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

[SergeiR]

NiNo, when I looked at those pics, I thought first thing :this is a perfect example why one should use Kodak Ektascan, because it has an anti-halation coating on the back side.

*facepalm* seriously? Should? Because you know.. there is no other option? Why not just use digital then? Whole thing is - people like different looks. "Should" - doesn't enter into the world of artistic judgement.

[yangshan75]

http://http://forum.xitek.com/collection.php

[Peter Lewin]

http://http://forum.xitek.com/collection.php

Yangshan, your link does not work, "server not found."

[premortho]

Who is *facepalm*?
*facepalm* seriously? Should? Because you know.. there is no other option? Why not just use digital then? Whole thing is - people like different looks. "Should" - doesn't enter into the world of artistic judgement.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Who is *facepalm*?

Everyone on this forum at one time or another. :D

128999

[Tin Can]

Actually, it is a striking your own forehead with your palm, in disbelief that something very obvious has occurred, often accompanied with a loud 'DUH'.

Colloquialism.

[Will Frostmill]

Everyone on this forum at one time or another. :D


Yup, that's us.
Explanation and examples here: (some NSFW)
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/facepalm
129007
Also,
129008

[premortho]

Well-well. I suppose I'm the one who was supposed to have a "facepalm" moment. Now maybe you-all boys are impressed with the artistic effect of strong halation in the highlights. Now some like that look and some don't, I reckon. And I'm one of the ones that don't. If you-all recall, there were two pictures in the original post, one in HP-5, and one done on non-backed ortho. The HP-5 shot had much less halation than the ortho picture had. Now if you looked at the snow in these pictures, perhaps you noticed that the ortho picture had many more tones and detail in the snow part of the picture than the pan film had. This is a characteristic of ortho film. But for me, at least, the ortho shot had overwhelming halation in it. So I stand by what I said, and maybe I'll enlarge on it a little. If you are going to shoot into the sun, even in the woods, use a backed film. What ortho film still available has an anti-halation backing? Kodak Ektascan is the only one I know of. Now in my salad days, all consumer ortho film was backed, and had been since about 1920. The whole bit about shooting with the sun behind you, or over your shoulder comes from film made in the pre backed era. I, perhaps incorrectly, presumed that the photographer of the two original pics was comparing the halation differences between the ortho film he chose to use and HP-5 (which is backed) and wanted to know if this was typical of ortho (X-ray) film in general.
Yup, that's us.
Explanation and examples here: (some NSFW)
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/facepalm
129007
Also,
129008

[SergeiR]

Kodak CSG, 8m rotary, 1:125 adonal, Dallmeyer 3D

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7442/16488553785_12fb0386ce_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/r839A6)Scan-150209-0005www (https://flic.kr/p/r839A6) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

[gsuser]

Amazing image!

[dukeku]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7283/16478029262_2c66a85a1f_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/r77d1N)

Slowly nailing down my workflow. HR-U at 200, HC-110 B for 3.25 minutes rotary.

[StoneNYC]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7283/16478029262_2c66a85a1f_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/r77d1N)

Slowly nailing down my workflow. HR-U at 200, HC-110 B for 3.25 minutes rotary.

How dense is the negative? Also how much compensation for reciprocity did you give? I've been curious about shooting night exposures with x-ray film but I'm not sure how to judge the reciprocity etc.

[dukeku]

The negative was quite thin except for the reflections along the street - surprisingly dense. I didn't bother doing any reciprocity corrections as I haven't noticed any horrible effects on my exposures up to 2 minutes. I'm sure there's loss as the negatives are quite thin/nearly clear in the shadows but I've just been accepting it as fact and looking for high contrast scenes that it'd play well with.

[bc_69]

Kodak CSG, 8m rotary, 1:125 adonal, Dallmeyer 3D

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7442/16488553785_12fb0386ce_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/r839A6)Scan-150209-0005www (https://flic.kr/p/r839A6) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

Very nice indeed, what did you rate the film at? Not trying to pry but I have some x-ray film and am looking to understand how to get the best results with it, ie. exposure times, appropriate filters, lighting, best development.

[SergeiR]

Very nice indeed, what did you rate the film at? Not trying to pry but I have some x-ray film and am looking to understand how to get the best results with it, ie. exposure times, appropriate filters, lighting, best development.

I never hide it :) i always do it as iso100. Tried to do some variations, but never liked it. In truly dim light i might drop it as iso50, but its more of the gut feeling than science.

In general i am far less techy than most of LF people about whole process. I'd shoot iso100, wiggle exposure around, if i am close or not, i would do processing in rotary for 7-15 minutes or sometime hour, just depending on how i feel. Never do preliminary stoping of processing or some funky stuff with processing in general, and i load film in total darkness. I am sure there are some magic dances with waiting to do things to exact seconds, but i rather chat with my wife, or read book, while processing, or wash dishes, than worry too much about whole thing ;). And i don't do distilled water for dilluting things, or measure temperature (apart from color processing of course). There. No secrets ;) Simple and dirty

[yangshan75]

129128129128
Frica 11*14 X - ray film 510-pyro 1:300 r 20 minutes dallmeyer 3A

[bc_69]

I never hide it :) i always do it as iso100. Tried to do some variations, but never liked it. In truly dim light i might drop it as iso50, but its more of the gut feeling than science.

In general i am far less techy than most of LF people about whole process. I'd shoot iso100, wiggle exposure around, if i am close or not, i would do processing in rotary for 7-15 minutes or sometime hour, just depending on how i feel. Never do preliminary stoping of processing or some funky stuff with processing in general, and i load film in total darkness. I am sure there are some magic dances with waiting to do things to exact seconds, but i rather chat with my wife, or read book, while processing, or wash dishes, than worry too much about whole thing ;). And i don't do distilled water for dilluting things, or measure temperature (apart from color processing of course). There. No secrets ;) Simple and dirty

Ok, well that sounds simple enough and if I get close to the quality of your image I will be more than happy. Thanks for your insights that has removed some of the mystique with x-ray.

[Randy]

Very nice Yangshan75...makes me want to set up my camera and take a picture

[Peter Lewin]

SergeiR: I commented on your ability to capture the spontaneity of children over in the portrait sub-forum, and you have done the same bit of magic here! The picture of mother and daughter is wonderful. Just curiosity - is that your family, or friends? If it was a commissioned picture of strangers, it would be even more amazing.

[SergeiR]

SergeiR: I commented on your ability to capture the spontaneity of children over in the portrait sub-forum, and you have done the same bit of magic here! The picture of mother and daughter is wonderful. Just curiosity - is that your family, or friends? If it was a commissioned picture of strangers, it would be even more amazing.

Thank you. Its been a picnic with folks i happen to know ;)
Its hard to sneak up on strangers with 3D on 8x10. But then again ;) Its been done too

[SergeiR]

Ok, well that sounds simple enough and if I get close to the quality of your image I will be more than happy. Thanks for your insights that has removed some of the mystique with x-ray.

I am honestly not sure there is mystery with any kind of film, to be honest. Some are harder to handle, but still - basic principle is same for everything.

[SergeiR]

129128129128
Frica 11*14 X - ray film 510-pyro 1:300 r 20 minutes dallmeyer 3A

Cool set. Very very nice - with all the vignetting and stuff. Love it.

[salvatore]

Excuse my naive question.
I want to use a FUJI HR-T film to take images and develope it with Kodak HC110.
Which speed (in ASA or in DIN) I must set on my camera?
I have read from the web values ranging from 25 ASA to 200 ASA.
Can someone be more precise, and perhaps suggest me the dilution and development time of Kodak HC110?
In some prior tests I tried 1:31 (sol. B) and 5 minutes development time. Is it correct?
Thanks in advance.

Salvatore

[StoneNYC]

Excuse my naive question.
I want to use a FUJI HR-T film to take images and develope it with Kodak HC110.
Which speed (in ASA or in DIN) I must set on my camera?
I have read from the web values ranging from 25 ASA to 200 ASA.
Can someone be more precise, and perhaps suggest me the dilution and development time of Kodak HC110?
In some prior tests I tried 1:31 (sol. B) and 5 minutes development time. Is it correct?
Thanks in advance.

Salvatore

Salvatore,

Welcome to the forum, unfortunately because this film was not originally designed to shoot as regular black-and-white film and was designed for x-ray, there are no exact speed information, which is why you are seeing a different exposure indexes (EI) which is personal to each photographer based on their shooting habits and testing, the only way to be sure is to test yourself, in general it is probably good to start at 100 for "blue" labeled films and 400 for "green" labeled x-ray films, and then to adjust accordingly based on your test results. With your developer, I would say that 5 minutes is also a good starting point.

Unfortunately beyond that you will have to test yourself and decide on your own personal EI speed.

Good luck and welcome!

[salvatore]

Salvatore,

Welcome to the forum, unfortunately because this film was not originally designed to shoot as regular black-and-white film and was designed for x-ray, there are no exact speed information, which is why you are seeing a different exposure indexes (EI) which is personal to each photographer based on their shooting habits and testing, the only way to be sure is to test yourself, in general it is probably good to start at 100 for "blue" labeled films and 400 for "green" labeled x-ray films, and then to adjust accordingly based on your test results. With your developer, I would say that 5 minutes is also a good starting point.

Unfortunately beyond that you will have to test yourself and decide on your own personal EI speed.

Good luck and welcome!

Thank you very much for your quick and friendly response!
I will start with 100 ASA and 5 minutes development.

[Corran]

in general it is probably good to start at 100 for "blue" labeled films and 400 for "green" labeled x-ray films

No, 400 is not what "green" film is. Possibly that EI would be for the high-speed blue emulsion, but the green film such as Fuji HR-T is about ISO 64 or 100. Basically between 50 and 100 is a good starting place on either.

[mdarnton]

I started with green at 80, but I'm edging back to 50. Under tungsten lights it's probably more like 12. But 400? No way. This film has enough problems with contrast and shadows that you don't want to start right out throwing your shadows in the trash. Stone, if you're really getting good results at 400 you need to check your meter.

[Corran]

Stone, if you're really getting good results at 400 you need to check your meter.

He isn't, he doesn't even shoot it.

[Randy]

I gave Arista Premium Liquid film developer a try:

8X10 CSX Green latitude @ ISO 200
1:18 from concentrate, 9 minutes @ 68 degrees in trays with slow continuous agitation.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/img432a.jpg

[StoneNYC]

I started with green at 80, but I'm edging back to 50. Under tungsten lights it's probably more like 12. But 400? No way. This film has enough problems with contrast and shadows that you don't want to start right out throwing your shadows in the trash. Stone, if you're really getting good results at 400 you need to check your meter.

Guys, as I stated in some earlier post, this is information from a friend of mine who is an x-ray technician, he told me that the blue speed films are roughly 100 and the green speed films are roughly 400 and that things like half speed and such would be obviously half of whatever the normal color full speed would be, this is what he told me about the sensitivity of the film to natural light, I cannot confirm or deny that all films are the same as that, I have only shot Kodak EKTASCAN (Carestream) and AGFA CURIX UV-G

I don't know if UV-G means Green or has nothing to do with the "color" indicators, I have no clue what speed it's supposed to be, I just started with 100 and played around, my testing says it's closer to EI 50 with Rodinal 1:50 for 6 minutes still isn't quite right, so far I haven't found any X-Ray film to be easy and although I'm able to make an image I have found to an extent that it's much more difficult than using regular film which is already tested for visible light shooting.

The Ektascan is the hardest (for me) of them all to shoot with it seems, irony...

[Andrew O'Neill]

400 for "green" labeled x-ray films,

Say what?? I've never heard of anyone shooting it at 400. I shoot it at anywhere from 50 to 100, depending on developer and dilution. By the way, Ektascan is lovely in pyrocat-hd, and OA. EI 80 for me.

[StoneNYC]

Say what?? I've never heard of anyone shooting it at 400. I shoot it at anywhere from 50 to 100, depending on developer and dilution. By the way, Ektascan is lovely in pyrocat-hd, and OA. EI 80 for me.

It's possible this is its sensitivity to X-ray radiation and he was assuming the translation was the same for natural light, but I'll have to ask him to confirm that.

[Corran]

[...] this is information from a friend of mine who is an x-ray technician [...]

Don't take this the wrong way but perhaps you can try only advising people with information you personally are familiar with. What an x-ray technician (read: not a photographer) has to say about the technical details of this film for x-ray usage is obviously of little use to folks shooting this film in their cameras. Your choice of film, personal EI, and developer dilutions/time is great, and a valuable resource. Others can fill in with their experience. Or mention that reading the thread from the start is a good way to begin. That's what I did.

You are doing a disservice to new members giving them faulty advice taken second hand from someone about a non-photographic (normal photographic that is) usage of the materials.

[ndg]

I am going to defend Stone here. I shoot my Fuji Green Xray film at iso 400 in sunlight. I also use a no 8 filter with it. Others may differ but I like my results.

[Corran]

Don't misconstrue, there is no need to "defend" anyone. The issue is not what you do or like, but instead what you know and actually practice, rather than spouting second- or third-hand advice from a dubious source.

Details like developer/dilutions/temperatures would be helpful, as well as the specific films in question. I always try to include that I have shot nothing but Fuji HR-T specifically, so I have no comment on any other brand or make. Of course samples of images would be another great resource, which is why this is a great thread for learning.

There are plenty of variables that could indeed account for such a varied range of EI's - such as filters, contrast ranges, meter inconsistencies, etc. - so there are of course no hard and fast rules!

[mdarnton]

Didn't we go through all of this, exactly, a couple of pages ago, and it turned out that 400 was a speed based on some x-ray only system, similar to how paper has a "speed" that's not related to film? I thought this was all decided already......

[ndg]

Film - Fuji Super HRt Green film 8x10
Lens - Fuji 360 mm f10 @ f22
Camera - Shen Hao FCL 810A
Developer - Rodinal 1:100
Developed in Jobo at 68 deg F
Meter - Pentax Digital Spotmeter
Scanned on Epson v700. No post-processing

Shot at iso 100
http://nanadadzie.com/darkroom/XrayTest/img016-iso100a.jpg

Shot at iso 200
http://nanadadzie.com/darkroom/XrayTest/img017-iso200a.jpg

Shot at iso 400
http://nanadadzie.com/darkroom/XrayTest/img018-iso400a.jpg

I then tried orange and yellow filters to bring out the clouds. Finally settled on the no 8 yellow filter at iso 400.
For my 14x20 work, this is the workflow that works for me.
As stated by Corran above, each person needs to do their homework and find the iso or Ei that works for them.

[StoneNYC]

Don't take this the wrong way but perhaps you can try only advising people with information you personally are familiar with. What an x-ray technician (read: not a photographer) has to say about the technical details of this film for x-ray usage is obviously of little use to folks shooting this film in their cameras. Your choice of film, personal EI, and developer dilutions/time is great, and a valuable resource. Others can fill in with their experience. Or mention that reading the thread from the start is a good way to begin. That's what I did.

You are doing a disservice to new members giving them faulty advice taken second hand from someone about a non-photographic (normal photographic that is) usage of the materials.

"Don't take this the wrong way" but half the things I've seen you give advice on, you don't actually have any experience with.

Asking someone who knows about the film (like a technician) gives you a lot more information than asking someone who just reads and regurgitates information.

Furthermore I qualified the whole thing by saying its best to do your own tests.

And finally...Get off my back man, every time I post anything you come along and have something negative to say about it, back off, it's rude and unnecessary. If you don't like what I say, don't read it, put me on ignore, whatever you're angry about in your own life, stop using me as a target.

[Corran]

but half the things I've seen you give advice on, you don't actually have any experience with.

Nope. Untrue. I never do that.


And finally...Get off my back man, every time I post anything you come along and have something negative to say about it, back off, it's rude and unnecessary.

No I don't. Let me remind you that you have 1500 more posts than I in less membership time, so clearly I don't do that at all. If you happen to be spouting something that I think is wrong, I will respond. That has nothing to do with you per se, but the advice given or whatever. Get over it man, I have no ill will or animosity here. I am merely pointing out that you should probably stop posting irrelevant and generally unhelpful advice when you have no actual experience or knowledge to back it up with.


whatever you're angry about in your own life, stop using me as a target.

I'm not angry at all. Perhaps you are reading all too much into my posts. Also, I think you need to grow up a bit and stop taking everything personally. Unfortunately you've garnered yourself a fair bit of negativity here because you seem to think you know everything about everything. It doesn't matter if you put a disclaimer at the bottom of your posts that basically negates everything you just said.

Look, let me be clear:

1) I don't dislike you
2) I'm not angry
3) You should probably post less and shoot more
4) You should probably not post irrelevant second-hand information

That's it. If you have anything else to say to me that is further off-topic, PM me, though I won't guarantee I have time to spar with you there, if you insist on continuing your tirade.

[SergeiR]

I gave Arista Premium Liquid film developer a try:

8X10 CSX Green latitude @ ISO 200
1:18 from concentrate, 9 minutes @ 68 degrees in trays with slow continuous agitation.


not bad :) How is grain?

[salvatore]

Thank you very much for your quick and friendly response!
I will start with 100 ASA and 5 minutes development.

Here are my results.
I used a 35mm camera (Nikkormat with a 110 mm lens).
I set on the camera a speed o 100 ASA
I used a Fuji radiographic film, I do not know if green or blue, the only thing I note is a bluish color of the substrate film.
The camera meter suggested, for a time of 1/4 sec an F of 5.6, and from there I started.
So I made several exposure, from 1/4 sec at F/5.6 to 4 sec F/2.5, developed in HC110 diluted 2:100 at 20°C for 10 minutes.

1) 1/4 sec F/5.6 underexposed
2) 1/2 sec F/5.6 well exposed
3) 1 sec F/5.6 well exposed
4) 1 sec F/2.5 well exposed
5) 2 sec F/2.5 well exposed
5) 4 sec F/2.5 overexposed

From test 2 to test 5 the overall density was obviously incrasing, but all negatives look printable.
From these results I am inclined to think that the speed of the film is around 50 ASA.

I made all these tests to get an idea of the good exposure for this film and used a 35mm camera because of convenience.
Now I like to extend this knowledge to another camera (large format, 18x24 cm) , which has a lens of 308 mm focal length and F/9 maximum opening.

I am asking you now a second naive question.
Having a diaphragm set at F/9, how long must be the exposure to have a negative with an optical density similar to the one observed in test n. 4 (1 sec F/5.6)?
Does a law exist predicting relative illumination as a function of lens focal length, diaphragm opening, and enlargement (or reduction)?

[Andrew O'Neill]

ndg, have you tested EI 400 on different lighting conditions? I would suspect there was some lens flare going on due to extreme brightness of sky. That tends to throw more exposure into the shadows. Less exposure would compensate for that, making one think that EI 400 was correct.

[Andrew O'Neill]

HC110 is fine and 1+32 dilution should be fine, providing you use effective EI. 5 minutes is too short. I would start at 10 minutes. Are you developing in trays?

[StoneNYC]

ndg, have you tested EI 400 on different lighting conditions? I would suspect there was some lens flare going on due to extreme brightness of sky. That tends to throw more exposure into the shadows. Less exposure would compensate for that, making one think that EI 400 was correct.

Lens flare? There's no sun in the shot... And the camera is under cover in the shade...

[premortho]

I THINK, but do not know, that it goes like this. f5.6 @ 1 second equals f8 @ 2 seconds, equals f11 @ 4 seconds. In other words, try 3 - to 3.5 seconds for f9.
Here are my results.
I used a 35mm camera (Nikkormat with a 110 mm lens).
I set on the camera a speed o 100 ASA
I used a Fuji radiographic film, I do not know if green or blue, the only thing I note is a bluish color of the substrate film.
The camera meter suggested, for a time of 1/4 sec an F of 5.6, and from there I started.
So I made several exposure, from 1/4 sec at F/5.6 to 4 sec F/2.5, developed in HC110 diluted 2:100 at 20°C for 10 minutes.

1) 1/4 sec F/5.6 underexposed
2) 1/2 sec F/5.6 well exposed
3) 1 sec F/5.6 well exposed
4) 1 sec F/2.5 well exposed
5) 2 sec F/2.5 well exposed
5) 4 sec F/2.5 overexposed

From test 2 to test 5 the overall density was obviously incrasing, but all negatives look printable.
From these results I am inclined to think that the speed of the film is around 50 ASA.

I made all these tests to get an idea of the good exposure for this film and used a 35mm camera because of convenience.
Now I like to extend this knowledge to another camera (large format, 18x24 cm) , which has a lens of 308 mm focal length and F/9 maximum opening.

I am asking you now a second naive question.
Having a diaphragm set at F/9, how long must be the exposure to have a negative with an optical density similar to the one observed in test n. 4 (1 sec F/5.6)?
Does a law exist predicting relative illumination as a function of lens focal length, diaphragm opening, and enlargement (or reduction)?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Stone. The camera is under what cover?? Were you there? Go back and look at it. Look at the sky. It's very bright. You do not need sun for lens flare. I've shot scenes where the brightness of a sunless sky has boosted zone II up to zone IV, even with a modern lens and a lens shade. I have thousands of negatives to prove it to you if like. I was only pointing out a possibility as to why such a high EI was used, and to be sure in other situations that it is correct.

[salvatore]

I THINK, but do not know, that it goes like this. f5.6 @ 1 second equals f8 @ 2 seconds, equals f11 @ 4 seconds. In other words, try 3 - to 3.5 seconds for f9.

What you say is true for the same camera and the same lens, but what happens if you change from a 24x36 mm camera with a 110 mm lens to a large format 8x10 inches with a 308 mm lens?
Probably your calculations are still true, but I would like to know why.

[Randy]

not bad :) How is grain?

That is one thing I have noticed with any of my attempts with X-ray film - noticeable grain when viewed through a magnifier. I mean, if I compare a 4X5 HP5 neg and an 8X10 X-ray neg, both processed in the same developer, the X-ray neg has much more pronounced grain than the HP5...but I don't really care because in the prints, since I am not going very big, it is not an issue.

Comparing two X-ray negs, one processed in HC-110 1:63, and one in the Arista liquid 1:18 - the grain is the same.

[towolf]

What you say is true for the same camera and the same lens, but what happens if you change from a 24x36 mm camera with a 110 mm lens to a large format 8x10 inches with a 308 mm lens?
Probably your calculations are still true, but I would like to know why.

F-number is ratio of pupil diameter to focal length. So 35mm camera f9 is the same as 8x10 f9.

8x10 lens has much larger diameter to reach f9.

Aside: The conventional f-number scale is stupid. It should be in stops, increment 1 to halve exposure. But we are stuck with square root of two based scale.

[ndg]

Funny you ask. Shortly after those test shots, I drove down to this creek. I wanted to capture the stream over the rocks on 14x20 Xray film for carbon. The foliage did not leave a lot of light through. I metered the scene at iso 400 and got absolutely no usable images! In bright sunlight, iso 400 give usable images. However, in low light situations, the iso drops into the 25 - 50 range. Again, that is my experience with my workflow and the experience of others may be different.


ndg, have you tested EI 400 on different lighting conditions? I would suspect there was some lens flare going on due to extreme brightness of sky. That tends to throw more exposure into the shadows. Less exposure would compensate for that, making one think that EI 400 was correct.

[salvatore]

F-number is ratio of pupil diameter to focal length. So 35mm camera f9 is the same as 8x10 f9.

8x10 lens has much larger diameter to reach f9.

Aside: The conventional f-number scale is stupid. It should be in stops, increment 1 to halve exposure. But we are stuck with square root of two based scale.

Thanks for your quick answer. Finally I will be convinced that you are right and my confusion comes from my limited familiarity with photography, but presently it seems to me that even with the same camera and lens and pupil diameter if you take a picture of a light source, the blackening of the film will be different according to the distance between the camera and the light source.
In fact the backening will be proportional to the intensity of light, and from my intuitive reasoning it will be proportional to the pupil area, and inversely to the square of the distance lens-source multiplied by the square of the enlargement, that is the ratio between the dimension of the source and that of the image on the film.
As an example, let me take a lens of 10 cm focal length, and at a F to reach a pupil of 3 cm (any value will however work for this example).
Let me place the source at 20 cm from the lens, I will see an image of the same size at 20 cm from the other side of the lens.
Now place the source at 10 cm from the lens, that is at its focus, and it will give an image at infinite ditance from the lens, with infinite size.
Infinitys are not fair, and we can consider a position near the focus, say at 11 cm from the lens, which will give a very large image.
If we make the calculations, we can easily see that a small nearing to the focus point will result in a very large image dimension, while the fraction of light entering the lens will be almost unchanged.
Obviously may be that my reasoning is wrong, and I will be happy to correct my thought.

[gsuser]

Here is one of my early attempts with Fugi HRT green and Rodinal. I just scanned into photoshop sized it and did a quick levels on the whole image. My DIY camera has the potential now I have to learn how to use it

[gsuser]

The Wray lens does not quite cover 8x10 but it is not bad.

129371

[SergeiR]

8x10 Kodak CSG, 1:100 Rodinal (i think or a little bit more condensed), 5.30m rotary.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7296/16378480828_47ae7114d5_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qXiZJu)Hiding smile (https://flic.kr/p/qXiZJu) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

[premortho]

Love that portrait!
8x10 Kodak CSG, 1:100 Rodinal (i think or a little bit more condensed), 5.30m rotary.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7296/16378480828_47ae7114d5_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qXiZJu)Hiding smile (https://flic.kr/p/qXiZJu) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

[gsuser]

Fuji HRT Green in Rodinal 1:200 10 minutes. The Wray 8 1/4" lens does not cover 8x10, but I kinda of like the effect.

129451

[salvatore]

8x10 Kodak CSG, 1:100 Rodinal (i think or a little bit more condensed), 5.30m rotary.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7296/16378480828_47ae7114d5_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qXiZJu)Hiding smile (https://flic.kr/p/qXiZJu) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

Wonderfu portrait!
When you say Rodinal 1:200 do you mean that the basic Rodinal formula:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/rodinal.php

is diluted 1:200?

[SergeiR]

Thank you. Yes, when i say 1:100 it is basic R09 diluted as 1:100.. I honestly gave up on doing exact measurements , so i just do it by eye, pulling R09 into syringe - 2ml or so, markings are long gone ;)) and then dropping it into 270mm Jobo container

[Corran]

Figured I should post this here too.
Wista 8x10, 210mm f/9 Graphic-Kowa, 2-stop GND, Fuji HR-T x-ray film rated at 50, developed in Acufine:

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/810-1232ss.jpg

[Peter De Smidt]

Nicely done, Bryan!

[Karasugoi]

I seem to remember, but can't find now, people talking about what kind of darkroom light people use for xray film on this thread. I hear it's really sensitive and you need a very faint light... any recommendations?

[StoneNYC]

I seem to remember, but can't find now, people talking about what kind of darkroom light people use for xray film on this thread. I hear it's really sensitive and you need a very faint light... any recommendations?

Ektascan seemed to handle normal amber light just fine, even totally open Thomas' safelight.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have a bright amber safelight. No worries with Ektascan and green double-sided.

[premortho]

Some time ago I bought a 110-120 volt red led. Works perfect with all ortho films I've tried in the last 5 years. When I bought this bulb, I first checked the spectral out put of the bulb to make sure none of the films I use can "see" this red light.
I have a bright amber safelight. No worries with Ektascan and green double-sided.

[Peter De Smidt]

Some time ago I bought a 110-120 volt red led. Works perfect with all ortho films I've tried in the last 5 years. When I bought this bulb, I first checked the spectral out put of the bulb to make sure none of the films I use can "see" this red light.

That's what I use as well. They weren't very expensive, they're bright, and they don't fog ortho material.

[Tin Can]

I seem to remember, but can't find now, people talking about what kind of darkroom light people use for xray film on this thread. I hear it's really sensitive and you need a very faint light... any recommendations?

Ektascan is extremely red blind, last week I shot outside in full sun with a red filter and Ektascan recorded absolutely nothing.

I forgot which film was in the holder...

Red LED works great. I use these in RED. https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe/2-watt-g11-globe-bulb-360-degree/440/#/attributes/13

[mdarnton]

Don't bother with anything else! Randy recommended these, I got a couple, and they're both bright AND safe.

[Tin Can]

Easy to cut X-Ray up under these Red LED's.

Today I am cutting Ektascan into 63 mm squares to use in Hasselblad sheet film holders.

I can't decide if we need a new thread to discuss small sheet X-Ray usage. Seems to me very few people would see or contribute to another thread...:)

[stiganas]

I cut Xray green for Mamiya RB67 sheet holders (Type A and J), for an old Kodak 620 and a Zeiss Tengor. I think the grain of the Xray is a little bit to big for the small sheets (but for the Kodak and Tengor doesn't matter).

Working under a cheap red led with no problems.


Easy to cut X-Ray up under these Red LED's.

Today I am cutting Ektascan into 63 mm squares to use in Hasselblad sheet film holders.

I can't decide if we need a new thread to discuss small sheet X-Ray usage. Seems to me very few people would see or contribute to another thread...:)

[Karasugoi]

Ektascan is extremely red blind, last week I shot outside in full sun with a red filter and Ektascan recorded absolutely nothing.

I forgot which film was in the holder...

Red LED works great. I use these in RED. https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe/2-watt-g11-globe-bulb-360-degree/440/#/attributes/13

Oh that's great Randy, thank you. I'll check these out.

So basically it doesn't really matter what red light you use? Since I don't have too much experience using this film I don't want to accidentally expose it with the wrong darkroom light. This has happened to me using some alternative processes.

An LED seems pretty bright to me. Randy if you have had a good run with these, that's good enough for me.

[mdarnton]

It does matter. I bought a red incandescent from the hardware store and that didn't work at all. Randy's light is a sure thing, though. Other LEDs haven't worked always for people here. Apparently there are several different types that look identical but aren't.

[Tin Can]

Oh that's great Randy, thank you. I'll check these out.

So basically it doesn't really matter what red light you use? Since I don't have too much experience using this film I don't want to accidentally expose it with the wrong darkroom light. This has happened to me using some alternative processes.

An LED seems pretty bright to me. Randy if you have had a good run with these, that's good enough for me.

I can only recommend the red LED's I have linked to here.

I would not trust and have no experience with other red bulbs.

Yes, I find them bright enough to cut film and not fingers.

[Ralph Weimer]

See the following website:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/ti0845/ti0845.pdf

R.

[Tin Can]

See the following website:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/ti0845/ti0845.pdf

R.

Also see this page which has the graphs for the LED's I specified. https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe/2-watt-g11-globe-bulb-360-degree/440/#/tab/Specifications

Seeing these spectrum, I choose RED LED from this company. Way cheaper than any other safelight.

[stradibarrius]

Nice Brian!

[Heespharm]

I know this probably comes up often but where can you buy Kodak X-ray film

[premortho]

I bought mine from this company for the same reason - spectral charts. But it was a lot more expensive when I bought it. Almost twenty dollars. Still cheaper than any other darkroom light I could find at the time.
Also see this page which has the graphs for the LED's I specified. https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe/2-watt-g11-globe-bulb-360-degree/440/#/tab/Specifications

Seeing these spectrum, I choose RED LED from this company. Way cheaper than any other safelight.

[mdarnton]

Also, before Randy mentioned his bulbs, I had bought a real medical safelight on Ebay. It wasn't too expensive, was new, and had a regular deep red filter as Kodak recommends and 15W bulb. After trying to work with it a couple of times I gave up because it was so dark--it was good for finding lost things, but not for cutting film or anything else. Even at that, it wasn't all that safe!

[Derek Kennedy]

Im not sure if i posted this on this site, or somewhere else, or if i just thought I did, but I got some 4x5 green x-ray film from the FPP.

Im seeing a wide range of dev times even with the same dilutions/developers. Id like to try my hand at this film this spring but as mentioned, such a wide range of times Im not sure where to start. Might even try some still life shots with it since its *way* too cold for me to venture outside with a camera.

All i have at hand for developers is HC-110 and Rodinal.

What do the x-ray guru's here at LFP suggest? Any help/guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Derek

[Corran]

Fuji HR-T
~ EI 80
Rodinal 1:100
6:30, 68 degrees F

Adjust to taste. Is it Fuji or something different?

Example:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--cSbWYHQsrA/T4ZpWnkpvyI/AAAAAAAAAvQ/bGDabmbh87A/s640/0046s.jpg

BTW, thanks Peter and stradibarrius!

[Derek Kennedy]

That photo looks great! Thanks for the dilution and time ( and EI, developer).

Im honestly not sure if it is Fuji? I guess i could ask the, to be certain. Might make it easier to get developing info if i knew exactly what it was.

Thanks again

Derek

[Corran]

Thanks! If it's Agfa, Kodak, or something else entirely, all bets are off - but that might get you in the ballpark. I would shoot 3-4 sheets of a scene under normal light and develop each one and adjust as necessary until you get it close to the right contrast ratio and shadow values. I don't use HC-110 at all but Rodinal works real well, especially at higher dilutions.

Another thing to consider is that the film is very prone to scratching so be careful. What method are you using for developing?

Finally, some of us (me included) strip one side of the film with bleach, to get rid of the emulsion on that side - which gives slightly sharper results with less density. It also makes tube development possible (it scratches the rear emulsion up pretty bad, so you just bleach it away, so no scratches).

[Heespharm]

Thanks! If it's Agfa, Kodak, or something else entirely, all bets are off - but that might get you in the ballpark. I would shoot 3-4 sheets of a scene under normal light and develop each one and adjust as necessary until you get it close to the right contrast ratio and shadow values. I don't use HC-110 at all but Rodinal works real well, especially at higher dilutions.

Another thing to consider is that the film is very prone to scratching so be careful. What method are you using for developing?

Finally, some of us (me included) strip one side of the film with bleach, to get rid of the emulsion on that side - which gives slightly sharper results with less density. It also makes tube development possible (it scratches the rear emulsion up pretty bad, so you just bleach it away, so no scratches).

Do you bleach before or after development

[Corran]

After. Usually right after fixing and washing while it's still wet.

[Derek Kennedy]

I was considering using hangers. my understanding is that using a red safety light I should be able to see what im doing instead of being in complete darkness of tray developing? I've read that tray development was not recommended.

Not sure I will attempt bleaching process until later. One step at a time.

Excellent point shooting multiple sheets, didnt think of that.

I more than likely will be waiting for things to warm up here as the cold temps are well...cold. been -20 to -37C the last month or so, and even colder with the wind. So I think I will be waiting until spring or at least doing some indoor shots (window lit mostly), as I cant stand not being able to take photos. I even started to try my hand at 8x10 paper negs to chase away the winter blues (or is that grays).

Thanks for your reply. You're giving me great information/recommendations which is why I came here in the first place.

Derek

[Corran]

I just developed 10 sheets in trays. Definitely no problem there. Personally I actually had fogging issues with my safelight for the first time ever but I think that's due to the red filter pulling away a bit from the front and having a sliver of yellowish light slipping through. Anyway, I don't use tanks or hangers for 8x10 so I can't comment on that.

That is pretty cold...good luck!

[UlbabraB]

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8615/16644875565_716237ebd6_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rmRkBc)Certosa di Ferrara - 1 (https://flic.kr/p/rmRkBc) by Filippo Natali (https://www.flickr.com/people/98545448@N00/), on Flickr

5x7" Matte albumen print (Zoe Zimmerman recipe, gold toned) on Fabriano Artistico paper from a Kodak T-Mat negative developed in Pyrocat-HD (EI 80, dilution 1+1+100, 9' in tray with continous gentle agitation)

[Chauncey Walden]

I'm finally getting closer to a normally printable neg. I had to go to tray development for the double sided after giving up on the Jobo. I couldn't get to a point with the Jobo where the back side would be developed evenly and even with the tray have to swap sides several times during development. I ended up at an EI of 64 to get full shadow detail and have been fighting the rapid contrast build up to stop it when the highlight details are there without blowing them out. Finally I resorted to a variation of Jim Galli's ortho-litho developer that pairs dilute Rodinal (1:200) with some restrainers (kind of like POTA) and used one of the Randy's mentioned superbright LEDs to check it. Not used to developing by inspection I let it go slightly too long and as a result it printed on grade 1 1/2. I just need to drop that time a couple of minutes to bring the contrast down a bit. With the single sided in the Jobo I am using dilute PMK (1:2:200) and I pulled the last test too soon and had to print on grade 4. I just need to add a few minutes to that one to bring the contrast up. If I were scanning the negs I could play games but I'm not.

[ndg]

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8615/16644875565_716237ebd6_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rmRkBc)Certosa di Ferrara - 1 (https://flic.kr/p/rmRkBc) by Filippo Natali (https://www.flickr.com/people/98545448@N00/), on Flickr

5x7" Matte albumen print (Zoe Zimmerman recipe, gold toned) on Fabriano Artistico paper from a Kodak T-Mat negative developed in Pyrocat-HD (EI 80, dilution 1+1+100, 9' in tray with continous gentle agitation)

Nicely done!

[premortho]

I develop by inspection under a LED red safelight. In trays. I use a water bath rinse. I prefer to develop at 65 degrees, rather than the 68 usually reccomended for pan films. I use Rodinal at 1 - 100. The water bath rinse allows the developer to work the shadows a little more, if you don't agitate the rinse. This is one of the oldest techniques in photography. My grand father started doing it this way in 1894, taught it to me in the 1940's, and I've used it ever since for ortho films, like X-ray film. I've tried other methods from time to time, but this is the easiest way to get good results. No mumbo-jumbo about trying to figure out development times, like you have to with pan films. Just use a light meter to get into the ballpark, remember to add one more stop of light per hour before and after 10.00 AM and 3.00 PM, and you will be very close to there.
Im not sure if i posted this on this site, or somewhere else, or if i just thought I did, but I got some 4x5 green x-ray film from the FPP.

Im seeing a wide range of dev times even with the same dilutions/developers. Id like to try my hand at this film this spring but as mentioned, such a wide range of times Im not sure where to start. Might even try some still life shots with it since its *way* too cold for me to venture outside with a camera.

All i have at hand for developers is HC-110 and Rodinal.

What do the x-ray guru's here at LFP suggest? Any help/guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Derek

[premortho]

There is another way to hold the high lights while helping the shadows. After you have developed by inspection ( when you think it's done, pull it out of the tray and look through the back side at the safelight, when you start to see shadow detail from the back, it's done) put it in a water bath for 2 -3 minutes without agitation. This will stop development in the highlights, while letting the developer work longer on the shadows.
I'm finally getting closer to a normally printable neg. I had to go to tray development for the double sided after giving up on the Jobo. I couldn't get to a point with the Jobo where the back side would be developed evenly and even with the tray have to swap sides several times during development. I ended up at an EI of 64 to get full shadow detail and have been fighting the rapid contrast build up to stop it when the highlight details are there without blowing them out. Finally I resorted to a variation of Jim Galli's ortho-litho developer that pairs dilute Rodinal (1:200) with some restrainers (kind of like POTA) and used one of the Randy's mentioned superbright LEDs to check it. Not used to developing by inspection I let it go slightly too long and as a result it printed on grade 1 1/2. I just need to drop that time a couple of minutes to bring the contrast down a bit. With the single sided in the Jobo I am using dilute PMK (1:2:200) and I pulled the last test too soon and had to print on grade 4. I just need to add a few minutes to that one to bring the contrast up. If I were scanning the negs I could play games but I'm not.

[ImSoNegative]

got some snow yesterday here in North Georgia, decided to get out the pinhole camera, shot on 8x10 xray film

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8628/16654090262_48d1a7eb42.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rnEyPh)snow (https://flic.kr/p/rnEyPh) by goldenimageworks65 (https://www.flickr.com/people/126756312@N03/), on Flickr

[Derek Kennedy]

I develop by inspection under a LED red safelight. In trays. I use a water bath rinse. I prefer to develop at 65 degrees, rather than the 68 usually reccomended for pan films. I use Rodinal at 1 - 100. The water bath rinse allows the developer to work the shadows a little more, if you don't agitate the rinse. This is one of the oldest techniques in photography. My grand father started doing it this way in 1894, taught it to me in the 1940's, and I've used it ever since for ortho films, like X-ray film. I've tried other methods from time to time, but this is the easiest way to get good results. No mumbo-jumbo about trying to figure out development times, like you have to with pan films. Just use a light meter to get into the ballpark, remember to add one more stop of light per hour before and after 10.00 AM and 3.00 PM, and you will be very close to there.


thanks for that info. I will definitely keep that in mind - the extra stop and the developing temp and water bath.

cant wait to try my hand at the x-ray film. Should be fairly mild this weekend so maybe I will venture out and get some test shots.

[Tin Can]

got some snow yesterday here in North Georgia, decided to get out the pinhole camera, shot on 8x10 xray film

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8628/16654090262_48d1a7eb42.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rnEyPh)snow (https://flic.kr/p/rnEyPh) by goldenimageworks65 (https://www.flickr.com/people/126756312@N03/), on Flickr

Very nice and a perfect usage of both pinhole and X-Ray. No need for excessive sharpness and so affordable.

Great image!

[Derek Kennedy]

do you need to worry about reciprocity failure while using x-ray film? Dont recall anyone mentioning it before

[ImSoNegative]

do you need to worry about reciprocity failure while using x-ray film? Dont recall anyone mentioning it before

I have used xray film in my titan pinhole camera which is f288 for times up to 30 minutes or so with no failure at all

[Andrew O'Neill]

X-ray is no different than other films when it comes to reciprocity effects. I have talked about it and posted curves on the other xray thread. I always compensate for it.

[Derek Kennedy]

thanks guys.

I'll search for your curves post

[Andrew O'Neill]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-X-ray-Film-example-and-comparison/page26

[Derek Kennedy]

thanks Andrew - I was going from the last page (p93) and my eyes started to get blurry about page 73, but I did read a lot of great info while searching.

[Tin Can]

We usually tell newbies to read all of both X-Ray threads and I have.

But a summation could be a great sticky for someone else to make ...

A difficult task as we all disagree so often.

[Andrew O'Neill]

The original xray thread is pretty good. Still think these two threads should be merged...

[Derek Kennedy]

yes ive noticed that myself which i believe is why i started asking questions - my issue was the discrepancy on a simple matter of developing times/dilutions.

Im liking the idea of using x-ray film for several reasons, cost savings being the main one as Ive recently acquired a 8x10 view camera and film is not cheap.

I've also gotten interested in trying my hand at paper negatives for the same reason.

I also simply just love photography and trying new (to me) ideas to keep the interest alive.

[ImSoNegative]

I just shot a couple more, heading to the darkroom now :)

[StoneNYC]

I was considering using hangers. my understanding is that using a red safety light I should be able to see what im doing instead of being in complete darkness of tray developing? I've read that tray development was not recommended.

Not sure I will attempt bleaching process until later. One step at a time.

Excellent point shooting multiple sheets, didnt think of that.

I more than likely will be waiting for things to warm up here as the cold temps are well...cold. been -20 to -37C the last month or so, and even colder with the wind. So I think I will be waiting until spring or at least doing some indoor shots (window lit mostly), as I cant stand not being able to take photos. I even started to try my hand at 8x10 paper negs to chase away the winter blues (or is that grays).

Thanks for your reply. You're giving me great information/recommendations which is why I came here in the first place.

Derek

Yea, it's been a balmy 0-15 degrees here.. Lol!

[ImSoNegative]

here are a couple more, had some dev. issues but oh well, they look nostalgic : ), these were shot with the rittreck view w/ 8x10 back 305 repro claron

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8605/16469828520_b88f72b778.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/r6obdG)downtown blue ridge ga. (https://flic.kr/p/r6obdG) by goldenimageworks65 (https://www.flickr.com/people/126756312@N03/), on Flickr

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8608/16034916404_2c89cc8147.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qqX8ZW)bench and depot, blue ridge ga. (https://flic.kr/p/qqX8ZW) by goldenimageworks65 (https://www.flickr.com/people/126756312@N03/), on Flickr

[ImSoNegative]

I am just glad xray film is cheap, I bet it was my fixer now that I look closer at them

[SergeiR]

yes ive noticed that myself which i believe is why i started asking questions - my issue was the discrepancy on a simple matter of developing times/dilutions..

Its not discrepancy. Its people either being anal or not. There is bunch of technical people who like temperatures, seconds, dilution to be exact, doing stuff by inspection & etc. There is other bunch, to which i belong, that doesn't care. Which group to choose is up to you. But thread got piles of information. Even listing back few pages - its not that hard.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

It's very nice
http://rockbullet.tk/55/o.png

Thank you.

[Derek Kennedy]

Im in the not too anal camp. Ya i like, and try to, write everything dow but sometimes i dont. I kinda prefer not to play around with times too much if what i used worked.

[Bazz8]

I am just glad xray film is cheap, I bet it was my fixer now that I look closer at them

Nice shots I too am working with xray film and my biggest hurdle is the light leaks on my Kodak 2D 8x10
sadly I am becoming quite an expert at this issue, hence my suggestion that the bench and depot shot may be a light leak rather than fixer.
So for what it is worth the sky and slightly darker section have very similar look as the sides are also light
leaks so worth checking.
Bazz8

[Randy]

I just took delivery of Vinny's 2000 ml developing tanks (Very well made - thanks Vinny) for processing my 8X10 X-ray film. I have been using trays for a couple years now (no uneven development problems) and have had good luck avoiding scratches occasionally but most of the time they persist.

I processed 4 sheets last night - two runs, as in my tanks I am limited to 2 sheets at a time - I am using Kodak 8X10 film hangers. My developer was Arista Premium Dev. diluted 1:18 @ 68 deg. for 9.5 minutes. I pre-soaked for a couple minutes then into the dev. I agitate about every 90 seconds by very slowly (about 6-8 seconds) raising the hangers all the way out of the dev, tilt to one side, then very slowly lower hangers back into the tank, then kind of rap them sharply to make sure any air bubbles shake loose. I alternate the tilt every agitation.

Anyway, I have uneven development all over the neg and evidence of over processing at the film edge due to dev. rushing through the hanger holes. I can live with the edge over processing if I have to, as I can just make sure to crop, but why am I getting uneven development? Not enough agitation?

One other wrench - I do use a safe-light, very dim red about 6 feet behind me, so dim that after 6-8 minutes in the dark I can still barely see the holders as I agitate. I have not had a problem with fogging when tray developing, but when tray developing the film gets much less exposure to the safe light. Could this uneven development actually be fogging from each time I pull the holders out of the dev?

Any recommendations?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/tanktest1.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/tanktest2.jpg

[Peter De Smidt]

Kodak has instructions for developing sheet film in hangers in a tank. Try finding those. I bet Vinny has some suggestions as well.

[Tin Can]

We had this discussion at Chicago's LFPF meeting last month.

You are following the suggested method.

Try way less agitation. I don't lift more than than an inch and never get the film out of the fluid.

I don't presoak. I rap once. I don't swish the film around.

Get rid of the unsafe light, unless it's X-Ray.

Pretty sure all the old guys cropped way more than we do these days.

Get a box of X-ray and practice. A lot. Use up 100 sheets of X-Ray that costs only $35. As we always say, YMMV.

Try different dilutions and developers.

[Randy]

Thanks Randy


Try way less agitation. I don't lift more than than an inch and never get the film out of the fluid.I will give this a try


I don't presoak. I rap once. I don't swish the film around.I presoaked when using trays with no problem...but will try not with tank.


Get rid of the unsafe light, unless it's X-Ray.It is X-ray.


Try different dilutions and developers.What direction is best for combating uneven development - shorter or longer development times (stronger or more dilute developer)?

[Tin Can]

Sorry! I forget we were talking X-Ray. In that case move the safe light closer! :)

Some of us like weak solutions. I use Rodinal of any type available, at 1/100 and 1/50, but some even go to 1/200. But always at least 10 ml per 80 sq". Again some use less...

Try stand development, which I have not, I just got four up 4x5 hangers for tanks and will get to that.

That said, I usually do 8X10 and larger in trays. I use hangers and tanks for 4X5 and smaller, lately a lot of 3x4.

I also use 3 tanks. First the developer, then a water stop tank no movement stand for 1 minute, then a fix and while fixing I wash out my #2 tank and use it for a wash with a submerged hose at trickle. Less pouring of chems than with a one tank system.

[premortho]

I don't think the safelight is the problem. I think the problem is in the agitation. Try Randy's technique. I never let the film come out of the developer, myself. I develop in trays with very gentle agitation. Try a dilute one shot developer. I use Rodinal 1-100. Then into a water bath with no agitation for about 2 minutes. This helps shadow detail somewhat.
Sorry! I forget we were talking X-Ray. In that case move the safe light closer! :)

Some of us like weak solutions. I use Rodinal of any type available, at 1/100 and 1/50, but some even go to 1/200. But always at least 10 ml per 80 sq". Again some use less...

Try stand development, which I have not, I just got four up 4x5 hangers for tanks and will get to that.

That said, I usually do 8X10 and larger in trays. I use hangers and tanks for 4X5 and smaller, lately a lot of 3x4.

I also use 3 tanks. First the developer, then a water stop tank no movement stand for 1 minute, then a fix and while fixing I wash out my #2 tank and use it for a wash with a submerged hose at trickle. Less pouring of chems than with a one tank system.

[Randy]

When I tray developed 8X10 X-ray film I have always used HC-110 1:63 with good results...except for the scratches. When I trayed Arista premium, 1:18 gave similar density to the HC-110 dilution at a similar dev time. Both I use as one-shot. For the tank development, following advice for agitation, would cutting my dev strength by say 50% and adding 50% to the dev time be a good place to start?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hangers can be a PITA. If you don't agitate enough, you end up with mottling like in your example. If you agitate too much/too vigorously, you end up with developer surge marks. The only way I could make it work is if I used a much more dilute developer (pyrocat-hd 30ml each solution to 6 litres water), agitate for first minute, then up/down twice every twenty minutes. With this method (semi-stand) I have gotten very even development and very sharp negatives.
I rarely use the hangers and much prefer flat-bottomed trays. I have never gotten scratches in trays.
I use double-side green as well as kodak single-sided, preferring the former for it's smoother rendition of tones.
I processed a negative using semi-stand earlier today. When it's dry I'll post it here.

[Randy]

Andrew, do you process one sheet at a time when you process in trays?

[Tin Can]

When I tray developed 8X10 X-ray film I have always used HC-110 1:63 with good results...except for the scratches. When I trayed Arista premium, 1:18 gave similar density to the HC-110 dilution at a similar dev time. Both I use as one-shot. For the tank development, following advice for agitation, would cutting my dev strength by say 50% and adding 50% to the dev time be a good place to start?

Thats about what I did.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, one sheet at a time in flat-bottomed trays. Constant gentle agitation, north/south east/west for the first 30 seconds, then 5 seconds every 2 minutes.

[mdarnton]

Don't blame hangers. Studios and labs have developed millions, maybe billions, of sheets of film in hangers with no problem at all. I can't even begin to imagine how many sheets of film I developed in hangers in the 60s, weddings, graduation pix, all sorts of things, with perfect results. Like anything else, if you don't try to learn how to do it, you won't learn how to do it. It's ridiculous to blame tools for your own shortcomings. Bah, humbug.

[Randy]

Michael, no tips, suggestions? I processed thousands of sheets of 4x5 Tri-X in 4 sheet hangers in 3.5 gal tanks during the 80's when I was an Air Force photographer. I managed to do it with even development and minimal surge marks. But now I am using 8x10 Xray film and 2 ltr tanks. When I attempt the exact method of agitation I used many years ago, I get uneven development and obvious surge marks. Me thinks there is a difference, I just don't know what...yet. Will continue experimenting.

[mdarnton]

As Randy Moe said, very gentle, shallow agitation. At the Chicago meeting we discussed how easy it is to over agitate--for instance, 35mm in cans I give one flip and two short twists, once a minute for long developing times, or twice a minute for short ones. I've seen people agitate roll film as if they were making cocktails! Bad!

For 8x10 hangers, I lift each corner about an inch, then slide the hangers back and forth once or twice, in line with the film. That's all. I wondered why this worked, then when I got a little red LED for developing by inspection and could see the image against developer time, I understood it. If you want to agitate more, do this same routine more often, don't do a more vigorous routine.

The main difference I see between regular film and xray is that if I'm too aggressive with xray, the film likes to pop out of the hangers--that's a problem I didn't used to have with regular film, even film packs, which were very thin. Bending the upper lip of the top hanger channel down just a little bit seems to help. It took me a lot of hanger purchases to figure this one out!


The other factor is to use only Kodak 4a hangers. They really do hold the film in a better way. I was having edge problems with other brands. The difference that I see is that the u-channels in other brands are parallel-sided. The channel of the Kodak 4a is V shaped with a little flat on the bottom, so that the channel doesn't touch the sides of the film. With the others, I think film was sticking to the channel irregularly, which not only had a direct effect, but also disturbed the developer flow. Plus, if you want (I don't) you can dry the film right in the Kodak hangers.

The other advantage to gentle agitation is that I don't have scratches and gouges anymore. Regular film is harder, I think, but also you only need to worry about one side. The softness of xray film is a real problem. I found when I was agitating harder I was getting scratches. I even got strange tracks vertically from lifting the hangers out of the developer the full height--they were almost like water abrasion marks---yes, I know, that's impossible. Note that I'm talking about the direction that would be 90 degrees from what you'd get from sliding film into holders, so it's not that. They showed on the film when wet as areas that looked like long scratches and repelled water, and then when dry as non-printing but visible markings on the film. All that went away when I calmed down.

Speaking of loading holders, as we weren't, someone, I forget who, sorry, suggested loading holders by pulling the slide all the way out, getting the film as closely as possible to its final spot, dropping only one side under the track first, arcing the film up and tracking the other side, and then you only need to slide the film a couple of mm home, rather than coming in all the way from the end. I can't make this work with 4x5, but it is really great for 5x7 and 8x10, and solves any possibility of scratches from that source.

[Randy]

Thanks a lot Michael. I will give your method of agitation a try. I really want to be able to process with hangers as I want to limit my fingers being in the chems so much. Do you use the same method with 4X5 panchromatic film in hangers?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Don't blame hangers. Studios and labs have developed millions, maybe billions, of sheets of film in hangers with no problem at all. I can't even begin to imagine how many sheets of film I developed in hangers in the 60s, weddings, graduation pix, all sorts of things, with perfect results. Like anything else, if you don't try to learn how to do it, you won't learn how to do it. It's ridiculous to blame tools for your own shortcomings. Bah, humbug.

I'm not one of those tennis players who look at their raquet after missing the ball. I stuck with it and made it work for me. Great way to do stand/semi-stand development. For "normal" development though, I prefer trays. In this case though, the RIGHT tray matters. Flat-bottomed.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I've been using hangers for all of my 8x10 for years with no problems. 4 at a time. Great for minimal and regular development. Gentile agitation is the key.

[mdarnton]

Thanks a lot Michael. I will give your method of agitation a try. I really want to be able to process with hangers as I want to limit my fingers being in the chems so much. Do you use the same method with 4X5 panchromatic film in hangers?

In the past I was a bit more frequent than once a minute with pan films because I'm using shorter development times there, but if I ever shoot a piece of pan film ever again, I will try it. Also, I've come to understand that if you can manage it, longer developing times are better for sheet films---that is, like at lower temps, higher dilutions. With roll films I am around 6-7 minutes, but sheet films develop more evenly with twice that, I think.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Here is the semi-stand test I did in hangers with double-sided x-ray. The semi-stand image on the left received constant agitation for a minute, followed by in/out, in/out every 20 minutes, for a total time of 45 minutes. Pyrocat-HD (30ml of solution A and B in 6 litres water). The image on the right was tray developed (flat-bottomed tray) in Pyrocat-HD (10ml of solution A and B in 1 litre water), constant gentle agitation for first 30 seconds (north/south, east/west), followed by one gentle agitation cycle of north/south, east/west every 2 minutes.
The semi-stand image is noticeably sharper.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Pre-exposure test. Image on the bottom was pre-exposed in the field, on zone I. Both negatives were tray developed. Double-sided green x-ray film.

[Tin Can]

Here is the semi-stand test I did in hangers with double-sided x-ray. The semi-stand image on the left received constant agitation for a minute, followed by in/out, in/out every 20 minutes, for a total time of 45 minutes. Pyrocat-HD (30ml of solution A and B in 6 litres water). The image on the right was tray developed (flat-bottomed tray) in Pyrocat-HD (10ml of solution A and B in 1 litre water), constant gentle agitation for first 30 seconds (north/south, east/west), followed by one gentle agitation cycle of north/south, east/west every 2 minutes.
The semi-stand image is noticeably sharper.

I sure am going to try this.

Thanks for the demo.

[Andrew O'Neill]

You are very welcome, Randy.

[andrewch59]

You are very welcome, Randy.

When I first started using xray I would make some decent (by my standards anyway(beginner)) negs, but would get the scratches and spoil the shot. Now I just have a companion piece of film (8x10 normally) with the emulsion cleaned off, that sits on the bottom of the tray, be it flat or grooved. I agitate constantly but gently and develop by inspection holding the neg up to the safe light. I try and only hold the small section of the neg that doesn't get exposed, the top or bottom 1/4 of an inch, use that same small section to peg the neg for drying. The same companion principle is used to load the neg into the film holder, I put a blank underneath the unexposed neg, load them both together, slide the unexposed neg home and pull out the blank, no probs.........so far!

[premortho]

Ah yes, I always forget something. I develop at 65 degrees, and thin out the soup until it takes fifteen minutes (or so) to complete development. Very gentle agitation, lifting the four corners of the tray slowly about a quarter inch. That's for the first minute, after that I repeat the whole routine about once a minute. I wear those supposedly impervious gloves to keep developer off my hands. I don't know why, as I've been tray developing for 65 years with wet hands and no problems, but I thought I oughta' do something "a la Moderne". After about 10 minutes, I check out progress by looking at my led safelight through the back. When I see shadow detail through the back starting, that's it. Don't keep the film out long enough to start to dry. Just a quick look.

[Chauncey Walden]

I just hung some B/RA negs to dry and am happy to report several things. One, I think I have arrived at a easily printable neg on grade 2 paper. I exposed at 64 and developed for 8:30 in 1.2 liters of developer with 8ml Rodinal, 4.5ml of 1% solution of potassium iodide and 24ml of 2% solution of benzotriazole with some agitation at 30 second intervals. Happy reporting number two is that this was in an old Kodak film pack tank which holds 12 negs in taco style. 12 negs? These were 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 negs shot in a 1915 RB Tele-Graflex. Happy reporting number 3 was that the old Graflex with its ancient bag mag performed perfectly. The negs were cut from the B/RA on a rotary cutter with a taped down stop using two sheets of film emulsion to emulsion thus no scratches. Really happy to report number 4 that all the cutting, bag mag loading, and taco tank loading was done under a red Superbright LED taking much more time than I would have liked and exposing the film to much more and brighter red light than I would have thought would not be injurious and with no effect on the film. The LED made things so easy. I do have to say that the way the film fits into the taco tank there remained a little anti halation on the back after washing in the tank but it went away very quickly in the final tray rinse of distilled water and Edwal LFN.

[Leszek Vogt]

Andrew, those comparison shots (wooded area) was one of the negatives "pre-flashed" ?...sorry, I missed that.

Les

[Tin Can]

I just hung some B/RA negs to dry and am happy to report several things. One, I think I have arrived at a easily printable neg on grade 2 paper. I exposed at 64 and developed for 8:30 in 1.2 liters of developer with 8ml Rodinal, 4.5ml of 1% solution of potassium iodide and 24ml of 2% solution of benzotriazole with some agitation at 30 second intervals. Happy reporting number two is that this was in an old Kodak film pack tank which holds 12 negs in taco style. 12 negs? These were 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 negs shot in a 1915 RB Tele-Graflex. Happy reporting number 3 was that the old Graflex with its ancient bag mag performed perfectly. The negs were cut from the B/RA on a rotary cutter with a taped down stop using two sheets of film emulsion to emulsion thus no scratches. Really happy to report number 4 that all the cutting, bag mag loading, and taco tank loading was done under a red Superbright LED taking much more time than I would have liked and exposing the film to much more and brighter red light than I would have thought would not be injurious and with no effect on the film. The LED made things so easy. I do have to say that the way the film fits into the taco tank there remained a little anti halation on the back after washing in the tank but it went away very quickly in the final tray rinse of distilled water and Edwal LFN.

Good to hear of your success and your Centennial camera!

My 18 shot 3x4 Bag Mag is loaded with Ektascan and I have a working RB, but I have 3x4 hangers to do the load.

I have never used a Bag Mag or RB but I have dry fired it enough to be ready.

Soon...

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew, those comparison shots (wooded area) was one of the negatives "pre-flashed" ?...sorry, I missed that.

Les

Yes. Pre-flashed in the field. I have a piece of translucent plastic that I read the scene through with my metre, then place over the camera lens.

[Leszek Vogt]

Thanks, Andrew.

Les

[salvatore]

When I tray developed 8X10 X-ray film I have always used HC-110 1:63 with good results...except for the scratches. When I trayed Arista premium, 1:18 gave similar density to the HC-110 dilution at a similar dev time. Both I use as one-shot. For the tank development, following advice for agitation, would cutting my dev strength by say 50% and adding 50% to the dev time be a good place to start?

How long was the development time in HC-110 1:63?

[Randy]

How long was the development time in HC-110 1:63?8 minutes using CXS Green Latitude film

[salvatore]

8 minutes using CXS Green Latitude film

Thank you very much, Randy.
I used a time of 10 minutes with a similar dilution(2ml HC-110 syrup+100ml water). I think you had a temperature around 20°C. True?
Moreover I have read somewhere that it is possible to use more diluted solutions if the development time is increased accordingly (almost inversely proportional in some range)
But what is the amount of developer required for a given film area? How much for a 4x5"?
Thanks for your attention,
Salvatore

[salvatore]

Hangers can be a PITA. If you don't agitate enough, you end up with mottling like in your example. If you agitate too much/too vigorously, you end up with developer surge marks. The only way I could make it work is if I used a much more dilute developer (pyrocat-hd 30ml each solution to 6 litres water), agitate for first minute, then up/down twice every twenty minutes. With this method (semi-stand) I have gotten very even development and very sharp negatives.
I rarely use the hangers and much prefer flat-bottomed trays. I have never gotten scratches in trays.
I use double-side green as well as kodak single-sided, preferring the former for it's smoother rendition of tones.
I processed a negative using semi-stand earlier today. When it's dry I'll post it here.

I am a real beginner with film development, and absolute beginner with double coated negative films like Xray's, but I like to share with you my first experiences.
I needed to develop small negatives, 4x4 cm each, and after having many scratches due to rough manipulations, I built a simple holder in this way.
On a sheet of plexiglas about the size of the tray (about 12x20 cm) I glued three strips of the same material along the longer side, one, large 1 cm, in the center, and two, large 7 mm, parallel to the central, and at a distance of about 3.6 cm from the border of the central strip.
The strips were sanded in one edge to create a small indentation to keep the film. By placing the film between the central strip and one or the other side ones, the film arcuates a little, since it is larger than the available space between the strips.
The sheet charged of film is placed in the tray and covered with the developer.
A plexiglas bar, sealed to the sheet, allows some manipulation of the submerged sheet.
And some manipulation was actually performed in the first few minutes, then every three or four minutes, until the end (after 10 minutes)
I used always a Philips red lamp placed at about 1 meter from the tray, with no fogging.
I hope to be of some utility for small film development. With the same principle I prepared a holder for a 9x12 film and it worked fine.
I don't know if it will still work with larger sheets, like the 18x24cm Fujifilm I have.

[Corran]

I finally got around to scanning this and wrote a little blog post about how this image was made. Here's the photo:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kSYweTiUbCQ/VQCVBuJ2N-I/AAAAAAAAG3U/uvRJaAxDjZg/s1600/812-1600_stitchs.jpg

Here's a link to the blog post (http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/2015/03/8x20-almost.html) if you would like to read about my continuing 8x20 tribulations (this was when that image was shot of me and the banquet camera a few weeks ago).

[jp]

The tones on that are REALLY nice for xray film. You're on to something good.

http://www.tillmancrane.com/portfolio_alabama.php Tillman has a couple wide format swamp photos here, and I've seen more on his wall, but it's good shape for what you're after.

[Corran]

Thanks for the link!

I'll be honest, I did a big curves adjustment on the top half of the image. I used a 2-stop GND but it was still very bright due to the green-sensitive x-ray film and the abundance of green foliage. I also overexposed the sheets because I miscalculated my f-stop (I'm using a borrowed shutter from another lens and totally messed up my calculations by over a stop). That said, Acufine seems to give me the best overall results with this film. Bleaching one side still seems to be the best course of action for my usage (it's Fuji HR-T btw for those interested).

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Bryan, nice looking image regardless. You will love the 8 x 20 when you get it done.
I still have to look into cutting down some 14x36 x-ray film. Luckily I have a good supply of 8x20 film now.

[Corran]

Thanks Jim! I was looking at the 14x36 film too - if you ever get around to doing that please let me know!! I don't have the equipment, space, time, or patience to try cutting down film right now so I would be happy to buy some from you.

[Tri Tran]

Title: Daffodils
8x10 in Xray Film
Printed in Hot press Fine Art Paper.
Lens: Taylor Hobson Cooke Portrait lens Soft IV

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/908/Ns0Y6b.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/p8Ns0Y6bj)

[StoneNYC]

Title: Daffodils
8x10 in Xray Film
Printed in Hot press Fine Art Paper.
Lens: Taylor Hobson Cooke Portrait lens Soft IV

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/908/Ns0Y6b.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/p8Ns0Y6bj)

Did you shoot this as a test for the collodion shot or just in addition to?

[Tri Tran]

Did you shoot this as a test for the collodion shot or just in addition to?

They are two difference images with two differences processes. Hope this helps.

[StoneNYC]

They are two difference images with two differences processes. Hope this helps.

It helps a lot, it tells me I am blind!!! :)

[Tin Can]

I don't recall this being addressed.

Kodak/Carestream sells UV duplicating 'wet development' X-Ray film. It is designed for copying X-Ray negatives on a special copy box with UV light source. Big warning on ZZ' site, don't buy for contact printing with WHITE light. My warning is, only insane experimenters should even think about buying and trying it. THIS IS A WARNING. IT MAY NOT WORK. I DON"T KNOW! DON'T BUY THIS FILM!

But what if we used it UV or IR type negative production?

http://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/kodak-x-ray-film/14x17-in-carestream-kodak-duplicating-x-ray-film-white-box.html

Then this discussion. http://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-infrared-ultraviolet.html

And this http://petapixel.com/2013/04/19/a-beginners-guide-to-uv-reflectance-in-photography/

Instructions, notice it produces a positive and exposure to density is reversed from normal film. http://www.wolfxray.com/images/Wolf%20Film%20Duplicator%20Operating%20Instructions.pdf?phpMyAdmin=7293217a7390a8f1d2ebea89463bbe2e

I really think somebody must have already tried it!

[kanga]

I taking pictures to Green sensitive X-ray film.
What should I do if I want to dramatic dark sky in the B & W image?
Red filter is not good for this purpose, maybe the yellow?

[Gregg Obst]

I taking pictures to Green sensitive X-ray film.
What should I do if I want to dramatic dark sky in the B & W image?
Red filter is not good for this purpose, maybe the yellow?

Wouldn't a simple graduated ND filter work here just as well as anything else? Assuming an open landscape, you are not trying to do anything additive or subtractive to any one color, you are just trying to darken the sky in general.

[kanga]

Wouldn't a simple graduated ND filter work here just as well as anything else? Assuming an open landscape, you are not trying to do anything additive or subtractive to any one color, you are just trying to darken the sky in general.

Normal mature film works the red filter.

[Bazz8]

130711
new research science building Adelaide with new hospital
construction behind it.
Kodak 2D 8x10 Fuji HRT
exposure f9 7min 35sec
Scan of print

[Tin Can]

I don't recall this being addressed.

Kodak/Carestream sells UV duplicating 'wet development' X-Ray film. It is designed for copying X-Ray negatives on a special copy box with UV light source. Big warning on ZZ' site, don't buy for contact printing with WHITE light. My warning is, only insane experimenters should even think about buying and trying it. THIS IS A WARNING. IT MAY NOT WORK. I DON"T KNOW! DON'T BUY THIS FILM!

But what if we used it UV or IR type negative production?

http://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/kodak-x-ray-film/14x17-in-carestream-kodak-duplicating-x-ray-film-white-box.html

Then this discussion. http://people.rit.edu/andpph/text-infrared-ultraviolet.html

And this http://petapixel.com/2013/04/19/a-beginners-guide-to-uv-reflectance-in-photography/

Instructions, notice it produces a positive and exposure to density is reversed from normal film. http://www.wolfxray.com/images/Wolf%20Film%20Duplicator%20Operating%20Instructions.pdf?phpMyAdmin=7293217a7390a8f1d2ebea89463bbe2e

I really think somebody must have already tried it!

Found this info from an eBay seller. It makes sense, but doesn't answer all questions.

"Sensitometric comparison of unexpired and expired duplicating films used in dentistry.

This investigation compared the sensitometric properties of unexpired and expired duplicating films. The characteristic curve derived for a duplicating film is the negative slope of a solarization curve; that is, it is different in direction to that of a regular x-ray film. An expired duplicating film is slower than an unexpired duplicating film. Unlike a negative working film, which gains fog past its expiration date, a positive working film (for example, a duplicating film) gains contrast past its expiration date. An expired duplicating film has a narrower latitude than that of an unexpired duplicating film for a useful density range. Clinically, a duplicating film can be used years after its expiration date even though there is a change in its speed and contrast. Thunky K.H. / Weinberg R." (251877080238} which is supplied only for Fair Use Copyright permission.

[premortho]

I like the way that lens kind of fades into soft. Nice job, and great exposure.
Title: Daffodils
8x10 in Xray Film
Printed in Hot press Fine Art Paper.
Lens: Taylor Hobson Cooke Portrait lens Soft IV

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/908/Ns0Y6b.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/p8Ns0Y6bj)

[premortho]

What is "normal mature film"? If you mean panchromatic film, then yes, a red filter will make the sky dark. On Ortho film the red filter makes the sky go black. A medium yellow (a 2X yellow filter) gives the sky a normal look. The darker yellow the filter, the darker the sky.
Normal mature film works the red filter.

[stiganas]

This uninspiring image

130735

is a green X-ray reversed. It is a positive. I've done nothing special just the classic bleaching/clearing and development with a paper developer and it turn out surprisingly good (the scan is bad). Not so useful unless I hang it on the window.

The paper reversal on the other hand is not so easy.

[Tin Can]

This uninspiring image

130735

is a green X-ray reversed. It is a positive. I've done nothing special just the classic bleaching/clearing and development with a paper developer and it turn out surprisingly good (the scan is bad). Not so useful unless I hang it on the window.

The paper reversal on the other hand is not so easy.

Yes, that is interesting.

Thanks for showing us, what I believe we have not seen before, meaning a Positive X-Ray transparency.

Show us more, when you do more!

[StoneNYC]

Yes, that is interesting.

Thanks for showing us, what I believe we have not seen before, meaning a Positive X-Ray transparency.

Show us more, when you do more!

I've been doing X-Ray transparency for some time now, but they are all nudes ;)

[Tin Can]

I've been doing X-Ray transparency for some time now, but they are all nudes ;)

Like the emperor with no clothes?

[StoneNYC]

Example (test, 8x10 X-Ray Positive)

130778

[Tin Can]

I see.

How do you like your results?

[StoneNYC]

I see.

How do you like your results?

Seems like a "judgy" phrasing. Anyway I like them fine, exactly as I expected and useful for an art project I'm working on as part of a business plan.

[Corran]

Huh? Did you process that yourself? Or are you enlarging onto it or something? I've done that with poor results, trying x-ray as a substitute for lith film.

[Tin Can]

Seems like a "judgy" phrasing. Anyway I like them fine, exactly as I expected and useful for an art project I'm working on as part of a business plan.

Stone, I cannot judge your results from your shared image.

If you notice I never 'judge' any images, I simply say I like them and never say I don't like them. I don't critique.

It was a simple question that only you can answer.

That's all, no persecution intended.

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I cannot judge your results from your shared image.

If you notice I never 'judge' any images, I simply say I like them and never say I don't like them. I don't critique.

It was a simple question that only you can answer.

That's all, no persecution intended.

Sorry, text can be hard to "read" I'm very happy with the outcome.

[StoneNYC]

Huh? Did you process that yourself? Or are you enlarging onto it or something? I've done that with poor results, trying x-ray as a substitute for lith film.

Processed in Sprint at Paper dilution. I find Lith film to catch fingerprints too easily and it's so ... Thin, it's just a pain, so tried X-Ray, it works, everyone has a style.

[StoneNYC]

Guys this whole X-ray filter convo should be in the OTHER X-Ray discussion thread.

[StoneNYC]

I don't usually shoot portraits (if you can call this a portrait even) but I have borrowed a friends 11x14 as I have lenses and a single holder, and was visiting my friend and decided I wanted to give it a shot, well I had no lighting and so the meter read something like 15-25 seconds (I forget) which I estimated with reciprocity to be 3 minutes long with this X-Ray film, I was pretty spot on.

Anyway 3 minute exposure f/32, 11x14 AGFA Curix in Rodinal, rotary tank.

130787

[stiganas]

Very nice. My film have a blue tint (I think it was the blue not the green one). How do you intent to use (show) the positive ?

I use a bleach bath bichromate 50g/sulphuric acid 50g per 1l diluted 1:9 and clearing bath 50g/l sulfite. I made the solutions for a friend desperate of the high price of Foma reversal kit and this opened my appetite to play with paper and Xray film reversal.

Funny part I see now paper as luxury/expensive compared with Xray. I tested Xray in 4x5 holders and paper in 6x7 holders (with Mamiya RB67)


Example (test, 8x10 X-Ray Positive)

130778

[premortho]

Yes, that's true. Assuming he even knows of the other X-ray thread.
Guys this whole X-ray filter convo should be in the OTHER X-Ray discussion thread.

[Corran]

Processed in Sprint at Paper dilution. I find Lith film to catch fingerprints too easily and it's so ... Thin, it's just a pain, so tried X-Ray, it works, everyone has a style.

So you are saying it is an enlargement onto the x-ray film.

[Primo Itch]

Example (test, 8x10 X-Ray Positive)

130778

Hello,

What kind/brand of film are you using? It seems to have a very light base, unlike the very very blue base I have on the film I'm using...

[StoneNYC]

Very nice. My film have a blue tint (I think it was the blue not the green one). How do you intent to use (show) the positive ?
(...snip)

Since I haven't finished the project I'll hold back on my intentions just yet but I'll share when it's done.

I applaud your reversal efforts, I'm not that advanced.


So you are saying it is an enlargement onto the x-ray film.

Duplicate would be a more appropriate word than enlargement.


Hello,

What kind/brand of film are you using? It seems to have a very light base, unlike the very very blue base I have on the film I'm using...

Kodak Ektascan 8x10, it's bluer than the picture but less so than my AGFA Curix X-Ray film.

[Corran]

Duplicate would be a more appropriate word than enlargement.


Why are you being so coy? So a contact print from an 8x10 original negative.

I experimented with enlarging a 35mm onto 8x10 x-ray film for an internegative and then contact printing that for a final negative for alt processes. The final neg was extremely soft just by eye. I postulated it was because of the double-sided emulsion so did not test further. Too much trouble to bleach the interneg and final neg. I'd rather shoot original camera negatives for alt process anyway rather than enlarge a small format negative, if I was to get back into Kallitypes.

[StoneNYC]

Why are you being so coy? So a contact print from an 8x10 original negative.

I experimented with enlarging a 35mm onto 8x10 x-ray film for an internegative and then contact printing that for a final negative for alt processes. The final neg was extremely soft just by eye. I postulated it was because of the double-sided emulsion so did not test further. Too much trouble to bleach the interneg and final neg. I'd rather shoot original camera negatives for alt process anyway rather than enlarge a small format negative, if I was to get back into Kallitypes.

Bleaching one side of the emulsion isn't that hard, here I made a video tutorial for it.

https://youtu.be/S9WuGkhdjDQ

[Corran]

Stone, notice I said it was too much trouble, not too hard. I have bleached at least 100 x-ray negs. I have posted many tutorials for it - I believe I told you yourself how to do it years ago. It's not worth it to bother when lith film is better (or best, shooting original LF camera negs). If you have problems with fingerprints, wear nitrile gloves.

In terms of positives, I am planning on trying x-ray film for original positives using a bleaching/toner process. On my bucket list anyway.

[Heespharm]

Bleaching one side of the emulsion isn't that hard, here I made a video tutorial for it.

https://youtu.be/S9WuGkhdjDQ

Good video ! Thanks... Does glass work well to tape down the negative to? Or would there be a problem with that...

[StoneNYC]

Good video ! Thanks... Does glass work well to tape down the negative to? Or would there be a problem with that...

Glass is actually BETTER, I just don't have any large sheets of glass bigger than 11x14 to tape them to, but yes glass or plexiglass would be ideal (just make sure there's no grit or scratches on the surface, you don't want to scratch the GOOD emulsion side from abrasion).

I also used special newsprint paper that was unprinted just for the video example, I normally just use regular newspaper...

[Heespharm]

Glass is actually BETTER, I just don't have any large sheets of glass bigger than 11x14 to tape them to, but yes glass or plexiglass would be ideal (just make sure there's no grit or scratches on the surface, you don't want to scratch the GOOD emulsion side from abrasion).

I also used special newsprint paper that was unprinted just for the video example, I normally just use regular newspaper...

Go to lowe's and buy a thin piece of polycarbonate and have them cut it to sizeBleach does erode it after a time but a long time ... After all they use them in fish tanks and we used to use bleach to clean fish tanks at the old fish shop I worked at... Also it's cheap and won't break

[StoneNYC]

Go to lowe's and buy a thin piece of polycarbonate and have them cut it to sizeBleach does erode it after a time but a long time ... After all they use them in fish tanks and we used to use bleach to clean fish tanks at the old fish shop I worked at... Also it's cheap and won't break

When my darkroom is up and running this summer I'll purchase that kind of stuff, for now it's paper, thanks!

[Michael R]

Someone posted this link on another forum and I figured I'd put it here just for general interest since quite a few of the pictures relate specifically to Kodak's x-ray film (made for Carestream) on the blue-tinted ESTAR base.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/2015/03/14/kodak-makes-film-rochester/70299168/

[Rick Olson]

First attempt at x-ray. Fuji Super RX-N Blue, 7" x 17" with cutting to 5" x 7" for loading/shooting. Developed in Pyrocat-HD. Used a Paterson tank with constant agitation to avoid mottling of double-sided emulsion.

Rick

130976

[andrewch59]

130979
This was taken on my Deardorff studio using a peerless portrait lens and half speed blue xray film, excuse the poor quality of the reproduction, scanned on my wifes work printer

[Rick Olson]

Thought I would post this here also ... as it's in the "Images shot on X-Ray film" category.

First attempt at x-ray. Fuji Super RX-N, 7" x 17" with cutting to 5" x 7" for loading/shooting. Developed in Pyrocat-HD. Used a Paterson tank with constant agitation to avoid mottling of double-sided emulsion.

Rick

131027

[Tin Can]

Yes, that's true. Assuming he even knows of the other X-ray thread.

Heck, now we have 3 X-Ray threads, since I started Tiny Format X-Ray thread, which needs a bump and practitioners. Can't post those here.



http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?120897-Tiny-Format-X-Ray-images

[salvatore]

Bleaching one side of the emulsion isn't that hard, here I made a video tutorial for it.

https://youtu.be/S9WuGkhdjDQ

My compliments for the clarity of your video.
But by removing one sensitive layer you obviously half the maximum optical density reachable with the original two layers.
Do you know which optical density you can reach with a single layer?

[andrewch59]

I agree Salvatore, unless it is just for scratch reduction, I would think two sides would give greater density. I eventually want to use my negatives to do salt and albumen printing, I think the added density would make for better prints.

[premortho]

Very nice work, especially for a first attempt.
First attempt at x-ray. Fuji Super RX-N Blue, 7" x 17" with cutting to 5" x 7" for loading/shooting. Developed in Pyrocat-HD. Used a Paterson tank with constant agitation to avoid mottling of double-sided emulsion.

Rick

130976

[premortho]

I really like this portrait. If it's not asking for a trade secret, what stop did you use, and the length of exposure. Some lens!
130979
This was taken on my Deardorff studio using a peerless portrait lens and half speed blue xray film, excuse the poor quality of the reproduction, scanned on my wifes work printer

[andrewch59]

Hi Premortho, thanks, I was trying very hard to get a soft shot and hide those life lines women hate so much, so I used it wide open, I think the peerless is about f4.6?
about half a sec I think. It wasn't soft enough and the sitter hated it, I now have a couple of softies added to the arsenal.

[StoneNYC]

My compliments for the clarity of your video.
But by removing one sensitive layer you obviously half the maximum optical density reachable with the original two layers.
Do you know which optical density you can reach with a single layer?

In terms of what x-ray film is designed for the reason that there are two sides is specifically to allow for less x-ray exposure to be needed in order to expose the same image, so the double density helps to reduce the amount of x-ray radiation that is needed in order to get a decent x-ray.

That said, when using it for normal light photography use, basically I assume the same thing applies however, I specifically plan to remove one side of the emulsion, so the density is a little thicker to begin with then it should be and stripping one side gives me the proper density for my work.

There are two things to keep in mind, one thing is that most people when shooting such large film or not enlarging it, they are simply contact printing, so "clarity" isn't ass necessary, however if you're cutting it down down or enlarging it in some way, then you'll want the image to be sharp, so it's best if you face the film toward the light, and then strip the "back side" because that second layer has had light passing through the base material and scattering the light ever so slightly, this COULD cause fuzzy edges when enlarging.

So I guess it depends on what you want to get out of the film really.

Sorry if that was a scattered thought, I hope it was sort of clear.

[StoneNYC]

11x14 Century - AGFA Curix - Rodinal- 150mm f/11 - Mother Nature's Fog

131072

[Rory_5244]

Lovely, Stone!

[Carl J]

11x14 Century - AGFA Curix - Rodinal- 150mm f/11 - Mother Nature's Fog

131072

+1

[leighmarrin]

...It wasn't soft enough and the sitter hated it...

There's a famous quote from actress Tallulah Bankhead: "They used to photograph Shirley Temple through gauze. They should
photograph me through linoleum."

[andrewch59]

;););)

[salvatore]

In terms of what x-ray film is designed for the reason that there are two sides is specifically to allow for less x-ray exposure to be needed in order to expose the same image, so the double density helps to reduce the amount of x-ray radiation that is needed in order to get a decent x-ray.

That said, when using it for normal light photography use, basically I assume the same thing applies however, I specifically plan to remove one side of the emulsion, so the density is a little thicker to begin with then it should be and stripping one side gives me the proper density for my work.

There are two things to keep in mind, one thing is that most people when shooting such large film or not enlarging it, they are simply contact printing, so "clarity" isn't ass necessary, however if you're cutting it down down or enlarging it in some way, then you'll want the image to be sharp, so it's best if you face the film toward the light, and then strip the "back side" because that second layer has had light passing through the base material and scattering the light ever so slightly, this COULD cause fuzzy edges when enlarging.

So I guess it depends on what you want to get out of the film really.

Sorry if that was a scattered thought, I hope it was sort of clear.

Thank you. You have been very clear and I agree completely.
Actually I am trying to define a standard procedure to get a large negative from the sources available to me , which are b/w 24x36 and 6x6 negatives, 24x36 slides, 24x36 colour negatives, and finally digital images.
Considering for the moment the 24x36 b/w negatives I intend to use x ray film for duplicating/reversing a b/w 24x36 film, stripping the opposite emulsion and enlarging on a normal xray film, to get a negative to be used for gum or carbon printing.
For the 24x36 slides I see the only possibility in enlarging them on an orthocromatic film, unless I don't care about red blindness of xray film.
I have no plan for the 24x36 color negative, so I keep them apart for the moment, even if I have a lot of them.
I hope to use the digital images by projecting them on a 18x24 cm xray film by means of a rudimental camera/optical bench I made.

[Rick Olson]

Outdoor Test: Olympia WA

Shen-Hao 5 x 7 with Fuji 210 WS. Fuji film RX-N Blue developed in Pyrocat-HD. Cropped and toned.

131307

[principiante]

Hi, can someone tell me the difference between green and blue sensitive?

Has anyone tried Fuji HR-U? (not hr-u30)

if I'm not mistaken, is orthochromatic, I could use with red light?

many thanks

[StoneNYC]

Hi, can someone tell me the difference between green and blue sensitive?

Has anyone tried Fuji HR-U? (not hr-u30)

if I'm not mistaken, is orthochromatic, I could use with red light?

many thanks

There's no difference, I've had a further talk with my X-Ray tech friend, he explained that the green and blue have to do with the "screens" they use, in X-Ray world, the screen has a phosphorous layer facing the film that is sensitive to X-Ray waves and luminesces when it is bombarded with X-Rays, the screen labeled blue or green and is placed in a holder with blue or green film, now I guess you can mix and match the screens (use a blue screen with a green film) and that will for example HALF the speed of the film, but all films for X-Ray with the screens are considered 400 speed films. It's the screens that are used that change the speed.

That said he and I do not know if the green and blue are actually more sensitive to green or blue light, or if the phosphorous in the blue screens luminesces more blue and the green screens luminesces more green, not sure.

So I have to apologize for my statement that green films are 400 speed, because that's all dependent on the screen used.

Which in normal photography we don't use a screen at all.

He works at Yale and hasn't used film in probably ten years since they obviously have very modern digital equipment, so he couldn't experiment for me or anything.

We did have a laugh when I mentioned the film being "Ortho" film as to him, that meant orthopedic, haha, but again he only studied with film in school but as soon as he started working it was all digital.

I find it all fascinating.

Suffice to say he did say that he was able to read the details and recommend certain films to me that might be inherently more contrasty or inherently less contrasty depending on certain factors and we'll sit down at some point to go over all that in person.

Also, as far as I know all X-Ray film is Orthochromatic, so yes you can use a red/amber light, some of it is more or less sensitive but just test it out, I can say that AGFA CURIX UV-G and Kodak EKTASCAN are both just fine under an amber Thomas' Deluxe safelight.

[Corran]

Wrong. Having the sensitization centered on a certain spectrum of color can make a big difference on the resultant image. Yes, they are both "ortho" and not sensitive to red light, but being blue or green sensitive is still important - for instance, blue will be much more sensitive to the sky and shadow colors, hence why many people adjust their ISO depending on the time of day when using this film. Also it is why foliage shows up so bright when I use green sensitive film.

Here's a spectral sensitivity chart I found for some green film. You can see how it drops off after hitting a peak in the green area, not the blue.

This explains why the blue/green screens give half/full speed. But you really shouldn't tell a newbie they are the "same."

131532

[Fr. Mark]

I would also suggest not using an amber safelight w/o testing. Red is safe in my experience but I initially had a lot of fogged film that seemed to trace to an amber safelight. And, I really question the idea of the X-ray film being 400 speed in the usual film sense. Lots of people using film meters find it rates around 64-80 speed in mid-day daylight and speed reduces a lot as the day is earlier or later due to the change in the color of the light out doors. Indoors color temperature matters for exposure too: incandescent or "warm" lights (lower color temperature) is a lot slower (?a couple stops?) than your meter will indicate when compared to daylight (higher color temp bulbs).

"Ortho" is a Greek derived prefix relating to position as used in Organic chemistry. Generally it means "right" as in correct, straight etc. hence for Orthopedic straight bones. Not sure how it was applied to film originally. But it seems to mean now B/W film that is sensitive to more of the visible spectrum than daguerreotype or typical wet plate or most home made dry plates which are sensitive to UV and Blue. Certain dyes extend the spectral sensitivity of the emulsion. Initially to the green region (orthochromatic film) and eventually to red (panchromatic or all sensitive, the Greek "pan" = all in English)

Based on examples seen here, to my eyes, blue x-ray looks more like daguerreotype or tintypes whereas green or Ortho film prints look different and pan films (artista edu, Tmax, tri-x, ilford etc) look different again.

Ymmv

[Ralph Weimer]

My Navy fleet hospital (500 beds in a tent with expandable ISO containers) was initially supplied with green-flashing intensifying screens and blue sensitive film. The two are entirely incompatible, and half-speed doesn't begin to describe the huge increase of radiation needed to produce even a grossly under exposed radiogram. The various films are mated to their proper screens for optimal performance. A mismatch results in a terrible failure radiographically.
Pictorially, the films respond differently to objects of different colors in different ways, like wet plate and panchrome b/w films do. Film speed has been addressed in this thread several times already.

R

[premortho]

Good post, Fr. Mark. I use only a red safelight, actually a LED safelight, and I even gave that lite the CD prism test. All orthochromatic films are blind to red light. I use blue sensitve X-ray film when I want that pre 1900 look, and Ektascan when I want the true ortho look. Green X-ray film is a milder orthochromatic film than Ektascan, maybe, but Ektascan is backed with an anti-halation layer which comes off during development. Don't be surprised by this variation of various films to light. Pan film also is. There used to be 3 different Pan films in their recording of light. Pan-A, B, C. Now there is only one Type A pan film - Fuji Acros. Everything else is Type C which is really over-corrected for red light.
I would also suggest not using an amber safelight w/o testing. Red is safe in my experience but I initially had a lot of fogged film that seemed to trace to an amber safelight. And, I really question the idea of the X-ray film being 400 speed in the usual film sense. Lots of people using film meters find it rates around 64-80 speed in mid-day daylight and speed reduces a lot as the day is earlier or later due to the change in the color of the light out doors. Indoors color temperature matters for exposure too: incandescent or "warm" lights (lower color temperature) is a lot slower (?a couple stops?) than your meter will indicate when compared to daylight (higher color temp bulbs).

"Ortho" is a Greek derived prefix relating to position as used in Organic chemistry. Generally it means "right" as in correct, straight etc. hence for Orthopedic straight bones. Not sure how it was applied to film originally. But it seems to mean now B/W film that is sensitive to more of the visible spectrum than daguerreotype or typical wet plate or most home made dry plates which are sensitive to UV and Blue. Certain dyes extend the spectral sensitivity of the emulsion. Initially to the green region (orthochromatic film) and eventually to red (panchromatic or all sensitive, the Greek "pan" = all in English)

Based on examples seen here, to my eyes, blue x-ray looks more like daguerreotype or tintypes whereas green or Ortho film prints look different and pan films (artista edu, Tmax, tri-x, ilford etc) look different again.

Ymmv

[StoneNYC]

Good post, Fr. Mark. I use only a red safelight, actually a LED safelight, and I even gave that lite the CD prism test. All orthochromatic films are blind to red light. I use blue sensitve X-ray film when I want that pre 1900 look, and Ektascan when I want the true ortho look. Green X-ray film is a milder orthochromatic film than Ektascan, maybe, but Ektascan is backed with an anti-halation layer which comes off during development. Don't be surprised by this variation of various films to light. Pan film also is. There used to be 3 different Pan films in their recording of light. Pan-A, B, C. Now there is only one Type A pan film - Fuji Acros. Everything else is Type C which is really over-corrected for red light.

Wouod you be willing to post more about this in the "x-ray images and examples" thread which is more for discussion as opposed to this one that's about image sharing? Or create a new thread about the various pan films, this is interesting and I would be interested to learn more. I always knew that Acros was sensitive somehow differently than other pan films which is why I try and use it exclusively for my landscape work, but also for modeling work sometimes, has a different look I like a lot. Anyway if you wouldn't mind posting more info about this elsewhere that would be awesome!

Be well,

~Stone

[Bazz8]

good stuff looks a very workable unit ,good contacted prints
Bazz8

[Bazz8]

Shot of Adelaides medical research centre after finally sorting some light leaks with my Kodak2D.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7649/16594773437_e84f022126_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rhqxZp)Scan-150313-0002 (https://flic.kr/p/rhqxZp) by barsus2001 (https://www.flickr.com/people/14389776@N06/), on Flickr
This shot was a 19min35sec exposure at f16 on the G-Claron 270mm lens
Scan of fibre contact print FomabronIII
behind the cranes on the top right is the flightpath to Adelaide airport hence the line and intermittent flashes.

[ImSoNegative]

one shot today with an 8x10 pinhole,

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7648/16817932918_d73d06c2b9_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rC9iwE)old cemetry blue ridge ga. (https://flic.kr/p/rC9iwE) by goldenimageworks65 (https://www.flickr.com/people/126756312@N03/), on Flickr

[jp]

8x10 Ektascan b/ra in old dektol. Kodak 305 portrait lens in the wood of birch point beach state park.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7619/17009513055_676477d7b1_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rV5cCt)img916 (https://flic.kr/p/rV5cCt) by philbrookjason (https://www.flickr.com/people/13759696@N02/), on Flickr

[Peter Lewin]

Jason, just wanted to say that I have really enjoyed your entire series of soft-focus trees in snow. You have found really nice images in an area I suspect I might have hiked through without even taking the camera out of the backpack.

[ImSoNegative]

Shot of Adelaides medical research centre after finally sorting some light leaks with my Kodak2D.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7649/16594773437_e84f022126_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rhqxZp)Scan-150313-0002 (https://flic.kr/p/rhqxZp) by barsus2001 (https://www.flickr.com/people/14389776@N06/), on Flickr
This shot was a 19min35sec exposure at f16 on the G-Claron 270mm lens
Scan of fibre contact print FomabronIII
behind the cranes on the top right is the flightpath to Adelaide airport hence the line and intermittent flashes.


Great Job!!

[ImSoNegative]

Hi there!
I finished my DIY camera, and take some shot to xray films.
Yesterday was a contact day to me...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7648/16974444772_54528bc33b_z.jpg
DIY monorail camera, 0.5mm pinhole, about 140mm focal length,
12x18 cm Primax RTG-G x-rayfilm EI50, RO9 1:100 18C/12min, contacted (60s).
The redwood wall is pretty dark on film.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8733/16789649569_fe06285ec4_z.jpg
DIY monorail camera, unknown 210/f9 lens @f11/2s,
12x18 cm Primax RTG-G x-rayfilm EI50, RO9 1:100 18C/12min, contacted.

I think my groundglass is not in right place. The camera has a bit backfocused. It is must be correcting. Anyway my DIY monorail camera is working well...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7530/15720407783_8810745e1c_z.jpg http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7498/16338591041_6f921e971e_z.jpg

that is a cool looking camera

[jp]

Jason, just wanted to say that I have really enjoyed your entire series of soft-focus trees in snow. You have found really nice images in an area I suspect I might have hiked through without even taking the camera out of the backpack.

Thanks Peter.

I live nearby and visit there regularly for the past five or so years, but just found this spot in the fall of last year. There's some thick woods (and deep snow) hiding the beauty from those in a hurry.

[Bazz8]

Lipi
I like the dimension marks which would aid the focusing, I have a set of oak timber set to
build a camera but got lazy as I was pursuing a UNI degree which took up all my time.
I bought all the components from Jon Shui and put the Kodak 2D together, 100 sheets of
film later I am getting this x-ray film to a almost expected result rather than wonder what I will
get with this shot.I have 100 sheets of 11X14 in the freezer so a camera of this size may be on the drawing board.
Bazz 8

[Bazz8]

Thanks
I was especially glad that the camera with no covers and car headlights hitting it for a lot of the exposure had no light leaks what so ever
Bazz8

[Bazz8]

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2848/11878790785_944f58b97b_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/j6FUDF)Scan-140111-0001 (https://flic.kr/p/j6FUDF) by barsus2001 (https://www.flickr.com/people/14389776@N06/), on Flickr
Scan of contact print foma speed 311
The famous tree is situated somewhere on Kangaroo Island South Australia, I took this shot 2 years ago and found on the island
to get a tree and composition that is not surrounded by Aussie brush is harder than one might think.
I got the exposure not quite right and spend 2 days without success looking for the tree.HM my 2D does not have Geo tagging!
I wanted the top to be a little better rendered in camera for a book I am working on.
So Google earth located a plausible spot which I did not visit, in 10 days on the island chasing light and shooting I covered 3000 km.:)
Bazz8

[StoneNYC]

8x10 Ektascan b/ra in old dektol. Kodak 305 portrait lens in the wood of birch point beach state park.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7619/17009513055_676477d7b1_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rV5cCt)img916 (https://flic.kr/p/rV5cCt) by philbrookjason (https://www.flickr.com/people/13759696@N02/), on Flickr

May I ask, what EI?

[Fred L]

Bazz8, roughly what part of KI was this tree ? Been a few years since I've been down but I loved KI so much. Remarkable Rocks and Hampton Bay, well pretty well all of the Island really. Next time down will spend more time in Flinders Chase

[jp]

May I ask, what EI?

Probably around 100-160; The negative ended up denser than I like for scanning, but it worked fine. I'd recommend a little less exposure, but my shutter goes no quicker than 1/50 which is probably not even that fast.

[Bazz8]

Bazz8, roughly what part of KI was this tree ? Been a few years since I've been down but I loved KI so much. Remarkable Rocks and Hampton Bay, well pretty well all of the Island really. Next time down will spend more time in Flinders Chase
Fred L it was down the Sth Western end on the way to Remarkable Rocks. I did not get the exact name or location which was frustrating to say the least,
the Whole island is wonderful in regards to photo graphical opportunities and remains fairly untouched in comparison to the mainland.
The chase is great and my wife and I did 6 stops in the chase at least over the 10 days,the canopy of gums over the brush attracts me and If i lived near a redwood forest in
America i would be in there almost forever.:)

[jcoldslabs]

http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/4x5-EKTASCAN-EI100-Outhouse-r2.jpg

[Tin Can]

Doctor who?

[jcoldslabs]

Only if Doctor Who's gotta go number two.

J.

[Tin Can]

Here they are used alike.

I once saw some guys tip one over door side down with a friend? inside. Then they ran away...

[jcoldslabs]

Good lord! Nobody needs that. This one actually blew over during a heavy windstorm and that was bad enough. Those two pieces of rebar you can see in the photo are part of a workman's makeshift attempt to secure it more firmly in place.

J.

[Tin Can]

It's a visual I cannot erase. Happened in a large crowd of people very quickly.

[Will Frostmill]

8x10 Ektascan b/ra in old dektol. Kodak 305 portrait lens in the wood of birch point beach state park.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7619/17009513055_676477d7b1_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rV5cCt)img916 (https://flic.kr/p/rV5cCt) by philbrookjason (https://www.flickr.com/people/13759696@N02/), on Flickr

This is really nice. The puffy bokeh in the sky complements the bark texture really nicely.

[SergeiR]

8x10 Kodak CSG, 8x10 Gundach Radar @4.5

1:125 R09, 12m rotary development

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8775/17047762502_3dc7dde07f_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rYseRG)Tenth gate: Conversations on the edge of forever (https://flic.kr/p/rYseRG) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8692/16429070713_3993e73f2a_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/r2MhkT)Tenth gate: Gardener (https://flic.kr/p/r2MhkT) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8778/16429069883_cc7d7c9148_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/r2Mh6z)Tenth gate: Trip planning (https://flic.kr/p/r2Mh6z) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

[Tin Can]

:).

[bcli]

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8749/16897630467_21f5045397_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rKbLQk)Tools of a champion (https://flic.kr/p/rKbLQk) by bc50099 (https://www.flickr.com/people/110781628@N08/), on Flickr

Fujifilm HR-T, Rodinal 1+100 10 minutes (first sheet of X-ray film!)
Woodman 45
Schenider Symmar 90mm lens

[SergeiR]

8x10 Kodak CSG, 1:125 Rodinal (yay! fresh batch from digital truth arrived, so i poured old half-dead brown one away), rotary development 12 min.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7585/16940181990_dd02815cf2_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rNWRVh)2015-04-12-0004www (https://flic.kr/p/rNWRVh) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

btw, that is 300mm convertible Symmar with yellow-green filter on overcast day

[andrewch59]

Great pic!

[Fr. Mark]

Why did you think the Rodinal was dead? I've made it at home and it starts out pale and gets dark but still works. N-oxides of aromatic compounds like p-amino phenol (rodinal's main ingredient) tend to be highly colored so you may still have 95+% of the Rodinal despite the dark color. Diluted for user think most consider it a one shot developer.

Like picture. Didn't get the skeleton stuff.

[StoneNYC]

Yea, Sergei, that Rodinal wasn't bad, it always goes brown after a while, it has easily a 20 year shelf life even opened... At least it was cheap so you didn't waste too much money.

Of course that much Rodinal is a lot for the water plant processing to handle in one shot, but that's another story for the environmentalists.

[SergeiR]

It wasn't much.. just leftovers on old bottle. and had some crap slowly accumulating on the bottom of the bottle.

I know about shelf life and such. However , b/c i am one limited crowd of people who do development to full exhaustion and thus its important to me that certain volume of chemicals i pour in rotary processor would be active, and not just 50% active. I ruined previous batch of shots b.c it started to go funny, so i felt like being on safe side ;)

[RHITMrB]

One of the first few shots through my 8x10, on Fuji HR-U a friend gave me. I think I'll be sticking to HP5+ despite the cost.

http://i.imgur.com/EpO63Iq.jpg

[Jim Noel]

Beautiful, Sergei!!

[Andrew O'Neill]

One of the first few shots through my 8x10, on Fuji HR-U a friend gave me. I think I'll be sticking to HP5+ despite the cost.

Pretty hard to beat HP5! Nice image, even with the nasty scratches.

[Fr. Mark]

I'm going to humbly revise my comment about Rodinal lasting to eternity. I made a bunch of batches a year ago. I've been using one 800 ml bottle 50-100 mL's at a time at 4-10 week intervals and only had 50-100mL's in bottle, the rest was air. I had two sheets of 8x10 xray come out super thin 1:100 after 20 minutes, and I thought it could be an exposure error. One is a really nice photo of my wife. Then I tried to develop a 4x5 film that I know was 4-5 stops over exposed because I forgot to stop down. It came out super thin. At that point I opened a new lightly colored bottle that'd been tightly closed and tried it with some 4x5's and they came out much more like what I thought I should expect at 1:100 10 min 65 deg.

Point is yes, it gets dark with exposure to air, dramatically so, and still works, but there is a limit.

Given my highly sporadic darkroom time at this point in my life I either need to get an argon cylinder and purge everything everytime I open a bottle of photo chemicals (even powders for the ocd folks) or I need to make up one shot developers from dry chemicals.

I really wish the big portrait of my wife came out better. Maybe with grade 5 paper...

[Randy]

Don't know about Rodinal, but HC-110 concentrate will last for years after being opened. When I wasn't doing much processing I had a partial bottle probably last 5-6 years...never had to compensate development times when ever I mixed up a batch of working solution.

[StoneNYC]

Don't know about Rodinal, but HC-110 concentrate will last for years after being opened. When I wasn't doing much processing I had a partial bottle probably last 5-6 years...never had to compensate development times when ever I mixed up a batch of working solution.

They are practically the same, Rodinal might actually last longer than HC-110 but they are both pretty much impervious to time.

I cracked the lid on my Rodinal once and the bottle sat unused and literally open to the air in my basement for 6 months and still worked fine to the last drop.

Crystallization is normal with Rodinal and you just shake it a bit and the crystals re-mix with the solution.

I can't speak for home made Rodinal I'm talking the official stuff by AGFA/ADOX that's the official formula. The R09 stuff is similar but I still stick to the official ADOX Rodinal (Adonal for you non-USA residence) as it's the latest AGFA formula before they shut down.

There's tons of info on it, anyway, to each their own.

[Corran]

I usually toss my Rodinal when the bottle gets down to 5% or so and the crystals are getting really bad.

[StoneNYC]

I usually toss my Rodinal when the bottle gets down to 5% or so and the crystals are getting really bad.

The more crystals the sharper yet less grainy my images seem to be, I now always dump the new stock into the crystals of the old stock, my images keep getting better and better :)

Not joking, I compared development of old 5% full bottle to a full new one, the new clear bottle came out grainy and soft (I mean in terms of close magnification) and the old bottle was much sharper, this test came because I couldn't figure out why my new images weren't as sharp as the old ones till I made the correlation that I had started a fresh bottle, I then compared a few different bottles of Rodinal I had including an unopened actual AGFA Rodinal bottle, my results tell me that Rodinal is like a fine wine and gets better with age, also I like my wine like my Rodinal, dark and strong ;)

Just don't mistake one for the other!!

[Corran]

For that to be true something has to be changing in the chemical composition (or it's a placebo). But you may be seeing something. After cracking open a new bottle (as I reported in that Rodinal thread months ago) the fresh solution acted totally differently than what I was used to. For me that's a big red flag and I am definitely moving away from Rodinal. Acufine seems to be better in every way anyway, and some of the other newer developers I am using blow Rodinal out of the water for certain films. That said Rodinal and Pan F+ are still a match made in heaven. Not that it matters for LF since it's not made in sheets.