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

[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.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, mottling can creep in if one is not careful. Agitate more, or dilute developer a tad more to extend dev time. I never get mottling with single-sided xray as I develop in BTZS tubes. In a tray however, one should be aware. Thanks for bringing that up, gbogatko.

[grzybu]

Tonight I've tried to develop x-ray negative in caffenol without agitation. Just some initial moving of tray on the begining and and the very end of the process.
Looks fine and I don't have to stay in the bathroom for 15min ;) Well, to be sure I could go once or twice and move the tray a bit. Just in case.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/12360268273_d350f0333e_o.jpg

[SergeiR]

I find many people who are using X-ray film, are not compensating for reciprocity effect.
i dont. I also dont do premature aborting of development..

Not doing hawk watching over going minute or two longer in development if someone calls me while i am doing things either.. (except for colour processing.. got to do it there, but not with b&w). But what do i know.

[StoneNYC]

Getting out of IR work I think, the B+W filter I have I would like to get rid of, but in the mean time running through my stash.

Cheater image, shot on my 4x5 with roll film adapter.

110025

Precipice Peak, Acadia National Park, Maine, USA

[SergeiR]

8m, R09 1:100, rotary.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7346/12464706975_ea4c51cffa_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/12464706975/)
Pair (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/12464706975/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[gbogatko]

Tonight I've tried to develop x-ray negative in caffenol without agitation. Just some initial moving of tray on the begining and and the very end of the process.
Looks fine and I don't have to stay in the bathroom for 15min ;) Well, to be sure I could go once or twice and move the tray a bit. Just in case.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/12360268273_d350f0333e_o.jpg

Yes. That worked. Specifics?

[grzybu]

It worked with little bit exhausted developer but another try with fresh one caused heavy mottling so it's better to agitate.

[photoevangelist]

https://ycpi-farm8.staticflickr.com/7397/12649742873_663854b7f4_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/12649742873/)
Stephen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/12649742873/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

8x10 Korona, 12" Dagor, Fuji HR-A in Rodinal 1:100 (tanks and hangars) for 4 min.
8x10 Contact Print on Ilford MGFB Warmtone in Moersch ECO 4812 and MT1 Selenium Toner 1:10 for 5 min.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Stone, is that an IR or Xray shot??

[StoneNYC]

Stone, is that an IR or Xray shot??

Gah!!!!

Sorry, I don't know how I did that, I must have been reading the IR thread and not thinking.... It's definitely IR... DOH!

Mods feel free to remove it... I can't edit now... :/

[Andrew O'Neill]

Lets see... it's 11:20pm here in Vancouver... aren't you in the am there? Are you a night owl, Stone?

[Tin Can]

Stone stays up later than I do and he's an hour later, EDT vs CDT.

30 years of night shift, is a hard habit to break, for me.


Lets see... it's 11:20pm here in Vancouver... aren't you in the am there? Are you a night owl, Stone?

[StoneNYC]

Lets see... it's 11:20pm here in Vancouver... aren't you in the am there? Are you a night owl, Stone?


Stone stays up later than I do and he's an hour later, EDT vs CDT.

30 years of night shift, is a hard habit to break, for me.

Yea I'm definitely a night person...

[ostrygad]

well made. Contact print certainly looking better that scan on my poor monitor, but i like it.



https://ycpi-farm8.staticflickr.com/7397/12649742873_663854b7f4_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/12649742873/)
Stephen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/12649742873/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

8x10 Korona, 12" Dagor, Fuji HR-A in Rodinal 1:100 (tanks and hangars) for 4 min.
8x10 Contact Print on Ilford MGFB Warmtone in Moersch ECO 4812 and MT1 Selenium Toner 1:10 for 5 min.

[grzybu]

Yesterday I've made 1 liter of D-23 developer. Caffenol is nice, but it's hard to see how developing is going and it takes 15 min to develop.
D-23 is transparent and it took only about 5-6min to develop.
Negative looks really nice, with dense highlights and almost completely clear shadows.
Should be nice for kallitype.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/12766461114_b517897885_o.jpg

[Holdenrichards]

http://u1.ipernity.com/40/52/05/30275205.d80f1f27.640.jpg

Out shooting some X-ray in the full sun! Seems to work pretty well. Very much so liking the Fuji Lens!

1897 Ak-sar-ben Camera - Fujinar 250mm - f/45 - Kodak B/RA X-Ray - Dektol 1+10 - Unaltered Negative Scan

[photoevangelist]

well made. Contact print certainly looking better that scan on my poor monitor, but i like it.

Thanks, I'm trying to stay away from scanning my black and white negatives this year. I'm forcing myself to do more wet prints.

[premortho]

Yesterday I've made 1 liter of D-23 developer. Caffenol is nice, but it's hard to see how developing is going and it takes 15 min to develop.
D-23 is transparent and it took only about 5-6min to develop.
Negative looks really nice, with dense highlights and almost completely clear shadows.
Should be nice for kallitype.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/12766461114_b517897885_o.jpg

I think this experiment was a great success! Where I grew up, (Hollywood) cameramen told me that any developer that brought out the subtle beauty of Greta Garbo is great stuff and it's called D-23!

[grzybu]

Thanks :)
Yesterday I've tried another one with D-23 and I think I really like this developer. So easy to develop by inspection and it's quite fast, but not too fast so it's easy to see when to stop developing.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3780/12922916703_3852e2a729_o.jpg

[Andrew O'Neill]

Scan of Ektascan developed in very dilute pyrocat-hd. South Lawn Bld, at the recently closed down Riverview Hospital grounds.

[Tin Can]

While getting an X-Ray this weekend, I talked to the digital X-Ray tech and she told X-Ray analog film is becoming hard to get and thus all USA users are switching to digital asap. She had never heard of taking pictures with it.

[angusparker]

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.

Thanks for sharing your developer time / temp. What do you use for stop / clearing? Thanks Angus

[ScottPhotoCo]

Thanks for sharing your developer time / temp. What do you use for stop / clearing? Thanks Angus

Hi Angus,

I use a water rinse as stop and Kodak fixer. I also use Kodak HypoClear.

[angusparker]

Hi Angus,

I use a water rinse as stop and Kodak fixer. I also use Kodak HypoClear.

Thanks. Images look nice. I can't believe how good this film works! I might come to prefer it over regular film - in some of my test images the Ektascan was better than FP4. Hard to believe.

[Scott --]

Posted this on the current portrait thread, but it fits here, too. Second shot on Ektascan. Developed in HC-110 dil H, 6:10 at 20C, rotary with a Beseler print drum on a Uniroller.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3829/13255259165_bc39971a38_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scott--/13255259165/)
img212 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/scott--/13255259165/) by Scott -- (http://www.flickr.com/people/scott--/), on Flickr

Images were a little hot, whether due to a little over exposure or over developing, but fully scannable. Grain is almost non-existent, at least compared to the Arista.EDU I'm used to shooting. Emulsion is way soft when wet; dry it seems fairly robust.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Another view but through magnifying glass, same film. I used a piece of black construction paper with a large hole.

[gbogatko]

Bananas.

Shot on plain ol' green cxs film. ISO 50 - dev in D23 2-bath.

112607 112608

[Andrew O'Neill]

Excellent! Interesting how the green lat film rendered the yellow skin...

[Scott --]

Another Ektascan/Adonal test. Not liking this combination yet. 14" f/6 Petzval on 8x10 Ektascan BR/A. Adonal 1:110 6:15 at 20C.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2839/13390392015_5da30d0be8_z.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/scott--/13390392015/)
img214 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/scott--/13390392015/) by Scott -- (https://www.flickr.com/people/scott--/), on Flickr

[photoevangelist]

Another Ektascan/Adonal test. Not liking this combination yet. 14" f/6 Petzval on 8x10 Ektascan BR/A. Adonal 1:110 6:15 at 20C.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2839/13390392015_5da30d0be8_z.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/scott--/13390392015/)
img214 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/scott--/13390392015/) by Scott -- (https://www.flickr.com/people/scott--/), on Flickr

Scott, I like the portraits of your son. But this one looks like it was out of focus and then (over) sharpened in Photoshop? Otherwise I don't see why the combo would be undesirable. It looks like good tones to me.

[Scott --]

Yeah, between PS and flickr it got a little too sharpened. The image required quite a bit of work to bring the contrast back down to a usable range. More than an equivalent shot on arista would have, and much more than similar shots of my daughter (above) did on this film in HC-110. More playing to do, but I'm not convinced of the combo yet.

[StoneNYC]

I can't see any image... flickr says it's not there...
Scott, I like the portraits of your son. But this one looks like it was out of focus and then (over) sharpened in Photoshop? Otherwise I don't see why the combo would be undesirable. It looks like good tones to me.

[tenderobject]

Some X-Ray film shots i made here recently.
The first shot was taken with Mamiya Yellow Filter to tame the contrast and yes it helps quite a bit.
Any other filters i could use for X-Ray film for landscape?

Kodak Master View 8x10 + Fujinon 250mm 6.7 + Fuji HRT Green + Ilford ID-11 + Yellow Filter
1+3 8-9mins @ 20C EI 100

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7081/13683900485_b98ca0b0fd_c.jpg

Kodak Master View 8x10 + Fujinon 250mm 6.7 + Fuji HRT Green + Ilford ID-11
1+3 8-9mins @ 20C EI 100

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7266/13683615923_428072e309_c.jpg

Kodak Master View 8x10 + Fujinon 250mm 6.7 + Fuji HRT Green + Ilford ID-11
1+3 8-9mins @ 20C EI 100

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3705/13684144144_b464155b56_c.jpg

[HoodedOne]

Sx70 in available light.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2939/13832813485_12f4ca8567_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hoodedone-photos/13832813485/)
2014-LF810-005.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hoodedone-photos/13832813485/) by HoodedOne (https://www.flickr.com/people/hoodedone-photos/), on Flickr

Camera: Cambo SC 8x10
Lens: Agfa Repromaster 213/9.25
Film: Fuji HRT-Super X-ray film
Exposure: 14 sec. @ f9.25
Development: Rodinal 1+100 for 6 min. (constant agitation)

The leather on the SX70 is dark red. So it turns almost black on X-ray film

[jbrianfoto]

Hello everyone, name is Jeromie,

This is my first post to the xRay thread. From all of the reading I did here, and the good looking images, I decided to start shooting 8x10 once again (after about 13 years away). This is my oldest Son, Matthew. Shot this yesterday.


http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o568/jbrianfoto/BMW%20S14%20engine%20parts/Clause/Spouse/Photography%20Forum/Matthew1_zps27216fbf.jpg (http://s1148.photobucket.com/user/jbrianfoto/media/BMW%20S14%20engine%20parts/Clause/Spouse/Photography%20Forum/Matthew1_zps27216fbf.jpg.html)


KMV, 360mm f/9 Kowa Graphic
Agfa Green, rated at 320 (60th at f/11)
Open shade on his face, noontime sunlight on the side of his head
Placed his face on Zone VI
HC110 Dil B
70 degrees, Nitrogen burst on hangers, 2 second bursts, 10 seconds apart for 5 minutes. No presoak.

Copy shot with my Nikon D2x and a 35mm f/2 Nikkor. Some PS3 dodging and a slight tone (none of this really comes thru like it did on my old Apple G5). Should have the silver print made by this weekend. Was chasing film speed all weekend long, then StoneNYC gave me a clue - the 100 on the side of the box wasn't the ASA, it was the number of sheets in the box (I'm such a dope).

[StoneNYC]

Hello everyone, name is Jeromie,

This is my first post to the xRay thread. From all of the reading I did here, and the good looking images, I decided to start shooting 8x10 once again (after about 13 years away). This is my oldest Son, Matthew. Shot this yesterday.


http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o568/jbrianfoto/BMW%20S14%20engine%20parts/Clause/Spouse/Photography%20Forum/Matthew1_zps27216fbf.jpg (http://s1148.photobucket.com/user/jbrianfoto/media/BMW%20S14%20engine%20parts/Clause/Spouse/Photography%20Forum/Matthew1_zps27216fbf.jpg.html)


KMV, 360mm f/9 Kowa Graphic
Agfa Green, rated at 320 (60th at f/11)
Open shade on his face, noontime sunlight on the side of his head
Placed his face on Zone VI
HC110 Dil B
70 degrees, Nitrogen burst on hangers, 2 second bursts, 10 seconds apart for 5 minutes. No presoak.

Copy shot with my Nikon D2x and a 35mm f/2 Nikkor. Some PS3 dodging and a slight tone (none of this really comes thru like it did on my old Apple G5). Should have the silver print made by this weekend. Was chasing film speed all weekend long, then StoneNYC gave me a clue - the 100 on the side of the box wasn't the ASA, it was the number of sheets in the box (I'm such a dope).

Haha great job! Looks like a little light leak fogging on his forehead? Or lens flare?

Yeah, for some reason even though it's so simple, there's not a lot of discussion about the different speeds and the colors, and it's sort of like one of those things where once you know it it's sort of obvious so it's not really needed to be discussed and so of course the information is hard to track down, plus a lot of people just use their own personal EI's anyway.

There's also the double-sided emulsion factor, so some cool strip one side of the film and then of course the density is reduced and so that changes the printing and total exposure anyway, so it's just a baseline to go off of course and then you have to do your own fiddling, and as others have mentioned there are a few single-sided x-ray films out there.

My best friend is an x-ray technician so he gave me a few bits of information you might find interesting, the reason for having a double-sided emulsion is very simple, by having twice he amount of emulsion, the amount of x-ray that is needed to expose the film is then cut in half, this enables them to less x-ray wavelength into a person's body therefore reducing the risk of any kind of issues related to sending lots of X-ray radiation through the human body. So using the green x-ray film on a person is going to give them the least amount of exposure to x-ray radiation which is of course a good thing, but I guess for some purposes they needed to increase that for whatever reason so they have a few different kinds.

[jbrianfoto]

The light face was my fault, little too much dodging - the straight PS3 inversion made his skin tones come out about 2 stops too dark, but that could be because of bad digital exposure. I was shooting right into the sun though. Until I can make a silver print which is exposed for maximum black on the negatives edge for minimum time, I won't know if my exposure was right. I have a Mercedes diesel the needs my attention this coming weekend, I hope I can carve out some printing time too.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I no longer recommend stripping double-sided xray film. After testing and more testing, the tones look weak and image appears to be grainier. To the eye, the unstripped film image looks just fine.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Any other filters i could use for X-Ray film for landscape?

Tenderobject,

I have used various yellow filters up to a wratten #15, as well as wratten #11 (green) which is my favourite, on green latitude film.

[tenderobject]

Thank you! I've tried using yellow filter with a portrait and it helps minimize the contrast. Too bad my yellow filter was dirty when i shoot last time!


Tenderobject,

I have used various yellow filters up to a wratten #15, as well as wratten #11 (green) which is my favourite, on green latitude film.

[tenderobject]

Kodak Master View 8x10 + Fuji HRT Green X-ray Film + Ilford ID-11

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3793/13862523375_ed95df0254_b.jpg

[photoevangelist]

I no longer recommend stripping double-sided xray film. After testing and more testing, the tones look weak and image appears to be grainier. To the eye, the unstripped film image looks just fine.

I never strip my double-sided x-ray negatives.

[tenderobject]

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3746/13882395545_4d9a900cda_b.jpg

Kodak Master View 8x10 + Fuji HRT Green X-ray Film + Yellow filter + Ilford ID-11

Ilam, Iran 2014

[tenderobject]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7128/13882466443_f6b736c938_b.jpg

Kodak Master View 8x10 + Fuji HRT Green X-ray Film + Ilford ID-11

Ilam, Iran 2014

[SMBooth]

I no longer recommend stripping double-sided xray film. After testing and more testing, the tones look weak and image appears to be grainier. To the eye, the unstripped film image looks just fine.

Same here, I just develop it more carefully to avoid marks.

[Keith Fleming]

Tenderobject,

Excellent landscapes. You make good use of the terrain and trees to serve as leading lines that takes the viewer's gaze into the distance. You also have a beautiful area in which to photograph.

Keith

[Andrew O'Neill]

Very nice, tenderobject. Did you shoot with a filter? Your images look like they were shot on conventional film. Good job!

[tenderobject]

Thank you very much Keith. I think i'm liking the 8x10 format and this film. Still trying to learn how to shoot 8x10 and process the film. It's quite fun!




Tenderobject,

Excellent landscapes. You make good use of the terrain and trees to serve as leading lines that takes the viewer's gaze into the distance. You also have a beautiful area in which to photograph.

Keith

[tenderobject]

Hi Andrew, I did in the second to the last picture i posted. I think putting a yellow filter works and it tame the contrast and would benefit my shots because of the scenery. I will research and try other filters. I have Red, Orange and CPL here which i'm clueless if it would work with the X-ray film.


Very nice, tenderobject. Did you shoot with a filter? Your images look like they were shot on conventional film. Good job!

[SMBooth]

I wouldn't expect to much when using a red or orange filter as X-ray film is not sensitive to red light.

[tenderobject]

How about Green or Cpl? Thanks SMBooth


I wouldn't expect to much when using a red or orange filter as X-ray film is not sensitive to red light.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've only tested up to Kodak Wratten #11 (green). Stronger greens will most likely work. I would also stay away from red. I got blank sheets. Light orange may work, but I've never tried it.

[tenderobject]

Thanks Andrew. I would look for green filter then. :) I'm loving this film. If handled and processed properly it is as good as panchromatic film.


I've only tested up to Kodak Wratten #11 (green). Stronger greens will most likely work. I would also stay away from red. I got blank sheets. Light orange may work, but I've never tried it.

[axs810]

113870

A real boring photo but I didn't think anything would come out on my first try with xray film.

Kodak Ektascan in L110

[Michael Graves]

You are becoming quite a photographer, there TenderObject. Keep posting. I like your images.


https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7128/13882466443_f6b736c938_b.jpg

Kodak Master View 8x10 + Fuji HRT Green X-ray Film + Ilford ID-11

Ilam, Iran 2014

[premortho]

Thanks Andrew. I would look for green filter then. :) I'm loving this film. If handled and processed properly it is as good as panchromatic film.
I don't get why people don't think that x-ray film is not as good as panchromatic film. It is orthochromatic, that's the only real difference. It does not respond to a red filter, because ortho film is blind to red light. This makes it easy to develop because you can do it under a ruby light. It was/is called a ruby light because it is pure red. Easiest way to tell if the light is red enough is with a compact disc (cd). Turn on red safe light, hold cd up so you sight across the bands and see what colors are present. This is also helpful for cutting film to fit other sizes, and for loading film holders.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't get why people don't think that x-ray film is not as good as panchromatic film

They are two different things and both have a purpose, just like digital and analogue.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I posted this over at the other xray thread. Carbon transfer print from Kodak Ektascan. Very diute Pyrocat-HD. I really like how the grass and foliage were rendered in light tones. This film is sharp.

[Mkillmer]

One of those shots where everything went wrong, but somehow I still got a picture.
Over exposed, under developed, scratches, drips, bubbles...
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3731/13894826682_94f4a580c5_z_d.jpg
4x5 X-ray
Home-made camera with 13 1/2" Aviar Anastigmat: Red Aviar Camera (https://www.flickr.com/photos/9314116@N06/13510843864/in/photostream/)

[tenderobject]

Thank you Michael. :)


You are becoming quite a photographer, there TenderObject. Keep posting. I like your images.

[tenderobject]

Thanks for the info Premortho. I love what i'm getting with X-ray film right now. I think i'll stick with it because it's much cheaper and if i handle it correctly when processed i would get the same result as using a cheap panchromatic film. This film actually reminds me of my 4x5 Arista edu film. I just have to tame the contrast and i'm good with it.



I don't get why people don't think that x-ray film is not as good as panchromatic film. It is orthochromatic, that's the only real difference. It does not respond to a red filter, because ortho film is blind to red light. This makes it easy to develop because you can do it under a ruby light. It was/is called a ruby light because it is pure red. Easiest way to tell if the light is red enough is with a compact disc (cd). Turn on red safe light, hold cd up so you sight across the bands and see what colors are present. This is also helpful for cutting film to fit other sizes, and for loading film holders.

[tenderobject]

WOW! I wish i could get a tone like this with my X-ray film.. Too bad i don't have any other developer to use right now..


I posted this over at the other xray thread. Carbon transfer print from Kodak Ektascan. Very diute Pyrocat-HD. I really like how the grass and foliage were rendered in light tones. This film is sharp.

[rich815]

I posted this over at the other xray thread. Carbon transfer print from Kodak Ektascan. Very diute Pyrocat-HD. I really like how the grass and foliage were rendered in light tones. This film is sharp.

Really nice image.

[premortho]

They are two different things and both have a purpose, just like digital and analogue.
I disagree. They are both analogue.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes you are right. They are both analogue... I'm just saying they are two different things (panchro and ortho), and both have a purpose.

Thank you tenderobject and rich815. Pyrocat is a very nice developer, but you can get pretty much the same result with most developers. Stick with what you have for now. I prefer to use a staining developer because it allows me to print the same negative on silver gel or alt process such as carbon transfer.

[tenderobject]

Hopefully, in the next few months i could find someone to ship me a pyro developer here. It's much cheaper in the long run plus i really like to print my negatives to silver gelatin and alt printing (cyano or gum).

Can you give me some pointers on how to print Xray film properly on silver gelatine? Would it be that hard to tame the contrast too?

Thanks!


Yes you are right. They are both analogue... I'm just saying they are two different things (panchro and ortho), and both have a purpose.

Thank you tenderobject and rich815. Pyrocat is a very nice developer, but you can get pretty much the same result with most developers. Stick with what you have for now. I prefer to use a staining developer because it allows me to print the same negative on silver gel or alt process such as carbon transfer.

[Tin Can]

Try Andrew, I have no advice on printing. I experiment too much.



Hopefully, in the next few months i could find someone to ship me a pyro developer here. It's much cheaper in the long run plus i really like to print my negatives to silver gelatin and alt printing (cyano or gum).

Can you give me some pointers on how to print Xray film properly on silver gelatine? Would it be that hard to tame the contrast too?

Thanks!

[Andrew O'Neill]

tenderobject, it's easier to round up the chemicals yourself and mix from scratch. The easiest staining developer to mix up is, in my opinion, is Obsidian Aqua, formulated by a LFPF member. Search it here. Lots of good info.
Randy, I experiment a lot too. That's the what makes this photography thing so much fun :)

[tenderobject]

Thanks Randy. Will try researching about this as well.. :)


Try Andrew, I have no advice on printing. I experiment too much.

[tenderobject]

Problem is getting the raw chems here as i'm living far from the main city (Tehran) I live near Iraq hahah


tenderobject, it's easier to round up the chemicals yourself and mix from scratch. The easiest staining developer to mix up is, in my opinion, is Obsidian Aqua, formulated by a LFPF member. Search it here. Lots of good info.
Randy, I experiment a lot too. That's the what makes this photography thing so much fun :)

[Andrew O'Neill]

Could be tricky... good luck!

[jbrianfoto]

Made yesterday - my Son's best friend Eric. KMV, 360mm Graphic Kowa, Agfa green at 400, HC110 dil b, nitrogen burst on hangers. Copy-stand shot with Nikon D2x and 35mm lens. PS3 burning and dodging.

http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o568/jbrianfoto/BMW%20S14%20engine%20parts/Clause/Spouse/Photography%20Forum/ErictheLumberjacksmall_zps72b090ea.jpg (http://s1148.photobucket.com/user/jbrianfoto/media/BMW%20S14%20engine%20parts/Clause/Spouse/Photography%20Forum/ErictheLumberjacksmall_zps72b090ea.jpg.html)

[tenderobject]

Nice portrait! How is your KMV with 360mm lens? I haven't put a long lens on my KMV but i'm planning to get a meniscus lens for portraits. Not sure if 335mm or 500mm would be good especially with the bellows draw..


Made yesterday - my Son's best friend Eric. KMV, 360mm Graphic Kowa, Agfa green at 400, HC110 dil b, nitrogen burst on hangers. Copy-stand shot with Nikon D2x and 35mm lens. PS3 burning and dodging.

http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o568/jbrianfoto/BMW%20S14%20engine%20parts/Clause/Spouse/Photography%20Forum/ErictheLumberjacksmall_zps72b090ea.jpg (http://s1148.photobucket.com/user/jbrianfoto/media/BMW%20S14%20engine%20parts/Clause/Spouse/Photography%20Forum/ErictheLumberjacksmall_zps72b090ea.jpg.html)

[jbrianfoto]

Nice portrait! How is your KMV with 360mm lens? I haven't put a long lens on my KMV but i'm planning to get a meniscus lens for portraits. Not sure if 335mm or 500mm would be good especially with the bellows draw..

Hi there, with the 360 mounted and my subject at about 8 to 10 feet away the bellows weren't completely stretched out. I did shoot a few images closer and still gad enough bellows. I was able to get to within 5 to 6 feet.

Hope this helps your decision. I think you and I got out KMV's around the same time. Take care, Jeromie

[Bazz8]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7310/13999016621_c93e9f4d14_b_d.jpg


Scan of Contact print
Kodak 2D 270 mm GClaron Yellow Filter used
Foma Varient Paper used

[Bazz8]

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2926/13998995742_0272139b41_b.jpg

View of Lyndock Hill Restaurant Barossa Valley Sth. Australia
Kodak 2D 8x10
Fuji HRT Green
Lens 270 G-Claron f11 exposure 8 min 14 sec
Scan of Contact print
Auto levels PS

[Bazz8]

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5088/14002184135_4a600706b2_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7394/14002184845_5112923d1b_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7368/14002185675_2af69b4ca6_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7093/14002626794_e205a1c213_b.jpg


First portrait shots on the 2D
used a yellow filter all gd2 prints

[Bazz8]

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2896/14002627394_0e89f05112_b.jpg
same details as last post:)

[StoneNYC]

Bazz, what causes the center burning effect?

[Bazz8]

Agh. this has been a pain and I finally pinned down the cause,I am using a Durst D659 as a light source for the contact printing frame,
I found the centre of the lit area recieves .1or 2 EV more light than the outside perimater.:(
So I changed carriers to the 6x9 size and kept useing the 35mm side of the enlarger the difference now is minute from centre to edge.
I was seeing the bush behind the sitters and felt that it was more pronounced a exposure than what it is, so my poor positioning of the
subjects is a factor as well, i have 3 more to do tomorrow and I will assess them to see If i have it licked:)

[axs810]

I've seen contrast filters do the same effect when not positioned properly under the enlarger...are you using any contrast filters with the images above Bazz8?

[Barry Kirsten]

Nice images, Bazz. Out of interest, where do you get xray film in Oz? I've previously tried and found that Oz suppliers will only sell to 'trade', and internet sources will not ship to Aust. for some reason. Very frustrating sourcing stuff for photography in this country. Thanks,

Barry

[Bazz8]

I have not used any filtration Eric the most frustrating thing to me was the light variation of this enlarger,
so I used my meter and did a reading with the 35mm carrier and light just over the printing frame and the difference was astounding,
almost 1 EV between centre to the edge: the readings below were after a hour or so of repositioning the globe to get the most even light I could!
readings for the light sensitivity:
the light readings are over the area of a A4 size, with a 35 neg carrier the above readings were different by up to 1.5 ev so now having .2 or .3 I can manage that ( I hope)
I did a table of the readings but the upload scrambles them so I have included a I-Phone shot of the readings.apoligies for the dullness of the shot but you will get the idea.
114347

Barry Kirsten

Nice images, Bazz. Out of interest, where do you get xray film in Oz? I've previously tried and found that Oz suppliers will only sell to 'trade', and internet sources will not ship to Aust. for some reason. Very frustrating sourcing stuff for photography in this country. Thanks,

This is a pet peeve of mine so perhaps some of our fellow members could purchase 100 sheets and post the box to us, although some of the BS attitudes to postage
from our allies is a little hard to understand, I would be more than happy to send over the funds for another box of the fuji HRT 8x10 + postage cost etc,
I believe that Fuji Australia have the market sown up and do not allow external imports to Australia Barry, the box I got was through my Chiropractor and price was very reasonable $50 AU or so,
he gave the task to a secretary and they then asked her ,she had no clue!what they were going to do with it and all heck blew in, finally after 2-3 phone calls a dealer was introduced and the price went to $110AU.
And that was for 180mmx240mm since as we are metric size users, so my above solution may be the answer for us but I have hit the same barriers that you have.
I got 2 boxes last Xmas from a US salvage store and the price was quite reasonable $38 US each so I sent a message to esquire the combining of postage and buying 2 boxes they had shipping at $58 per box
so I got $10Us of the postage,so back to $170 US: all arrived withing 2-3 weeks total postage cost $38 dollars for both boxes!!!!!!!!! so 38+38+38=$114US more BS 55 handling I presume:mad:. I emailed them but not even a responce.
So xray could be so much cheaper but .....................................................................................................any one who could assist please PM Barry and Barry:).

[Bazz8]

The dark blur behind their heads is a bush and a little bit of shade as well Stone

[trundrumbalind]

Randy, could I see some pictures of that holder??? I'm trying to figure out how to do some holders myself!


Yes Jim!

And, you are correct the scratches come from the flap of the holder. Took me awhile to figure that out. :)

I don't scratch normal film.

My DIY 11X14 holder is very gentle, with it's acrylic slots and no flap. Studio only.

Jim, have you tried the high priced SS X-Ray? It even has a notch!

[Tin Can]

You can find it in DIY, under 11x14 film holder. You can search for it. I would also have to search for it.

Nothing fancy, just tape, plastic and matt board installed on an old copy camera holder.


Randy, could I see some pictures of that holder??? I'm trying to figure out how to do some holders myself!

[grzybu]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7365/13949141017_e385273fb3_o.jpg

diy 18x24cm camera with diy film holder
Zeiss Tessar 210

[trundrumbalind]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7365/13949141017_e385273fb3_o.jpg

diy 18x24cm camera with diy film holder
Zeiss Tessar 210

Hello! I'm about to build some holders myself, would you mind sharing how you did yours??

[jonesp]

116357

Seneca/National 8x10, Fujinon 240mm, f9 lens, F45/6 sec, Fuji HRT Blue X-ray @ 100, D76 1:1, Ilford Multigrade IV RC Glossy, Dektol 1:2

[premortho]

Great photo. I bet that shadow detail is even better on a wet print.

[vdonovan]

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3883/14159228567_2a35d0d54e_b.jpg

Fuji HR-S 8x10 film
exposed at ISO 80, using studio strobes
Xtol 1:1
6 minutes @ 68 degrees

[Randy]

Finally got to meet my granddaughter Charlotte, almost 1 1/2 years old - first of many to be taken with 8X10.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/char1.jpg
CSX Green in HC-110 "H" / Caltar S II 300mm

[jon.oman]

Finally got to meet my granddaughter Charlotte, almost 1 1/2 years old - first of many to be taken with 8X10.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/char1.jpg
CSX Green in HC-110 "H" / Caltar S II 300mm

Great image! Wait until she wont keep still.....

[Peter Mounier]

Great shot!

[Fr. Mark]

Not sure this is going to work from my phone. I took an iPhone photo of an 8x10 cyanotype on csxonline green film, 1 sec f8, 18" Cooke triplet/besseler opaque projector lens (front mounted Waterhouse stops), pyrocat hd 1:1:100. New cyanotype sunlight 2 minutes, 1/2% HCl development followed by water wash. The photo is of a retired GI radiologist!116534

[Fr. Mark]

Forgot to say it is a home built telescoping box camera.

[ImSoNegative]

Finally got to meet my granddaughter Charlotte, almost 1 1/2 years old - first of many to be taken with 8X10.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/char1.jpg
CSX Green in HC-110 "H" / Caltar S II 300mm

excellent!!

[tenderobject]

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3898/14395577945_a59993eb3f_b.jpg

Testing another workflow from my scanner.. I'm amazed with this picture. Only curves and brightness contrast here. No HDR software whatsoever!

I'm loving this film!



Kodak Master View 8x10 + Fuji Fujinon 250mm 6.7 + Fuji HRT X-Ray Film + Yellow Filter

[StoneNYC]

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3898/14395577945_a59993eb3f_b.jpg

Testing another workflow from my scanner.. I'm amazed with this picture. Only curves and brightness contrast here. No HDR software whatsoever!

I'm loving this film!



Kodak Master View 8x10 + Fuji Fujinon 250mm 6.7 + Fuji HRT X-Ray Film + Yellow Filter

Trying to understand filtering with X-Ray film, it's Ortho so it doesn't absorb red, what does the yellow filter do? I know this is probably "basic" I've just never quite grasped it... Thanks

[tenderobject]

To minimise the contrast? That's what i've been told. So far it does help or maybe i'm just hallucinating? :D

Look at these images..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tenderobject/13882466443/in/set-72157636179160823
No Yellow filter

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tenderobject/13882395545/in/set-72157636179160823
With Yellow filter..

I think the Yellow filter slightly affects the X-Ray film? Look at the trees.. There is a noticeble difference with the two photos. What do you think? Maybe some people can confirm this? Those pictures was taken from the same place and almost the same time..

[StoneNYC]

To minimise the contrast? That's what i've been told. So far it does help or maybe i'm just hallucinating? :D

Look at these images..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tenderobject/13882466443/in/set-72157636179160823
No Yellow filter

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tenderobject/13882395545/in/set-72157636179160823
With Yellow filter..

I think the Yellow filter slightly affects the X-Ray film? Look at the trees.. There is a noticeble difference with the two photos. What do you think? Maybe some people can confirm this? Those pictures was taken from the same place and almost the same time..

I see, interesting, thanks!

[UlbabraB]

Amazing portrait!!

[tenderobject]

Try it! :) I will try Yellow Green next time. This film is very nice. Just proper handle and you'll get good result like normal Panchro films!



I see, interesting, thanks!

[UlbabraB]

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5486/14311977925_74efaa076d_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ulbabrab/14311977925/)
Cemetery gate (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ulbabrab/14311977925/) di Filippo Natali (https://www.flickr.com/people/ulbabrab/), su Flickr

5x7" albument print from Kodak T-Mat Xray film developed with Pyrocat-HDC

[Randy]

I don't know if there are degrees of "orthocromatic-ism" but from my experience the green latitude film doesn't seem to be completely orthochromatic. I guess a good test would be to take a picture of a red object and see how it registers on the film. The tractor below is a rusty red color and pretty much looks in real life just as it looks after scanning the neg - no filtration used.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/img569a.jpg

[tenderobject]

Randy, i'm very amazed with this Fuji HRT green latitude film. With a good light and yellow filter it seems to look like an IR film! The dynamic range is superb!
I just wish all green latitude film is like the HRT. I'm running out of my film! Hopefully i could find one here in Iran


I don't know if there are degrees of "orthocromatic-ism" but from my experience the green latitude film doesn't seem to be completely orthochromatic. I guess a good test would be to take a picture of a red object and see how it registers on the film. The tractor below is a rusty red color and pretty much looks in real life just as it looks after scanning the neg - no filtration used.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/img569a.jpg

[StoneNYC]

I don't know if there are degrees of "orthocromatic-ism" but from my experience the green latitude film doesn't seem to be completely orthochromatic. I guess a good test would be to take a picture of a red object and see how it registers on the film. The tractor below is a rusty red color and pretty much looks in real life just as it looks after scanning the neg - no filtration used.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/img569a.jpg

Well, thank you for the info, I'm also thinking that perhaps because it is a red eight it is a mixture of other colors and it is a die and not the actual light itself? And maybe that the other colored dyes workmen in the actual paint are coming through? Anyway thanks for the info I will certainly tested out once I have a better system in place, right now I don't even have any 11x14 holders, i'm using a home made one but it doesn't function very well, and I can only load one image today because I have to load in darkness and I don't have a dark room, so if I actually can get my hands on some 11 x 14 film holders then I can do more images per day and have a better ability to test. Thanks.

[ImSoNegative]

green hrt is what I used when shooting 8x10, great xray film, I don't even think I ever used a yellow filter with it

[Randy]

I think I will do a test with three objects side by side, red, blue, green, under full sun and another under overcast sky's, just to get and idea of how the film records. Seems like I just never take the time these days to do simple tests...:(

[tenderobject]

Good idea! Please keep us updated! I'm very curious with this since the images i made using Yellow filter with Green latitude film is a bit different from the one without. Maybe the light and the scene are a big factor? I hope someone could chime in and show their X-ray shots with filters!



I think I will do a test with three objects side by side, red, blue, green, under full sun and another under overcast sky's, just to get and idea of how the film records. Seems like I just never take the time these days to do simple tests...:(

[StoneNYC]

Good idea! Please keep us updated! I'm very curious with this since the images i made using Yellow filter with Green latitude film is a bit different from the one without. Maybe the light and the scene are a big factor? I hope someone could chime in and show their X-ray shots with filters!

I'm going to try this with the ektascan, I've used AGFA green x-ray film and it's nice but I feel like because I'm using a drum to develop, it's better to use single side emulsions, and as far as I know the ektascan is the only x-ray film that's single sided?

[tenderobject]

I think there are few more X-ray film with single sided emulsion. I've been seeing these type lately. But it would be very expensive than the normal films? How much for 100sheets / 1 box ektascan? I wish all green latitude film from different manufacturers are all the same in quality. I'm running out of film so i need a new box soon but it would be hard for me to find Fuji films here in Iran.


I'm going to try this with the ektascan, I've used AGFA green x-ray film and it's nice but I feel like because I'm using a drum to develop, it's better to use single side emulsions, and as far as I know the ektascan is the only x-ray film that's single sided?

[Randy]

I'm running out of film so i need a new box soon but it would be hard for me to find Fuji films here in Iran. i wonder if you can have a local hospital order it for you when they order?

[premortho]

You really think that excessive contrast is a characteristic of orthochromatic film? Hmmm, ever look at the early work of Edward Weston, or Edourd Steichen, and hundreds of others? Excessive contrast comes from too much exposure, or too much development, or both. This used to be called "soot and whitewash". One of ortho's biggest advantages, from a use standpoint, is development by inspection. Under a ruby red light. If you use too powerful a developer, the neg will flash up so fast you can't control it. Dectol at 1 to 1,or 2 to 1, Rodinal at 25 or 50 to 1. When I use dectol, I use it at 25 to 1. Or Rodinal at 100 or 200 to 1. This takes 8 to 15 minutes to fully develop. I try to get it closer to just less than 10 minutes by strengthining the soup. Now filters. Ortho film is very, but not completely, blind to red light. It is extremely sensitive to ultra-violet, or in other words, skylight. When you use a 2X yellow filter, it holds back the u-v light in the sky, permitting a longer exposure. This allows cloud detail, and more shadow quality. Now I can't tell you which Wratten filters are which, because I use Burke & James "Ideal Ray Filters" If you can find them (on e-bay) they come in 2X, 3X, 4X, and 5X. The last two are almost never seen, so if you can find a 2X and a 3X, you're in business. I suppose everyone knows (or, as a Russian friend of mine says "as every hedgehog knows") That the "X" tells you how many times to multiply the exposure. I've heard that a green filter will work too, but I don't know if it will because I've never had one. Now, I'm sure some of you are staring at this little epistle, and thinking, "Gee, if I would just step up to the pump and pay five or so times more for pan film, my troubles would be over". You think so, right? The answer is, if all you want to take is snapshots, yes. You really should use a light blue filter on pan film to darken the reds. They put an excessive amount of red dye in pan film because it gooses the speed way up there. In conclusion, use ortho film for it's superior qualities, and pan when you have too.
To minimise the contrast? That's what i've been told. So far it does help or maybe i'm just hallucinating? :D

Look at these images..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tenderobject/13882466443/in/set-72157636179160823
No Yellow filter

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tenderobject/13882395545/in/set-72157636179160823
With Yellow filter..

I think the Yellow filter slightly affects the X-Ray film? Look at the trees.. There is a noticeble difference with the two photos. What do you think? Maybe some people can confirm this? Those pictures was taken from the same place and almost the same time..

[Jim Noel]

Very appealing film. Is this the high speed or medium speed HRT?
Thanks,
Jim

[Andrew O'Neill]

Colour rendition test I did a few years ago with green latitude.

[Andrew O'Neill]

... and a filter test (written filers). Letters represent colour of objects. O=orange; B=black; LR=light red, etc... sorry but cannot find unfiltered image. I also have reciprocity data.

[StoneNYC]

I think there are few more X-ray film with single sided emulsion. I've been seeing these type lately. But it would be very expensive than the normal films? How much for 100sheets / 1 box ektascan? I wish all green latitude film from different manufacturers are all the same in quality. I'm running out of film so i need a new box soon but it would be hard for me to find Fuji films here in Iran.

It's still cheaper than regular film, example

8x10 - Ilford FP4+/Delta100/HP5+ = $108 (25 sheets).
8x10 - Kodak Ektascan = $80 (100 sheets).

That's over 4 times as cheap.

[Jim Noel]

You really think that excessive contrast is a characteristic of orthochromatic film? Hmmm, ever look at the early work of Edward Weston, or Edourd Steichen, and hundreds of others? Excessive contrast comes from too much exposure, or too much development, or both. This used to be called "soot and whitewash". One of ortho's biggest advantages, from a use standpoint, is development by inspection. Under a ruby red light. If you use too powerful a developer, the neg will flash up so fast you can't control it. Dectol at 1 to 1,or 2 to 1, Rodinal at 25 or 50 to 1. When I use dectol, I use it at 25 to 1. Or Rodinal at 100 or 200 to 1. This takes 8 to 15 minutes to fully develop. I try to get it closer to just less than 10 minutes by strengthining the soup. Now filters. Ortho film is very, but not completely, blind to red light. It is extremely sensitive to ultra-violet, or in other words, skylight. When you use a 2X yellow filter, it holds back the u-v light in the sky, permitting a longer exposure. This allows cloud detail, and more shadow quality. Now I can't tell you which Wratten filters are which, because I use Burke & James "Ideal Ray Filters" If you can find them (on e-bay) they come in 2X, 3X, 4X, and 5X. The last two are almost never seen, so if you can find a 2X and a 3X, you're in business. I suppose everyone knows (or, as a Russian friend of mine says "as every hedgehog knows") That the "X" tells you how many times to multiply the exposure. I've heard that a green filter will work too, but I don't know if it will because I've never had one. Now, I'm sure some of you are staring at this little epistle, and thinking, "Gee, if I would just step up to the pump and pay five or so times more for pan film, my troubles would be over". You think so, right? The answer is, if all you want to take is snapshots, yes. You really should use a light blue filter on pan film to darken the reds. They put an excessive amount of red dye in pan film because it gooses the speed way up there. In conclusion, use ortho film for it's superior qualities, and pan when you have too.

You forgot one other advantage, the one which has always kept ortho film loaded into a few of my holders - it does a great job opening up the shadows.

[tenderobject]

I will have to try. My inlaws run a hospital here but they're not using X-ray film anymore. They're more into digital side now..


i wonder if you can have a local hospital order it for you when they order?

[tenderobject]

Wow! Not bad. How's the quality of this film?


It's still cheaper than regular film, example

8x10 - Ilford FP4+/Delta100/HP5+ = $108 (25 sheets).
8x10 - Kodak Ektascan = $80 (100 sheets).

That's over 4 times as cheap.

[tenderobject]

Thanks for the info! I'm loving this film. It seems like i will never use a panchromatic film for 8x10 (I'm broke). I'm really happy with the results i'm getting with X-ray film. I just need to be more careful every time i process my film.. I'm using Y2 filter. I just love how it renders the green to the film. Since my place have massive mountains, trees and great light i think the yellow fits what i like. Maybe i could try light green or other filters someday. I'll check those filters you mentioned.

By the way, i'm using ID-11 (1+3) to process all my films here. I just hope i could still find this developer in Tehran. If not i would probably brew my own developer. If ever i could find chemical supplier in Tehran i would probably make Parodinal. I've tested this developer before and it's also nice and economical than using ID-11. I usually process my X-ray film from 7-9 mins @ 20c-22c and agitate slowly every 15secs. Sometimes i agitate the film abruptly if i can't see proper contrast on my negative. Is this a good start? Is pre-mature development fine with X-ray/Ortho films? Thanks!







You really think that excessive contrast is a characteristic of orthochromatic film? Hmmm, ever look at the early work of Edward Weston, or Edourd Steichen, and hundreds of others? Excessive contrast comes from too much exposure, or too much development, or both. This used to be called "soot and whitewash". One of ortho's biggest advantages, from a use standpoint, is development by inspection. Under a ruby red light. If you use too powerful a developer, the neg will flash up so fast you can't control it. Dectol at 1 to 1,or 2 to 1, Rodinal at 25 or 50 to 1. When I use dectol, I use it at 25 to 1. Or Rodinal at 100 or 200 to 1. This takes 8 to 15 minutes to fully develop. I try to get it closer to just less than 10 minutes by strengthining the soup. Now filters. Ortho film is very, but not completely, blind to red light. It is extremely sensitive to ultra-violet, or in other words, skylight. When you use a 2X yellow filter, it holds back the u-v light in the sky, permitting a longer exposure. This allows cloud detail, and more shadow quality. Now I can't tell you which Wratten filters are which, because I use Burke & James "Ideal Ray Filters" If you can find them (on e-bay) they come in 2X, 3X, 4X, and 5X. The last two are almost never seen, so if you can find a 2X and a 3X, you're in business. I suppose everyone knows (or, as a Russian friend of mine says "as every hedgehog knows") That the "X" tells you how many times to multiply the exposure. I've heard that a green filter will work too, but I don't know if it will because I've never had one. Now, I'm sure some of you are staring at this little epistle, and thinking, "Gee, if I would just step up to the pump and pay five or so times more for pan film, my troubles would be over". You think so, right? The answer is, if all you want to take is snapshots, yes. You really should use a light blue filter on pan film to darken the reds. They put an excessive amount of red dye in pan film because it gooses the speed way up there. In conclusion, use ortho film for it's superior qualities, and pan when you have too.

[StoneNYC]

Wow! Not bad. How's the quality of this film?

I don't know I haven't used it yet but the people posting here seem to like it, it's more expensive than other x-ray films (which generally a 100 pack or 8x10 can be had for $30 but having the emulsion on only one side is a big plus for my workflow.

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

I noticed your comment about Parodinal. It is just paracetamol capsules and sodium hydroxide, so I'm sure you would have no trouble sourcing these. My experimental batch behave identically to Rodinal. If you wish,I can PM you a link to the mixing procedure.

[tenderobject]

Please Ian! Thanks!




I noticed your comment about Parodinal. It is just paracetamol capsules and sodium hydroxide, so I'm sure you would have no trouble sourcing these. My experimental batch behave identically to Rodinal. If you wish,I can PM you a link to the mixing procedure.

[premortho]

Hey, Andrew, thanks for showing us the results of your test. For me, I much prefer the yellow filter. But I'm sure there are times when the scene would be better with the green one. But I think it's for sure that one needs two yellows, a medium, and one 1 or 2 stops darker. I've been shooting ortho film for just less than 70 years, because I like the control you can have with it by filtration. I don't cry myself to sleep because the best ortho film I've ever used is no longer available (Ansco Super Plenachrome). I just make do with what I can get, and think I'm blessed that there are still so many varieties still available. There are many steps in orthochromaticism, from barely to almost as good as Plenachrome. Have you guys noticed how fine the grain is on ortho film? A lot of people like grain in their pictures. As for me, if I wanted grain, I'd shoot 35 mm and blow it up to 11X14. I believe that green X-ray film is more orthochromatic than blue X-ray film. And blue X-ray film is more orthochromatic than Arista edu-ortho II. So pick a film for the amount of tone control the situation calls for, and shoot it. And don't forget that multi-grade paper is orthochromatic also. Too slow? So what, you are using a tripod, aren't you. Why do you think they are still making Packard Shutters (and selling them!). So, you have a variety of choices from ASA 3 all the way up to over 100. What more could you want?
... and a filter test (written filers). Letters represent colour of objects. O=orange; B=black; LR=light red, etc... sorry but cannot find unfiltered image. I also have reciprocity data.

[gbogatko]

This with 8x10 Ektascan, Nikkor 250. Didn't get the exposure right, but still -- jiggered it in P.S.
There is no way this could be printed on silver-gel.
I'll try again some time soon.

Buttermilk Falls in Delaware Water Gap N.P.

117200

George

[StoneNYC]

This with 8x10 Ektascan, Nikkor 250. Didn't get the exposure right, but still -- jiggered it in P.S.
There is no way this could be printed on silver-gel.
I'll try again some time soon.

Buttermilk Falls in Delaware Water Gap N.P.

117200

George

Well looks good as a scan!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

George it would make a nice carbon print!

[gbogatko]

George it would make a nice carbon print!

If I knew how to do that, I'd try.
But seriously, the density is just off the map. I took a LOT of jiggering to get the water to look half-way decent.

[Keith Fleming]

George,

Your image of Buttermilk Falls is a good one, and it deserves a chance to be printed. As an experiment, you might take the positive image you made in PS, invert it into a negative, print that on your ink jet printer as a color negative (which would use translucent inks) onto clear overhead projector material, and then make a contact print.

However, I am having a senior moment and cannot remember the name of the brand of overhead projector material that would work for this method.

Keith

[Andrew O'Neill]

Pictorico... but there are other brands that are similar, if not the same, such as Silkjet.

[Keith Fleming]

Andrew,

Thanks for providing the brand names "Pictorico" and "Silkjet" that I could not remember!

Keith

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hey, Andrew, thanks for showing us the results of your test.

You are very welcome, premortho. Pretty impressive that you have been using ortho films for that long!

[StoneNYC]

Shot some X-Ray pinhole at an APUG meetup in CT :) finally met some of the guys in real life which was cool.

117267
117268

Will scan it tomorrow, looks like my pinhole has some light leak (or the holder does) but the person I got the 11x14 holder from said it was their best holder and it's in excellent shape so I can't believe it would be the holder. Hey at least there is an image... Lol

[gbogatko]

George,

Your image of Buttermilk Falls is a good one, and it deserves a chance to be printed. As an experiment, you might take the positive image you made in PS, invert it into a negative, print that on your ink jet printer as a color negative (which would use translucent inks) onto clear overhead projector material, and then make a contact print.

However, I am having a senior moment and cannot remember the name of the brand of overhead projector material that would work for this method.

Keith

Yes. Pictorico. I've tried this before, and it does work. However, my 2200 gave up the ghost a while back and I havn't replaced it yet.
Saving up the pennies for a 3880 (which will allow me to print out color photos).

George

[ImSoNegative]

If I knew how to do that, I'd try.
But seriously, the density is just off the map. I took a LOT of jiggering to get the water to look half-way decent.

Jim has some excellent vids on youtube about the process, check them out.

[jimmyp]

Thanks very much to everyone who contributed to this thread. I spent about a week reading both threads start to finish. Great work and lots of great images. While I was reading I dusted off my Deardorff, ordered some Ektascan B/RA, and took my first x-ray shot. I'm trying to post it here for you to see, but I'm not sure if I know how to link it in.

I rated my Ektascan at 100, and developed in a Beseler drum on a motor base. Rodinal 1:50, 9 minutes. This neg is fairly dense, and might be nice for Cyanotype which is my usual printing method for 8x10.

Nope. I can't link in a photo from my flickr. I'll attach the little one below. (And go back and read the thread again because I know there were some flickr instructions in this very thread.)

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2910/14323371179_5e98c78da3_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nPH2ev)skull (https://flic.kr/p/nPH2ev) by jimmy.patrick (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

[Carl J]

Hi Stone,

That was fast work. Very nice meeting you as well. :)

Carl



Shot some X-Ray pinhole at an APUG meetup in CT :) finally met some of the guys in real life which was cool.

117267
117268

Will scan it tomorrow, looks like my pinhole has some light leak (or the holder does) but the person I got the 11x14 holder from said it was their best holder and it's in excellent shape so I can't believe it would be the holder. Hey at least there is an image... Lol

[jbrianfoto]

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3898/14395577945_a59993eb3f_b.jpg

Testing another workflow from my scanner.. I'm amazed with this picture. Only curves and brightness contrast here. No HDR software whatsoever!

I'm loving this film!



Kodak Master View 8x10 + Fuji Fujinon 250mm 6.7 + Fuji HRT X-Ray Film + Yellow Filter

DANG !! Now THAT's! what I'm talking about - very, very nice man. Don't change a thing with whatever your process is - you cracked the code.

[Corran]

Testing another workflow from my scanner.. I'm amazed with this picture. Only curves and brightness contrast here. No HDR software whatsoever!

I'm loving this film!

Kodak Master View 8x10 + Fuji Fujinon 250mm 6.7 + Fuji HRT X-Ray Film + Yellow Filter

Good job! What developer/dilution/time did you use, and ASA?

[Scott --]

Posted over t'portraits, too. 8x10 Ektascan BR/A in Adanol 1:150 (7:20 at 20C).

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14234300915_e01cbf7a63_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nFQvKi)Middies (https://flic.kr/p/nFQvKi) by Scott -- (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

[StoneNYC]

Posted over t'portraits, too. 8x10 Ektascan BR/A in Adanol 1:150 (7:20 at 20C).

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14234300915_e01cbf7a63_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nFQvKi)Middies (https://flic.kr/p/nFQvKi) by Scott -- (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

Really? 7 minutes at 1:150?? Is this EI 100?

When I develop the AGFA green x-ray I use 1:50 at 7 minutes in rotary... Seems odd to have the same time with such a dilution difference. Hmmm I mean it's a different emulsion but still...

[Scott --]

Really? 7 minutes at 1:150?? Is this EI 100?

When I develop the AGFA green x-ray I use 1:50 at 7 minutes in rotary... Seems odd to have the same time with such a dilution difference. Hmmm I mean it's a different emulsion but still...

Yep - 7:00 with 1:150. Shot at EI100. Rotary. Been tweaking developing a bit but still in the ballpark.

[StoneNYC]

Yep - 7:00 with 1:150. Shot at EI100. Rotary. Been tweaking developing a bit but still in the ballpark.

Well 8x10 ektascan arrives Tuesday so I'll give it a go and see.

[blueribbontea]

118040

8X10 Kodak Green, Developed in D-23 and scanned. I rated this at 100 ISO and developed by inspection. Shot with a 2D from 1934 with an Ilex Caltar 254mm lens. It looks to me as if there is a stronger silver image on the side of the film that faced the lens, the dull silver surface much more evident. This was a surprise.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

If I knew how to do that, I'd try.
But seriously, the density is just off the map. I took a LOT of jiggering to get the water to look half-way decent.

I teach carbon printing and this image is right for carbon. The area of highlight is small and the shadow areas are rich. I can see the print. With carbon you can control the highlights. No digital tweaking needed. :-)

[tenderobject]

Hi Corran, Thanks! ID-11 1+3 EI 100 at 8-9 minutes developing time :)


Good job! What developer/dilution/time did you use, and ASA?

[tenderobject]

Thanks! I'm still trying to get the best out of X-ray film! I'm loving this film so much i might not use Panchro film anymore. :D

I really need to fix my scanning workflow! hahah


DANG !! Now THAT's! what I'm talking about - very, very nice man. Don't change a thing with whatever your process is - you cracked the code.

[jbrianfoto]

Posted over t'portraits, too. 8x10 Ektascan BR/A in Adanol 1:150 (7:20 at 20C).

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14234300915_e01cbf7a63_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nFQvKi)Middies (https://flic.kr/p/nFQvKi) by Scott -- (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

Also a fantastic capture, I will do some shooting this weekend, ya'll have inspired me.

[tenderobject]

Hi guys! Is there a post already here about printing X-ray film on Silver gelatin paper? I was planning on testing my negs since i have some Foma papers. I just wonder how you guys tame the contrast etc..

[tenderobject]

Nice skintone! Itlooks like the Ektascan is not contrasty than other X-ray film (Fuji XRT Green).


Posted over t'portraits, too. 8x10 Ektascan BR/A in Adanol 1:150 (7:20 at 20C).

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14234300915_e01cbf7a63_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nFQvKi)Middies (https://flic.kr/p/nFQvKi) by Scott -- (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

[mdarnton]

OK, you guys are ruining my life. All of this stuff is so beautiful! I just ordered a box of x-ray film to slice up for my 5x7. Another project--just what I needed. . . .

[premortho]

OK, you guys are ruining my life. All of this stuff is so beautiful! I just ordered a box of x-ray film to slice up for my 5x7. Another project--just what I needed. . . .

I think you should start off with Kodak Ectascan because it is single sided, so development is easier. Also look for a medium yellow filter, and try with and without. If you remember that it is an orthochromatic film (not sensitive to red light {they print as black}, you'll just do fine). Also, 5X7 is my favorite size. I really like the proportions. And, as my grandfather told me, smallest contact print that looks well hung on a wall.

[StoneNYC]

OK, you guys are ruining my life. All of this stuff is so beautiful! I just ordered a box of x-ray film to slice up for my 5x7. Another project--just what I needed. . . .

Get a 5x8 Chamonix instead and then it's less cutting :)

[imagedowser]

Stone, Helpful? Compassionate? Who was just looking for an 11x14 back on-the-cheap? Your photographically gifted and intelligent, try to be helpful too.... the smily face doesn't always make it funny.

[mdarnton]

But an 8x10 Deardorff would be even less! I have a friend who might lend me one. ..

[angusparker]

Posted over t'portraits, too. 8x10 Ektascan BR/A in Adanol 1:150 (7:20 at 20C).

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14234300915_e01cbf7a63_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nFQvKi)Middies (https://flic.kr/p/nFQvKi) by Scott -- (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

What did you rate the film? 80 ISO? This looks like a winning combination. Contrast seems better tamed than my workflow with this film.

[StoneNYC]

Stone, Helpful? Compassionate? Who was just looking for an 11x14 back on-the-cheap? Your photographically gifted and intelligent, try to be helpful too.... the smily face doesn't always make it funny.

There are other cheaper 5x8's and I was semi-serious, if I were "into" the whole cutting down thing, I would certainly consider it.

It wasn't meant to be smug, in fact, I contacted Chamonix to ask them (for this guy I just made the comment to) if they would create or had created an "insert" that could be used so that 5x7 holders could be used in the 5x8 camera, as I think some kind of "spacer" would be handy to just slide into the back or somehow attach to a standard 5x7 to extend the holder, the answer was just that they would make a reducing back to 5x7 which is a lot bulkier than I was thinking.

Anyway the point is it wasn't meant to be a smug comment, on the contrary I was serious (hence the due diligence on the "insert" invention I was thinking about).

Sorry that didn't translate well. But I think the 5x8 idea is pretty great, enables you to have way more options, including Velvia50/100, Provia100f, Ektar100/Portra160/400(without special order) and a number of other B&W films not cut in 5x7 and cutting in half is a LOT easier than cutting in half and then having to cut another side at a different length and hoping both cuts are precise enough not to fall out of the holder.

Sorry again if that wasn't helpful.

As far as my "on the cheap" goes, I have a priority system of what's worth the "big bucks" and what's worth scrounging for. And it comes down to application. I doubt I'll be hiking around with an 11x14 so any camera that will fit in my car is sufficient to me, but the Chamonix 8x10 is light enough to hike with, so I'll save for over a year and spend the big bucks to get one. Same with lenses, the fujinon 600 C is the ultimate for light hiking with any kind of reach, and the IC is incredible, so I'm willing to spend the money to get one (even if I will try and find a deal of possible) but a 1200mm is going to be too heavy in any iteration for me to hike with so if I ever find one cheap I'll snag it but I won't pay a lot for one because I don't see it as a value if it's a brick. This might sound crazy to you but that's just how I see things. So if I'm going to buy any 5x7/5x8 it should be ultra light, and frankly Chamonix is the only game out there, so I suggested it. I think there are some old wooden cameras in 5x8 to be had for a few hundred bucks, but you'll probably still have to buy the Chamonix holders as any other ones are scarce (though I just saw a member here sell 7 of them used so the deals are out there if you are patient!).

Ok I'm going to go play with my new Chamonix now...

[Scott --]

Angus, I rate at EI100. But my experience with this stuff is that it's more forgiving on exposure than it is on developing; compared to the arista I usually use, moves in, say, 10% of developing time (rotary) or tweaks in dilution of Adanol have pretty pronounced effects on contrast. For example, I shot this today:

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2914/14635139524_339d30e4e9.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/oifV6N)img234 (https://flic.kr/p/oifV6N) by Scott -- (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

I pulled the developing to 6:30 at 20C (a reduction of about 12%) and contrast was usable. At 7:20 it would have been outside the realm of my scanner (4990).

All that said, there are a lot of variables that come together. I'm using an old Petzval that's marked 14", though looks to be more of 16", so the aperture may be f/6, or f/5, or somewhere in between. I'm metering, say, 1/10 at f/5.6, adding a couple stops for estimated bellows factor, guess at how long the Packard is open. The shot of the boys was taken with the Instantaneous setting on the Packard, so about 1/30. But there is a lot of room for slop, and I'm scanning and printing digitally, so the whole process is actually fairly workable.

[angusparker]

Thanks Scott for sharing. I'm usually doing 6:30 versus 8:00 for my standard developer and rating at 80. I'm using a more modern lens and shutter combo so I guess I should do a series of tests and settle on what works best for me.

[premortho]

Thanks Scott for sharing. I'm usually doing 6:30 versus 8:00 for my standard developer and rating at 80. I'm using a more modern lens and shutter combo so I guess I should do a series of tests and settle on what works best for me.
If you have a multicoated lens, it's as much as a stop faster than an "old fashioned) lens. I've used Packard Shutters for about 70 years, and it is the most reliable and consistent shutter I've ever used. The secound best shutter I've ever used is a Compound. Note that both of these are air operated ("Pnuematic"). With the Packard, it is important to use a stiff hose. This helps the repeatability of times considerably. Automobile vacuum hose is what I use. If you must use plastic hose, keep it short. Like a foot or eighteen inches. There is no need to "guess at how long the Packard is open. "One chimpanzee" is as close to one second as any mechanical shutter can get. The word "click-uh" is a fifth of a second, "click" a tenth. Hope this information is helpful to you two guys.

[photoevangelist]

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3874/14646037401_747c603d77_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14646037401/)
Kayt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14646037401/) by Lee Smathers (https://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Kayt

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 hangers

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Moersch MT1 1:10 2 min.

[photoevangelist]

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2916/14647174901_0fb72602be_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14647174901/)
Assisted Self Portrait #03 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14647174901/) by Lee Smathers (https://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Assisted Self Portrait #03

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 hangers

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Moersch MT1 1:10 2 min.

[photoevangelist]

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2928/14678086173_5d16332706_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14678086173/)
Damodaran (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14678086173/) by Lee Smathers (https://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Damodaran

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 hangers

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Moersch MT1 1:10 2 min.

[mdarnton]

My first! Fuji green, D23, 1:6, stand developed for 12 min. I just scanned it wet, still in the hanger,
against the sky, with my digital Nikon, to see what I had. The scene had quite a bit of range, and
this handled it well, I think. I was surprised!

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3840/14692136852_0a4e392466_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ooi3qm)

xray1 (https://flic.kr/p/ooi3qm) by michael.darnton (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Well it has been a while. This was a test image. I was using some old carbon tissue poured well before my move. 8x10 carbon print.

[tenderobject]

Wow Lee! Your portraits are awesome. Are these image from scanned prints?
Can you share any tip on contact printing X-ray film to Silver Gelatin Paper? Filters, Time, etc :D

Thanks!


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3874/14646037401_747c603d77_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14646037401/)
Kayt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14646037401/) by Lee Smathers (https://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Kayt

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 hangers

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Moersch MT1 1:10 2 min.

[premortho]

Wow Lee! Your portraits are awesome. Are these image from scanned prints?
Can you share any tip on contact printing X-ray film to Silver Gelatin Paper? Filters, Time, etc :D

Thanks!
Yes, I'm curious about the reasoning behind using two developers in succession also. I'm sure there is a reason, I'd just like to know.

[ghostcount]

Yes, I'm curious about the reasoning behind using two developers in succession also. I'm sure there is a reason, I'd just like to know.

Which two developers? Isn't MT1 a toner?

[premortho]

OK, that answers the question. MT1 is a toner. I guess I would have written the description just a little different.

[axs810]

Just curious..has anyone tried to do long exposures with the Ektascan xray film? A friend gave me a few sheets to try out and the results came out pretty good (for regular exposure) but I'm curious about reciprocity. Anyone have any tips or examples?

[ImSoNegative]

I have actually shot up to 10 sec with no problem whatsoever, I wasn't sure about the reciprocity either so I just went by what the meter said, turned out fine. I was using green sensitive fuji

[Max Hao]

Anyone tried to clear one side of the xray? I'm tired of the scratches on one side of the film. Cheers.

[StoneNYC]

Anyone tried to clear one side of the xray? I'm tired of the scratches on one side of the film. Cheers.

Yup, it's pretty easy, it's basically the same as when you have to bleach a Polaroid Fuji negative.

You find a nice piece of glass, actually I just use newsprint but that's just me most people like to have a much harder surface, anyway you get some plastic tape that's really good and you just line the edges so that it's taped against the glass or the paper quite enough that any runoff doesn't see through to the other side and make sure it's completely flat so that not a single little crack in the taping can allow any kind of liquid to get to the other side, anyway then you just poor bunch of bleach on top, a lot of people like to use the gel bleach but I found no problem using regular old Clorox bleach, then you simply take the paper towel and wipe off the emulsion.

When you're done and it's completely clear on one side, you take the whole piece and rinse it off under tapwater so that all the bleach is gone, and then take the tape off and then wash it again just to be sure none of the bleach is on the edge line, make sure that you don't wet the other side because you don't want contaminated bleach to touch the actual good side of the film. Then simply hanging to dry like you would normally.

That's what I do anyway.

PS it was too much to type and I'm on my phone, so I ended up dictating this with Siri, so if there's any words that seem off, that's why. Good luck!

[Max Hao]

Yup, it's pretty easy, it's basically the same as when you have to bleach a Polaroid Fuji negative.

You find a nice piece of glass, actually I just use newsprint but that's just me most people like to have a much harder surface, anyway you get some plastic tape that's really good and you just line the edges so that it's taped against the glass or the paper quite enough that any runoff doesn't see through to the other side and make sure it's completely flat so that not a single little crack in the taping can allow any kind of liquid to get to the other side, anyway then you just poor bunch of bleach on top, a lot of people like to use the gel bleach but I found no problem using regular old Clorox bleach, then you simply take the paper towel and wipe off the emulsion.

When you're done and it's completely clear on one side, you take the whole piece and rinse it off under tapwater so that all the bleach is gone, and then take the tape off and then wash it again just to be sure none of the bleach is on the edge line, make sure that you don't wet the other side because you don't want contaminated bleach to touch the actual good side of the film. Then simply hanging to dry like you would normally.

That's what I do anyway.

PS it was too much to type and I'm on my phone, so I ended up dictating this with Siri, so if there's any words that seem off, that's why. Good luck!

Many thanks, StoneNYC. Very timely. I'll get some bleach and try out.
Cheers.
Max

[StoneNYC]

Many thanks, StoneNYC. Very timely. I'll get some bleach and try out.
Cheers.
Max

I always found it very easy, but I've heard others say that it's very difficult for them, so depends on if you have somebody fingers, and whether that's easy or not, I literally just use paper towel to rub off the emulsion, it's soft and you can throw it away after.

That said I suggest you attempt this first on a negative you don't care about just to be safe.

[photoevangelist]

Wow Lee! Your portraits are awesome. Are these image from scanned prints?
Can you share any tip on contact printing X-ray film to Silver Gelatin Paper? Filters, Time, etc :D

Thanks!

Thanks! Contact printing times are going to be different for each paper, developer, machine, lens, aperture, and distance to paper. I'm using a Zone VI VC enlarger at the moment, but almost finished setting up my Omega D5 which, from there on out, I'll be using for making contact prints because the Zone VI bulbs aren't made anymore. For these recent portraits, I've been doing "split filtering" the green bulb for the highlights and the blue bulb for the shadow value.

[mdarnton]

I wonder if anyone has any experience with pencil retouching on x-ray film. I am doing mostly portraits, and there is a definite advantage to doing some old-fashioned retouching. I do know that it was traditionally done on the back, on films made for retouching, or after applying a varnish dope layer for tooth. I tried pencil on one side of my double-sided Fuji green, and it went on quite nicely, which makes me wonder why not to retouch on the emulsion side (since I don't have a choice, both sides being emulsion :-)

Anyway, it sure would save a lot of Photoshop time, I think.

[Peter De Smidt]

Well done, Vince!

[Bakody1]

Deat x-ray film users!
I will try to shoot with x-ray film. I need som help please:
Which one to try first? Do you have any experience with them? Fuji IX100, Fuji IX80, Agfa CP-GU, FUJI UM-MA Hc, KODAK MIN-R. Do you think FUJI UM-MA Hc will be the best? Do you have any problem with Fuji?
I know NIF: no protection between films. EP/PB wacuum sealed? Have you this?
High contrast... they saying. I it good for photos?
What kind of foxer are u using? I will try caffenol developer.

[analoguey]

I am looking for thr same, the seller here tells me that Kodak has stopped xray and its now rebadged as something else, would that be true?

[Bakody1]

I had my first try with Agfa CP-GU (double side emulsion).
After caffenol, when I took out from the developer and during washing the negative looked perfect. As soon as I pored the fixer on the negative, it turned dark.
With household bleach I removed the emulsion from one side. The image looks better, but still dark and looks foggy.
Developer:
27g Washing soda
8g Vitamin C
20g Instant Coffee
3g table salt with Iodine
500ml water
Fixing bath:
sodium thiosulphate (anhydrous) 80g in 250ml water
What was wrong?

[premortho]

I had my first try with Agfa CP-GU (double side emulsion).
After caffenol, when I took out from the developer and during washing the negative looked perfect. As soon as I pored the fixer on the negative, it turned dark.
With household bleach I removed the emulsion from one side. The image looks better, but still dark and looks foggy.
Developer:
27g Washing soda
8g Vitamin C
20g Instant Coffee
3g table salt with Iodine
500ml water
Fixing bath:
sodium thiosulphate (anhydrous) 80g in 250ml water
What was wrong?
I don't know what is wrong, but I suggest you start out with a commercial developer. This will reduce the variables. Rodinal 1-100 is one of the stand-bys. If you start reading back about 20 pages, you will find all kind of development hints. I prefer the Kodak single sided emulsion. Less chances for scratches. Also remember that if you use double sided emulsions, you will need more exposure if you remove one side.

[Andrew O'Neill]

As soon as I pored the fixer on the negative, it turned dark.
With household bleach I removed the emulsion from one side. The image looks better, but still dark and looks foggy.

It will always turn dark when you pour on the fixer. The fix clears the unexposed/undeveloped emulsion away making it look dark.
Also, I would advise against stripping the emulsion. You end up with a negative with half the density range and degraded tonalities, imho.
Why are you washing the negative after development? Do you mean rinsing it in a stop bath? You should be stop, fix, then wash. I hope you are working under a safe, safelight.

[Corran]

You end up with a negative with half the density range

I don't think that's true. If you cut the density in half everywhere, you still have the same range of tones, it's just half the density. That's important for alt. process but not traditional silver printing or scanning. Am I wrong?

I disagree about degraded tonalities but that's of course an opinion.

[mdarnton]

I am looking for thr same, the seller here tells me that Kodak has stopped xray and its now rebadged as something else, would that be true?

Search Google for Carestream x-ray film.

[Bakody1]

Thank you for the answers. I will try one more time with caffenol. Maybe the problem was the too strong red safe light (I hope)
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/dental/sophs/material/darkroom.pdf
"It must be made clear that there is no such thing as an absolutely safe safe-light. The film will be fogged if it is exposed too long to any intensity light. The question arises now for how long can a film be exposed to safelight illumination before fog becomes apparent."
http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/documents/xray_facility_tips_darkroom_fog_.pdf

[premortho]

Thank you for the answers. I will try one more time with caffenol. Maybe the problem was the too strong red safe light (I hope)
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/dental/sophs/material/darkroom.pdf
"It must be made clear that there is no such thing as an absolutely safe safe-light. The film will be fogged if it is exposed too long to any intensity light. The question arises now for how long can a film be exposed to safelight illumination before fog becomes apparent."
http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/documents/xray_facility_tips_darkroom_fog_.pdf
Bakody, the product I reccommended is Kodak Ektascan B/RA film/4153. It is described as "medium speed,single coated tabular grain, orthochromatic medical x-ray film. It is coated on a 7 mil blue tinted polyester base (support), with anti-halation backing. Because it has anti-halation backing it has a film notch at the edge which must be in the upper right hand edge when loading the cut film holder." It is more expensive at $80.00 per box of 100, plus shipping. Since we don't know where in the world you live, we don't have anyway to approximate the shipping charges.

[premortho]

Oh yes, it is now called Kodak Carestream Ektascan B/RA film/4153. I buy mine from Z and Z medical in the USA. They have it in stock. How much the shipping will be, I don't know. I think 80 cents a sheet is a bargain for film with anti-halation backing.

[Bakody1]

I'm in Europe, Hungary...

[analoguey]

Search Google for Carestream x-ray film.

Thanks, yes it is rebadged Carestream. I just bought a packet - I was told it was green sensistive.
It has generic packaging here(of Carestream), but none of the extensive labelling I see on this (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?115373-FS-Eastman-2-8x10-Lenses-Holders-and-Film-PACKAGE&p=1158511&viewfull=1#post1158511) thread.

Mine just writes out "TMX", then emulsion no and size/expiry date (till 2016).

[premortho]

Thanks, yes it is rebadged Carestream. I just bought a packet - I was told it was green sensistive.
It has generic packaging here(of Carestream), but none of the extensive labelling I see on this (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?115373-FS-Eastman-2-8x10-Lenses-Holders-and-Film-PACKAGE&p=1158511&viewfull=1#post1158511) thread.

Mine just writes out "TMX", then emulsion no and size/expiry date (till 2016).
Where is here, analoguey? It is not "re-badged", it is re-named. In the United States, the name for this kind of marketing is "It's the same old whore, but in a new dress". Crude, but very descriptive. If you read my post #727 and 728, it will give all the info on the film, through the courtesy of Z&Z Medical, where I get the stuff. What I wrote in 727 was a direct quote from Kodak, Rochester's description. Ektascan is an orthochromatic film, which means it does not "see" red light. This affects exposure. It is quite slow in the early morning, and late afternoon. It is fastest between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM at my latitude (44 degrees). You should keep an eye out for a medium yellow filter. I can't reccomend a specific filter, because I'm sure you could never find what I use, which is a Burke&James Ingento 2X yellow filter. 2X means two times the exposure. The fact that this film has an anti-halation backing is a big plus, and, combined with the fact it is a single sided emulsion is why I use it. I would not start using this film with a home brewed developer. You will have to learn it's ideocincracies, so using a common developer simplifies the learning curve. I don't shoot enough film these days to use a short life developer, which is why I use Rodinal. I used to use D-72, 24-1, but it doesn't keep that long. Rodinal keeps for years in the bottle it comes in.

[mdarnton]

Two new ones:

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3847/14690979160_10ee14c2fd_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ooc7h9)

Eric (https://flic.kr/p/ooc7h9) by michael.darnton (https://www.flickr.com/people/118045067@N03/), on Flickr



https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3839/14889996913_c8b09c6a89_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/oFM8jH)

Roberta (https://flic.kr/p/oFM8jH) by michael.darnton (https://www.flickr.com/people/118045067@N03/), on Flickr

[blueribbontea]

119711
This is Ektascan cut down to 4X5, shot with an RB Graflex D, with a Wollensak 15 in. tele 5.6 at 1/5th of a second at f 8, in a dark back yard late in the day. I processed the film in D-23 with an afterbath of water and sodium Carbonate and printed on Oriental Seagull G-3. Print's too big for the scanner. It was much easier to print than to scan.

[mdarnton]

My Super D has a baffle under the mirror that shades off the lower 1/2" or so of the top of the photo on vertical shots with the 15" tele on closer shots like yours. Is yours a Series D, and do you not have this problem?

[blueribbontea]

My Super D has a baffle under the mirror that shades off the lower 1/2" or so of the top of the photo on vertical shots with the 15" tele on closer shots like yours. Is yours a Series D, and do you not have this problem?
I don't have this problem. I get a clear image on the ground glass top to bottom and a fully exposed negative. I have mounted the lens on the very front of the standard, using a bottom slider from a defunct Speed and some hardware store parts to tighten it up top. It focuses at infinity just fine by racking out maybe an inch and I can focus to about 6-8 feet; I haven't measured but will tomorrow. If you like I'll grab a cell phone shot of the mounting to show you. This lens is my favorite for the D. It is an early D I think, maybe manufactured in 1928.


Bill

[analoguey]

. I processed the film in D-23 with an afterbath of water and sodium Carbonate and printed on Oriental Seagull G-3. Print's too big for the scanner. It was much easier to print than to scan.

Why the sodium carbonate wash?

[Degroto]

I always found it very easy, but I've heard others say that it's very difficult for them, so depends on if you have somebody fingers, and whether that's easy or not, I literally just use paper towel to rub off the emulsion, it's soft and you can throw it away after.

That said I suggest you attempt this first on a negative you don't care about just to be safe.

I just held the negative under running water and played around with bleach. The emulsion comes of very quick. A little bit got to the other side though but not much. So taping it down will be a better idea. Just try it out on a worthless negative and have some fun. :)

[Craig Tuffin]

I've been playing around with some x-ray in preparation for some salt prints. This was one that I shot recently and just scanned. Any idea what might be creating the artefacts in the sky area. I develop in a ziplock bag...could these be as a result of holding the bag too close to the safe light when inspecting? It was quite a short development time (5 mins)...could it be too short a development and as a result should I dilute my developer (PMK by the way) to allow for longer development?
119718

[blueribbontea]

Why the sodium carbonate wash?

I reduce the contrast of the negative by cutting the time in the D-23 (using constant agitation) and then transferring the film to the second bath with intermittent agitation. The carbonate keeps the remaining D=23 working but it gets used up quickly in the heavily exposed areas, keeps working in the lighter exposed areas, a classic compensating technique. Some refer to it as a split D-23 but that's really inaccurate as the D-23 still has the alkaline accelerator in it. So far it has been my most successful method for reducing the inherently high contrast of the x-ray film. This negative printed on on Grade 3 paper, which is a good indicator.


Bill

[desertrat]

I've been playing around with some x-ray in preparation for some salt prints. This was one that I shot recently and just scanned. Any idea what might be creating the artefacts in the sky area. I develop in a ziplock bag...could these be as a result of holding the bag too close to the safe light when inspecting? It was quite a short development time (5 mins)...could it be too short a development and as a result should I dilute my developer (PMK by the way) to allow for longer development?
119718
I have seen a similar pattern, only much worse, when I attempted to stand develop a sheet of X-ray film. Getting even development with X-ray film has been a challenge for me. I don't think I have yet achieved truly even development in large areas of blank sky.

[mdarnton]

I quickly solved all my developing problems with hangers. No scratching, no uneven-ness, with double-sided film. I use only the Kodak 4a hangers, on which the u-section of the frames are tapered like an open-based V, so that they don't rest or stick against the film except at the very edge, but this still stops some developing nearby if I stand develop, so I agitate at 0,5, and 10 minutes for 15 min developing. I'm using D23 diluted 1:6, which was someone's suggestion early on in the x-ray developing thread, and haven't seen a reason to change. I've been using plastic 1 gallon 5x7 tanks with floating lids, and the developer stays good for at least 2 weeks in these--probably more, but I haven't tried. Four tanks (D76, D23, stop, fix) fit neatly into the plastic boot tray from next to my front door, so any mess is contained, and when it's not in use, I slide it all to the back of the counter, out of the way.

The negs are quite contrasty, but good, and they camera-scan better than regular film (see examples just above) and since I'm gearing up for carbon printing, they're probably going to be just right.

[premortho]

Now I tend to get up on my soapbox on the subject of orthochromatic film. It is "real film", just different. The only readily available orthochromatic large format film, other than Ortho-plus from Ilford is X-ray film, and process film, like Arista. The problem with Ilford is it is no longer readily available in 5X7, and it is very expensive. Pan film is just orthochromatic emulsion plus red dye to make it react to red light. There are other minor differences, but basically that's it. Now, to make things even more complicated, there are still various degrees of orthochromatism. Blue X-ray film is less orthochromatic than green. Just thank God we have all of these choices. If you like the landscape and/or portrait photography look of the 1880's up to the early1920's, blue x-ray should work best for you. If you like the Weston era (for want of a better name) look, try green. Uh-oh, I haven't mentioned my creds. My grandfather started me developing ortho film in the mid 1940's. I never got used to doing the darkroom work in the dark. I have never used any metheod except tray development. One at a time. When I worked on a newspaper, they used tanks. But if I had one for the rotogravure section in the Sunday supplement section, I'd do it by hand, in a tray. I should add, I used Ansco Plenachrome Film Packs for day work (Hot news). But I always used sheet film, Plenachrome, for rotogravure work.

[premortho]

I've been playing around with some x-ray in preparation for some salt prints. This was one that I shot recently and just scanned. Any idea what might be creating the artefacts in the sky area. I develop in a ziplock bag...could these be as a result of holding the bag too close to the safe light when inspecting? It was quite a short development time (5 mins)...could it be too short a development and as a result should I dilute my developer (PMK by the way) to allow for longer development?
119718
We used to call those
"Tide Marks" It is an agitation problem. I've never done any kind of LF developing except in trays. One at a time. I do it the old, old fashioned way. Like plate development. Emulsion side up in a dry tray. tilt one end of the tray up a little, then pour 6 or so ounces of soup rapidly, but not hastily along the upper side. If you do it too fast, you may get air bubbles, too slow = different development top to bottom. Once the whole sheet is covered, agitate by raising one edge of the tray, and letting it down for 5 seconds or so, than keep on for the other sides (all four) of the tray. Let it rest for 30 seconds to one minute, repeat. Repeat every minute until negative looks a little over developed. A pretty accurate way to check development progress is when you think it's gone far enough, pull it out of the tray, look at it through the backside at the safelight. If it looks good, rinse it, hypo bath and rinse in at least in 6 changes of water for a total of a half hour or more. You still won't know if it's right until it has dried. Tide marks, when done this way, is usually from in-adequete agitation. Or "dropping" the tray during agitation.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't think that's true. If you cut the density in half everywhere, you still have the same range of tones, it's just half the density. That's important for alt. process but not traditional silver printing or scanning. Am I wrong?

I disagree about degraded tonalities but that's of course an opinion.

Readings with a densitometre will verify halving of the DR. I did it a few times to verify it. Also, side by side comparisons showed muddy tones and more grain with a stripped negative. No good for alt printing (carbon transfer, kallitype) imo.

[Craig Tuffin]

Thank you for this! One more question though...how do you avoid uneven development when you have an emulsion side still in contact with the bottom of the tray (double emulsion film) and slow agitation? and how often would you then flip the film?


We used to call those
"Tide Marks" It is an agitation problem. I've never done any kind of LF developing except in trays. One at a time. I do it the old, old fashioned way. Like plate development. Emulsion side up in a dry tray. tilt one end of the tray up a little, then pour 6 or so ounces of soup rapidly, but not hastily along the upper side. If you do it too fast, you may get air bubbles, too slow = different development top to bottom. Once the whole sheet is covered, agitate by raising one edge of the tray, and letting it down for 5 seconds or so, than keep on for the other sides (all four) of the tray. Let it rest for 30 seconds to one minute, repeat. Repeat every minute until negative looks a little over developed. A pretty accurate way to check development progress is when you think it's gone far enough, pull it out of the tray, look at it through the backside at the safelight. If it looks good, rinse it, hypo bath and rinse in at least in 6 changes of water for a total of a half hour or more. You still won't know if it's right until it has dried. Tide marks, when done this way, is usually from in-adequete agitation. Or "dropping" the tray during agitation.

[Craig Tuffin]

This sounds perfect but I can't find any 11"x14" hangers other than the ones at Wolfe supplies and they won't ship one hanger here to me here in Australia for under $100. Anyone with such a hanger they don't want....I think it's time I put a WTB in the classifieds section...


I quickly solved all my developing problems with hangers. No scratching, no uneven-ness, with double-sided film. I use only the Kodak 4a hangers, on which the u-section of the frames are tapered like an open-based V, so that they don't rest or stick against the film except at the very edge, but this still stops some developing nearby if I stand develop, so I agitate at 0,5, and 10 minutes for 15 min developing. I'm using D23 diluted 1:6, which was someone's suggestion early on in the x-ray developing thread, and haven't seen a reason to change. I've been using plastic 1 gallon 5x7 tanks with floating lids, and the developer stays good for at least 2 weeks in these--probably more, but I haven't tried. Four tanks (D76, D23, stop, fix) fit neatly into the plastic boot tray from next to my front door, so any mess is contained, and when it's not in use, I slide it all to the back of the counter, out of the way.

The negs are quite contrasty, but good, and they camera-scan better than regular film (see examples just above) and since I'm gearing up for carbon printing, they're probably going to be just right.

[analoguey]

I reduce the contrast of the negative by cutting the time in the D-23 (using constant agitation) and then transferring the film to the second bath with intermittent agitation. The carbonate keeps the remaining D=23 working but it gets used up quickly in the heavily exposed areas, keeps working in the lighter exposed areas, a classic compensating technique. Some refer to it as a split D-23 but that's really inaccurate as the D-23 still has the alkaline accelerator in it. So far it has been my most successful method for reducing the inherently high contrast of the x-ray film. This negative printed on on Grade 3 paper, which is a good indicator.


Bill

So the second bath is basically the carbonate solution, but with whatevr d23 on the negative still being active - is that what you mean?

I havent used any of the D-xx developers, barring Dektol(IIRC, an old D-xx formula?), so I am not familiar with their properties.

Would the negative be printed on a lower grade paper otherwise? (to counter the high-contrast?)

[analoguey]

This sounds perfect but I can't find any 11"x14" hangers other than the ones at Wolfe supplies and they won't ship one hanger here to me here in Australia for under $100. Anyone with such a hanger they don't want....I think it's time I put a WTB in the classifieds section...

Use a bunch of clothes hangers, instead, maybe? Usually about that size, arent they?

[premortho]

Thank you for this! One more question though...how do you avoid uneven development when you have an emulsion side still in contact with the bottom of the tray (double emulsion film) and slow agitation? and how often would you then flip the film?

Well, as everybody who reads these knows (and are sick and tired of hearing about) I use Kodak Ektascan film. For two reasons. It is single sided, and it has an anti-halation backing. I use double sided "blue" film when I want that 1890's landscape look. I don't flip it over, I just pick it up in the tray so as to get developer action on the bottom. I've also tried using print tongs to pick it up and turn it over. But I'm not so skilled at that, and I end up wearing some of the developer. But I found that concentrating on developing just the top, and let the bottom look after itself and then bleaching off the back side, or bottom side works pretty good for me. A little trick I use is I just use a scizzors to "nip" off the upper right corner when I load the sheet film holders. That way I always know where the "up" side (the side that faces the lens) is.

[premortho]

Well, as everybody who reads these knows (and are sick and tired of hearing about) I use Kodak Ektascan film. For two reasons. It is single sided, and it has an anti-halation backing. I use double sided "blue" film when I want that 1890's landscape look. I don't flip it over, I just pick it up in the tray so as to get developer action on the bottom. I've also tried using print tongs to pick it up and turn it over. But I'm not so skilled at that, and I end up wearing some of the developer. But I found that concentrating on developing just the top, and let the bottom look after itself and then bleaching off the back side, or bottom side works pretty good for me. A little trick I use is I just use a scizzors to "nip" off the upper right corner when I load the sheet film holders. That way I always know where the "up" side (the side that faces the lens) is. Well, to add to the above on nipping the corner, always do the upper right corner. If you do it some other way, you'll be apt to make a mistake some day when you load film that has notches. As far as I know, all non-double emulsion film has the code notches in the upper right corner, which you load so that the emulsion faces the lens. We wouldn't want to get into any bad habits, now would we?

[blueribbontea]

So the second bath is basically the carbonate solution, but with whatevr d23 on the negative still being active - is that what you mean?

I havent used any of the D-xx developers, barring Dektol(IIRC, an old D-xx formula?), so I am not familiar with their properties.

Would the negative be printed on a lower grade paper otherwise? (to counter the high-contrast?)
Yes: The agitation in the second bath is necessary as it does not function as a water bath, but as a developer without its own developing agent (the Metol). I think that is the best way to explain it. The metol is carried over in the film from the D-23 and will of course be depleted in the process, mor quickly in the heavily exposed areas as they demand more metol. I do this to reduce the contrast of the negative and thus I can use a higher contrast paper. The main advantage is that I am protecting the highlights from blocking up. The addition to the water in the second bath could also be sodium metaborate, instead of sodium carbonate; Anschell's "The Darkroom Cookbook" explains the options pretty well. Good luck.

Bill

[analoguey]

Where is here, analoguey? It is not "re-badged", it is re-named. In the United States, the name for this kind of marketing is "It's the same old whore, but in a new dress". Crude, but very descriptive. If you read my post #727 and 728, it will give all the info on the film, through the courtesy of Z&Z Medical, where I get the stuff. What I wrote in 727 was a direct quote from Kodak, Rochester's description. Ektascan is an orthochromatic film, which means it does not "see" red light. This affects exposure. It is quite slow in the early morning, and late afternoon. It is fastest between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM at my latitude (44 degrees). You should keep an eye out for a medium yellow filter. I can't reccomend a specific filter, because I'm sure you could never find what I use, which is a Burke&James Ingento 2X yellow filter. 2X means two times the exposure. The fact that this film has an anti-halation backing is a big plus, and, combined with the fact it is a single sided emulsion is why I use it. I would not start using this film with a home brewed developer. You will have to learn it's ideocincracies, so using a common developer simplifies the learning curve. I don't shoot enough film these days to use a short life developer, which is why I use Rodinal. I used to use D-72, 24-1, but it doesn't keep that long. Rodinal keeps for years in the bottle it comes in.

Here would be Bangalore, India -thought I had the location on profile but maybe thats on APUG, not here.
Anyhow, I can buy from the seller on an offline/face-to-face transaction, so it's good

I plan to use Dektol 1:7 or Xtol 1:3/1:4. I have so far had good results with conventional 4x5 film/paper with those combos.

From what I see, the post nos you refer to seem to be someone else's?

[premortho]

Here would be Bangalore, India -thought I had the location on profile but maybe thats on APUG, not here.
Anyhow, I can buy from the seller on an offline/face-to-face transaction, so it's good

I plan to use Dektol 1:7 or Xtol 1:3/1:4. I have so far had good results with conventional 4x5 film/paper with those combos.

From what I see, the post nos you refer to seem to be someone else's? I think I referred to the other x-ray folder on here. D-72 (Dectol) is what I used to use when I did more film processing. I had good luck using it at 1-24, usually for 10 minutes or so. I like 8-10 minute development as it builds contrast more slowly, giving more control. I used that 1-24 soup as a one-shot developer. I also use Rodinal (under whatever name) 1-64 or 1-100 because the stuff keeps forever in the original bottles. I've used Rodinal for over 70 years, except when I shot a lot of film every day (newspaper work) then I used D-72.

[photoevangelist]

Two new additions:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5578/14974878352_0293d85769_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14974878352/)
Mollie (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14974878352/) by Lee Smathers (https://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5572/14788620388_93cff56616_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14788620388/)
Jorge (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14788620388/) by Lee Smathers (https://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 5 min. in tanks and hangers

8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min., toned in Moersch MT1 Selenium 1:10 2 min.

[photoevangelist]

This is something I've got up my sleeves for couples:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5560/14976611342_34a95158f9_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14976611342/)
Tony & Kayt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/14976611342/) by Lee Smathers (https://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 hangers

Double 8x10 Contact Print on:
12"x16" Ilford MGFB Classic Matt, Moersch SE6 Blue 1:10 3 min., toned with Moersch MT1 Selenium 1:10 30 sec.

[towolf]

My professor gave me a stack of old Kodak X-ray film envelopes. The do look old and making my first two test shots, I wonder how to determine sensitivity, and what to do about the fog I get.


The base here is really foggy, isn't it? On the left I just fixed a strip straight from the envelope, the strip on the right was cut in the dark and souped for 5 min and then fixed to get base fog. The photo on the right was also developed for 5 min. The photo on the left was exposed at 3 stops over 100ISO and developed for 2.5min (all in Refinal).

http://i.imgur.com/QLMwESl.jpg (http://imgur.com/QLMwES.jpg)

[towolf]

I made two more test shots today and would really appreciate an expert opinion.

Since everybody is talking about ISO 100 in this thread I metered as EI 100 and got 1/10 at f22. I made two shots.


EV 12.6, f22, 1/10, developed for 6 min in Refinal
EV 12.4, f22, 1s, developed for 2 min in Refinal


http://i.imgur.com/kUu7NLNl.jpg (http://imgur.com/kUu7NLN.jpg)

The lower one was basically shot at EI 10, 3.3 stops "pull". Yet it looks so much better than the top metered at 100. And I held the incident meter in the midst of those flowers, they were not in the shadows. And somehow the table top is blown out in the top version. It got a much too strong contrast. So it can’t be "ISO 100", can it?

The margin has "K O D A°K XDM" imprinted on it.

http://imgur.com/7YBKEfol.jpg

How would I proceed here? I need to know what to meter, and how long to develop.

[desertrat]

I haven't done a lot of x-ray film, but I need to shoot at EIs lower than 100 to get any shadow detail. There's an old saying, "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights." The only advice I can give, is increase exposure until you get some detail in the shadows, but not necessarily in the deepest shadows. Then adjust development time until the contrast is where you want it. The exposure and development time you end up might be a good deal different than what others are using or recommending, but if following their times does not give you the results you want, then go your own way.

If your films are old and expired, exposure and development times for fresh films probably won't work anyway.

What looks like base fog might be safelight fog. The X-ray films I use are very sensitive to even a deep red safelight. Try handling and developing a few sheets in total darkness and see if there is less fog.

[towolf]

What looks like base fog might be safelight fog. The X-ray films I use are very sensitive to even a deep red safelight. Try handling and developing a few sheets in total darkness and see if there is less fog.

Thanks for your clues, I have meanwhile made one more exposure series with two ColorCheckers (for the gray wedges and to judge color sensitivity) as EI 10, 12, 25, 50. Will also test souping times, and Rodinal.

The safelight can't be the cause of fog because in the image above, the narrow strip was taken out in the dark, developed in the dark, and fixed in the dark. The level of gray matches with the adjacent picture's holder margins.

Perhaps I should lay out some of the trimmings in the safelight for long periods to see how much fogging appears when.

[premortho]

I made two more test shots today and would really appreciate an expert opinion.

Since everybody is talking about ISO 100 in this thread I metered as EI 100 and got 1/10 at f22. I made two shots.


EV 12.6, f22, 1/10, developed for 6 min in Refinal
EV 12.4, f22, 1s, developed for 2 min in Refinal


http://i.imgur.com/kUu7NLNl.jpg (http://imgur.com/kUu7NLN.jpg)

The lower one was basically shot at EI 10, 3.3 stops "pull". Yet it looks so much better than the top metered at 100. And I held the incident meter in the midst of those flowers, they were not in the shadows. And somehow the table top is blown out in the top version. It got a much too strong contrast. So it can’t be "ISO 100", can it?

The margin has "K O D A°K XDM" imprinted on it.

http://imgur.com/7YBKEfol.jpg

How would I proceed here? I need to know what to meter, and how long to develop.
How long to develop is relatively easy. As long as you use a ruby red safelight. Or led's of the correct spectrum. Remember that X-ray film is orthochromatic. The amber safelight that many use for papers will cause fogging. I use the same safelight for both. Ruby red. A quick check of your safelight is with a cd. When you hold it up in front of a safelight, and you see anything but red off the cd, either the light is not good enough, or you have light leaks in your darkroom. Now, to develop. The way I've done this (about 70 years with ortho film), is to develop until the image looks over developed in the tray, pull it out and look at the red safelight through the back (non emulsion) side of the negative. When you see some shadow detail through the back side, put in the water tray, and don't agitate for at least 2 minutes, then the hypo, and wash. The reason for using a plain water bath without agitation is this allows more shadow detail to come through, as the developer, which is already exhausted in the high lights, will continue working on the shadows. How long to keep it in the water bath comes with experience. Fortunately or un-fortunately, successful photography is much more an art than it is a science. That is the joy of it, isn't it? New comers to this style of work tend to pull the film out of the developer too soon. That's why you look through the back side.

[premortho]

now to exposure with a light meter. I use a Weston Master lll light meter, because it's the easiest one to use of the too many different kinds I have owned. To start with, go out and pick a general scene, one that does not have extensive interesting shadows, or blazing high lights,between 11 AM and 3 PM standard time, meter it (reflected light meter) and shoot it. Go inside and develop it the way I said in the above post. If the box says 80, shoot it at 80. Now you have a baseline exposure. Don't decide it is under-exposed until you print it. I exposed some Arista ortho-lith at 25 one time, developed it and the neg looked terribly under exposed, but when I printed it, it was fine. The print took a 45 second exposure, as I recall, but it was fine. I don't have a scanner, so I don't know how it would have looked with one. I had some of my 4X5's scanned by a friend of mine, and they weren't any where near as good as my wet prints. And I am not a great printer. I try to shoot so I can print it straight. OK. Why 11 to 3 for the time of day? Because that's when the sky has the least amount of red light. Earlier and later than that, and you have to extend exposure. Generally, one stop more exposure for every two hours earlier or later. I do not let my film spend a lot of time even exposed to a safelight. It will react even to red light given enough exposure. Hope all of this helps you.

[Randy]

My old boots - baught them in 1977 - not quite time to throw them out.

CSX Green 8X10 / Reinholds 335mm Wollaston Meniscus

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/img353a.jpg

[towolf]

Thank you for the break-down premortho. If you have 70 years of experience, you started with 15 and are 85? Then you have 5 years more experience than my father.


How long to develop is relatively easy. As long as you use a ruby red safelight. Or led's of the correct spectrum. Remember that X-ray film is orthochromatic. The amber safelight that many use for papers will cause fogging. I use the same safelight for both. Ruby red.

I’m using a faint distant (behind the shoulder) darkroom red bulb and a flexible "torch" that I taped a Schott RG 2 filter (1% cut-off 622nm, higher than Kodak GBX-2) in front of, to be able to shine a less faint spot onto the table and move the tray into and out of the spot.

http://i.imgur.com/oIhw7yl.jpg (http://imgur.com/oIhw7yl.jpg)

I’m able to develop by eye to a similar level of global exposure. But I’m still trying to figure out, which EI I should pick. I think 25 is reasonable in terms of practicality. But in my next example I also used EI 6 (far left) and got yet more detail in the shadow.

http://i.imgur.com/I3ryLb1l.jpg (http://imgur.com/I3ryLb1.jpg)

Of course I will keep your method with the shadow detail and the long water stop in mind for the next time. Until now stop bath for me meant a rapid complete stop. Your idea is interesting. Perhaps this will give me that shadow detail.


If the box says 80, shoot it at 80. Now you have a baseline exposure.

That’s my problem. The box doesn’t say anything. There’s no box. Just 138 brown envelopes. So I made a series 6, 10, 25, 50, 100 and developed them by eye to a "normal" global density. How do I pick the best combination? By taste?

Your points about the color of light are interesting. I have a Sekonic digital meter and the manual doesn’t list its spectral sensitivity. I want to shoot indoors and have a fairly daylight looking surface light. But I’m sure it goes towards the red end. Any tips about how much compensation "daylight color" fluorescent lights need? How about tungsten?

[jcoldslabs]

I picked up some Carestream/Ektascan B/RA this week from a forum member. In the interest of adding to the chorus of exposure and development tests, here is mine. I apologize for the boring photo, but I needed a nearby subject with a wide scene brightness range to see how well I could keep the contrast in check.

Camera: Pacemaker Speed Graphic
Lens: 210mm f/5.5 Hugo Meyer Doppel Anastigmat
Film: Ektascan B/RA
EI: 100
SBR: 6 stops (EV 10 to EV 16)
Meter: Pentax Digital Spot
Exposure: 1/4s @ f/45
Developer: HC-110 1:63 (dil. H) @ 68°F
Time: 4 minutes (rotary)


http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/4x5-EKTASCAN-TEST-EI100-03-4MinDev.jpg

Jonathan

[djdister]

I picked up some Carestream/Ektascan B/RA this week from a forum member. In the interest of adding to the chorus of exposure and development tests, here is mine. I apologize for the boring photo, but I needed a nearby subject with a wide scene brightness range to see how well I could keep the contrast in check.

Camera: Pacemaker Speed Graphic
Lens: 210mm f/5.5 Hugo Meyer Doppel Anastigmat
Film: Ektascan B/RA
EI: 100
SBR: 6 stops (EV 10 to EV 16)
Meter: Pentax Digital Spot
Exposure: 1/4s @ f/45
Developer: HC-110 1:63 (dil. H) @ 68°F
Time: 4 minutes (rotary)

Jonathan

I think it worked out quite well...

[jcoldslabs]

I think it worked out quite well...

It took four sheets worth of tests to get to this point. I am definitely happy with the range of tones. Now it's time to find a suitable subject and shoot some full 8x10 sheets.

J.

[Corran]

Yeah, nice tones, looking forward to your "real" photos Jonathan! Hope you are doing well.

[jcoldslabs]

Thanks, Bryan. Yeah, I'm OK, just still struggling to find my photo mojo is all. But I'm still lurking around here as much as ever even if my posts are few and far between.

J.

[Corran]

Thanks, Bryan. Yeah, I'm OK, just still struggling to find my photo mojo is all. But I'm still lurking around here as much as ever even if my posts are few and far between.

J.

I know the feeling :)

[Jim Noel]

Oh yes, it is now called Kodak Carestream Ektascan B/RA film/4153. I buy mine from Z and Z medical in the USA. They have it in stock. How much the shipping will be, I don't know. I think 80 cents a sheet is a bargain for film with anti-halation backing.
Is this the film they list as "Green"? I can't find B/RA 4153 listed as such on their web site.

Thanks,
Jim

[jcoldslabs]

Jim,

I think this is the stuff, although the photo they show with the listing is incorrect. This is the "blue" variety with a blue-tinted base. I just ordered a couple of 100 sheet boxes:

http://www.zzmedical.com/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html

Jonathan

[Jim Noel]

Thanks Jonathan. i will appreciate it if you let me know what you receive.

Jim

[jcoldslabs]

Thanks Jonathan. i will appreciate it if you let me know what you receive.

Jim

Will do.

J.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Jim,

I think this is the stuff, although the photo they show with the listing is incorrect. This is the "blue" variety with a blue-tinted base. I just ordered a couple of 100 sheet boxes:

http://www.zzmedical.com/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html

Jonathan

This is what I shoot and quite like it. :)

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[premortho]

I picked up some Carestream/Ektascan B/RA this week from a forum member. In the interest of adding to the chorus of exposure and development tests, here is mine. I apologize for the boring photo, but I needed a nearby subject with a wide scene brightness range to see how well I could keep the contrast in check.

Camera: Pacemaker Speed Graphic
Lens: 210mm f/5.5 Hugo Meyer Doppel Anastigmat
Film: Ektascan B/RA
EI: 100
SBR: 6 stops (EV 10 to EV 16)
Meter: Pentax Digital Spot
Exposure: 1/4s @ f/45
Developer: HC-110 1:63 (dil. H) @ 68°F
Time: 4 minutes (rotary)


http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/4x5-EKTASCAN-TEST-EI100-03-4MinDev.jpg

Jonathan Beautiful exposure. Ektascan is hard to beat. Notice that there is no flare around the high lights. This is because Ektascan has an anti flare backing. So far as I know, Ektascan is the only X-ray film to be so coated.

[premortho]

They don't call it green in the sense other X-ray films are. It is even more orthochromatic than the green film. As a hypothisis, I would rate blue film the least orthochromatic, the green more so, and Ektascan the most orthochromatic of the films being currently manufactured.
Is this the film they list as "Green"? I can't find B/RA 4153 listed as such on their web site.

Thanks,
Jim

[Tin Can]

Ektascan is also made in 14x17, which I cut down to 11x14. The scrap is used for smaller formats.

I think only 8x10 is common.

I also plan to stock up as I beleive X-Ray film will not be available as long as regular film. Medical users are all switching to digital. Very quickly.

[Jim Noel]

Thanks everyone. I found the listing. The cost is amazing at only $4 per 100 sheets more than the cheapest 8x10 lith film. My order goes in today.

Jim

[NiNo]

first x-ray
kodak blue, 13x18 cm, iso 100, pyrocat hd on slavich matt, ilford mg developer

120533

[NiNo]

another 2:

120541

120542