because not as much goes into it compared to panchro film... sensitizing dyes, anti-halation layer, and probably other layers for this and that.
ndg, I don't have a jobo as I like to keep things simple/primitive. There must be something unique about jobo drums, I guess.
On another note, I've been using both single and double-sided films, and I prefer the double-sided green stuff, as far as tones go, but not as sharp as single-sided. It's razor sharp.

What's the single sided called?

[Holdenrichards]

http://u1.ipernity.com/36/25/11/30042511.076de152.640.jpg?r1

This is a contact print from an X-Ray negative I made this month with the new Fuji 240mm Lens for my 8x10.

8x10 Contact Print - Dektol 1+1 - Ilford MGIV FB Paper - Omega B66 enlarger

[StoneNYC]

Wow love that contrast!

[Raffay]

Yes that's a lovely picture, can't wait to be able to contact print :)

[Tin Can]

The only single side I have tried and liked is http://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/kodak-x-ray-film/8x10-in-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html

Some say it is a waste of money, I tray process all Kodak X-Ray 1/100 Rodinal 10 minutes easy agit.

But I defer to Sergei and he has posted plenty of tips on all aspects.


What's the single sided called?

[Holdenrichards]

Thanks! I spent a good amount of time learning to contact print the x-ray, but the results speak for themselves. Randy is right about the film. follow his link. There are a million ways to dev x-ray I prefer dektol, dilution depends on how you rate the film. I expose at 50 and dev in 1+10 dektol for one minute.

[StoneNYC]

The only single side I have tried and liked is http://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/kodak-x-ray-film/8x10-in-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html

Some say it is a waste of money, I tray process all Kodak X-Ray 1/100 Rodinal 10 minutes easy agit.

But I defer to Sergei and he has posted plenty of tips on all aspects.

Thanks! It IS expensive, especially for $80, how many sheets per box? I can't find the sheet count, but for $100 I can get a new ilford film (25 sheets) so if it's 50 or 100 sheets like other x-ray, sure it's worth it, but it's blue, so it's 400 speed?

Hmm, thanks, I'll consider it, appreciate the info.


Thanks! I spent a good amount of time learning to contact print the x-ray, but the results speak for themselves. Randy is right about the film. follow his link. There are a million ways to dev x-ray I prefer dektol, dilution depends on how you rate the film. I expose at 50 and dev in 1+10 dektol for one minute.

Thanks.

[Tin Can]

100 sheets.

I use 80 iso strobes.

[StoneNYC]

So, last question, reciprocity...

AGFA Curix Ultra UV-G Plus

Anyone have a good reciprocity rule for this film?

I'm sure it's been covered but this thread is... Quite long...

Going to try pinhole tomorrow if possible...

Thanks.

~Stone .

[grzybu]

First photo from my diy 8x10 camera.
I don't have longer lens yet, so I stick with half of the negative which is almost 13x18cm. Still big enough to have a fun.
Green sensitive x-ray film, developed in caffenol.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5532/12301774864_44b4b39b46_o.jpg

[Raffay]

Very nice, can you share your camera details? How you managed a DIY 8x10.

[grzybu]

I'll try to make some photos tonight. It's very simple, monorail design made in 90% of plywood.
Still not finished, needs blackening of the interior, I have to add focusing gear, etc.

[Raffay]

Thank you, I am also exploring options to make a DIY 8x10 as I also want to shoot X-ray film which is cheap and easily available here, and then contact print since I don't have an 8x10 or for that matter a 4x5 enlarger. That is the reason I want to move away from 4x5 for the moment. Thank you for sharing.

[grzybu]

That's what I wanted LF camera for: making kallitypes straight from negative. I'll try do test tonight to see how it works from real negative, not digital one.

[SergeiR]

Very nice, can you share your camera details? How you managed a DIY 8x10.

there is number of threads on DIY LF cameras in section of forum that is about DIY btw

[ScottPhotoCo]

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5478/12309457103_65ac935661_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12309457103/)
12Dag_Xray_f16_2.5_020214 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12309457103/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr

Doing some testing of Kodak X-Ray Film Ektascan B/RA. Metered at 80 iso.
Jobo 3005 + Continuous agitation (6m @ 68) + Rodinal 40mL/1L

[ndg]

What do you think? Do you like the results?


http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5478/12309457103_65ac935661_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12309457103/)
12Dag_Xray_f16_2.5_020214 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12309457103/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr

Doing some testing of Kodak X-Ray Film Ektascan B/RA. Metered at 80 iso.
Jobo 3005 + Continuous agitation (6m @ 68) + Rodinal 40mL/1L

[Andrew O'Neill]

Scott, I like the concept. The image is a bit contrasty, though. I think it needed a tad more exposure. Did you shoot under natural light? Was bellows ext. required? Reciprocity? That is one of the films that I use, and I shoot it at 80 outdoors. I've not tried it indoors.

[Carl J]

A little underexposed, perhaps? I've had pretty good results at 50iso. I'll also still usually rate it at 50iso even outdoors, where I think it tends to be somewhat faster. At any rate, it's cheap enough I can shoot an extra sheet if I'm in doubt (but I usually don't bother). I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight. That's my eventual plan for 11x14 (just waiting for the camera to come back from upgrades).

[ScottPhotoCo]

What do you think? Do you like the results?


Scott, I like the concept. The image is a bit contrasty, though. I think it needed a tad more exposure. Did you shoot under natural light? Was bellows ext. required? Reciprocity? That is one of the films that I use, and I shoot it at 80 outdoors. I've not tried it indoors.


A little underexposed, perhaps? I've had pretty good results at 50iso. I'll also still usually rate it at 50iso even outdoors, where I think it tends to be somewhat faster. At any rate, it's cheap enough I can shoot an extra sheet if I'm in doubt (but I usually don't bother). I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight. That's my eventual plan for 11x14 (just waiting for the camera to come back from upgrades).

Thanks for the comments. Here are the details and my thoughts:

This was shot indoors with natural back light. It was a really difficult light to meter for and that's why I wanted to try it. I metered for the shadows on the inside of the typewriter as I just wanted to see detail where the arms sit at rest. If you look closely, it's there. There was approximately a 7-8 stop difference (guessing) between the black typewriter and the open window behind. I was hoping to save some detail on the top of the cabinet. If you look closely you can just see wood grain on the cabinet on the right. But, not enough. I may try this shot again this weekend, shoot it the same way (2.5 seconds at f16) and modify my Rodinal mix to 25mL to 1L of water and process for the same 6 minutes to see if the concentrate of developer was a bit too strong. I am processing 4 sheets at a time so this is 6.25mL of developer per sheet. Thoughts?

[gbogatko]

Scott, I like the concept. The image is a bit contrasty, though. I think it needed a tad more exposure. Did you shoot under natural light? Was bellows ext. required? Reciprocity? That is one of the films that I use, and I shoot it at 80 outdoors. I've not tried it indoors.

Here's where I get really confused. Ektascan has the same insane density as the double-sided stuff, so how does increasing exposure cut down on the contrast? I've shot Ektascan at ISO 200 (studio lights), and only get something approaching controlability with a 2-bath d23 mix; pulling the neg only after the highs start to show up in bath-A.

Ugh. It's really hard stuff to shoot (Ektascan).

Incidently, I found that a yellow filter really helps tame the density.

George

[StoneNYC]

Here's where I get really confused. Ektascan has the same insane density as the double-sided stuff, so how does increasing exposure cut down on the contrast? I've shot Ektascan at ISO 200 (studio lights), and only get something approaching controlability with a 2-bath d23 mix; pulling the neg only after the highs start to show up in bath-A.

Ugh. It's really hard stuff to shoot (Ektascan).

Incidently, I found that a yellow filter really helps tame the density.

George

I would suggest longer exposure but shorter development time. I think that's what he means as well.

ALSO I would suggest longer exposure and trying something like Rodinal 1:150 1 hour stand.(usually I do 1:100 but the amount of highlight here I would dilute even further.

Just a suggestion, what do I know?

[premortho]

You mean people are developing this ortho film in the dark? One of the great things about ortho film is developing by inspection.
A little underexposed, perhaps? I've had pretty good results at 50iso. I'll also still usually rate it at 50iso even outdoors, where I think it tends to be somewhat faster. At any rate, it's cheap enough I can shoot an extra sheet if I'm in doubt (but I usually don't bother). I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight. That's my eventual plan for 11x14 (just waiting for the camera to come back from upgrades).

[StoneNYC]

You mean people are developing this ortho film in the dark? One of the great things about ortho film is developing by inspection.

Not everyone has a darkroom...

[SergeiR]

Thoughts?

Tim, if i may... Dont try to solve this with development. shorter.. longer.. Dillutions.. Ugh.

Just use white sheet of paper next time, to throw back some light onto subject.

[Carl J]

Not everyone has a darkroom...

Yes. No darkroom here, either. I'm using Unicolor drums for now, which is easy enough with single-sided Kodak BR/A. Did try 11x14 in a Beseler drum but left a couple of oddly shaped blotches (not related to the ribs inside the drum itself) where the developer didn't fully come into contact with the emulsion against the side of the drum. Happened twice. Then tried a Unicolor drum, which was better, but instead got more pronounced marks from the ribs inside the drum where the developer didn't reach the emulsion evenly. I did in fact bleach one negative which looked good -- until I dropped the wet negative on the floor and scratched the negative. Self-inflicted. ;)

Safe to say, I'm looking forward to trying trays and inspection next, which I think will be the ticket once the bathroom/darkroom is set.... ;)

[StoneNYC]

Yes. No darkroom here, either. I'm using Unicolor drums for now, which is easy enough with single-sided Kodak BR/A. Did try 11x14 in a Beseler drum but left a couple of oddly shaped blotches (not related to the ribs inside the drum itself) where the developer didn't fully come into contact with the emulsion against the side of the drum. Happened twice. Then tried a Unicolor drum, which was better, but instead got more pronounced marks from the ribs inside the drum where the developer didn't reach the emulsion evenly. I did in fact bleach one negative which looked good -- until I dropped the wet negative on the floor and scratched the negative. Self-inflicted. ;)

Safe to say, I'm looking forward to trying trays and inspection next, which I think will be the ticket once the bathroom/darkroom is set.... ;)

Same here, 12x16 cibichrome drum and beseler rotary base fits 11x14 sheets. Right now I'm scanning in 4 parts and stitching but hope to do some contact prints once I have a nice lens to shoot with instead of pinhole.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Tim, if i may... Dont try to solve this with development. shorter.. longer.. Dillutions.. Ugh.

Just use white sheet of paper next time, to throw back some light onto subject.

Not a bad thought Sergi, thanks. This really was just a test shot though to see how the high contrast would play out. As I used the Rodinal/Adinal at a much higher dilution than the 1:100 that I normally do (wanted to use the 10mL per 8x10 sheet as recommended by Rodinal/Adinal) I think it may also be affecting the highlights. That's why I might try using more of a dilution just to see what I get. :) I just want to know what I can and can't do with this particular film so I can use it to get what I see in my head later.

[Carl J]

Same here, 12x16 cibichrome drum and beseler rotary base fits 11x14 sheets. Right now I'm scanning in 4 parts and stitching but hope to do some contact prints once I have a nice lens to shoot with instead of pinhole.

Tried a quick test scanning 11x14 on the v750 and it was more trouble than it was worth. Just a test so no harm done, but not something I'd want to do with a negative I cared about. Never used actual stitching software, what do you recommend?

Half-assed screen shot of the individual scans overlapping each other:

109887

11x14 Fuji Green HR/U? 15" f/9 Ilex Process Lens, yellow filter, not stripped, iso50, rodinal 6 min

[StoneNYC]

Tried a quick test scanning 11x14 on the v750 and it was more trouble than it was worth. Just a test so no harm done, but not something I'd want to do with a negative I cared about. Never used actual stitching software, what do you recommend?

Half-assed screen shot of the individual scans overlapping each other:

109887

11x14 Fuji Green HR/U? 15" f/9 Ilex Process Lens, yellow filter, not stripped, iso50, rodinal 6 min

Well, when I scanned them with the essence software, the only thing that I make sure that I write down the black, white, and neutral number information that show up in the chart area, so that each scan will match up identically in terms of contrast and exposure level, I generally let the system automatically shoot it for me, but I do purposefully selected area first that I've chosen as my spot meter exposure area when shooting and notate that for later.

Anyway, once I have them all scanned, I had to Google it to figure it out, but you simply open up Photoshop, I happened to have CS6 even though I have only used it a few times, I got a great deal on it when upgrading the light room and said what the heck let me get it just in case.

Anyway you simply open up all the files at once I mean within Photoshop you open them they show up as Tabs. Then you go to the top of the screen and I believe it's under the file, you then scroll down to select the automate option, and there is some kind of selection or stitching, but it's not called stitching it's called something else, and of course the word escaped my mind at this time, but it's obvious, like "combine" or something, anyway I select auto and it just figures it out for me, I don't have to collage it or anything. It uses pattern recognition.

Best of luck! The file is huge and I usually saved it as TIFF but I've just learned from an ULF photographer about a "large document" option, I'll try that next time.

Hope that helped

[gbogatko]

I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight.

Not orange -- that'll cause fogging. Use a red safelight instead.

[Carl J]

Thanks, Stone. I may look into this further. Problem is the Epson scanner cover comes in contact with the 11x14 negative when closed so I don't really consider the v750 a viable option but I'd still like to know how to stitch. I also recently discovered we have a Microtek scanner at work that I think will cover 11x14. Software support is getting sketchy for these older scanners but it may be fun to try before they consider putting it out to pasture.

FWIW, I have yet to try contact printing any of the x-ray negatives (in any size) but, like dev. by inspection (no darkroom), that's another thing high on my agenda.


Well, when I scanned them with the essence software, the only thing that I make sure that I write down the black, white, and neutral number information that show up in the chart area, so that each scan will match up identically in terms of contrast and exposure level, I generally let the system automatically shoot it for me, but I do purposefully selected area first that I've chosen as my spot meter exposure area when shooting and notate that for later.

Anyway, once I have them all scanned, I had to Google it to figure it out, but you simply open up Photoshop, I happened to have CS6 even though I have only used it a few times, I got a great deal on it when upgrading the light room and said what the heck let me get it just in case.

Anyway you simply open up all the files at once I mean within Photoshop you open them they show up as Tabs. Then you go to the top of the screen and I believe it's under the file, you then scroll down to select the automate option, and there is some kind of selection or stitching, but it's not called stitching it's called something else, and of course the word escaped my mind at this time, but it's obvious, like "combine" or something, anyway I select auto and it just figures it out for me, I don't have to collage it or anything. It uses pattern recognition.

Best of luck! The file is huge and I usually saved it as TIFF but I've just learned from an ULF photographer about a "large document" option, I'll try that next time.

Hope that helped

[StoneNYC]

Thanks, Stone. I may look into this further. Problem is the Epson scanner cover comes in contact with the 11x14 negative when closed so I don't really consider the v750 a viable option but I'd still like to know how to stitch. I also recently discovered we have a Microtek scanner at work that I think will cover 11x14. Software support is getting sketchy for these older scanners but it may be fun to try before they consider putting it out to pasture.

FWIW, I have yet to try contact printing any of the x-ray negatives (in any size) but, like dev. by inspection (no darkroom), that's another thing high on my agenda.

Welcome, I'm told that both Viewscan and SilverFast support a lot of old model scanners (even some with SCSI ports for cables) so if ever Epson or anyone else fails to support an OS upgrade, I think it's still a safe bet to use those other programs for many years.

However at the quality if my iPhone camera, I've wondered if designing a simpler system where you deposit your phone into a machine and it "docks" with it and using that can scan hah! Not this generation but soon I think. Scary.

[Tin Can]

The phone scanner has been done some time ago, but it's crap. Look here for the DIY DSLR scanner thread, very interesting.


Welcome, I'm told that both Viewscan and SilverFast support a lot of old model scanners (even some with SCSI ports for cables) so if ever Epson or anyone else fails to support an OS upgrade, I think it's still a safe bet to use those other programs for many years.

However at the quality if my iPhone camera, I've wondered if designing a simpler system where you deposit your phone into a machine and it "docks" with it and using that can scan hah! Not this generation but soon I think. Scary.

[Gregg Obst]

Anyway, once I have them all scanned, I had to Google it to figure it out, but you simply open up Photoshop, I happened to have CS6 even though I have only used it a few times, I got a great deal on it when upgrading the light room and said what the heck let me get it just in case.

Anyway you simply open up all the files at once I mean within Photoshop you open them they show up as Tabs. Then you go to the top of the screen and I believe it's under the file, you then scroll down to select the automate option, and there is some kind of selection or stitching, but it's not called stitching it's called something else, and of course the word escaped my mind at this time, but it's obvious, like "combine" or something, anyway I select auto and it just figures it out for me, I don't have to collage it or anything. It uses pattern recognition.


The option is called "Photomerge" in Photoshop. Another way to get that to work is if you launch Adobe Bridge CS (comes with Photoshop CS) and select the scanned portions of the image (file_001.tif, file_002.tif, etc) by holding down the control key and clicking on each one then in the tools menu select Photoshop, then PhotoMerge, it will launch a dialog box showing your selected scanned images. Just hit OK on that dialog box and it will bring in each scanned portion of the image and place it on it's own layer. Then from the Layers menu select "Merge Visible" then "Flatten Image" and save the fully merged image to disk. You can then go back to the window that has Adobe Bridge open and delete the individual scanned portions of the image since you no longer need those files.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ektascan has the same insane density as the double-sided stuff, so how does increasing exposure cut down on the contrast?

More exposure, less development. One could also pre-expose the film. That's a great way to cut contrast.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I find many people who are using X-ray film, are not compensating for reciprocity effect.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Finally had a chance to continue my testing. Here are my four latest shots with details. All were processed in a Jobo tank with continuous agitation for 7m using Adinol (25mL:1L) at 68 degrees. No presoak.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3727/12351203883_63d5b3379f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12351203883/)
XRay_Test_Jobo_ScottPhotoCo_0214-4_WM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12351203883/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Camera: Deardorff v8
Lens: 16.5" Goerz Artar
Film: Kodak Ektascan B/RA (metered at 80iso)
Exposure: 1s at f16

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7404/12351023975_94293f995f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12351023975/)
XRay_Test_Jobo_ScottPhotoCo_0214-2_WM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12351023975/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Camera: Deardorff v8
Lens: 16.5" Goerz Artar
Film: Kodak Ektascan B/RA (metered at 80iso)
Exposure: 1s at f22

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3807/12351024405_215f605dd5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12351024405/)
XRay_Test_Jobo_ScottPhotoCo_0214-3_WM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12351024405/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Camera: Deardorff v8
Lens: 15x12 Ross
Film: Kodak Ektascan B/RA (metered at 80iso)
Exposure: 1/20s at f8

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2830/12351026445_e2e2c14d17_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12351026445/)
XRay_Test_Jobo_ScottPhotoCo_0214-1_WM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/12351026445/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Camera: Deardorff v8
Lens: 15x12 Ross
Film: Kodak Ektascan B/RA (metered at 80iso)
Exposure: 1.2s at f8

These were only shot for testing and not for content.

[Jody_S]

I find many people who are using X-ray film, are not compensating for reciprocity effect.

I found I didn't have to worry much about it with Fuji down to 20 seconds or so, but with Agfa it seems different. I haven't done any formal testing, just with exposures in the 5min or more range, I give it a lot more than the Fuji.

[Carl J]

The option is called "Photomerge" in Photoshop. Another way to get that to work is if you launch Adobe Bridge CS (comes with Photoshop CS) and select the scanned portions of the image (file_001.tif, file_002.tif, etc) by holding down the control key and clicking on each one then in the tools menu select Photoshop, then PhotoMerge, it will launch a dialog box showing your selected scanned images. Just hit OK on that dialog box and it will bring in each scanned portion of the image and place it on it's own layer. Then from the Layers menu select "Merge Visible" then "Flatten Image" and save the fully merged image to disk. You can then go back to the window that has Adobe Bridge open and delete the individual scanned portions of the image since you no longer need those files.

Thanks all for the Photomerge info. I don't have Photoshop (have been using Pixelmator) but can probably get my hands on a copy....

[gbogatko]

More exposure, less development. One could also pre-expose the film. That's a great way to cut contrast.

Ah. Beware of mottling. One can under develop too much.