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

[axs810]

Sounds like a placebo effect...post up your results StoneNYC

[StoneNYC]

Sounds like a placebo effect...post up your results StoneNYC

I did somewhere, maybe on APUG? I'm not on there anymore so I'll have to dig it up. It's not on X-Ray, I'll let you guys know when I post it.

[Randy]

Frustrated - just processed 4 sheets of 8X10 X-ray film (2 batches) in my upright low volume (2 LTR) tanks - First batch a few weeks ago I got very bad mottling and surge marks (density was fine) - so, as advised by others, I should try increasing developer dilution and development time - also adjust my agitation method.

Here is what I did:

2 minute pre-soak - initial gentile agitation for about 10 sec.

Developer - Arista Premium Liquid, increased dilution from 1:18 to 1:27, increased development time from 10 minutes to 20 minutes @ 68 degrees f.
Agitation method - (all of this is done very slowly, each movement of the film hangers is only 1/2" and takes about 3 seconds) lift one side of hangers then lower, slide hangers to other side of the tank, then lift the other side and lower, then slide back and repeat, then slide back and repeat - so the entire agitation process (once every 2.5 minutes) takes about 20 seconds. So, for the 20 minutes in the developer, I agitated about 8 times as described above. At no time during the development stage did the film rise out of the developer - all agitation was so slight as to keep the entire surface of the film in the chemistry.

Wash - plain water, same procedure as pre-soak.

Fix - 4 minutes, same agitation as development.

My film is still drying - but what I got was: the surge marks and mottling (uneven development/streaking) that I got in my first attempt weeks ago, is still visible but not quite as prevalent except in the upper portion of the negative, the part near the hinged gate on the hanger, and there is definitely an area of increased density, about 3/4" to 1" around the entire border of the negative.
As gently as I agitated, I am baffled as to how one can succeed with low volume upright tank processing unless it is done with no agitation (stand). Am I going to just have to just go back to try processing...?

I will post a scan of the new batch as soon as it dries, but I don't think it will be looking much better that what I posted a few pages back. I have read on other threads concerning processing in film hangers (not X-ray film) and they describe much more vigorous agitation yet not getting this mess that I am getting with 8X10 X-ray film in hangers...

I have processed thousands of sheets of 4X5 Tri-X in 4-sheet hangers in 3.5 gal tanks of HC-110 "B" or D-76 when I worked in a USAF photo lab, and I know my agitation method was more vigorous than what I described above, yet no uneven development or surge marks - do I need to try a different developer...?

Frustrated

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have only been successful with hangers if I agitated gently and slowly. Slowly up, slowly down. I don't pull the hangers right out of the developer, either. This seems to work for me. I don't bother with a pre soak.

[StoneNYC]

Frustrated - just processed 4 sheets of 8X10 X-ray film (2 batches) in my upright low volume (2 LTR) tanks - First batch a few weeks ago I got very bad mottling and surge marks (density was fine) - so, as advised by others, I should try increasing developer dilution and development time - also adjust my agitation method.

Here is what I did:

2 minute pre-soak - initial gentile agitation for about 10 sec.

Developer - Arista Premium Liquid, increased dilution from 1:18 to 1:27, increased development time from 10 minutes to 20 minutes @ 68 degrees f.
Agitation method - (all of this is done very slowly, each movement of the film hangers is only 1/2" and takes about 3 seconds) lift one side of hangers then lower, slide hangers to other side of the tank, then lift the other side and lower, then slide back and repeat, then slide back and repeat - so the entire agitation process (once every 2.5 minutes) takes about 20 seconds. So, for the 20 minutes in the developer, I agitated about 8 times as described above. At no time during the development stage did the film rise out of the developer - all agitation was so slight as to keep the entire surface of the film in the chemistry.

Wash - plain water, same procedure as pre-soak.

Fix - 4 minutes, same agitation as development.

My film is still drying - but what I got was: the surge marks and mottling (uneven development/streaking) that I got in my first attempt weeks ago, is still visible but not quite as prevalent except in the upper portion of the negative, the part near the hinged gate on the hanger, and there is definitely an area of increased density, about 3/4" to 1" around the entire border of the negative.
As gently as I agitated, I am baffled as to how one can succeed with low volume upright tank processing unless it is done with no agitation (stand). Am I going to just have to just go back to try processing...?

I will post a scan of the new batch as soon as it dries, but I don't think it will be looking much better that what I posted a few pages back. I have read on other threads concerning processing in film hangers (not X-ray film) and they describe much more vigorous agitation yet not getting this mess that I am getting with 8X10 X-ray film in hangers...

I have processed thousands of sheets of 4X5 Tri-X in 4-sheet hangers in 3.5 gal tanks of HC-110 "B" or D-76 when I worked in a USAF photo lab, and I know my agitation method was more vigorous than what I described above, yet no uneven development or surge marks - do I need to try a different developer...?

Frustrated

I don't understand how 2L is "low volume" that's a lot of developer.

I don't use hangers so maybe that's the best they can get? I've only used jobo tanks, and those, you can do 2 sheets with just 300ml of developer.

I cannot help with your problem. But if you ever get fed up, I would suggest the jobo tanks.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Flat-bottomed trays. My preferred method.

[Randy]

Below is an image to go with my post on the previous page - I just have no idea how to fix this, other than just forgetting using the tanks (Stone, I guess they are "low volume" because they are lower volume than the slim stainless tanks that hold about 3.75 Ltrs) and go back to trays - the only reason I wanted to try tanks was to keep my fingers out of the chems. I have never had a reaction in my 40+ years of putting my fingers in, but just thought it might be a good idea to try to avoid.

This is from the batch I just processed -
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/tanktest2.jpg

This is from the batch a few weeks ago - stronger dev and shorter time, a tad more vigorous agitation -
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/tanktest1.jpg

As you can see, no improvement - if anything, you could say my latest attempt is worse, even though my agitation was much less vigorous, my dev. was more dilute and my time longer.

[jp]

Below is an image to go with my post on the previous page - I just have no idea how to fix this, other than just forgetting using the tanks (Stone, I guess they are "low volume" because they are lower volume than the slim stainless tanks that hold about 3.75 Ltrs) and go back to trays - the only reason I wanted to try tanks was to keep my fingers out of the chems. I have never had a reaction in my 40+ years of putting my fingers in, but just thought it might be a good idea to try to avoid.

This is from the batch I just processed -
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/tanktest2.jpg



This will happen to any film you develop in a tray if the tray is right-sized for the film. Chemistry bounces off the wall of the tray and flows back onto the photo, creating more development in the edges than the center. Size up a tray and it will be more consistent.

[Andrew O'Neill]

jp, he developed in a tank with hangers. I develop in a flat-bottomed tray that is only slightly larger than 8x10, about 9x11. Gentle agitation.

[jon.oman]

I use one gallon deep tanks. A five minute water pre-soak, with intermittent agitation. D76 full strength with 15 seconds agitation each minute, for a total of six minutes at 68 degrees F. Thirty seconds in a vinegar stop bath with agitation, and 10 minutes in a hardening fixer with intermittent agitation. Finally, I wash the negative in running water for 20 minutes.

Agitation: I use the Kodak method, which I have used for forty years. Pick up all hangers, straight up, and out of the tank. Angle all hangers at about 45 degrees right, and tap on the top of the tank edge. Immerse the hangers completely into the tank. Pick up all hangers, straight up, and out of the tank. Angle all hangers at about 45 degrees left, and tap on the top of the tank edge. Repeat.

Here is a sample image, using this method:

http://www.gophotog.org/allphotos/pinhole/large_photos/ParkBench1_bw02.jpg

This works for me!

[koraks]

http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/4x5_archives/XBT151_02.jpg
Blue sensitive x-ray, cut down to 4x5.

I shot this as a test to see how this film would work - it just does. It develops fine in Rodinal (1:100, 4 minutes, constant agitation, no pre-soak); I exposed it as ISO 100-ish. Scans nicely as well. Grain is not too obtrusive, certainly not as this is large format and I intend to use it for 8x10 later on.

The marks on the right side of the cups on the table aren't damage to the negative (yes, this stuff is sensitive, but I was careful with this sheet) but just dirt on the table. I live in filth.

Btw, this film is the blue-sensitive Raytronix stuff you can get from eBay (which I did here (http://www.ebay.nl/itm/High-Speed-Blue-Medical-X-Ray-Film-8-x-10-Box-of-100-Sheets-/151384585258?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item233f39742a)). It costs about the same as the Fuji stuff and most of the other x-ray film and as far as I can tell so far, it behaves the same way as well.

[koraks]

http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/4x5_archives/XBT151_01.jpg
I used the information in this thread to shoot and develop some 4x5 x-ray (8x10 sheet cut into 4 pieces - how's that for economy!?). Exposed at ca. ISO 100 or perhaps a bit more (didn't account for bellows draw), developed in a small (ca. 5x7") tray in 200ml Rodinal 1:100 for about 6 minutes. I reused the same developer from the previous sheet (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?80011-Images-shot-on-X-ray-film&p=1237577&viewfull=1#post1237577) I developed in it and the developer seemed to be getting very tired at this point ;) The film is Raytronix blue-sensitive stuff I got from eBay.

[Jim Noel]

I don't understand how 2L is "low volume" that's a lot of developer.

I don't use hangers so maybe that's the best they can get? I've only used jobo tanks, and those, you can do 2 sheets with just 300ml of developer.

I cannot help with your problem. But if you ever get fed up, I would suggest the jobo tanks.

Using 300ml of developer for two sheets of 8x10 is stretching the activity of the developer. The quantities listed on the Jobo tanks are minimums to cover the surface, not necessarily the desired amount for even and consistent development.

[StoneNYC]

Using 300ml of developer for two sheets of 8x10 is stretching the activity of the developer. The quantities listed on the Jobo tanks are minimums to cover the surface, not necessarily the desired amount for even and consistent development.

Not for Rodinal. Only need 1ml max per 8x10 sheet. So at 1:50 there's plenty for a normal exposure. I've even used 300ml for 5 sheets, it only becomes a problem if it's a crazy exposure. In contrast, with DD-X at 1+4 even 1000ml is pushing it... So depends on the developer's exhaustion rates.

[SMBooth]

I use one gallon deep tanks. A five minute water pre-soak, with intermittent agitation. D76 full strength with 15 seconds agitation each minute, for a total of six minutes at 68 degrees F. Thirty seconds in a vinegar stop bath with agitation, and 10 minutes in a hardening fixer with intermittent agitation. Finally, I wash the negative in running water for 20 minutes.

Agitation: I use the Kodak method, which I have used for forty years. Pick up all hangers, straight up, and out of the tank. Angle all hangers at about 45 degrees right, and tap on the top of the tank edge. Immerse the hangers completely into the tank. Pick up all hangers, straight up, and out of the tank. Angle all hangers at about 45 degrees left, and tap on the top of the tank edge. Repeat.

Here is a sample image, using this method:



This works for me!

Certainly looks like it does. I just got some 8.10 and 5.7 hangers, and finished making some tanks so I hope it works the same for me too.

[Fr. Mark]

About tanks and hangers. I have 4x5 and 8x10 Kodak stainless hangers, a pair of each. The 45 ones load four sheets. I made some lexan tanks that are full w/800ml of solutions. I've processes CXS green, Tmax400 and Arista edu 100 all as 4x5's with no surge marks or mottling. Also 8x10 CXS though there I found I can scratch the film on the tank lip. Need to be cautious or make bigger tanks. The slot is around 5/8" and barely fits one hanger. I don't presoak. Straight into Rodinal 1:100 or 1:50 some rapping and 1/2 up/down first 30 sec then up tilt back down every 30 sec or minute or longer if someone knocks on the darkroom door. It does take 10-15 seconds to bring the hanger up and down with tilt to let it drain.

I do have other problems: dusty darkroom, insufficiently sharp negs of extremely thin density, so I'm either under exposing or under developing. I had to print this at max contrast to get even this much contrast.
132831
I am thinking of making tanks bigger since I have the scrap acrylic around and this time building them big enough for more film hangers. And instead of the very thin acrylic glue just using silicone caulk. My plexiglas tools aren't as good as vinny's. Btw that's a 8x10 taken 6 or 7 pm f11 Cooke triplet 18" by beseler from an opaque projector home made camera.

[SergeiR]

Using 300ml of developer for two sheets of 8x10 is stretching the activity of the developer. The quantities listed on the Jobo tanks are minimums to cover the surface, not necessarily the desired amount for even and consistent development.



Dunno. Never had issue developing 3 sheets of 8x10 in 300ml of 1:125 Rodinal

[Randy]

8X10 X-ray film with one of Rienhold's (http://re-inventedphotoequip.com/Lenses.html) 335mm Wollaston Meniscus Lenses @ f/16

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/img499a.jpg

[Randy]

Grandpa's chair ~

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/img501b.jpg

[koraks]

Lovely tonality, Randy! Now that I have begun shooting xray film myself, I have come to appreciate photos like yours on this type of film even more!

Here's one from my end - artichoke:
http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/prints/XRF_A151_01.jpg
Blue-sensitive x-ray film, rated at ca. 50 ISO, developed in Rodinal 1:100, agitation every 2 minutes or so for a total time of between 7 and 10 minutes. Wet print on Adox Easyprint 311.

[Peter De Smidt]

That's a good one, Randy.

[Randy]

That's a good one, Randy.Thanks Peter - finally getting a handle on my processing in tanks. It has been a struggle.

[Randy]

Lovely tonality, Randy! Now that I have begun shooting xray film myself, I have come to appreciate photos like yours on this type of film even more!
Blue-sensitive x-ray film, rated at ca. 50 ISO, developed in Rodinal 1:100, agitation every 2 minutes or so for a total time of between 7 and 10 minutes. Wet print on Adox Easyprint 311.Thanks Koraks - do you only shoot blue? I have been shooting green exclusively and have wondered if there is any difference.

[koraks]

So far only blue, yes. I also have a box of the green stuff here, but I wanted to get the hang of one type first. I'll be opening the green box quite soon.

[Randy]

Funny, I have a box of blue that is unopened...and I just opened my second (or third) box of green....still trying to get the hang of it :)

[Randy]

Thanks to the input from everyone concerning my uneven development post above / previous page (8X10 hangers in Vinny's 2 Ltr tanks) - Jon, your instructions helped greatly - I have almost settled on a working agitation method. I tried different frequencies and speeds the past few days (processing 14 sheets in 7 different runs yesterday / night). Here is what I finally did:

Using Arista Premium film dev. 1:18 9.5 min @ 68 deg - after a 3 min water pre-soak, into the dev and agitate for the first 30 seconds, lift, tilt right, lower, lift tilt left, lower, repeat. After initial agitation I agitated every 30 seconds - lift the hangers slowly out of the dev., tilt 45 degrees to one side, lower back into the tank and let drop the last 1/2" to shake bubbles loose, wait 30 seconds and repeat but tilt to the opposite side. Each agitation sequence takes about 7 seconds.

I tried lifting, lean left, lower, lift, lean right, lower, every 60 seconds but still got processing streaks / un-even development.

Doing it at the top and bottom of every minute is working...thankfully. I was panicking.

I am still getting a very slight evidence of uneven development / processing streaking, but it is 95% better, and if there is no sky in the picture, it is 100% better.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/img508b.jpg
CSX Green 8X10, B&L 11X14 Tessar

[jon.oman]

Grandpa's chair ~

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/img501b.jpg

I really like this one!

[StoneNYC]

I can't figure out how to crop this, I wanted to isolate the trees before the river but the depth seems too deep or the bokeh too crisp.

In the scene itself the trees look very nice because they had a progression going upward, but it doesn't seem to translate as much in the image as it did in my brain.

Not my best image.

Oh well.

300mm 8x10 Ektascan@80 f/11@1.5s - Rodinal

133157

[jp]

I can't figure out how to crop this, I wanted to isolate the trees before the river but the depth seems too deep or the bokeh too crisp.

In the scene itself the trees look very nice because they had a progression going upward, but it doesn't seem to translate as much in the image as it did in my brain.

Not my best image.

Oh well.

300mm 8x10 Ektascan@80 f/11@1.5s - Rodinal

133157

Move closer to remove the messy and distracting foreground; make the water the foreground. As mentioned, try a wider aperture. Later or early in the day might work well too as long as you can exclude your shadow from the photo.

It's just me, but I'd shoot it soft because the kodak 305 portrait is my hammer, making every scene the nail.

[StoneNYC]

Move closer to remove the messy and distracting foreground; make the water the foreground. As mentioned, try a wider aperture. Later or early in the day might work well too as long as you can exclude your shadow from the photo.

It's just me, but I'd shoot it soft because the kodak 305 portrait is my hammer, making every scene the nail.

Well I'm up high here, closer and wider means looking up instead of across.

I wasn't actually planning to go back to the scene, it's overgrown by now anyway and I would have to wait another year. Hah!

133167

But I was talking about cropping, and I kind of like this... (cropped on my phone haha).

133168

So the shadow wouldn't really be an issue.

[Corran]

IMO, there's simply not enough contrast in the entire scene (due to the light conditions probably). You might've gotten something a bit more interesting with a wider aperture and selective focus but if that's not what you wanted, then you didn't have the proper light for what you did want. Also I would get closer and use a wider lens myself.

[Jim Noel]

Well I'm up high here, closer and wider means looking up instead of across.

I wasn't actually planning to go back to the scene, it's overgrown by now anyway and I would have to wait another year. Hah!

133167

But I was talking about cropping, and I kind of like this... (cropped on my phone haha).

133168

So the shadow wouldn't really be an issue.

When I copied your image into PS to look at cropping I found a very similar crop which pleased me. (Don't worry I'm not going to copy it,i did it just to help with the question. I have already deleted it. ) I liked it better when I also cropped the top justabove where the trees fork, making it a longer, more narrow image.

[StoneNYC]

When I copied your image into PS to look at cropping I found a very similar crop which pleased me. (Don't worry I'm not going to copy it,i did it just to help with the question. I have already deleted it. ) I liked it better when I also cropped the top justabove where the trees fork, making it a longer, more narrow image.

Thanks Jim, I'll play around with it.

There's enough density I can certainly play around with contrast, I don't think I'll print this though. I do have an IR version of this I'm curios how it came out (not yet developed).

But Jim, I would never worry about you, Heck I should be honored if you "stole" my image haha :)

[foen]

Hi, recently I came into possession of a pack of Kodak TMAT G/RA sheets. Can you suggest some starting points for exposure and development?

Thank you

Enrico

[koraks]

Expose as iso 80-ish, develop in an open tray under a safe light so you can see what happens. In my limited experience, I would start with ca 8 minutes in 1:100 rodinal.

[SergeiR]

8x10 Kodak CSG Xray, 300mm Symmar + YellowGreen Kenko filter, 15 minutes rotary processing in Jobo, R09 1:125

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7659/17361048812_ee141a4a55_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ss8UXN)Bluebonnets (https://flic.kr/p/ss8UXN) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

[Andrew O'Neill]

Very nice!

[Jim Noel]

Thanks Jim, I'll play around with it.

There's enough density I can certainly play around with contrast, I don't think I'll print this though. I do have an IR version of this I'm curios how it came out (not yet developed).

But Jim, I would never worry about you, Heck I should be honored if you "stole" my image haha :)

Thanks for the comppliment.

[StoneNYC]

Playing around with long night exposures with Ektascan.

Doesn't handle the contrast as well as pan film, but not bad.

133357

[SMBooth]

Windows for Dummies.
Kodak MXG cut to 4x5 developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 6 minute in tray.
Wet printed on to Fomabrom 111 at Grade 1.5
133388

[jcoldslabs]

http://kolstad.us/ebay/4x5-Halina6-4.jpg

[wickerman]

First attempt using x-ray film.

https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7660/18044614662_759e12bd83_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/tuxngU)Black Tulip on green x-ray film (https://flic.kr/p/tuxngU) by wickerman6 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/87008388@N07/), on Flickr

Toyo-View 45GX
Symmar 5.6/180mm
Green x-ray film.
Rodinal 1:50 6 mins at 20c.

[hamradio]

I've been giving my new 5x7 daylight tank a whirl lately, and it seems to be performing pretty OK. Much more consistent and scratch free than print drums or trays.

Fuji hr-t green, 5x7, rodinal 1:100 7m 40s, ei100.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8858/18019301491_2f3b88e7ec_b_d.jpg

[bcli]

Beautiful!

First attempt using x-ray film.

https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7660/18044614662_759e12bd83_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/tuxngU)Black Tulip on green x-ray film (https://flic.kr/p/tuxngU) by wickerman6 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/87008388@N07/), on Flickr

Toyo-View 45GX
Symmar 5.6/180mm
Green x-ray film.
Rodinal 1:50 6 mins at 20c.

[mdarnton]

The tulip looks like something from 1930. Very nice!

[Scott --]

Grandpa's chair ~

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/img501b.jpg

Randy, this is a remarkable image.

[Tin Can]

First attempt using x-ray film.

https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7660/18044614662_759e12bd83_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/tuxngU)Black Tulip on green x-ray film (https://flic.kr/p/tuxngU) by wickerman6 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/87008388@N07/), on Flickr

Toyo-View 45GX
Symmar 5.6/180mm
Green x-ray film.
Rodinal 1:50 6 mins at 20c.

I was once looking for Black Roses, now I know to get Black Tulips next time. :) Hopefully the occasion never happens again. :(

Great image, many are shooting only X-Ray these days.

And all I see are great results like this!

[bcli]

Experiment with yellow filtration - Fuji HRT at ISO 100 Yellow #2 filter. Trying to tame contrast a bit.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5461/17818725700_efc0ff35db_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/t9zCmC)Ferns in shadow (https://flic.kr/p/t9zCmC) by bc50099 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/110781628@N08/), on Flickr

[Randy]

Randy, this is a remarkable image.Thanks Scott. That old chair has found its way into a few of my close-to-home shots

[wickerman]

Beautiful!


The tulip looks like something from 1930. Very nice!


I was once looking for Black Roses, now I know to get Black Tulips next time. :) Hopefully the occasion never happens again. :(

Great image, many are shooting only X-Ray these days.

And all I see are great results like this!

Thank you for the kind comments.

[stradibarrius]

Wow this tulip shot is amazing! It does have an old 30s-40s look to it!

[kleinbatavia]

8x10 Kodak CSG Xray, 300mm Symmar + YellowGreen Kenko filter, 15 minutes rotary processing in Jobo, R09 1:125

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7659/17361048812_ee141a4a55_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ss8UXN)Bluebonnets (https://flic.kr/p/ss8UXN) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

This is very nice!

[gdi]

8x10 Kodak CSG Xray, 300mm Symmar + YellowGreen Kenko filter, 15 minutes rotary processing in Jobo, R09 1:125

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7659/17361048812_ee141a4a55_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ss8UXN)Bluebonnets (https://flic.kr/p/ss8UXN) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/people/24930737@N05/), on Flickr

Bravo, Sergei!

[wickerman]

Having tried green x-ray film for the first time recently I had a go with blue x-ray film...

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8850/18331964408_b31e3cf168_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/tVW7kS)Calla Lily on blue x-ray film (https://flic.kr/p/tVW7kS) by wickerman6 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/87008388@N07/), on Flickr

Toyo 45GX
Schneider Symmar 180mm
Blue x-ray film
Rodinal 1:100

[Wayne]

Does a good x-ray negative look like a good pictorial film x-ray or should it look denser because of the two emulsions?

[StoneNYC]

Does a good x-ray negative look like a good pictorial film x-ray or should it look denser because of the two emulsions?

What is a "pictorial film x-ray"?

[Wayne]

What is a "pictorial film x-ray"?

A typo. Should be just "pictorial" film. You know, regular film intended for standard analog B&W printing processes.

[StoneNYC]

A typo. Should be just "pictorial" film. You know, regular film intended for standard analog B&W printing processes.

It's essentially Orthochromatic instead of Panchromatic, so it will look a little "old timey" like the pre 1940's films that were all orthochromatic.

There's an X-ray "examples" thread, read it, the first few pages should give you most of the details you need.

[kleinbatavia]

Hello all, great work displayed in this thread. Have been meaning to shoot some xray myself, but it's a little hard to come by. I'm in Europe at the moment and csx will not ship here. Does anyone know of a good source for xray film (preferable green) in the EU? Thanks!

[Wayne]

I'm talking about density not spectral sensitivity. I've read both threads from start to finish though that doesn't mean I remember everything


It's essentially Orthochromatic instead of Panchromatic, so it will look a little "old timey" like the pre 1940's films that were all orthochromatic.

There's an X-ray "examples" thread, read it, the first few pages should give you most of the details you need.

[mdarnton]

In the US I buy mine on Ebay--I imagine that would work where you are, too?

[StoneNYC]

I'm talking about density not spectral sensitivity. I've read both threads from start to finish though that doesn't mean I remember everything

Density lies in your choices of exposure and development technique, that's completely up to you and your methods as far as I perceive it. Best of luck to you in your X-Ray adventures.

[Wayne]

Thanks Stone, but that much is fairly obvious. Anyone else care to comment on how they judge their x-ray negatives?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Does a good x-ray negative look like a good pictorial film x-ray or should it look denser because of the two emulsions?

I aim for specific DR's for carbon printing. A densitometre is handy. Side-by-side comparisons, they look very similar. A double-sided emulsion still looks the same as single-sided film, as long as their DR's are the same.

[Wayne]

Sorry, I'm not a sensitometry guy. Don't you strip your negatives though? Which version "looks similar" to conventional film, the stripped or unstripped version?


I aim for specific DR's for carbon printing. A densitometre is handy. Side-by-side comparisons, they look very similar. A double-sided emulsion still looks the same as single-sided film, as long as their DR's are the same.

[Jim Noel]

Sorry, I'm not a sensitometry guy. Don't you strip your negatives though? Which version "looks similar" to conventional film, the stripped or unstripped version?

I don't strip my negatives. Looking through them they look similar to non-x-ray negatives. If stripped, half the density is removed thus they do not meet my needs for salt prints.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Anybody who works with film, is a sensitometry guy to some degree, even if they don't own a densitometre. I'm talking about unstripped negatives. Yes, I have done some testing and the film prints best with both emulsions, therefore I do not strip.

[DKirk]

Hello all, great work displayed in this thread. Have been meaning to shoot some xray myself, but it's a little hard to come by. I'm in Europe at the moment and csx will not ship here. Does anyone know of a good source for xray film (preferable green) in the EU? Thanks!

Don't know how it would be in Spain, but Ebay gets it to the UK from Tennessee in less than 12 days (according to the tracking 4 of which were while it was in the hands of the courier) with the Global Shipping so you pay the Customs in advance.

[SergeiR]

Bravo, Sergei!

thank you :)

[andrewch59]

There is some MXR 11X14 G Plus on fee bay at the moment, the 11x14 seems a bit harder to get these days, anyone tried this particular film???

[Tri Tran]

Hugo and I went out to shoot on the 4th. Here are some pictures at the Riley Wilderness Park in Coto de Caza, California.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/538/uFKFok.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/eyuFKFokj)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/537/IW8vBb.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/exIW8vBbj)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/910/h8woxT.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pah8woxTj)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/537/v2uc14.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/exv2uc14j)

[Tri Tran]

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/540/FEvCLL.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/f0FEvCLLj)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/538/PGrdEE.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/eyPGrdEEj)

[Tri Tran]

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/913/dVnlsO.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pddVnlsOj)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/903/QHBden.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/p3QHBdenj)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/537/6koO8w.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/ex6koO8wj)

[124G]

Been reading 'some' of the discussion, perhaps it has been discussed, perhaps not...
The closest to 8x10 i can get is 18x24cm x-ray sheets. Would these fit in an 8x10 holder? It would appear to be a little short. Perhaps there is an exact fit for 8x10 holder?
Thanks.

[mdarnton]

8x10 film is available, and fits an 8x10 holder perfectly.

[axs810]

Been reading 'some' of the discussion, perhaps it has been discussed, perhaps not...
The closest to 8x10 i can get is 18x24cm x-ray sheets. Would these fit in an 8x10 holder? It would appear to be a little short. Perhaps there is an exact fit for 8x10 holder?
Thanks.

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

[StoneNYC]

Been reading 'some' of the discussion, perhaps it has been discussed, perhaps not...
The closest to 8x10 i can get is 18x24cm x-ray sheets. Would these fit in an 8x10 holder? It would appear to be a little short. Perhaps there is an exact fit for 8x10 holder?
Thanks.


8x10 film is available, and fits an 8x10 holder perfectly.


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

I think you're both assuming the poster lives in the USA, I'm guessing not, ZZ Medical won't ship outside the U.S. to my knowledge.

124G what country are you in, and have you checked eBay? Sometimes you can get x-ray film there in 8x10. Good luck!

[124G]

Quick question, there doesn't seem to be an exact size for 8x10 holders, is there an approximate size that would fit without cutting the film? Thanks.

[StoneNYC]

Quick question, there doesn't seem to be an exact size for 8x10 holders, is there an approximate size that would fit without cutting the film? Thanks.

You must have missed my reply in the other thread.

The film size you want is 8x10, there are MANY X-Ray films that are cut to 8x10 size.

The other sizes available are NOT for 8x10, there is some labeled 20cm x 25cm that's also the same and will fit in 8x10 film holders.

Hope that helps, look on eBay, there's TONS of it.

[andrewch59]

I think you're both assuming the poster lives in the USA, I'm guessing not, ZZ Medical won't ship outside the U.S. to my knowledge.

124G what country are you in, and have you checked eBay? Sometimes you can get x-ray film there in 8x10. Good luck!

I get my green or blue xray off fee bay, try chimedsupply (Chicago medical supplies), the have green and blue 8x10, 10x12. They will combine postage, I bought three boxes of 10x12 which will fit into one post pack and saved myself $60 on postage to Australia. Goodluck

[124G]

Hi Thanks guys

I live in the UK, so perhaps shipping might be expensive, plus i would have to pay customs duty as well but I must admit $80 US for 100 sheet, wow, this is value!

I contacted these people http://www.photon-imaging.com/, very helpful but they charge 80 sterling + VAT (20%) so that's a bit more but shipping would be less obviously. Only problem is the nearest they have to 8x10 is 18x24cm. I've just order 2 8x10 holders so I'll be checking if that would fit but I have a bad feeling.

So ideally I'd love to find a supplier in the UK that advertises 8x10 as a size. Thanks asx 810 for the offer, I might give you a shout if I can't find anything locally.

Knock knock, anyone in the UK who might be aware of a supplier of 8x10 xray films?

Thanks guys.

[koraks]

I'm in the Netherlands and have good experiences ordering stuff from eBay, including 8x10" xray film. Yes, shipping and customs do eat into the great value a bit, but it's still a very cost effective method. I wouldn't limit myself to domestic sources (which end up being more expensive and less varied overall) and just do what everyone does. A million flies can't all be wrong!

[124G]

In case someone is interested this is the quote I got from http://www.photon-imaging.com/

18x24cm HDC-UVB High resolution BLUE sensitive X-ray Film (100 sheets in a box) £60.59 + VAT
18x24cm HDC-G High resolution GREEN sensitive X-ray Film (100 sheets in a box) £60.59 + VAT
18x24cm HDRC Ultra high resolution single emulsion film (100 sheets in a box) £80.59 + VAT

I don't know what brand they are, my local vet gave me their details and he gave me a box with a dozen x-ray (larger ones 24x30) - The box is unbranded.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Very nice Jim! Nice idea for a thread too
http://aaswall.tk/36/o.png

Thanks. There has been a great deal of info and wonderful images in this thread as well.

[DKirk]

Hi Thanks guys

I live in the UK, so perhaps shipping might be expensive, plus i would have to pay customs duty as well but I must admit $80 US for 100 sheet, wow, this is value!

I contacted these people http://www.photon-imaging.com/, very helpful but they charge 80 sterling + VAT (20%) so that's a bit more but shipping would be less obviously. Only problem is the nearest they have to 8x10 is 18x24cm. I've just order 2 8x10 holders so I'll be checking if that would fit but I have a bad feeling.

So ideally I'd love to find a supplier in the UK that advertises 8x10 as a size. Thanks asx 810 for the offer, I might give you a shout if I can't find anything locally.

Knock knock, anyone in the UK who might be aware of a supplier of 8x10 xray films?

Thanks guys.

I went the eBay route - the seller based in Tennessee Agfa G+ don't think it was quite that much but worthwhile experimenting, may get another box and perhaps some of the Fuji stuff too. . .

136719

Agfa G+ @ISO 50 f/11 1/10sec Symmar 360mm

Rodinal 1:100 for 7.30 mins in Jobo 2840 tank.

[Randy]

Dkirk, that picture is wonderful, just wonderful.

[andrewch59]

I agree, great pic!

[Craig Tuffin]

Here's an 11"x14" shot of the great Jerry Spagnoli at work during our road trip in 2013. Shot on Agfa green sensitive film.

Nice and dense for a salt print.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3714/19785581942_c45b77e85e_z.jpg

[StoneNYC]

Here's an 11"x14" shot of the great Jerry Spagnoli at work during our road trip in 2013. Shot on Agfa green sensitive film.

Nice and dense for a salt print.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3714/19785581942_c45b77e85e_z.jpg

Is that a fixed focus wide angle?

[Craig Tuffin]

Yes it is!

[Craig Tuffin]

And another 11x14 on agfa green sensitive film.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/504/19199940743_55ed6ff533_z.jpg

[D-tach]

And another 11x14 on agfa green sensitive film.


Nice light and contrast!

[koraks]

http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/8x10_archives/WBX810_151_02.jpg

First shots with the G-Claron 240/9 I acquired from Tracy at Mammothcamera.com, on generic blue-sensitive x-ray film, 8x10. Wide open, somewhere around 10 seconds, using a Sinar Norma. I love the swirl this lens does in the bottom corners; I hadn't anticipated it, but it's a nice and unexpected gift!

Developed for a minute or three in Rodinal 1:50, continuous agitation, Epson 4990 scan straight on the platen, some mild processing with adjustment layers in PS. I may post a new cyanotype print I made of this negative the other day.

[Randy]

Developed for a minute or three in Rodinal 1:50, continuous agitationVery nice. How are you processing?

[koraks]

Thanks! I just mix a litre of rodinal, usually 1+50 or 1+100, place a glass plate on the bottom of a flat-bottomed tray and slide the film in. Agitate by gently rocking the tray and flip over the negative every minute or so. I hold it up to a red led light to see if it's to my liking and slide it back in if I think it's not quite done yet. Development times are around 3-4 minutes at 1+50 and around 7 minutes at 1+100. I don't approach it as an exact science.

[Randy]

So, do you have glass in the bottom of each tray, or move the glass and film from tray to tray through out the process?

[koraks]

I have four sheets, one for every tray I use. Otherwise my fixer would wear out pretty quickly due to contamination. I use the glass from €1 picture frames; they're just the right size (A4).

[JMoore]

A couple of firsts for me today. My first attempt at using X-ray Film and the first image shot with my new 4x5 camera.

Shen Hao 4x5 TZ45 IIB
Wisner Convertible Plasmat @ 227mm
f/9.6 @ 1 Second
AGFA Green Sensitive X-ray film
Hanger Development for 8 Minutes - Rodinal 1:200

Scan of Negative

137138

[andrewch59]

A couple of firsts for me today. My first attempt at using X-ray Film and the first image shot with my new 4x5 camera.

Shen Hao 4x5 TZ45 IIB
Wisner Convertible Plasmat @ 227mm
f/9.6 @ 1 Second
AGFA Green Sensitive X-ray film
Hanger Development for 8 Minutes - Rodinal 1:200

Scan of Negative

137138
Wow! Great first attempt!

[gliderbee]

Been reading 'some' of the discussion, perhaps it has been discussed, perhaps not...
The closest to 8x10 i can get is 18x24cm x-ray sheets. Would these fit in an 8x10 holder? It would appear to be a little short. Perhaps there is an exact fit for 8x10 holder?
Thanks.

There exist 18x24 filmholders.

Stefan

[RSalles]

Hi JMoore,

Nice results, what speed did you rate this film?

Cheers,

Renato

[koraks]

JMoore, for a first attempt that is absolutely fantastic! Leaves very little room for improvement, if any. And I have the same question as Renato.

[JMoore]

JMoore, for a first attempt that is absolutely fantastic! Leaves very little room for improvement, if any. And I have the same question as Renato.

Thanks everyone and sorry I forgot to add that info when I posted. Rated @ 100 ISO

[RSalles]

Great, thank you!

Cheers,

Renato

[JMoore]

Here's another one, same settings as the first one I posted.

137207

[andrewch59]

Here's another one, same settings as the first one I posted.

137207

Again, great pic! You'll have to start planning the exhibition at this rate.

[JMoore]

Again, great pic! You'll have to start planning the exhibition at this rate.

Thank you Andrew, I appreciate your comments.

[premortho]

Beautiful lighting, JMoore.
Thank you Andrew, I appreciate your comments.

[stradibarrius]

I love these "xray type" shots!!!

92097

Kodal Mammography film in a mammography cassette

135KV / 3ma 4 seconds ;)

[StoneNYC]

92097

Kodal Mammography film in a mammography cassette

135KV / 3ma 4 seconds ;)

Do you own an X-Ray machine?

[andrewch59]

I love these "xray type" shots!!!

Wow! Unique...shame we can't all have an xray machine handy, need to get pally with airport security!

[Pierre 2]

Hi !

Well this is my first x-ray result and first "for real" trial with 8x10 (had exposed and developed some sheets found already loaded in film holders I got) : Kodak 2D 8x10, Ektascan BRA, Fujinon SF 250mm at around f16, +- 1/8 sec IIRC; Blazinal 1:40 7 minutes in tray with no agitation except first 15 seconds and last 30 seconds. Weak stop. Scanned on V700 with still minimal technique. Extensive basic adjustments in LR.

137763

[Pierre 2]

And here is another one, same location

Ektascan BRA rated at 80, APO RONAR 300mm or maybe ILEX PARAGON 13", 2 seconds exposure at +- f64, same development and scanning parameters as above (not cropped though). 137764

Pierre (who hopes to be posting some more Ektascan pictures soon)

[Pierre 2]

And a last one for now - same parameter range as the one above :137765

[mdarnton]

They look good. Are you pleased? I love the xray film look, myself.

[JMoore]

I really like all three Pierre, well done!

[Pierre 2]

Thanks Michael AND JMoore !

I am indeed pleased, and surprised to have been able to get the clouds out from the highlights. Got news from my subjects who received the contact prints today : They are pleased as well :-)

Very happy with this film which I am sure will satisfy my foreseable 8x10 needs (also got some green and blue Fuji that I will eventually try on 5x7 although that would no longer respond to an actual need : Happy with the 8x10 2D. Now, if ever someone has a Rittreck with 5x7 back to trade for a very nice Mamiya 645 kit... (will eventually post in the appropriate section)

Pierre

[andrewch59]

After using half speed blue and getting mediocre results I changed to Agfa green and the results improved. I read an article about stopping down to get the shadow detail from the zone 5 results the meter is calibrated for, back to zone 3..ish. This gave me really good results when using the negatives for albumen printing. Now to get constant results during printing I would like to be able to refer back to the density of the negative. I don't have a density meter, can I use one of the two colour analyzers I have picked up along the way to get a density reading???

[Jody_S]

After using half speed blue and getting mediocre results I changed to Agfa green and the results improved.

I also got much better results when I ran out of Fuji HRT (green) and started using Agfa Green. It seems to like compensating development more than HRT, and also doesn't scratch as easily.

[Randy]

I recently shot a sheet of Fuji blue and green, same subject, ISO, and development. The blue was much more contrasty, lacking even minimal shadow detail when compared to what the green recorded...but I have to try the Agfa. I just got a box of Kodak green I have yet to try.

[SergeiR]

8x10 Kodak CSG, no stripping. R09 1:125, 12m rotary.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/514/20166371661_98718352b4_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/wJ2VH8)2015-07-30-0004www (https://flic.kr/p/wJ2VH8) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Peter De Smidt]

Looks great, Sergei! You don't get any scratches on the side of the negative that sits against the drum?

[Tin Can]

8x10 Kodak CSG, no stripping. R09 1:125, 12m rotary.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/514/20166371661_98718352b4_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/wJ2VH8)2015-07-30-0004www (https://flic.kr/p/wJ2VH8) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

I read much into this image.

Sincerely, Randy Moe

[SergeiR]

Looks great, Sergei! You don't get any scratches on the side of the negative that sits against the drum?

thanks. I have couple of drums i use in processing those, one of them (Unidrum) might get scratches every now and then, if you not careful taking film out, but its easy to overcome with properly wetted glove), other one - Jobo with insert - it doesn't touch sides at all, so no scratches period.


I read much into this image.

Sincerely, Randy Moe

Thanks, Randy. I have meant to shoot this bit for like 2 weeks, and finally got around to do it. Might make few more collodion plates of this theme, if i get restless.. ;)

[Peter De Smidt]

Regarding the Jobo drum, what's the insert? I use expert drums, and I get a few scratches on the side next to the drum, probably when the film is removed from the drum. I've considered making an insert of heavy weight window screen. The "pet proof" kind is thick but flexible. The idea would be for the screen to rub against the drum when the negative and screen are removed.

[Tin Can]

Thanks, Randy. I have meant to shoot this bit for like 2 weeks, and finally got around to do it. Might make few more collodion plates of this theme, if i get restless.. ;)

Do it, Art work is soul and spirit.

I am with you. Always.

[JMoore]

Chamonix 45F1
Fujinon W 210mm
1/2 Second @ f/5.6
AGFA Green Sensitive X-ray film
Hanger Development for 8 Minutes - Rodinal 1:200

Scan of Negative

137964

[RSalles]

Chamonix 45F1
Fujinon W 210mm
1/2 Second @ f/5.6
AGFA Green Sensitive X-ray film
Hanger Development for 8 Minutes - Rodinal 1:200

Scan of Negative

137964

Nice!

Renato

[Pierre 2]

Nice also !
1:200 for 8 minutes. Hum... So that I may have more food for thought, what sensitivity were you assuming for the film ?



Chamonix 45F1
Fujinon W 210mm
1/2 Second @ f/5.6
AGFA Green Sensitive X-ray film
Hanger Development for 8 Minutes - Rodinal 1:200

Scan of Negative

137964

[JMoore]

Thank you Renato & Pierre. After a few tests I decided on ISO 100.

[ImSoNegative]

Not sure why I exposed this at 400 instead of 100 like I usually do, anyway shot with an 8x10 pinhole camera, f288, Kodak green xray film

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/371/20173000668_4ba16d3152.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/wJBUhm)old cabin in the woods (https://flic.kr/p/wJBUhm) by john golden (https://www.flickr.com/photos/126756312@N03/), on Flickr

[Jim Noel]

Regarding the Jobo drum, what's the insert? I use expert drums, and I get a few scratches on the side next to the drum, probably when the film is removed from the drum. I've considered making an insert of heavy weight window screen. The "pet proof" kind is thick but flexible. The idea would be for the screen to rub against the drum when the negative and screen are removed.

The film areas of Expert drums are not cylinders - they are barrel shaped, thus the film does not touch the sides during processing. You must be getting the scratches during loading or unloading. You might try loading and unloading with the drum full of water.

[SergeiR]

Do it, Art work is soul and spirit.

I am with you. Always.

Thanks, man. Will do tomorrow - last week collodion was too flat - has to age it a bit

[SergeiR]

Kodak CSG, 8x10, Rodinal 1:125 in rotary, 12m

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/363/20215561408_b36684594e_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/wNo37d)Svetlana (https://flic.kr/p/wNo37d) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[ndg]

Kodak CSG, 8x10, Rodinal 1:125 in rotary, 12m

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/363/20215561408_b36684594e_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/wNo37d)Svetlana (https://flic.kr/p/wNo37d) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

Wow!

[mdarnton]

Sergi, that's really cool. One of your better ones, I think.

[David Lobato]

thanks. I have couple of drums i use in processing those, one of them (Unidrum) might get scratches every now and then, if you not careful taking film out, but its easy to overcome with properly wetted glove), other one - Jobo with insert - it doesn't touch sides at all, so no scratches period.


When removing 8x10 film from a Unidrum I fill it with water. That equalizes any surface tension and the film easily slides out.

[premortho]

Great portrait. Has that 1930's movie star look. Love the lighting.

[SergeiR]

Great portrait. Has that 1930's movie star look. Love the lighting.

Thanks :) octabox on the left, bare bulb with cone on the right. (well reversed ;))

[andrewch59]

Thanks :) octabox on the left, bare bulb with cone on the right. (well reversed ;))

Awesome shot Sergei, may I ask what lens? OOF is silky smooth. Oh! to oneday have such talent!

[Pali K]

Sergie - your work is really inspiring. Beautiful portrait.

Pali

[SuXarik]

Hello all. Started doing xray myself. Got this photo. And my question is: underexposed or underdeveloped (a little bit)?
138300

[Pierre 2]

Welcome to the forum (I am new myself and also shooting x-ray film).

Even though I understand your question to be a difficult one to answer, some competent people here may be more in a position to help you if you would define following parameters :

How did you read the light ?, what reading did you get ? what setting did you use ? what setting was your shutter really operating at ?

What kind of film ? what sensitivity ? what sensitivity did you use ? why ?

What kind of developper did you use ? how old ? what concentration ? what development method did you use ? for how long ? at what temperature ? what agitation ?

What are we looking at ? What scanning parameters (if any) did you use (scanning with parameters adjustment will still allow interesting results with really thin negatives).

You will find through the forum that this question has been asked previously and that a general answer is to keep on trying while taking notes and doing comparisons...

Looking forward to your upcoming results

[SuXarik]

Welcome to the forum (I am new myself and also shooting x-ray film).

Even though I understand your question to be a difficult one to answer, some competent people here may be more in a position to help you if you would define following parameters :

How did you read the light ?, what reading did you get ? what setting did you use ? what setting was your shutter really operating at ?

What kind of film ? what sensitivity ? what sensitivity did you use ? why ?

What kind of developper did you use ? how old ? what concentration ? what development method did you use ? for how long ? at what temperature ? what agitation ?

What are we looking at ? What scanning parameters (if any) did you use (scanning with parameters adjustment will still allow interesting results with really thin negatives).

You will find through the forum that this question has been asked previously and that a general answer is to keep on trying while taking notes and doing comparisons...

Looking forward to your upcoming results

Thanks!
I used Agfa Ortho CP-GU as ISO100. Exposed at f11 with 4 sec shutter. Developed in stock D-76 in tray for 5.5 min. Scanned with no adjustments.

[ImSoNegative]

I like this image, its a bit underexposed but still looks nice to me, next time try exposing at 80 that will give you another 2 sec and bring your leaves up a bit and your flowers but not to the point of blowing out.:)

[ImSoNegative]

Sergie - your work is really inspiring. Beautiful portrait.

Pali

Sergie rocks the portraits!!

[Jim Noel]

Hello all. Started doing xray myself. Got this photo. And my question is: underexposed or underdeveloped (a little bit)?
138300

Under-exposed

[Peter Mounier]

Hello all. Started doing xray myself. Got this photo. And my question is: underexposed or underdeveloped (a little bit)?
138300

You can tell whether your negs are underexposed by looking at the shadow detail in the negative. If your shadow areas are clear on the film then you didn't give them enough light to make an impression. When your negs are in the developer, the silver gets progressively dense as the exposed silver develops out. There is much less exposed silver in the shadows because there is less light in the shadows. All of the exposed silver in the shadows gets completely developed in the first couple of minutes because there is so little of it. The rest of the time that the negs are in the developer the exposed silver in the mid tones and highlights are being developed. More time in the developer expands the contrast range as the silver continues to develop. You can tell whether you've overdeveloped the negs by looking to see if the highlights are blocked up. If the highlights are blocked up, give your negs less time in the developer. Less time in the developer won't affect the shadows because the shadows have already completely developed out. Time in the developer determines contrast. More time = more contrast.

[SergeiR]

Awesome shot Sergei, may I ask what lens? OOF is silky smooth. Oh! to oneday have such talent!

Thank you, Andrew, thats very kind of you to say.

Its #4 Vitax at about f8, if i remember right f-stop.


Sergie - your work is really inspiring. Beautiful portrait.

Pali

thank you :)

[SergeiR]

Sergie rocks the portraits!!

Hehe :) thanks. I tend to prefer portraiture work to anything else, indeed. Albeit my wife tends to tell me that i pay too much attention to light and not to people, when I am shooting.

[ImSoNegative]

To me the lighting is what makes or breaks a good portrait of course having a lovely model helps too :)

[SuXarik]

Starting to like X-Ray more and more
138334

[koraks]

Alright, most of you probably already know this, but I'll post my recent experiences here so that others may learn.

I had serious issues with fogging when using green-sensitive x-ray film. Initially I was using a Kodak OC safelight in my darkroom, which was safe enough for paper and also for blue-sensitive x-ray film. It would fog green-sensitive film horribly though, so I bought a couple of red led bulbs thinking I had solved the issue. But some fogging remained. I recently put a piece of rubylith over one of the red led bulbs and I've been using that single light for the past week. So far, it seems that my fogging issues with green film are gone (fingers crossed).

[Wayne]

what kind of red bulbs?

[Tin Can]

Please list exact make model and source. Thanks!

[Ralph Weimer]

Kodak GBX2 filters were used in x-ray darkrooms with ortho (green sensitive) film. "Ortho" was the term applied to green-flashing phosphor screens and green-sensitive film. The blue stuff was termed "Regular".

Ralph

[Tin Can]

Alright, most of you probably already know this, but I'll post my recent experiences here so that others may learn.

I had serious issues with fogging when using green-sensitive x-ray film. Initially I was using a Kodak OC safelight in my darkroom, which was safe enough for paper and also for blue-sensitive x-ray film. It would fog green-sensitive film horribly though, so I bought a couple of red led bulbs thinking I had solved the issue. But some fogging remained. I recently put a piece of rubylith over one of the red led bulbs and I've been using that single light for the past week. So far, it seems that my fogging issues with green film are gone (fingers crossed).

I'm interested in which exact bulbs failed your requirement.

I am aware of Kodak's recommendations.

[koraks]

These particular bulbs were Showtec 19-led red bulbs in E27 fitting. They are probably 635nm wavelength leds. If I compare the hue of the LEDs with and without the rubylith, the rubylith filtered light looks a deeper red. Not just darker (obviously that too), but a deeper red color.

And like I said, no problems with the blue-sensitive film when using the red LED bulbs (without rubylith), suggesting that it really has to do with the spectrum emitted by these bulbs. In my experience so far, there's a little less than a stop of difference in speed between the blue and the green film I use. This renders a different source of stray light an improbable cause.

Does anyone have a similar experience, or is this a unique occurrence?

[Tin Can]

For some time i have been using and recommending these in red. https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe/2-watt-g11-globe-bulb-360-degree/440/#/attributes/13

Look at their spectrum chart.

I notice no problems with Ektascan and Kodak CSG.

I did have a problem with a Home Depot red led. http://www.homedepot.com/p/EcoSmart-25W-Equivalent-GP19-LED-Light-Bulb-Red-ECS-GP19-RED-NDM-120-BL/205351458

[koraks]

It's funny, as the standard wavelength of a red led is 635nm. Weird how some bulbs apparently fog more than others. It may have to do with the current the leds are being driven with; especially with green leds a shift in the output spectrum is easily witnessed if they're driven too hard.

[andrewch59]

Vanbar Imaging here in Australia are advertising red LED globes that have been tested darkroom safe. They are on feebay and are rated at 620nm?? Was looking to make the change to led

[Jim Noel]

Bob, ancient photography manuals described a developer used for too contrasty (described as "over-timed") exposures. The nearest box develeper that I know of that is basically a hydrochinon only developer is Dectol. Dectol fell out of favor for this use when everyone went to pan film in the late 1950's. Why? You about can't develope pan film by inspection. But x-ray film is all more or less ortho film. The green x-ray film is the most like Plenachrome or verichrome. I use Dectol anywhere from 12-1 to 24-1 for 5 to 8 minutes. 5-8 minutes gives enough time to get the contrast you want without shooting right on by. If you have never used Dectol, it is first mixed with warm water, and then water added for a stock 2-1 mix. This is for paper. Take the stock mix and dilute it as above (12-1 or 24-1) as a one shot developer.

I have to disagree.
I was photographing and processing both at home and for a photography store in the 1930's when panchromatic films were just being introduced for the amateur. Most films were orthochromatic. D-72, the predecessor of Dektol, was used ONLY for paper. By the way, Dektol is not a basically hydroquinone developer, it depends on metol to hold down the contrast. The most common developers available packaged for film were D-76, and its derivatives from manufacturers other than Kodak. A very popular one for all films was Panthermic.Many advanced workers developed their orthochromatic and panchromatic films in Pyro ABC, or its derivatives. In the store where I worked in the darkroom we developed ALL FILMS in D-23 stored in a deep tank. All films were developed to completion.
An article in a popular magazine in the early 1950's, I have forgotten which one, had a title similar to "Developing Film in D-72". This article has been quoted and misquoted dozens, or hundreds of times.

Can x-ray and other orthochromatic films be developed in Dektol or other paper developers? Yes.
Was it the developer of choice in "ancient" photography? No.

[premortho]

Well,I'm quite a bit younger than you are. I'm 78, and I started developing film when I was 8 years old (1946). We, my grandfather and me, used D-72 Dectol for film, and so did lots of other people. It was written on the can it came in "for developing plates and papers". There was no developer of choice in 1946. You used what you could get. We couldn't get Rodinal, but we could easily get Dectol, so we used it as I described in my post. We mostly shot Plenachrome which is an ortho film, more or less like x-ray film. Plenachrome was a multi-coated emulsion, which made it easier to use than x-ray film.
I have to disagree.
I was photographing and processing both at home and for a photography store in the 1930's when panchromatic films were just being introduced for the amateur. Most films were orthochromatic. D-72, the predecessor of Dektol, was used ONLY for paper. By the way, Dektol is not a basically hydroquinone developer, it depends on metol to hold down the contrast. The most common developers available packaged for film were D-76, and its derivatives from manufacturers other than Kodak. A very popular one for all films was Panthermic.Many advanced workers developed their orthochromatic and panchromatic films in Pyro ABC, or its derivatives. In the store where I worked in the darkroom we developed ALL FILMS in D-23 stored in a deep tank. All films were developed to completion.
An article in a popular magazine in the early 1950's, I have forgotten which one, had a title similar to "Developing Film in D-72". This article has been quoted and misquoted dozens, or hundreds of times.

Can x-ray and other orthochromatic films be developed in Dektol or other paper developers? Yes.
Was it the developer of choice in "ancient" photography? No.

[andrewch59]

Hello all. Started doing xray myself. Got this photo. And my question is: underexposed or underdeveloped (a little bit)?
138300http://www.blackandwhitefineart.net/2011/06/how-to-expose-for-shadows-develop-for-highlights/ Hope this helps

[premortho]

http://www.blackandwhitefineart.net/2011/06/how-to-expose-for-shadows-develop-for-highlights/ Hope this helps
I think it is one stop under-exposed. Can't be under developed when you develop by inspection, right? Unless you haven't learned yet to leave it in the soup a little beyond where you think it's developed enough.

[Jim Noel]

I think it is one stop under-exposed. Can't be under developed when you develop by inspection, right? Unless you haven't learned yet to leave it in the soup a little beyond where you think it's developed enough.

Yes it can be under-developed. one has to learn which side of the film to view, and it does vary with the kind of film, even more critical is the importance of learning what a properly exposed negative looks like under the very dim safelight. I see too many "experts" on this and other forums giving out misleading information about this technique. When I learned how do develop by inspection I had to learn to do it correctly or get fired. I won't go into the details here because full and accurate information is quite lengthy. When I taught it students were expected to attend sessions twice a week and practice at least two time in between. The best way to learn is find someone who truly knows what they are doing and pay their price to learn from them. It is not learned in an hour or two. Maybe an hour or two every day for a month for most people.

[premortho]

While I learned to do this about 70 years ago, by no means am I an expert. I thought the third sentence in my reply covered that little detail. But of course it is not a little detail. When I had to learn how to do it from my grandfather, I either learned how to do it correctly, or I got no more film to shoot. While I was learning, my grandfather gave me one sheet of film to shoot. Until I learned to develop at least adequetly, that was it, one sheet of Plenachrome. Only then was I allowed to develop roll film. by the tray method. I was fascinated by the development process because to an eight year-old it seemed to be magic.
Yes it can be under-developed. one has to learn which side of the film to view, and it does vary with the kind of film, even more critical is the importance of learning what a properly exposed negative looks like under the very dim safelight. I see too many "experts" on this and other forums giving out misleading information about this technique. When I learned how do develop by inspection I had to learn to do it correctly or get fired. I won't go into the details here because full and accurate information is quite lengthy. When I taught it students were expected to attend sessions twice a week and practice at least two time in between. The best way to learn is find someone who truly knows what they are doing and pay their price to learn from them. It is not learned in an hour or two. Maybe an hour or two every day for a month for most people.

[SergeiR]

Hello all. Started doing xray myself. Got this photo. And my question is: underexposed or underdeveloped (a little bit)?
138300



Would be easier to figure out if gave us information on
- developer
- time
- type of development
- curves of scanning
- scanner
- what is the meaning of life

There are great many variables. I would stick with underexposed a bit but it also could be result of ba scanning :)

[Amfooty]

Here is what happened with Fuji HR-T at ISO 80, in Sprint Systems 1:9 for 6 min.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/615/20771393874_188553c13c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/xDuPJA)8x10 HR-T008-1 (https://flic.kr/p/xDuPJA) by Alex C (https://www.flickr.com/photos/104349761@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/599/21383248412_58c226e4ef_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/yzyJLL)8x10 HR-T007-1 (https://flic.kr/p/yzyJLL) by Alex C (https://www.flickr.com/photos/104349761@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/669/21402464171_8e7381798e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/yBgdWX)8x10 HR-T005-1 (https://flic.kr/p/yBgdWX) by Alex C (https://www.flickr.com/photos/104349761@N02/), on Flickr

Going to try and use a more dilute developer and less agitation next time around.

[Jim Noel]

Amfooty,
If you are trying to home in on the best development time for you, do one or the other, not more dilute and less agitation in the same test.

[Amfooty]

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

[ImSoNegative]

definitely less agitation, it made a world of difference with my xray negs.

[seezee]

A lot has been said here about the fact that most x-ray film has emulsion on 2 sides, and that the mammography film with only 1 emulsion layer is hard to source & expensive. I see that ZZ Medical has this single emulsion film (http://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/kodak-x-ray-film/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html) at $80 for 8″×10″, which works out to 400 sheets of 4″×5″ after cutting/trimming. That's 20¢ per exposure. The thing that's puzzling me is that it's described as 'video' film. Has anyone tried this film? How did you like it? Did you use a tray, a Jobo, or hangers? If you used a tray, was scratching a problem?

[Fr. Mark]

It's a wonderful film. It can handle fine detail and has an anti-reflective coating on the back and is blind to the red LED bike tail light that I use as a safelight. It can be readily developed in 1:100 Rodinal or Pyrocat HD and probably other developers. I rate at ASA 100 mid day. Early AM or late afternoon on you need to give extra exposure because the light is more red and less blue out doors. Not done the tungsten v. Daylight balanced lights in studio test I think I read somewhere that's 1 or two stops. Outdoors 10 am -3 pm as rated, after/before 1 stop every hour or two. YMMV. Reciprocity seems to track with Tmax100 on option 1 on the reciprocity calculator app (which also has good corrections for bellows and filters). With the right safelight you can cut the film and develop while you can see what's going on. It is supplied with a notch but Indont bother re-notching cut pieces because it is really obvious under the safelight which side faces out of the film holder. I use it at 4x5 and 5x7 primarily. But I'm continually tempted to use it 8x10 and they also sell it 14x17" which might "force" me to build another camera which after comparing my 8x10 attempt with a Sinar P, I said I'd never do. Back to questions: I usually develop in trays but I am pretty sure people are using rotary processing and film hangers too.

[Fr. Mark]

And no, scratching is not a problem in trays any more than it would be with "normal" film.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I also use the single-sided stuff. Very sharp in Pyrocat-HD and Obsidian Aqua. By the way, I also use the double-sided stuff in flat-bottomed trays, and have never had issues with scratching. Another thing I like about the single-sided stuff, is that I can develop it in BTZS tubes.

[Wayne]

I also use the single-sided stuff. Very sharp in Pyrocat-HD and Obsidian Aqua. By the way, I also use the double-sided stuff in flat-bottomed trays, and have never had issues with scratching. .

Is that because of the tanning developer?

[seezee]

It's a wonderful film. It can handle fine detail and has an anti-reflective coating on the back and is blind to the red LED bike tail light that I use as a safelight. It can be readily developed in 1:100 Rodinal or Pyrocat HD and probably other developers. I rate at ASA 100 mid day. Early AM or late afternoon on you need to give extra exposure because the light is more red and less blue out doors. Not done the tungsten v. Daylight balanced lights in studio test I think I read somewhere that's 1 or two stops. Outdoors 10 am -3 pm as rated, after/before 1 stop every hour or two. YMMV. Reciprocity seems to track with Tmax100 on option 1 on the reciprocity calculator app (which also has good corrections for bellows and filters). With the right safelight you can cut the film and develop while you can see what's going on. It is supplied with a notch but Indont bother re-notching cut pieces because it is really obvious under the safelight which side faces out of the film holder. I use it at 4x5 and 5x7 primarily. But I'm continually tempted to use it 8x10 and they also sell it 14x17" which might "force" me to build another camera which after comparing my 8x10 attempt with a Sinar P, I said I'd never do. Back to questions: I usually develop in trays but I am pretty sure people are using rotary processing and film hangers too.
You answered my unstated question, which was about renotching. But for fun, if anyone out there does renotch, how do you do it? With scissors? a paper punch? or something else? For trimming 8″×10″ to 4″×5″, to you use a guillotine cutter, or a rotary cutter? Do you just cut at the center or do you trim off a little extra to fit the 'real' film holder dimensions (slightly smaller than nominal)?

[koraks]

I cut using scissors and start by drawing the dimensions using a template. It's okay for small batches.

[mdarnton]

I use a rotary cutter. I have put tape "fences" on the cutter board to size the film in each dimension, so it's very fast. I don't notch, but if I did I'd use a circular hole punch, since I already have one for marking the 35mm frames I want to print. If you don't have a good safelight for this, let me tell you, cutting under a safelight, loading holders, and developing is a LOT easier under a safelight than it is doing those things in the dark!!!

[Tin Can]

Practice with stiff paper. Do all steps and even load holders.

You will find size tolerances are not tight, however too tight or large a 'negative' will load poorly or not at all. Too small and one side may fall out.

Take your time, sit down and everything you learn using paper, will make red LED cutting easier and then one day you will be cutting 'real' film in full dark, which is easy if you have practiced.

I cut 8x10 Ektascan and FP4+ as small as 6x6mm for Hasselblad single side holders. That does take precise cutting.

Just begin the adventure. :)

[Andrew O'Neill]

Is that because of the tanning developer?

I thought so at first, but I also develop in very dilute Xtol, and D-19.

[Fr. Mark]

I cut it with a guillotine cutter because I can borrow one from work occasionally. I use a small block of maple and a c clamp to make a stopper. I have a piece of cardboard or card stock the size of a 5x7 film which I use to position the stop block. I cut the (approx) 1"x10" strip off first for a bunch of sheets then reposition the stop for the 5" cut. Takes three cuts to make two sheets. More/less same for 4x5. This cutter is nothing like so nice as a rotatrim master cut with the rotary cutter, but I find that one sheet at a time making sure to mildly force the cutter against the base makes good cuts. Working under safelights helps a lot. I don't know that I would want to use a guillotine cutter in the dark.

[andrewch59]

140830
The light lines are light leaks from my holder. Vageeswari 10x12, Ross 3A portrait lens at F22 1/10 sec, green xray film

[Andrew O'Neill]

Alex, it looks like you are using hangers. In my experience, very gentle agitation was the key, especially with xray. Even with a dilute developer, gentle agitation. I don't even pull the hangers out of the developer.

[mdarnton]

There are a couple of types of hangers. I bet yours aren't Kodak. Kodak tracks have a V-shape to them that prevents the metal from touching film. Other brands are a square U shape, with sidewalls that can stick to the film and mess up developing around the edges. That's the funny marks I see on the left sky edge on the photo of the prop plane.

[towolf]

I use a rotary cutter. I have put tape "fences" on the cutter board to size the film in each dimension, so it's very fast. I don't notch, but if I did I'd use a circular hole punch, since I already have one for marking the 35mm frames I want to print. If you don't have a good safelight for this, let me tell you, cutting under a safelight, loading holders, and developing is a LOT easier under a safelight than it is doing those things in the dark!!!

I do exactly the same thing. It pretty important to get the short edge cut right. The film width is not so important but the length is. Just a millimeter off and the sheet’s edge will overlap the plastic stops at the bottom of the holder.

About notches, my film has rounded corners. I just use the round corner after cutting into four sub-sheets as a "notch".

[Martin Dake]

I do exactly the same thing. It pretty important to get the short edge cut right. The film width is not so important but the length is. Just a millimeter off and the sheet’s edge will overlap the plastic stops at the bottom of the holder.

About notches, my film has rounded corners. I just use the round corner after cutting into four sub-sheets as a "notch".

Me too.
I use Dyno label tape, 2 pieces on top of each other give enough feel to use as a guide.
I have a cheap rotary cutter marked out for 4x5 and 3 1/4 x 4 1/4.
I just ordered a box of that Carestream 8x10 B/RA film to give it a go.

[seezee]

About notches, my film has rounded corners. I just use the round corner after cutting into four sub-sheets as a "notch".Wouldn't it be in opposite corners for 2 of the sheets, thus not helpful in determining which is the emulsion side?

[koraks]

When using single sided film such as ektascan br/a, yes. With double sided film, this is not an issue of course.

[salvatore]

I also use the single-sided stuff. Very sharp in Pyrocat-HD and Obsidian Aqua. By the way, I also use the double-sided stuff in flat-bottomed trays, and have never had issues with scratching. Another thing I like about the single-sided stuff, is that I can develop it in BTZS tubes.

When you use a flat bottomed tray for double sided film do you oscillate the tray during development? And if not, how does it develope in the side in contact with the glass?

[salvatore]

I use a rotary cutter. I have put tape "fences" on the cutter board to size the film in each dimension, so it's very fast. I don't notch, but if I did I'd use a circular hole punch, since I already have one for marking the 35mm frames I want to print. If you don't have a good safelight for this, let me tell you, cutting under a safelight, loading holders, and developing is a LOT easier under a safelight than it is doing those things in the dark!!!

I use a guillotine cutter, and I am always afraid of hurting me when operating in the dark, and even under deep red light, since I must press the film quite near the cutting area..
I am considering the purchase of a rotary cutter, but I do not know if all cutters cut cleanly the Xray film, which seem to me quite strong.
Even my guillotine cuts only fairly; I must press the blade against the cutting edge to cut and not bend the film.
Does rotary cutter behave cleanly?

[koraks]

When you use a flat bottomed tray for double sided film do you oscillate the tray during development? And if not, how does it develope in the side in contact with the glass?

I flip the sheet over every 10 agitations. But I use continuous agitation, I have to add. Flipping less frequently resulted in overdevelopment at the edges and intermittent agitation also caused uneven development with me, so I have now arrived at this approach. Dunk the sheet in, do 10 gentle agitations, flip the sheet over, and so on. I get very even development, but high contrast.

I'm very open to other options, so I'm curious to hear how others go about preventing uneven development. Btw, I use rodinal 1+100 mostly. I'm considering some form of two bath development or maybe a metol developer to further tame contrast, as well as preflashing. Can anyone comment on either of these options or a combination thereof?

[mdarnton]

My rotary cutter is a cheap Fiskars, and it does a beautiful job. I can stack three or four sheets and get through them in several cuts without anything moving. I have no experience with good rotary cutters.

[seezee]

When using single sided film such as ektascan br/a, yes. With double sided film, this is not an issue of course.Ah, but then you don't actually need notches.

[koraks]

Possibly for film identification purposes.

[seezee]

Possibly for film identification purposes.Oh, of course. Didn't think of that. I keep a log of my shoots, so I don't use the notches to ID the film.

[Jim Noel]

I flip the sheet over every 10 agitations. But I use continuous agitation, I have to add. Flipping less frequently resulted in overdevelopment at the edges and intermittent agitation also caused uneven development with me, so I have now arrived at this approach. Dunk the sheet in, do 10 gentle agitations, flip the sheet over, and so on. I get very even development, but high contrast.

I'm very open to other options, so I'm curious to hear how others go about preventing uneven development. Btw, I use rodinal 1+100 mostly. I'm considering some form of two bath development or maybe a metol developer to further tame contrast, as well as preflashing. Can anyone comment on either of these options or a combination thereof?

I ran a test yesterday. For one sheet I never turned it over. For the second I turned it over every two agitation cycles. The images were identical and I can't discern any difference inany part of the film either visually or with the densitometer. I was testing HC110 diluted 1+79 in a flat bottomed tray.

[Fr. Mark]

With Ektascan B/RA film anyway, you don't need notches: one side is pink and somewhat matte (the emulsion) the other side is black and a little shiny (anti-halation layer) they are easy to tell apart under a safelight. N.B. you want a deep red safelight not orange or yellow or whatever. I am currently using a bike tail-light high intensity LED that runs on 2 AA batteries. The LED's are red as is the cover for them and the electronics. The LED's give off only red light that doesn't have enough energy (wrong wavelength) to fog the film. Batteries last a LONG time. Others have posted on one of the Xray threads about 110V LED screw in (lightbulb type base) that have similar narrow spectrum red output. Makes me think that regular safelights are basically obsolete. I also have a notch code for the film holders so I know what film holder was used with what negative (to check for leaks, to cross reference with notes), but I don't notch the films I can handle under a safelight.

[salvatore]

I ran a test yesterday. For one sheet I never turned it over. For the second I turned it over every two agitation cycles. The images were identical and I can't discern any difference inany part of the film either visually or with the densitometer. I was testing HC110 diluted 1+79 in a flat bottomed tray.

If I understand correctly you have however agitated the bath in both cases.
By agitation do you mean lifting one side of the tray?
And how long was the development with HC110 so diluted?
I also use HC110 but diluted 1:50, for 10 minutes.

To avoid scratching, in case of small specimens (around 4 by 4 cm) I made a holder as follows.

I cut two strips of plexiglas of 5 by 100 mm about 3 mm thick, and passed a file on one edge of each at about 45°.
I then glued the two strips on a sheet of plexiglas in such a way to create a guide on which to place the specimen.
The distance between the strips is a bit smaller than the specimen, so this lays a bit curved.
The sheet is then immersed in the developing bath which covers the whole device and the curvature of the sample allows clear circulation of te developer..
The agitation can be provided by lifting one side of the tray or lifting the sheet throug a handle I glued on it.
I hope to have been clear.
I found no problem with this size of specimen, and, given the stiffness of the xray film it could work also for larger sizes, may be up to the full sheet 18 by 24 cm I use.

[koraks]

I ran a test yesterday. For one sheet I never turned it over. For the second I turned it over every two agitation cycles. The images were identical and I can't discern any difference inany part of the film either visually or with the densitometer. I was testing HC110 diluted 1+79 in a flat bottomed tray.
Interesting! Thanks for running this experiment! What film did you use? And did you use a glass plate on the bottom of the tray? When I do this, the film sticks to the glass plate and I think the developer wears out except near the edges where it is replenished as a result of agitation.

[Jim Noel]

If I understand correctly you have however agitated the bath in both cases.
By agitation do you mean lifting one side of the tray?
And how long was the development with HC110 so diluted?
I also use HC110 but diluted 1:50, for 10 minutes.

To avoid scratching, in case of small specimens (around 4 by 4 cm) I made a holder as follows.

I cut two strips of plexiglas of 5 by 100 mm about 3 mm thick, and passed a file on one edge of each at about 45°.
I then glued the two strips on a sheet of plexiglas in such a way to create a guide on which to place the specimen.
The distance between the strips is a bit smaller than the specimen, so this lays a bit curved.
The sheet is then immersed in the developing bath which covers the whole device and the curvature of the sample allows clear circulation of te developer..
The agitation can be provided by lifting one side of the tray or lifting the sheet throug a handle I glued on it.
I hope to have been clear.
I found no problem with this size of specimen, and, given the stiffness of the xray film it could work also for larger sizes, may be up to the full sheet 18 by 24 cm I use.

Agitation is performed by lifting 3 sides of the tray for each cycle.
My times will probably not suit you as my negatives are designed to make salt prints. 4-5 minutes at 75 deg.F gives the the DR I need. If I was going to print on silver gelatin paper or cyanptype or lakitype i would dilute even further.
I see no need for holders, or glass in the bottom of the tray. Careful handling at all stages eliminates scratches. When I learned to develop film in the 1930's all films had very soft emulsions so proper handling was a must.

[andrewch59]

If you use the plastic developing trays made these days they have grooves in them, the developer tends to flow faster down these grooves when agitation is initiated, causing uneven development. Also the trays have bumps in them from the moulds, so a protective sheet has been necessary to stop scratching of xray film. I put a sheet of cleaned xray film down over the imperfections and only occasionally find scratches.

[koraks]

Yeah, I think it depends on the tray you use. Mine have little bumps which are remnants of the injection molding process. There's one right in the middle of each of my flat-bottomed trays and it scratches the emulsion badly if I don't put glass over it. My agitation scheme is similar to Jim's and I use double sided film. With film such as ektascan br/a flipping the film shouldn't be necessary.

[ImSoNegative]

the best trays I have used are the plastic food storage trays you can buy at the dollar store, they are about 5 dollars a piece, when I shoot single emulsion x ray film I just use the btzs tubes.

[andrewch59]

Developing with the trays is something I particularly enjoy. Its quite therapeutic, gently rocking the tray waiting for that image to appear and then deciding in the faint red glow if its time to halt development or wait just a little bit longer to find that little bit more detail. When I flip the green film it always seems to have a lot more on one side than the other, on the half speed blue both sides seem to have the same amount of detail.

[towolf]

So, I got my first flash ever this week. It’s a studio flash that can put out f32 at 1 meter with a softbox attached.

I wanted to try it out and was pretty puzzled that my Sekonic readings for the relative power of the flash and my big continuous fluorescent lightbox did not seem to match at all.

Of course I did the tests with cheap Fuji x-ray film to start with and where I had equal power from two sides the flash side just didn’t register. It seemed to be something like 1.5 stops under.

So today, I did a 2x2 test matrix with Foma 100 and Fuji HR-E 30 with equal power and then 3:1 power according to my light meter. I rated the Fuji at EI 25 from my earlier stuff.

http://i.imgur.com/HzdU6gD.png

What was completely new to me that apparently there is reciprocity failure also at extremely short exposures? The flash barely shows on the x-ray film. Is this an effect of my rating it at EI 25? Is is off perhaps?

[seezee]

What is the color temp of the new strobe? Perhaps it's too warm for the x-ray film.

[towolf]

No, I think it’s pretty cold. 5600K. My tubes are also 5500K.

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

I use a guillotine cutter, and I am always afraid of hurting me when operating in the dark, and even under deep red light, since I must press the film quite near the cutting area..
I am considering the purchase of a rotary cutter, but I do not know if all cutters cut cleanly the Xray film, which seem to me quite strong.
Even my guillotine cuts only fairly; I must press the blade against the cutting edge to cut and not bend the film.
Does rotary cutter behave cleanly?

My rotary cutter makes a very clean cut on film/paper. Meopta brand -common in Europe, probably unknown in the US.
Much cheaper than the Rototrim,but similar design.
The difference,at least with my design,is that the cutting head compresses the leading edge just before the wheel cuts.
On a guillotine, the cutting action on the blade tends to skew the medium. For heavy card to thin paper,works fine.
For films-rotary almost essential imho.

[mdm]

I have a rotary cutter for paper but was unable to use it for cutting a roll of aerographic film as it would have to be threaded from the wrong end under the plastic compression thing after every cut. A nightmare with floppy aero film. So I had to get a guillotine cutter for that, clearance on trademe about $30, it has a neat little arm that descends ahead of the blade and which holds the film still. If you use a rotary cutter its a good idea to tape a sheet of office paper around the plastic holder/compression thing to minimise potential scratching and to ease the paper in and out as it will hold the film down on the useable area.

[towolf]

So, I got my first flash ever this week. It’s a studio flash that can put out f32 at 1 meter with a softbox attached.

I wanted to try it out and was pretty puzzled that my Sekonic readings for the relative power of the flash and my big continuous fluorescent lightbox did not seem to match at all.

Of course I did the tests with cheap Fuji x-ray film to start with and where I had equal power from two sides the flash side just didn’t register. It seemed to be something like 1.5 stops under.

So today, I did a 2x2 test matrix with Foma 100 and Fuji HR-E 30 with equal power and then 3:1 power according to my light meter. I rated the Fuji at EI 25 from my earlier stuff.

http://i.imgur.com/HzdU6gD.png

What was completely new to me that apparently there is reciprocity failure also at extremely short exposures? The flash barely shows on the x-ray film. Is this an effect of my rating it at EI 25? Is is off perhaps?

Or, could this be an effect of the double-sided emulsion?

I stripped the rear now and seems to look much more balanced:

http://i.imgur.com/rjzmZaQ.gif

Could the continuous light penetrate the base better and shine through to the other side, but the flash doesn’t?

This is front and rear respectively:

http://i.imgur.com/uBRJ31n.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/vwXZR6C.png

[Bill Kumpf]

I use a guillotine cutter, and I am always afraid of hurting me when operating in the dark, and even under deep red light, since I must press the film quite near the cutting area..
I am considering the purchase of a rotary cutter, but I do not know if all cutters cut cleanly the Xray film, which seem to me quite strong.
Even my guillotine cuts only fairly; I must press the blade against the cutting edge to cut and not bend the film.
Does rotary cutter behave cleanly?


On my Premier Brand guillotine cutter, the gap, blade to cutting edge, can be adjusted. There is a nut that sets the spring tension to decrease the gap. Also, I use a drafting triangle placed over the paper / film to hold it tight. Seems to work for me.....

[Jim Noel]

So, I got my first flash ever this week. It’s a studio flash that can put out f32 at 1 meter with a softbox attached.

I wanted to try it out and was pretty puzzled that my Sekonic readings for the relative power of the flash and my big continuous fluorescent lightbox did not seem to match at all.

Of course I did the tests with cheap Fuji x-ray film to start with and where I had equal power from two sides the flash side just didn’t register. It seemed to be something like 1.5 stops under.

So today, I did a 2x2 test matrix with Foma 100 and Fuji HR-E 30 with equal power and then 3:1 power according to my light meter. I rated the Fuji at EI 25 from my earlier stuff.

http://i.imgur.com/HzdU6gD.png

What was completely new to me that apparently there is reciprocity failure also at extremely short exposures? The flash barely shows on the x-ray film. Is this an effect of my rating it at EI 25? Is is off perhaps?

Yes there is reciprocity departure when using extremely short exposures, but I doubt your flash durations are short enough to cause a problem. This occurs at 1/10,000 -1/5,000 second with most films

[Peter De Smidt]

There seem to be three things it could be:
a) The flash output varies,
b) The settings were wrong,
c) The spectral output of the flash is not ideal for the x-ray film.

If it's an older strobe, has it sat unused for awhile? You may want to follow the manufacturer's suggestions for reforming the capacitors.

Take a number of readings over the space of a few minutes. Don't overhead the flash, and make sure to give plenty of time to recharge. Are they consistent?

If the spectral output is off, which seems unlikely, you might have to determine an EI for flash separately from your other sources.

[towolf]

There seem to be three things it could be:
a) The flash output varies,


I don’t think so, we tested Film A, Film B, Film A, Film B. We didn’t touch the flash in all this, we only changed shutter speed from 1/2 to 1/6 to unbalance the ratio between flash and hotlight.


b) The settings were wrong,

I don’t think so, we designed the 2x2 experiment specifically to test film-vs-film and time-vs-time
http://i.imgur.com/LNJCxjs.png


c) The spectral output of the flash is not ideal for the x-ray film.

It’s this one here (http://www.cf-photovideo.de/Produkte/Studioblitze/FE-180_D/fe-180_d.html). According to manufacturer it’s 5600 K.


If it's an older strobe, has it sat unused for awhile? You may want to follow the manufacturer's suggestions for reforming the capacitors.

The guy said, he used it 2-3 times only. But it’s not super old.


Take a number of readings over the space of a few minutes. Don't overhead the flash, and make sure to give plenty of time to recharge. Are they consistent?

If the spectral output is off, which seems unlikely, you might have to determine an EI for flash separately from your other sources.

I’m doing some repeated pops into the light-meter, and they are all bang-on f22. Will continue this.

Right now it must be compensated by roughly 1.5 stops. I can’t really believe it’s spectral. Why is everyone discounting the reciprocity failure theory?

[Peter De Smidt]

Because your flash duration will not be short enough for reciprocity failure.

[Andrew O'Neill]

When you use a flat bottomed tray for double sided film do you oscillate the tray during development? And if not, how does it develope in the side in contact with the glass?

Constant, gentle agitation for the first 30 seconds, followed by 5 seconds gentle agitation every minute. Agitation is north/south, east/west. Or if you're in Australia or New Zealand, south/north, west/east....;)

[andrewch59]

As Andrew says gentle agitation south north, west east. With my old film holders there's always a bit of a black line from light leakage, so I grab it in that wasted area and flip it over so both sides get the same amount of developer flow.

[GF1973]

141223

River Elbe Radebeul/Saxony

Pinhole f400 x-ray film 1:50 Rodinal

[jon.oman]

141223

River Elbe Radebeul/Saxony

Pinhole f400 x-ray film 1:50 Rodinal

Very nice image! Very pinholey......

[seezee]

I asked FPP about "stand" development with x-ray film, and this was their answer:
Hi Chris,

Mat Marrash here from the Film Photography Project. My apologies for the delayed reply, this message got lost in the shuffle of all other things FPP.

In answer to your question about stand/semi-stand development, x-ray film doesn't respond well to full stand development like traditional panchromatic and other modern, orthochromatic films. I believe a big reason for that is the double sided emulsion present on the film, which increases the chances for bromide drag two-fold. In working with both blue and blue/green x-ray films with diluted Pyrocat HD, I've found that any more than two minutes between agitations will result in streaking/drag, meaning even semi-stand is out of the question. Another potential complication is the very short average developing time of these films. The longest I've been able to extend development on these films to is 16 minutes, but this is using an incredibly weak amount of Pyrocat HD that oxidizes and exhausts quickly.

For the best consistency, I recommend standard agitation of x-ray films. If you're looking to control contrast, simply develop the film by inspection under a weak red safelight, and pull the film into a cold water bath if the highlights start emerging before two minutes in the developer.

Hope this helps, and if you have any other x-ray film related questions, please feel free to ask.

-Mat M.
Obviously, Ektascan may not be as troublesome being single-emulsion. I'd be interested to hear who has done stand development with x-ray film, especially using the 'taco' method, and especially with pyrocat. What dilution did you use? Development time? Did you control the temperature, or just trust that the longer development would even things out?

A second area I'm unsure of relates to my (proposed) makeshift darkroom, which will be my bathroom. I covered the window with blackout cloth (held in place with gaffer tape). Closed all shades & curtains in the house, then closed hallway doors to block any remaining light from adjacent rooms. After closing bath door & waiting for eyes to adjust, I can barely make out some light leaking around the door frame, as well as some light coming through the blackout cloth. Is this enough to fog Ektascan when I trim it with the paper cutter (working under 7.5 watt red safelight)? Do I need to tape up the door frame & double my cloth thickness before proceeding? Thanks!

[koraks]

My darkroom situation is similar (in the sense that I can just make out some light leaking past the door), and it doesn't cause fog that I can actually detect with my eyes. There's bound to be some, but it's not an issue.

[seezee]

My darkroom situation is similar (in the sense that I can just make out some light leaking past the door), and it doesn't cause fog that I can actually detect with my eyes. There's bound to be some, but it's not an issue.Good to hear. I'm going to try to minimize exposure by keeping the shower curtain behind me as I work over the tub & immediately putting trimmed film in a clean box. Using the Yankee tank should also minimize exposure during developing.

[koraks]

I develop by sight, so the film I use is generally exposed for about 7 minutes to the safelight and whatever stray light peeps into the room. If I cut to 4x5 it's probably about 11 minutes, but I haven't shot much LF lately and only 8x10 at that.

[Alan9940]

Hello All,

New to this Forum, but not to LF photography. I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for nearly 40 years now. I never thought about shooting x-ray film, but with the price of 8x10 HP5+ I thought I'd give it a go. However, I visited the csxonline.com site and it seems that the only size they sell is 14x17? The Film Photography Project sells a 25 sheet box for $40, but based on reading this thread it seems like I ought to be able to get 100 sheets for around that price. For any of you shooting the 8x10 size, where do you buy your film?

Thanks!

[Martin Dake]

Csxonline does sell 8x10, you just have to drill down a bit by selecting a film then clicking more info.
Also try zzmedical they sell the 8x10 single sided film mentioned in previous posts for $80 per 100 sheets.

[Alan9940]

Hello Martin,

Thanks! Didn't realize I had to click the "More Info" button to see all the sizes. I see that CXS has "CXS Ortho Green Film by Agfa" and "CXS Green Latitude Film by Agfa". I'd like to try the green sensitive emulsion first, but which one? Or, does it not matter?

Thanks!

[Martin Dake]

Hello Martin,

Thanks! Didn't realize I had to click the "More Info" button to see all the sizes. I see that CXS has "CXS Ortho Green Film by Agfa" and "CXS Green Latitude Film by Agfa". I'd like to try the green sensitive emulsion first, but which one? Or, does it not matter?

Thanks!

Can't help with a specific recommendation I am afraid as I have not tried any yet.
I just bought some of the single sided film from zzmedical but have yet to try it.
This thread is quite lengthy but there is some great info in it and I am sure other members will help you with a choice.

[Ralph Weimer]

Latitude film is designed to have the lesser contrast of the two films Alan9940 mentioned. In x-ray terminology, "ortho" means green-sensitive, as opposed to "regular" which is blue-sensitive. The film is exposed indirectly via the (green or blue) phosphorescence of the intesifying screens of the film holders rather than directly via x-rays to reduce radiation exposure to the patient. The specteral response of the film affects the tonality of the image in rendering certain colors into monochrome tones.

R.

[jharr]

I asked FPP about "stand" development with x-ray film, and this was their answer:
Obviously, Ektascan may not be as troublesome being single-emulsion. I'd be interested to hear who has done stand development with x-ray film, especially using the 'taco' method, and especially with pyrocat. What dilution did you use? Development time? Did you control the temperature, or just trust that the longer development would even things out?


I exclusively stand develop Kodak CSG (dual sided) in Rodinal 1:100 for 4.5 minutes using the MOD54 in a Patterson tank. I have never noticed bromide drag. The MOD54 does make little scratches on one side of the emulsion at the edges where it contacts the film. A little more care on my part might mitigate that. That doesn't directly address your question, but maybe adds a little info to the knowledge base.

[koraks]

I tried double sided x-ray in the mod54 once. Never again. The lugs of the mod holder leave an impression on the film and due to its design,they're about half an inch into the image frame. The developer doesn't seem to soak into the part of the film that's touched by the lugs and it's really difficult to get the film out without scratching it in addition. In addition, I can't do 8x10 in the mod54 so I gave up on it for this purpose.

[seezee]

Hello All,

New to this Forum, but not to LF photography. I've been shooting 4x5 and 8x10 for nearly 40 years now. I never thought about shooting x-ray film, but with the price of 8x10 HP5+ I thought I'd give it a go. However, I visited the csxonline.com site and it seems that the only size they sell is 14x17? The Film Photography Project sells a 25 sheet box for $40, but based on reading this thread it seems like I ought to be able to get 100 sheets for around that price. For any of you shooting the 8x10 size, where do you buy your film?

Thanks!
As Martin noted, ZZMedical is the other online source for x-ray film. I find their prices are lower and the selection better than their competitors. Page back thru this thread for suggestions on trimming the film for 4×5, and consider using the single-sided film as your entry to x-ray film (to avoid the many complications of double-sided emulsion).

I plan to trim & load some Ektascan tonight & will report back with my results once I have developed a few test exposures (package with Rapid Fix should arrive from B&H soon).

[seezee]

Me too.
I use Dyno label tape, 2 pieces on top of each other give enough feel to use as a guide.
I have a cheap rotary cutter marked out for 4x5 and 3 1/4 x 4 1/4.
I just ordered a box of that Carestream 8x10 B/RA film to give it a go.UPDATE: it's been raining all afternoon in central Oklahoma, so I took advantage of the cloudy light to trim and load 3 sheets (12 exposures) of Ektaskan. Following Martin's suggestion, I marked the paper trimmer with Dyno tape — that streamlined the process considerably. By the time I got to the second sheet I felt like I was on autopilot.

I wore powderless nitrile gloves to avoid fingerprints & took out only 1 sheet of film at a time to minimize exposure to ambient + red light. Loaded each sheet after trimming, before going on to the next. I worked on the floor below the pedestal sink to block some of the light from the safe light. In the interest of avoiding grit and dirt, I used a large porcelain serving tray to place the trimmed film in, and put an old pillowcase on the floor under the trimmer to catch the cutoffs.

Hope to have some exposure tests next weekend, after the final chemicals & supplies are delivered.

[Alan9940]

Thank you to everyone that responded to my post. After reading through this entire thread (whew! Lots of good info, though) and finding a couple of reviews on the 'net, I just ordered a box of Kodak Ektascan B/RA from zzmedical. Even though it's a bit more expensive than the "green latitude" film I think, and as others have pointed out, that it's probably the best entry into using this type of film. Also, based on Jim F's strong recommendation to use holders that's how I'm starting out. Holders or trays may not be as critical a decision for this single-sided film, but it seems a good way to start. Now that the cooler weather is finally starting to hit in the desert southwest, I'm really excited to get out with my 8x10 and shoot some film!

[seezee]

Thank you to everyone that responded to my post. After reading through this entire thread (whew! Lots of good info, though) and finding a couple of reviews on the 'net, I just ordered a box of Kodak Ektascan B/RA from zzmedical. Even though it's a bit more expensive than the "green latitude" film I think, and as others have pointed out, that it's probably the best entry into using this type of film. Also, based on Jim F's strong recommendation to use holders that's how I'm starting out. Holders or trays may not be as critical a decision for this single-sided film, but it seems a good way to start. Now that the cooler weather is finally starting to hit in the desert southwest, I'm really excited to get out with my 8x10 and shoot some film!Please reply with your details (exposure details, developing method) and post examples images when you get to it. The more info we get on this thread, the easier we make it for future photographers. Best luck on your pictures!

[Fr. Mark]

Quick warning:
Even red LEDs can for film and paper we think is red blind.
I thought since the high intensity LEDs in a bike tail light were red and had a red plastic cover, I would be safe.
NO
Turns out that they emit an appreciable amount of yellow and green when you use a CD as a diffraction grating. These LEDs are way bright---they are a bike safety device--- and from 30" it doesn't take long to fog film or paper. I proved this a couple hours ago making photograms of 35mm stainless film reels on both printing paper and Ektascan B/RA.

Perhaps it is safe to use this light from a distance, but maybe not. This is at least the second time I've been tripped up by in-safe lights!

My dad said the value of experienced is that it enables you to recognize your mistakes when you make them again.

[koraks]

Thanks for confirming what I also found out a couple of weeks ago! Filtering the red light with some rubylith solved it for me. It's comforting to know I at least haven't gone entirely crazy and other people run into the same problem ;)

[mdarnton]

For what it's worth, Randy Moe recommended this bulb for x-ray film, and I've been very pleased with it. I cut and develop with it and haven't had a bit of fogging. I keep it reasonably far away, of course--usually around 4 - 5 feet or so.

https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe/2-watt-g11-globe-bulb-360-degree/440/

For that price, it's worth just buying it rather than trying to cobble something together that doesn't really work.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Stone Butter Church, Vancouver Island. Ektascan. Pyrocat-HD.


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5779/21826769393_c204c7304e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/zfKU7e)Stone Butter Church, Vancouver Island (https://flic.kr/p/zfKU7e) by Andrew O'Neill (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62974341@N02/), on Flickr

[andrewch59]

I wish I could get contrast like that, always seem to turn out very flat. Great pic!

[Kevin Harding]

Andrew, did you use any filters or anything? I'm going to pick up my box of Ektascan on Tuesday and can't wait to get using it.

[Alan9940]

Need a little help from the knowledge base here...

Per recommendations throughout this thread, I bought several 8x10 hangers for developing the Ektascan when I get it but I'm having a hard time finding suitable containers to hold the processing chemicals. I went to 3 different stores today, including the Container Store, and couldn't find anything that would work. Sure, there are large containers that would easily hold the hangers, but I'm looking at 4 - 6 gals of chemistry per! Throughout this thread I've seen mention of food storage containers, etc. If anyone has any specific make/part# or online links to something appropriate, I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks, andrewch59

Kevin, yes I used a wratten #11 (light green). Sorry for not mentioning that.

Alan9940, I made a tank myself with 1/4 inch plexi. I gave up on hangers when I realized that I could get better results in flat-bottomed trays, especially with double-sided x-ray film. With Ektascan, it's trays or BTZS tubes. Much less chemistry required. If I anticipate stand/semi stand development, I use tank and hanger. Be very, very gentle when using hangers. That's the secret.

[Kevin Harding]

Thanks, Andrew!

[Andrew O'Neill]

... :)

[Fr. Mark]

Thanks for that link, I ordered some, and sorry for the slightly incoherent message. The bike safety light is quite bright and directional. There's the temptation to use like a flashlight. If I keep it far enough away from things I can print and cut w/o fogging. I looked back through some older negatives and prints. And, I printed some developed in the dark pan film negs as contact prints tonight and they came out fine. I expect to be setting up a new darkroom space by the new year and these bulbs spaced around the room ought to be dim enough to avoid fogging but also not have inky dark spots around the room.

[Alan9940]

Followup...

Duh, I guess it would have been helpful to mention the size film I'll be processing: 8x10.

Andrew - yeah, I figured I'd try both methods--hangers and trays. I assume with the "tray method" that you process 1 sheet at a time? That would make sense, especially with double-sided film. That seems to be the one drawback to processing in trays; can only process a single sheet at a time. I used to process regular 8x10 film in trays via the shuffle method, but found I got uneven development. In the mid-1990's I bought a Jobo and have been using that for sheet film ever since. I suppose I could process the Ektascan in the Jobo since it's single-sided, but I've just started playing around with DBI. Anyway, I'll probably wind up making a few tanks myself.

Thanks, again!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

If you keep an eye out you may be able to find some one gallon stainless steel tanks. I use them for my 8 x 10 negatives. So far all of my ULF work is in trays one at a time. Lately I've been using my Efke 25 on a recent trip but I do have some X-ray film waiting for me. I should get to it today and post some prints soon.

[mdarnton]

I use three of Vinny's tanks. Each holds 6 hangers, and 5 quarts of developer. You can find his posts here, or http://www.vinnywalsh.com/#!products/c2jd

Part of the trick with hangers is to only use Kodak hangers--they don't touch the face of the film around the edge, where others will stick right to about 5mm of margin. And minimal agitation.