Use of X-ray film: technical discussion with example images [Archive] - Page 16

Alan9940

25-Oct-2015, 11:12

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.

Wow! Thanks for this link. I've been pondering some Kodak 8x10 tanks on eBay, but they require something like 3 gals of chemistry per tank! I've been looking into building some myself with Plexi, which would certainly be quite a bit cheaper than Vinny's tanks, but...maybe worthwhile to go with someone who knows how to handle these materials and to ensure a tank that doesn't leak! :) I'm fairly skilled with my hands, but if the bonding sides of plexi aren't nearly plane smooth ensuring proper flow of the acrylic glue you're gonna have a leak. Not good...

andrewch59

25-Oct-2015, 17:18

Nice pic!

andrewch59

27-Oct-2015, 01:04

141468
Excuse the quality of the digital copy, taken with a tablet, unfortunately no scanner. 10x12 Vageeswari, Ross 3A portrait lens, green xray at F22

andrewch59

27-Oct-2015, 17:02

141500
Once again apologies for the poor copy, tablet repro, in and out of the darkroom, no digital improvements, 10x12 Ross 3a, green xray

Fr. Mark

28-Oct-2015, 07:42

Another note on un-safe safelights: I did some shots with film cut under the bike tail light "safelight"and developed them with said light mostly off and definitely far away and most especially not shining directly down into the developer tray and got fine results. I'd been afraid that in addition to massive fog/mottling on development I'd also toasted the film while cutting it.

It was hugely exiting to see proper contrast and detail on these 5x7's. It even picked up a moire pattern from two layers of sheer curtain fabric and other detail of the curtain weave! I'm really looking forward to printing these.

I'd been mislead by the idea that this is a RED led, the film is red blind, therefore it doesn't matter how bright the light is, it does not have the wavelength to fog the film. Did I test this idea before acting on it? No. Is it wrong, yes! When I finally tried testing it the light definitely fogs film and printing paper---I made some photograms---I also looked at the light from it bouncing off a compact disc and it is mostly red but there's definitely yellow and green coming out too. I could not see the dimmer other colors unless I extinguished the regular room lights in the darkroom.

As for details: Brontrager Flash 2 bike tail light runs a very long time on 2AAA batteries. Ektascan B/RA cut to 5x7 and Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 5:30 (approx, Dev by inspection---briefly inspect!) at 76 F for cyanotypes and carbon (someday) though they will print pretty well on Ilford MG too as contact prints.

koraks

29-Oct-2015, 11:58

http://koraks.nl/galleries/8x10_archives/WWXRG_153_3.jpg
G-Claron 240/9 at f/45, about 4 seconds.
Green xray, developed in Rodinal 1+100. Attempted minus development by developing for 2 minutes with continuous agitation, then into a water bath for about 3 minutes. Back into the developer for a minute, followed by 2 minutes water bath. Repeated the last cycle once more, so in total about 4 minutes in the developer and 7 minutes in the water bath. I doubt it's as effective as simply using a more diluted developer or less frequent agitation and the negative came out a little thin, but it sort of worked alright for this image.

http://koraks.nl/galleries/8x10_archives/WWXRG_153_4.jpg
G-Claron 240/9 at f/16, about 8 seconds.
Green xray, developed in Rodinal 1+100. Continuous agitation for about 5 minutes and another minute or two in a water bath.

Both 8x10 btw.

Jiri Vasina

29-Oct-2015, 23:57

Both are very nice, koraks...

koraks

30-Oct-2015, 01:26

Thanks jiri! I might try a carbon print of the first one.

Jim Fitzgerald

30-Oct-2015, 06:41

Thanks jiri! I might try a carbon print of the first one.

That would look great in carbon. So would the second one

koraks

30-Oct-2015, 06:53

They would if you made the prints ;)

Jim Fitzgerald

30-Oct-2015, 07:24

They would if you made the prints ;)

No, practice makes perfect. I've always told students to print, print, print. We learn by our mistakes. Got to do it!

They are both tough to print but you can do it.

Thodoris Tzalavras

31-Oct-2015, 09:59

141640
Speed Graphic 4×5, Optar 135mm, 1/60 at f/8.
Agfa CP G+.
Developed in Ilford MG 1+80 at 22C for 8min on Jobo.
Epson V700 scan, edited in PS.

Alan9940

31-Oct-2015, 15:35

A couple of questions for those experienced with the Carestream Ektascan film from zzmedical...

I developed my very first sheet of this film in trays today using Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 for 8 1/2 mins at 75F. Agitation method was: north/south/east/west for the first minute, followed by one single n/s/e/w rotation each minute thereafter; stop/fix as normal.

1. The film is blue? I think I may have read that somewhere... If printing in the darkroom, I wouldn't think this color would affect graded paper (which I haven't used in years), but would affect VC paper the way blue light does? That is, more contrast? Thinking along these same lines I also print pt/pd where this blue color may be problematic. Thoughts?

2. I have years of experience developing "normal" film with Pyrocat-HD, but this negative doesn't take on the characteristics that I'm used to seeing; it doesn't have that obvious brownish stain and it looks kind of thin when viewed via transmitted light. Sitting in the white wash tray the density looked pretty normal. Does this film not take on the look of a normal PCat stained negative? Do these negatives look obviously thinner (less dense) than a regular negative (given same development parameters)?

Thank you for any insight/guidance provided.

Best regards,
Alan

Fr. Mark

31-Oct-2015, 23:30

Film base is blue for Carestream Ektascan B/RA. I print as cyanotypes with these negatives or straight contact prints as if it's graded paper so I can't say about split grade printing etc.

I use 2:2:100 for 5:30 at 77 Fahrenheit, there's definitely brown stain.
1:1:100 will also yield stain with proper negative exposure in my experience. I rate it 100 speed mid day, earlier or later or tungsten/non daylight balanced lamps and the film will be slower, potentially several (1,2,3,4) stops slower.

Detail should be excellent as is tonal range---I did a 57 of a chandelier focussed on one of the filaments in the light bulb and there was a dark shadow behind a curtain. I've got a tonal range of white paper to darkest navy blue on the print. It's a great film developer combo.

I believe others use 1:100 Rodinal with great success.

Ralph Weimer

1-Nov-2015, 06:45

Some Foma films had a blue base until recently; I never had issues re: contrast using VC papers with them or with double-sided x-ray film.

R

Alan9940

1-Nov-2015, 11:12

Thank you Fr. Mark and Ralph for your comments.

It's still very early on with my testing of this film. I will definitely play around with other dilutions and development times, and will report back here once I've settled on a combination that works for me. I also noticed when examining the dry negative that it had a very thin area of darker density all around the image area; this may be because I didn't use a large enough tray. Next trial I will use an 11x14 tray (for 8x10) and see if that resolves this issue.

premortho

2-Nov-2015, 06:05

For whatever it's worth, I've always used 8X10 trays for my 5X7 negatives. My grandfather taught me this in the mid 1940's
Thank you Fr. Mark and Ralph for your comments.

It's still very early on with my testing of this film. I will definitely play around with other dilutions and development times, and will report back here once I've settled on a combination that works for me. I also noticed when examining the dry negative that it had a very thin area of darker density all around the image area; this may be because I didn't use a large enough tray. Next trial I will use an 11x14 tray (for 8x10) and see if that resolves this issue.

seezee

2-Nov-2015, 15:22

I am amazed that this little old thread I started years ago is still going strong.

One wonders how you feel about it now.

salvatore

3-Nov-2015, 07:02

In the search for a convenient way to treat an Xray film I tried a simple even if careful handling in development and fixing , with free film in the tray which resulted in some minor but visible scratches scattered in the sheet (17.8 x24 cm).
My set is the following:
A pyrex glass tray of internal dimensions 187 by 285 mm, and two plastic trays of about 250 by 320 mm.
I use the first for development since the developer is the more expensive and delicate liquid, while as stop and fixer I can use the larger ones.
I saw that the development liquid can be stored with minimal degradation if kept in a vessel completely filled, leaving very little air above the liquid.
The degradation seems just a problem if oxidation. The other two solution are not critical.
So I cut a piece of plexigles of 183 by 280 mm 4 mm thick, and glued along the long side four small plexiglas blocks, two per side, at a distance amog the couples of 17.5 cm, slightly lower than the width of the film (17.8 cm) to create an arch high about 1 cm.
I placed the film in this holder, as I did for smaller sizes (up to 9x12 cm) and placed the whole in water to see the behaviour.
Unfortunately when the frame was withdrawn from water the film sticked to the plastic plate on one side, due to the water surface tension, something not observed with smaller sizes.
When immersed the adherence should disappear, but I am afraid that when ilting the tray I could induce a similar effect, with consequence in the surface.
So I looked to another approach, by making four fixtures which should keep the film parallel to the plate at a distance of about 1 cm, to be possibly reduced tu use less solution.
In the next days I will try my device, at least in pure water to observe the hydrodynamic behaviour during agitation and manipulation.

seezee

4-Nov-2015, 11:01

Hi,
I have been watching this Thread for a while. I am finishing a basement darkroom and planning to get into large format, mostly 4x5 and a little 8x10. I have a general question about the use of xray film: Is there a summary page for all the great discussion which has happened in this forumSure would be nice if one of the moderators would create a sticky post with an x-ray film FAQ. I see the same questions & answers over & over again in this thread: Don't process double-sided in a Jobo or BTZS tubes, Do/do not remove back emulsion, how do I remove back emulsion, where can I buy x-ray film, etc.

Any way we can make that happen?

seezee

4-Nov-2015, 11:07

Scan of Ektascan developed in very dilute pyrocat-hd. South Lawn Bld, at the recently closed down Riverview Hospital grounds.I know it's been over a year since you posted this, but did you take notes? What was your dilution? Temperature? How long to develop? I tray-developed my 1st test shots of Ektascan yesterday in 1:1:100 Pyrocat-HD at 71.5ºF and was shocked at how short the develpment time was (~3 minutes)!

Alan9940

4-Nov-2015, 12:52

I know it's been over a year since you posted this, but did you take notes? What was your dilution? Temperature? How long to develop? I tray-developed my 1st test shots of Ektascan yesterday in 1:1:100 Pyrocat-HD at 71.5ºF and was shocked at how short the develpment time was (~3 minutes)!

FWIW and I'm still testing... So far, I think I'm pretty close with Pyrocat-HD 1:1:150 at 75F for about 10 - 10 1/2 mins. I develop single-sheet at a time in trays with a n/s/e/w agitation for the first minute, followed by one single n/s/e/w rotation each minute thereafter. The reason I refer to the time as "about" is because I develop by inspection using a red LED light. Therefore, total time is more an approximation.

Hope this helps.

seezee

4-Nov-2015, 14:57

They don't call it green in the sense other X-ray films are. It is even more orthochromatic than the green film. As a hypothisis, I would rate blue film the least orthochromatic, the green more so, and Ektascan the most orthochromatic of the films being currently manufactured.

Old post, I know. But: I was under the impression the Ektascan was a blue sensitive film, so I must have misread the description at ZZ Medical. Can anyone confirm Premortho's above statement? If I wanted to get a more 'blue x-ray/wet plate' look, what color filter would I need to use? Blue, presumably?

Alan9940

4-Nov-2015, 15:55

I haven't used any of the variations--blue or green sensitive, green latitude--of film as sold by CXS Online, for example, but having shot several sheets of Ektascan (zzmedical.com) during testing, I believe premortho's statement to be true; it must be the most orthochromatic of any x-ray film as it looks darn close to normal panchromatic film.

seezee

4-Nov-2015, 17:06

Hope this helps.I'm sure it will; thank you.

salvatore

5-Nov-2015, 08:49

I have just completed and started to test my film holder.
The 18x24 film shet stays not completely flat, but shows an arch which in the center comes at about 5 mm from the plastic, and the situation does not change even after many trials to keep the film flat and in tension.
Probably a device including some elasticity in the clamps could solve the problem, but for the moment I decided to live with it, unless the film will touch the plastic plate when immersed in water in the following tests.
So I put my device in the 20x30 cm pyrex tray and started to add water to see the behaviour of the film.
The film starts to be covered by the solution when tilted at 600 ml, but a good immersion is obtained with a total volume of 1 liter.
I withdrew the device and checked that the film was not touching the plastc, and this is for me a positive test and the device is now ready to be tested under operating condition, with the developer.
About this, I have read somewhere that for this film size about 6 ml of HC110 syrup is necesary.
I have also read that some b/w films were developed in HC110 syrup dilution of 1:250 and 45 minutes of development.
I would like to try a 1:100 dilution (10ml to 1 liter) and 20 minutes of development, or a 1:200 for one hour.
What do you think?
In my former tests I got reasonable results with 1:50 dilution and 10 minutes developement.

Andrew O'Neill

5-Nov-2015, 10:09

I know it's been over a year since you posted this, but did you take notes? What was your dilution? Temperature? How long to develop? I tray-developed my 1st test shots of Ektascan yesterday in 1:1:100 Pyrocat-HD at 71.5ºF and was shocked at how short the develpment time was (~3 minutes)!

At work so going from memory... for tray development (flat-bottomed), I use 5ml of both A and B solutions, in one litre of water at 21C. EI was 80. I believe the development time was 8 minutes... I always give constant agitation for the first 30 seconds, then about 5 sec every minute (lifting tray north/south, east/west). This time worked well for carbon transfer printing. For non-alt processes, the time would probably be around 6-6:30, but that's only a guess.
I love the sharpness of this film, but I prefer green latitude's look.

salvatore

6-Nov-2015, 03:17

Please find here some quick and bad photo of my frame, which however give a clear idea of the device.
In the first of them141898 you see a prospectic view of it, while in the second 141899 you see a detail of the clamp, and you can notice the arcuate surface of the fim.
The third image shows a view from top.141900
I hope it could interest someone.
Thanks for the attention.

salvatore

6-Nov-2015, 04:54

Is anybody using Xray film for gum printing?

Andrew O'Neill

6-Nov-2015, 19:58

salvatore

7-Nov-2015, 00:40

I'm using it sometimes for carbon transfer and kallitype printing. Seems like quite a setup to develop your x-ray film... I have never gotten scratches when I use flat-bottomed trays, in film sizes up to 14x17. Have you developed with your set up yet? It looks like you'll need quite a bit of developer, to cover the film completely, as it's quite elevated.

Probably you have more experience than me in treating delicate films.
I did not make yet a real film development test, but I simulated it with a pure water bath.
The present set up requires confortably from 800 to 1000 ml of solution.
The distance between the clamp and the plexy sheet is about 1 cm in the present set up, to avoid contact in the middle of the film, due to arching which brings the film to about 4 mm from the sheet.
In a more refined future device, giving some lateral stretch to the film, with a more planar film holding, the clamp to sheet distance can drop to a few millimeters, reducing the quantity of developing solution probably to about 400-600 ml.
In the search of a mount to keep the solution at a minimum, I am considering also the use of a vertical tank, with a width of 5 mm, on which drop the film kept precisely in vertical position.
No agitation will be possible, but I remember that long time ago I used to develop Xray film for crystallographic purposes some vertical vessels without any agitation. For reasonably long development times the simpkle diffusion is probably sufficient.
Given the needed size, say 19 x 25 x 0.5 cm for a 18x24 film the solution volume could reach 237 ml, which I believe is the real minimum.

andrewch59

7-Nov-2015, 21:36

A lot of trouble to go to as Andrew has said. I use new plastic trays with the grooves on the bottom and the moulding nipples that tend to scratch the negs, I negated the problem by simply using blank cleaned film on the bottom. Haven't had any problems except for unclipped fingernails occasionally. Oh and I moved up a size in trays, if you use the appropriate size the developer laps the sides a bit quick and causes uneven development.

Misko

7-Nov-2015, 22:14

9824298243[ATTACH=CONFIG]98244[/ATTACH

Hey David,
is there some site or page where I can check all your typology shots made so far? I am shooting very similar project for last 3-4 years called "Close Ones - Up Close". I am also planning something very similar with people living in the city where I live now (Shanghai, China) where I would try to do similar project on the street with my Cambo MaxiPortrait 4x5.

salvatore

8-Nov-2015, 02:57

I have a very stupid question, but I couldn't find anything about in the web:

Why the substrate of X-ray films is green or blue and not simply clear?
There are technical reasons or commercial?
Thanks.

Ralph Weimer

8-Nov-2015, 21:57

salvatore

9-Nov-2015, 07:47

X-ray film base is blue because it is a transparency, looked at on an illuminated light box along with hundreds more over the course of a long day. The blue tint enhances contrast and soothes eye strain for the radiologist. Blue vs green refers to the sensitivity of the film to light, because it was exposed by blue or green fluorescent screens that converted a relatively few x-ray photons to lot of light photons, thereby reducing the patient's x-ray dose.

R

Thank you for the explanation, but if the goal is to relieve strain, why not simply dim the lamps in the light box?
And why not tinting in green the substrate, a wavelength where human eye is more sensitive?
Finally, why blue or green should enhance contrast?

koraks

9-Nov-2015, 09:02

why not simply dim the lamps in the light box?
Visibility would suffer too much beyond a certain point, resulting in more strain instead of less.

And why not tinting in green the substrate, a wavelength where human eye is more sensitive?
My guess is that since blue-sensitive film is less sensitive to green light, the double sided nature of that film would complement less with a green substrate (the 'dark' side would receive less exposure, necessitating higher xray doses for patients to achieve the same contrast). Hence blue seems like a logical color to standardize on. I can also imagine that the availability, stability and cost of dyes plays a role, but you'd have to ask an industrial expert. Another factor that could play a role is the emission spectrum of the CFL light used in light boxes.

Finally, why blue or green should enhance contrast?
I don't know, honestly.
Have you tried contacting an industry expert with your questions? They sound a bit specific for a photography community - I'd love to hear the outcome if you found someone capable of asking your questions. Even though they don't seem to be of very high relevance to photographic applications, but like you, I'm curious ;)

Alan9940

10-Nov-2015, 14:42

As I've continued my testing of Ektascan I'm finding shadow areas to be sorely lacking in detail vs what I'd expect to get with regular panchro-type film; to wit, Zone III areas are very near or total black with Zone IV areas showing very little detail. I've been exposing the film at EI80 and developing in Pyrocat-HD. I'm really curious what other's experience is with this film and shadow detail? Should I expect good detail in Zone IV or should shadow areas where I want good detail be closer to Zone V? In any typical outdoor sunshine scene is the significant amount of blue light in the shadows--especially those open to blue sky--a factor? Or, is this just a very limited dynamic range film? Which, come to think of it, given its usual application a lot of dynamic range probably isn't necessary; I'm no x-ray technician, though. Thoughts?

Thank you for any insight provided.

seezee

10-Nov-2015, 15:16

Finally able to digitize one of my first XRay shots:, and it is actually one of my first 8x10 shots.

Fuji HRT, Processed in Sprint -Std 1-9-_ in a Beseler Drum. I had to strip the back side with bleach because huge spots didn't develop (think I'll stick to trays from now on). Scanned in 4 segments with an Epson 4870 - looking for an 8x10 scanner now!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7321/8729620996_e38f9ba8f7_o.jpg (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7321/8729620996_e38f9ba8f7_o.jpg)Are you shooting with a Petzval formula lens?

Peter De Smidt

10-Nov-2015, 15:17

I use Pyrocat for my regular film developing. It's great stuff. I haven't had as much success with it and x-ray film, though, as the combo lost an excessive amount of speed. (The film was Fuji Green HR-T.) Sergei reported the same thing, and so maybe that's an issue? You might try Rodinal, DS-10....

Alan9940

10-Nov-2015, 16:45

Hello Peter,

Yep, that's what I'm thinking too. I also have used Pyrocat-HD for many years with all formats from 35mm through 8x10 developing regular film in both my Jobo CPP2 and hand tanks. I've noticed as I've zeroed in on a standard developing time that shadow detail varies quite a bit; that is, longer development reveals more shadow detail while shorter development reveals less. And, I'm not talking wild fluctuations in development times--say, 7.5 vs 8.5 mins! This all leads me to believe that the Ektascan film loses film speed--at least in this developer--VERY quickly. I feel fairly confident in what I'm observing in this regard because two sheets were exposed one after the other under identical daylight conditions (cloudless skies, too.) Longer development to increase speed to reveal better shadow definition is good, but it leads to pretty contrasty negs which could be difficult to print with typical VC papers, even with very low grade filters. Therefore, based on my best derived development regimen it appears that the only option I have is to lower my EI; not something I really would want to do given shooting 8x10 in typical outdoor conditions. Wind is not our friend! :)

I've read on these boards of a couple photographers shooting EFKE 25. In the past, I had a photographer friend who always shot Tech Pan. Personally, I can't even begin to imagine shooting the kinds of scenes I do with an EI25 speed film. Heck, I'd probably find that slow speed problematic with 4x5! But, we're all different and YMMV...

Guess I'll have to give all this some more thought. Maybe try lowering my EI to 40/50 or keep the longer development time and print on a long-scale paper such as Lodima. I'll have to get in the darkroom and see what these various negs give me on different papers. Oh, and I did try Rodinal at 1:200 but got bullet-proof negs. If anyone is developing this film with Rodinal in a Jobo I'd love to get your dilution/time/temp.

Jim Noel

10-Nov-2015, 17:01

These comments surprise me. I have used Pyrocat HD since Sandy first published the formula. I have no problem with a film speed of 100 for Ektascan. I should state that I do not print on VC papers, and very rarely on silver gelatin as I prefer to use any one of several alternative printing processes for my images. Some, but not all, of which require longer scaled negatives.

Tin Can

10-Nov-2015, 17:04

You have to read the X-Ray threads.

SergeiR did a long series on X-Ray double sided, not single sided where he changed both time and dilution with Rodinal in a JOBO. His work stands out.

Search for his results, they are not in a table. Any of us would also have to search. It's a PITA.

Peter De Smidt

10-Nov-2015, 17:58

Jim, I found the results surprising as well. I get _three stops_ more speed with DS-10 and Fuji HR-T than with Pyrocat MC.

andrewch59

10-Nov-2015, 18:17

Wow great contrast!

Alan9940

11-Nov-2015, 06:59

Jim, I, too, have used Pyrocat in both its HD and HDC variations for many years, as I stated above, but like Peter was very surprised seeing this apparent quick drop in film speed as development time dropped. I say "apparent" because I'm not measuring density via a densitometer; simply 35 years experience shooting large format with regular film. I suspect the reason you're not seeing this anomaly is because you're developing much longer than me for alternative printing. I do print pt/pd on occasion and may just relegate use of this film for that process or long-scale chloro-bromide type paper such as Lodima.

Peter, based on your comment I may have to give DS-10 a try. Thanks!

seezee

11-Nov-2015, 13:02

Now when is Viola showing up? She's my hair model mannequin head, I will use until I find a live one...Randy, do you have a link? I need a mannequin for my lighting tests & was not please with the prices & selections at [giant internet retailer].

Tin Can

11-Nov-2015, 14:08

Randy, do you have a link? I need a mannequin for my lighting tests & was not please with the prices & selections at [giant internet retailer].

I got Helen Hair Art # 4314 (http://www.amazon.com/Hairart-Female-Mannequin-Head-4314/dp/B000YM861E) in barter. I traded some useless TV device.

She was very dirty and I had to give Helen a shower. They claim real human hair. She is very sturdy and cleaned up fine.

I also have a store type full body plastic mannequin that looks almost real on a dark night, with wig delivered for $100 from somewhere. You will have to search online or look in dumpsters behind Macy's.

Some here prefer full size skeletons...

Peter De Smidt

11-Nov-2015, 14:20

I have one of these: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0049W3SNQ?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00 plus a cheap wig. It's fine for lighting tests.

seezee

11-Nov-2015, 15:44

Man, I wish! I did order some adox chemistry from a guy in Germany once. I think he would have shipped the Rodinal too. I should have purchased some back then. No one else will ship it here. I'd drink Rodinal if I could get three bottles for $24!Are you still paying through the nose for Rodinal? Here's a recipe for making up homemade concentrate: http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/rodinal.php

Finally looked at your site, since your Flickr images here are 404. Great stuff! Envious of you meeting George Takei!

Tin Can

11-Nov-2015, 17:13

Are you still paying through the nose for Rodinal? Here's a recipe for making up homemade concentrate: http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/rodinal.php

Finally looked at your site, since your Flickr images here are 404. Great stuff! Envious of you meeting George Takei!

Doing a quick calculation. Making that formula is about 20% the cost of store bought Rodinal.

Both ways are still cheap. I will consider making it if I can afford enough film to save money with DIY chems. :)

My other issue is, I live inside my studio/darkroom, so mixing powders is not a good idea. I use factory liquid chems 99% of the time. I think they are safer FOR ME. ymmv

I worry about upcoming harsh consumer regulation of chems in USA. The EU has already done that.

seezee

11-Nov-2015, 17:20

My other issue is, I live inside my studio/darkroom, so mixing powders is not a good idea. I use factory liquid chems 99% of the time. I think they are safer FOR ME. ymmvAh, my darkroom is my bathroom. Can easily make developer 'soup' in the kitchen, taking precautions not to contaminate food prep surfaces, so if I were desperate to save $$$ on developer, I could make Rodinal, in a pinch. But, like you, using factory liquid chems — as I'm just starting out this LF sickness, I'm not ready for that much DIY. Can't imagine the sturm und drang of building a LF camera, let alone mixing soup from scratch!

seezee

11-Nov-2015, 17:23

I got Helen Hair Art # 4314 (http://www.amazon.com/Hairart-Female-Mannequin-Head-4314/dp/B000YM861E) in barter. I traded some useless TV device.

I have one of these: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0049W3SNQ?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00 plus a cheap wig. It's fine for lighting tests.Thanks; much obliged.

Tin Can

11-Nov-2015, 17:37

Ah, my darkroom is my bathroom. Can easily make developer 'soup' in the kitchen, taking precautions not to contaminate food prep surfaces, so if I were desperate to save $$$ on developer, I could make Rodinal, in a pinch. But, like you, using factory liquid chems — as I'm just starting out this LF sickness, I'm not ready for that much DIY. Can't imagine the sturm und drang of building a LF camera, let alone mixing soup from scratch!

I started 4 years ago, a complete novice and I still am.

I just write a lot.

Keeps me active and improved my health.

Pixelwhip

11-Nov-2015, 18:10

Tin Can

11-Nov-2015, 18:31

hello, I am a total novice when it comes to xray film but am fascinated enough to want to give it a try & order a pack. Only issue is it's really hard sourcing a x-ray film supplier in Australia, so I need to ask; does anybody know of one?

Also i've managed to track down one supplier who sells 'industrial X-ray' film; I'm attaching their product list & am wondering, will this kind of film work? I intend to develop in rodinal as discussed in this thread. I'd love to use this film because some of the sizes they supply will require minimal cutting to the 3.25x4.25" film I require.

A huge thanks to anyone able to answer my questions!! :)

142170

Look up and compare products. If they are used for the same medical purpose but have different names, try it.

This X-Ray biz is not mainstream, you will have to experiment. Buy the cheapest box and try it.

The only caution is to find analog X-Ray for wet processing, not dry processors as that's digital and won't work. For us.

Call your local and ask them, what do they sell that is the same as US products. Don't mention photography as they never know that answer. I have tried. They hang up here.

SMBooth

12-Nov-2015, 00:46

Tin Can

12-Nov-2015, 04:53

Have you got the model or part number Pixelwhip image just really shows sizes.

Edit, it seem to be the IX fiilm http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/ix-film_datasheet.pdf
the HR - T is the common one used. http://product.fujifilm.com.au/super-hr-t30

Get the FUJI HR T30, my box of Kodak X-Ray is marked 20.3 X 25.4 CM and 8X10 inches and fits Sold in USA 8X10 film holders.

I have no idea what measuring systems you use or film holders.

The stuff is easy to cut under RED LED of the type I have specified in the X-Ray threads many times. This bulb works safely at 4 feet for short duration. Test any safelight yourself as ymmv. https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe/2-watt-g11-globe-bulb-360-degree/440/#/attributes/13

You will waste this relatively cheap film as you learn to use it. Use normal photo film if you expect those results.

Happy summer!

seezee

12-Nov-2015, 14:12

I wonder if someone can write an x-ray film article for the LF homepage? I might be willing to actually, or contribute. I'm not the best writer.Did anyone ever do this? I'd be happy to write a FAQ, at least. If I can figure out how to submit it, anyway.

Tin Can

12-Nov-2015, 14:29

I agree a X-Ray component to http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ would be useful for all and particularity helpful to newbies.

There are a couple, this decade, additions to http://www.largeformatphotography.info/. But room for more. imho

It could start as a collaborative thread where we gather data and later get a good writer to make a lasting document. As lasting as anything is in these fading days of film.

Is anybody interested that has extensive knowledge of modern photographic uses of X-Ray materials?

I am not that person.

andrewch59

12-Nov-2015, 17:45

SergeiR would get my vote, he is the Alex Timmerman of xray

Tin Can

12-Nov-2015, 18:08

SergeiR would get my vote, he is the Alex Timmerman of xray

I happen to know he is very busy.

We need a volunteer not a recruit.

Pixelwhip

12-Nov-2015, 19:26

Edit, it seem to be the IX fiilm http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/ix-film_datasheet.pdf

yes, i looked into the chemistry, uses 'hirendol' to manually develop http://www.axt.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HiRENDol-I-20L.pdf, sounds like rodinal.. anyone ever tried using this kind of film? I ask more out of curiousity than anything else.

andrewch59

12-Nov-2015, 21:04

I happen to know he is very busy.

We need a volunteer not a recruit.
Yes granted I imagine he would be, his work is inspiring, more a compliment given than a recruitment drive.

SergeiR

12-Nov-2015, 21:53

Thanks, guys, but I don't really have much of experience with various types of Xray - i just tried couple and stuck with one i liked :) Same went with process, as soon as I found way to do it with same results and worry less about process and more concentrate on shooting - i stick with it :) But if it would help to anyone i can certainly write it up.

Most likely i am going to revive my site with blog in next two weeks, and draft of this will go there anyway.
Also if you happen to be near Dallas - we working on getting studio space that would also double as educational base - starting to look at spaces, while Lana is working out business details ;)

More portraits might come after this Saturday - i am getting out for first time since septembe. Huzzah.

Tin Can

12-Nov-2015, 21:59

That sounds great Sergei.

I did not mean to step in your way. :)

Thanks, guys, but I don't really have much of experience with various types of Xray - i just tried couple and stuck with one i liked :) Same went with process, as soon as I found way to do it with same results and worry less about process and more concentrate on shooting - i stick with it :) But if it would help to anyone i can certainly write it up.

Most likely i am going to revive my site with blog in next two weeks, and draft of this will go there anyway.
Also if you happen to be near Dallas - we working on getting studio space that would also double as educational base - starting to look at spaces, while Lana is working out business details ;)

More portraits might come after this Saturday - i am getting out for first time since septembe. Huzzah.

Thodoris Tzalavras

13-Nov-2015, 11:01

142241

Late afternoon light at Latchi, Cyprus.
October 2015.

Speed Graphic 4x5, with Optar 135mm, at f/8.
Agfa x-ray film (CP G+).
Developed in Ilford MG 1+80 at 22C for 8min on Jobo.

Andrew O'Neill

13-Nov-2015, 11:25

A few years ago, I started writing an article, put the idea out there, but there was no response. So, I figured my time was better spent exposing and printing the stuff than writing about it.

Tin Can

13-Nov-2015, 11:58

A few years ago, I started writing an article, put the idea out there, but there was no response. So, I figured my time was better spent exposing and printing the stuff than writing about it.

I think the time is right for this.

Lately we have had many requests from newbies about X-Ray and the traditional response here has been. "Go read the 2 X-Ray threads in their entirety". Those threads are huge.

I have done that, but it did not make me an expert. The threads are daunting in length and contradiction.

Andrew, Sergei and others could help many newcomers with a article on LF Front Page http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

Maybe address types and which actual films people use by continent as labeling is customized for marketing confusion.

Keep the chemistry and processing simple and cheap for beginners. Rodinol in trays, under red LED?

I'm out.

Andrew O'Neill

13-Nov-2015, 12:48

I still have the file somewhere, I think. Maybe I'll take another stab at it.

Wayne

13-Nov-2015, 13:21

Very Nice!! The contrast of x-ray really suits this shot

142241

Late afternoon light at Latchi, Cyprus.
October 2015.

Speed Graphic 4x5, with Optar 135mm, at f/8.
Agfa x-ray film (CP G+).
Developed in Ilford MG 1+80 at 22C for 8min on Jobo.

Thodoris Tzalavras

13-Nov-2015, 15:07

Very Nice!! The contrast of x-ray really suits this shot

Thanks Wayne.
I should note though that this is a scan which was post processed in PS, in order to resemble what a split-grade print on VC paper would look like. There is dodging/burning and local contrast manipulation in play.
I haven't made a grade 2 straight print from this negative yet to post for comparison. I thought of posting the unedited scan, but that wouldn't be representative of the negative's true tonality either, since I prefer to get dull scans out of the scanner instead of "true" scans. I find them easier to work with.

Tin Can

13-Nov-2015, 15:36

Thanks for the honesty. I doubt a wet FB print will compare unless done by a Master.

I do like your image and maybe I need to follow your good example.

Thanks Wayne.
I should note though that this is a scan which was post processed in PS, in order to resemble what a split-grade print on VC paper would look like. There is dodging/burning and local contrast manipulation in play.
I haven't made a grade 2 straight print from this negative yet to post for comparison. I thought of posting the unedited scan, but that wouldn't be representative of the negative's true tonality either, since I prefer to get dull scans out of the scanner instead of "true" scans. I find them easier to work with.

Pixelwhip

13-Nov-2015, 17:10

I think the time is right for this.

Lately we have had many requests from newbies about X-Ray and the traditional response here has been. "Go read the 2 X-Ray threads in their entirety". Those threads are huge.
I have done that, but it did not make me an expert. The threads are daunting in length and contradiction.

i've waded thru this thread over the last week & it's full of great information & is very inspiring.. but yes, it's hard to find all the relevant info.

Maybe address types and which actual films people use by continent as labeling is customized for marketing confusion.

this would be great, In Australia it's much harder to source x-ray film, but i do believe i've found a supplier. If it happens i'll happily add their details to a list. Also found a few generic brands of x-ray film which i think should work because the developer chemicals sound very familiar, but i'd ideally want confirmation before purchasing.

I
Keep the chemistry and processing simple and cheap for beginners. Rodinol in trays, under red LED?

exactly what i'm thinking.. i'm already well versed in rodinal; being my developer of choice so i reckon a bit of trial and error could produce good results. I figure i'd use trays, anyone tried 'taco method' or is this unsuitable for xray?

Ohhh, & i plan to shoot in 3.25x4.25" as this is the size of a small speedgraphic I recently picked up. Figure if i'm going to have to trim my film to fit, i may as well use x-ray.

andrewch59

13-Nov-2015, 17:23

142241

Late afternoon light at Latchi, Cyprus.
October 2015.

Speed Graphic 4x5, with Optar 135mm, at f/8.
Agfa x-ray film (CP G+).
Developed in Ilford MG 1+80 at 22C for 8min on Jobo.

Great job, the clouds look awesome

andrewch59

13-Nov-2015, 17:26

i've waded thru this thread over the last week & it's full of great information & is very inspiring.. but yes, it's hard to find all the relevant info.

this would be great, In Australia it's much harder to source x-ray film, but i do believe i've found a supplier. If it happens i'll happily add their details to a list. Also found a few generic brands of x-ray film which i think should work because the developer chemicals sound very familiar, but i'd ideally want confirmation before purchasing.

exactly what i'm thinking.. i'm already well versed in rodinal; being my developer of choice so i reckon a bit of trial and error could produce good results. I figure i'd use trays, anyone tried 'taco method' or is this unsuitable for xray?

Ohhh, & i plan to shoot in 3.25x4.25" as this is the size of a small speedgraphic I recently picked up. Figure if i'm going to have to trim my film to fit, i may as well use x-ray.

I pm'D you with details of a supplier, but received nil response, have contacts for you if needed

Pixelwhip

13-Nov-2015, 17:37

sorry, yep, i got it thanks. just PM'd you back with a potential aussie supplier i've found.

Wayne

13-Nov-2015, 19:22

Oh...in that case...I'm less impressed. No offense. Its still a nice composition.

But this does create an opportunity to bring up something I've wanted to bring up for a while. Could people say whether they are posting PSed scans or prints or whatever? I know the results I have gotten printing x-ray film are pathetic compared to most that are posted, and it occurred to me I may be comparing apples and oranges. I would think many people getting into x-ray and printing it would want to know this info too so they aren't trying to duplicate qualities that they can't.

Thanks Wayne.
I should note though that this is a scan which was post processed in PS, in order to resemble what a split-grade print on VC paper would look like. There is dodging/burning and local contrast manipulation in play.
I haven't made a grade 2 straight print from this negative yet to post for comparison. I thought of posting the unedited scan, but that wouldn't be representative of the negative's true tonality either, since I prefer to get dull scans out of the scanner instead of "true" scans. I find them easier to work with.

Andrew O'Neill

13-Nov-2015, 19:32

That's a good point, Wayne. Perhaps people should get into the habit of providing info on how they manipulated the image, if any manipulation took place... but over on the other x-ray thread. As I said before, there really should only be one x-ray thread.

Jim Fitzgerald

13-Nov-2015, 21:01

Thodoris Tzalavras

14-Nov-2015, 03:02

Hey guys, I don't know if I'm stepping on anyone's toes here, but isn't the final result the print?

I mean, I find it a bit weird when traditionalists get upset for manipulations done digitally.

I'm primarily a darkroom printer with some 20 years of experience, I have exhibited prints internationally, and let me tell you that I've never shown a straight print nowhere and to no one, except for educational purposes, to illustrate what a particular technique can do for your printing.

Manipulation is the name of the game, as far as I'm concerned. The negative is the score and the print the performance, as uncle Ansel put it.

And to be clear, whatever I do in PS, I can also do in the darkroom.

The main differences for me is that PS allows undo and preview of multiple manipulations at ounce, while in the DR each manipulation over the straight print has to be locked down individually and in sequence. Also, working a full day to arrive to the first final print is much easier done sitting down than standing up, leaning over baseboards, trays, sinks, etc.

I do both, and see them both as tools that help me get to the picture I had in mind when I made the exposure.

I completely understand Wayne's point though. For anyone trying to learn a technique is of paramount importance to know the "how" behind the examples they're presented with. That was why I offered him the additional information after his comment regarding the contrast of the picture I posted.

Even though x-ray film is inherently a very high contrast material, it's also very responsive to changes in development. I have managed to bring its characteristic curve into a shape which allows me to record a rich negative with good tonal rendition which is suitable for both scanning and darkroom printing.

seezee

14-Nov-2015, 07:46

I think the time is right for this.

Lately we have had many requests from newbies about X-Ray and the traditional response here has been. "Go read the 2 X-Ray threads in their entirety". Those threads are huge.

I have done that, but it did not make me an expert. The threads are daunting in length and contradiction.

Andrew, Sergei and others could help many newcomers with a article on LF Front Page http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

Maybe address types and which actual films people use by continent as labeling is customized for marketing confusion.

Keep the chemistry and processing simple and cheap for beginners. Rodinol in trays, under red LED?

I'm out.As I posted earlier, I'd be happy to write a FAQ, if I can figure out how to get the admins to publish it. It should be a living document so that as we learn more, we can add to it. Topics should include: different film types (green sensitive, blue sensitive, mammo, video) & their specific spectral sensitivities & dimensions, double- vs. single-emulsion, avoiding scratches, avoiding uneven development, starting points for common chemistry (dilutions & times), stripping emulsion, sources to buy film, effective use of filters, safe safelights, trimming to fit your holder. I'm sure I've missed some stuff, but you guys can remind me when I post a draft for your criticism.

I've literally spent the last 3 weeks reading both threads (finished this one and am half-way through the other one) & think Randy is spot on when he says they are daunting & contradictory. For someone just starting out, telling them to 'read the threads' is not helpful. Hopefully, in the future the forums will move to better software that provides more nuanced search.

On the other hand, I've learned a lot from you guys, for which I am so grateful, & I want to give back. So:

Does any one here have advice on how to get a FAQ on the front page? Seems the last attempt died due to the inertia of the admins.

seezee

14-Nov-2015, 07:48

I figure i'd use trays, anyone tried 'taco method' or is this unsuitable for xray?Once I get tray development down, I plan to try this. Will post back to let you know how it turns out.

Also just bought an HP Combi on FleaBay. Will be testing it later.

seezee

14-Nov-2015, 07:52

mdarnton

14-Nov-2015, 08:22

When I started this thread it was about the images. I post prints. I think that is what should be done. No scans anymore. Post your work and discuss what and how it was done so we can all learn. After all this is Large Format and I feel we should post prints now.

I completely disagree. It isn't the thread you imagined and hasn't been for some time. This complaint is way too late -- it's 271 pages late, in fact. If you want that thread, start it now, elsewhere.

Wayne

14-Nov-2015, 09:00

I completely disagree. It isn't the thread you imagined and hasn't been for some time. This complaint is way too late -- it's 271 pages late, in fact. If you want that thread, start it now, elsewhere.

Or, you can start one for scans. Jim does express the interest in it being a print thread when he started it but was inclusive of scans. But if people aren't going to identify which they are posting the educational experience (the intent of the thread) is diminished.

Corran

14-Nov-2015, 11:05

A scan is a scan. If it's scanned from a print or scanned from a negative, it's still a scan and whether or not it looks like what is in-hand is completely debatable and likely an issue with the quality of the scan (and know-how of the person scanning it).

My experience is that scanned prints look pretty bad. The negative is a much more viable medium for scanning. Also, scan adjustment should be a given. A "straight scan" usually means a dull lifeless image without much contrast, since a scanner is not [darkroom] paper and shouldn't be expected to react the same way.

I imagine that 98% of the images posted here (other than instant film prints) are scanned negatives. Evaluating image qualities and film/developer combinations via scans can be a learning experience, but obviously one should always do their own tests and experiments to decide what works best for them.

Jim Fitzgerald

14-Nov-2015, 11:21

Well, it is nice to know that I am in the 2%! ;). I do not have a scanner that can handle 8 x 10 negatives hence I scan prints. Carbon prints suck when I scan them. Mainly because I don't know what I'm doing. With my ULF work I have to take a digital image and then post it. Either way I wanted to know what the images look like. So if you scan neg's or prints does not matter. What does the final interpretation look like? Lets not derail this and head to a different direction. This was meant to help everyone learn about x-ray film and the results achieved.

Andrew O'Neill

14-Nov-2015, 11:46

I'm still not sure why this thread was started, when there was already an established x-ray thread. Wouldn't it be easier if there was just one?

Michael E

14-Nov-2015, 13:29

I'm still not sure why this thread was started, when there was already an established x-ray thread. Wouldn't it be easier if there was just one?

I always figured there was one thread for technique and one thread for images. Of course, they get mixed up all the time. Wouldn't want to miss either one.

Thodoris Tzalavras

14-Nov-2015, 14:02

Did you use a filter? Green-sensitive film?

Yes, this is green sensitive, one sided emulsion.
And no, I didn't use a filter. But the late afternoon light was extraordinary.

andrewch59

14-Nov-2015, 14:25

Randy

14-Nov-2015, 14:45

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/img627a.jpg

395mm (aprox) home-made doublet (got the elements from Surplus shed a few years ago and cemented them together) @ about f/8 - probably better suited for 5X7 as it gets a tad to soft near the edges for my taste

Some brand of Green sensitive 8X10, tray processed in Arista Premium Liquid 1:9 @67 deg. F for 5 minutes, agitated with hake brush every 90 seconds, scanned and slight levels adjust in PS7

Corran

14-Nov-2015, 14:51

I don't see the point in putting a print from xray up here, listing the lens you used, the exposure time, type of developer and development time etc and then retouching it all on ps from a scan and not mentioning it. You end up with something totally different than what the lens has captured.
As said previously isn't the idea to show xray results? I would think ps stuff belongs in the digital photography section as it is no longer a digitial copy of an analogue shot.

Come on dude. Short of extreme manipulation, which no one has really been doing, all of that contrast adjustment, burning/dodging, etc. is no different than darkroom printing. That kind of attitude is simply toxic.

Thodoris Tzalavras

14-Nov-2015, 16:08

My initial idea was to just post pictures and if people liked them and wanted to know how I made them, they would ask and would answer. I'm quite open with sharing my knowledge, emulating those who shared theirs with me.

Since I'm the newcomer though, and especially since there were some veiled accusations of misrepresenting the pictures I posted, I thought that it might be proper to introduce myself.

By the way, since these forums are open to all, from beginners to masters and everyone in between, I find a bit weird the level of skepticism my work was greeted with. Maybe the benefit of the doubt would have been a better response.

In any case.

I've been using x-ray film since 2007, I'm a darkroom printer and a publisher, and I spent the afternoon preparing the following PRINTS for your consideration. I thought that this might earn me some credibility here.

What you see here are darkroom prints accompanied by a known target, in order to remove any confusion. Everything was scanned together, with the same settings.

These are contact prints on Ilford MG Warmton RC Pearl. The enlarger was a Durst L1200 with Ilford Multigrade 500 head, controlled by an Analyser 500. They were developed in Ilford MG 1+15 for 2 minutes.

Top, left:
Initial test strip at Grade 2.

Bottom, left:
Straight print at Grade 2. Exposed for the E strip.

Top, right:
Burning-in test for the sky:
Same base exposure as straight print, with additional exposures at Grade 5, as follows:
No addition, 1/2 stop of base exposure, 1 stop of base exposure, 2 stops of base exposure.

Bottom, right:
Final print with the following sequence of exposures:
1. Base exposure at Grade 2, with 1/3 of a stop dodge on the right side of the sky near the horizon.
2. 1 1/2 stops of base exposure burning-in for the whole sky at Grade 5, while masking the ship.
3. 1/2 a stop of base exposure burning-in for the sky on the left.

Now, if you'd like, compare the scanned and digitally processed file, that was deemed objectionable by some, to the darkroom prints.

When I said that my digital post processing mirrors my analogue, I meant just that. And please note that the "final" print here is a mere 4x5". My actual prints are 16x20", a size which allows for much better local controls over tonality and contrast. This here is but a sketch.

By the way, I hope that this exercise in futility on my part could at least be of use to those who're genuinely interested in what can be achieved with x-ray.

Tin Can

14-Nov-2015, 16:42

Theodore,

Thank you for posting your response, introduction and lesson.

I learned about you, your process and that I jumped to a conclusion.

My apologies sir.

Please continue.

Andrew O'Neill

14-Nov-2015, 17:49

Manipulation... In the darkroom or on the computer. Either way, it shows the potential of x-ray films. Very nice image, Randy, by the way.

Jim Fitzgerald

14-Nov-2015, 17:50

It is a great inexpensive learning tool

Andrew O'Neill

14-Nov-2015, 17:51

It certainly is!

andrewch59

14-Nov-2015, 20:42

Come on dude. Short of extreme manipulation, which no one has really been doing, all of that contrast adjustment, burning/dodging, etc. is no different than darkroom printing. That kind of attitude is simply toxic.

Apologies if I seem "toxic" I went to our local photography club last week, not a camera insight, definitely no talk of analogue. The photo of the y ear was of four dogs lying on a dirt road. The owner of the pic openly admitted that he was in two minds to put three dogs in the pic or four??
Is that not just digital imagery??? I have always been in awe of some of the photographers on here and their ability to manipulate xray film to produce wonderful pics.

Wayne

14-Nov-2015, 20:57

Nice print! And just to be clear on my part I don't object to negative scans I just like to know when I'm seeing those or prints.

What you see here are darkroom prints accompanied by a known target, in order to remove any confusion. Everything was scanned together, with the same settings. .

Fr. Mark

14-Nov-2015, 21:21

I wrote up as much of a summary of The basics of using X-ray film as I could in the Spring, I think. I sent it to the moderators who were going to try to get the site owner to do something with it. I imagine he's busy and from what I gather, not much involved in the site anymore. Anyway, I never heard anything after that. It's too long to post here easily.

Misko

14-Nov-2015, 22:25

Maybe making a PDF & posting a PDF would be an option?

Corran

15-Nov-2015, 07:10

Apologies if I seem "toxic" I went to our local photography club last week, not a camera insight, definitely no talk of analogue. The photo of the y ear was of four dogs lying on a dirt road. The owner of the pic openly admitted that he was in two minds to put three dogs in the pic or four??
Is that not just digital imagery??? I have always been in awe of some of the photographers on here and their ability to manipulate xray film to produce wonderful pics.

To be honest I don't really know what you are trying to say.

My point was that telling those of us who post negative scans of LF negatives should post in the digital images section is a slap in the face, rude, and exceedingly short-sighted, and quite simply wrong.

Michael E

15-Nov-2015, 09:00

Maybe we can draw the line when it comes to moving pixels. Altering brightness or contrast, dodging and burning, even toning an image has been accepted for a long time. Adding clouds, removing trees or telephone poles, moving the moon in the sky, or even composing an image from scratch on the computer is a different business and should be mentioned when posting the image. OK?

Plus, there is no such thing as a straight scan. Just as a print is not simply an inversion of a negative. There are always choices and settings to be applied.

Andrew O'Neill

15-Nov-2015, 09:30

I don't really care. It's the final image/print that matters... and as long as it's large format!

Wayne

15-Nov-2015, 09:32

Nobody gives a hoot whether you manipulate your image. Just tell us if its a print or negative scan. We can assume if its a print scan you did your best to make it look like the print. We can assume if its a negative scan you did your best to make it look like a print that doesn't exist. If you have both, post both. There's really no reason for anyone to get huffy.

Jim Fitzgerald

15-Nov-2015, 10:43

I don't really care. It's the final image/print that matters... and as long as it's large format!

Andrew, this is what matters.

premortho

15-Nov-2015, 13:02

I've only ever developed in trays. Since the 1940's. With Rodinal. I like to develop at 65 degrees. No, I don't know how many degrees centigrade that is. I was taught to always use a tray one size larger than the film you are working on. It takes very little developer solution. Much less than a roll film tank, for instance. When I worked on a newspaper, we used Dectol in tanks. Because "that's the way we always do it". I'm reasonably sure you've had that quoted to you before!
Once I get tray development down, I plan to try this. Will post back to let you know how it turns out.

Also just bought an HP Combi on FleaBay. Will be testing it later.

towolf

15-Nov-2015, 13:05

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

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.

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?

Still related to this question, why flash does not register on x-ray film as much as the light meter would indicate (i.e., 1.5 stops less than metered).

Some said, it would be a spectral issue. I finally got a chance to take a color picture and it’s clearly visible that the flash on the right of the camera is "hotter" than the continuous light on the left side. With "hotter" meaning: more Kelvin.

http://i.imgur.com/22ulGUu.png

andrewch59

15-Nov-2015, 16:07

To be honest I don't really know what you are trying to say.

My point was that telling those of us who post negative scans of LF negatives should post in the digital images section is a slap in the face, rude, and exceedingly short-sighted, and quite simply wrong.
Thanks Michael E, you got it!

SergeiR

15-Nov-2015, 21:39

8x10, Kodak X-ray Green, 12 min rotary R09 1:125

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/690/22634304598_a9764050bc_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Au7Jc1)Tender moments (https://flic.kr/p/Au7Jc1) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

Andrew O'Neill

16-Nov-2015, 13:47

That's very nice, SergeiR. You must be stripping the backside emulsion?

SergeiR

16-Nov-2015, 14:02

That's very nice, SergeiR. You must be stripping the backside emulsion?
Thank you, Andrew.

I tried it once about 2 years ago, and never would do so again, unless i don't have choice. I know people do so with great results, me - not so much. Stripping requires much more care and patience than i have ;)

Thodoris Tzalavras

16-Nov-2015, 14:54

Speed Graphic 4x5, with Optar 135mm.
Agfa CP G+ film.
Developed in Ilford MG 1+80 at 22C for 8min.
Scan from negative, finished in PS.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5811/22611650030_39abcdb996_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/As7BM1)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/As7BM1)

Randy

16-Nov-2015, 16:12

Thodoris, what a wonderful portrait.

Andrew O'Neill

17-Nov-2015, 10:15

SergeiR, what rotary system are you using? I ask because I can't see how systems such as BTZS tubes or Jobo would allow development to the backside of the film.

seezee

17-Nov-2015, 17:09

Great minds think alike. I was wondering the same thing.

Scott Schroeder

17-Nov-2015, 20:42

I didn't read all the back and forth on the last ten pages. I was looking for photos....

Jim Fitzgerald

17-Nov-2015, 21:15

When I started this post I was thinking it WAS about the images. Hopefully we can get on track and post some images.

Thodoris Tzalavras

18-Nov-2015, 02:09

Thodoris, what a wonderful portrait.

Thanks Randy.

Thodoris Tzalavras

18-Nov-2015, 02:11

Petra tou Romiou, Cyprus.
October 2015.

Speed Graphic 4x5, with Optar 135mm.
Agfa CP G+ film.
Developed in Ilford MG 1+80 at 22C for 8min.
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5806/22411368578_d8733a7d47_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/A9q85w)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/A9q85w)

koraks

18-Nov-2015, 02:31

Beautiful capture Thodoris, gorgeous light! And a beautiful spot as well. In fact, you're lucky to live in one of the most pretty places I've been to. Gorgeous island with such a variation in landscapes; I'd love to do some LF shooting there.
How did you control the contrast in this image btw? The light is quite challenging for contrasty film such as this.

One from my end: my niece in front of her mother's house.
http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/8x10_archives/MXRG_151_01.jpg
Green x-ray, 8x10, G-Claron 240/9 wide open. Film rated at ISO 80-ish, preflashed to zone II to get some detail in the black jeans. Developed by eye for about 4 minutes in Rodinal 1+100 with intermittent agitation (5 gentle tilts every 30 seconds or so). Epson 4990 scan with some digital burning and dodging that even I could do in the darkroom if I put myself to it, but I prefer using these negatives for alt processes.

Thodoris Tzalavras

18-Nov-2015, 03:46

How did you control the contrast in this image btw? The light is quite challenging for contrasty film such as this.

First, that's a beautiful portrait.
Light, composition, depth of field, all work perfectly.
Could you elaborate on your pre-flashing technique? I use pre-flashing (in the darkroom) with direct positive paper (another high contrast material), but haven't tried it with x-ray yet.

As for me, for a long time I used x-ray film mostly with pinhole cameras and for fun—developing by inspection in trays. A few months ago I started entertaining the idea of maybe shooting my next actual project on x-ray film, so I did some testing using a diy sensitometer, trying to find a developing scheme that would allow me to develop more than one sheet at a time (and without inspection), while retaining some control over the shape of the characteristic curve, and especially the shoulder. The particular combination of developer, dilution, temperature, and time, that I'm currently using gives me (relatively) consistent and repeatable results. There is some loss though in the shadows, that's why I'm considering pre-flashing.

koraks

18-Nov-2015, 05:05

Thanks; I was really clowning about and I wish for a lens with a wider aperture as I do find the background a bit busy as it is, but I'm going to try and keep my gear acquisition syndrome in check a bit and work with what I've got ;)

Your approach sounds a lot more structured than mine, which really is haphazard and doesn't involve any measurement whatsoever. Nevertheless, I recognize what you say about the shoulder, which can be a bit hard to control with x-ray film. The same with the toe, which is where the problem seems to lie with retaining shadow detail. My current approach is to try and cram as much of the scene as possible into the straight line of the curve (without doing any formal measurements, mind you, so I'm basically winging it) by exposing quite liberally and shortening development. In doing so, I also ran into the problem of shadow detail disappearing, which makes sense given the contraction approach, which would necessitate rating the film at an even lower speed. This would result in rating it as low as ISO25 (or even less in high contrast situations!) and working with very short development times and high dilutions, which have problems of their own (accurate timing, developer exhausting after a single sheet).

That's why I now try and combine contraction with pre-flashing to find an approach that is robust and reliable enough for my sloppy workflow. The portrait above is really the first real test (apart from a still life at home) and it seems to work as well as I'd hope for; there's plenty of shadow detail in the black jeans that I would have never had without pre-flashing.

My pre-flashing technique is pretty straightforward. I took a random household item that was neutral in color, opaque and would fit over the lens. I ended up using a paper cupcake shell, but a white plastic or styrofoam cup would have worked as well, just as a piece fine and light cloth or a bit of frosted (plexi)glass. I guess just about anything should be usable as long as stray light falling onto the lens can be blocked out. I then held the cupcake shell over the lens of my dslr (which usually I use as a light meter, as it has a spot meter function) and took a reading at ISO 100 (it won't go any lower) pointing the camera at the subject from the position of the LF camera, making sure not to cast a shadow onto the cupcake shell. Given the contrast of the scene (moderate, at least the relevant bits), I rated the film at about ISO 80, so I added about 1/3 stop to the reading, which would result in a zone V exposure. I opted to pre-flash for zone II - partly because my initial test showed that there was very little benefit to picking zone III (just added density and therefore a shorter part of the film's straight curve that could be used) and pre-flashing to zone I just doesn't make much of a difference, and partly because that's the general advice I gathered from Adams' The Negative. Subtracting 3 stops from the reading yielded an exposure of about 1/10 at f/9. This was with one stop added for the bellows draw, as I had already positioned and (roughly) focused the LF camera at this point. I put the cupcake shell over the LF lens, put the film holder in, and exposed the sheet at the calculated exposure. Apart from building some base density, the process of measuring and exposing several sheets of film through a cupcake holder of course yielded sufficient hilarity with my subject so that getting her to hold still for the actual exposure was a bit of a challenge.

The one thing I'm not happy with is that I have the impression (but I'm not entirely sure) that the upper half of the image is a bit more dense and less contrasty than the lower half. I wonder if pre-flashing has anything to do with it, but next time I'm going to try a flat pre-flash implement. Then again, it might just as well have been the lighting of the scene that was the cause of this. Or uneven development. With my haphazard approach, it's hard to be sure of anything ;)

premortho

18-Nov-2015, 08:57

I think the background to have just the right amount of out-of-focus for this portrait. I think it is a great portrait. I think you ought to print it, frame it, and give it to the young lady's mother.
Thanks; I was really clowning about and I wish for a lens with a wider aperture as I do find the background a bit busy as it is, but I'm going to try and keep my gear acquisition syndrome in check a bit and work with what I've got ;)

Your approach sounds a lot more structured than mine, which really is haphazard and doesn't involve any measurement whatsoever. Nevertheless, I recognize what you say about the shoulder, which can be a bit hard to control with x-ray film. The same with the toe, which is where the problem seems to lie with retaining shadow detail. My current approach is to try and cram as much of the scene as possible into the straight line of the curve (without doing any formal measurements, mind you, so I'm basically winging it) by exposing quite liberally and shortening development. In doing so, I also ran into the problem of shadow detail disappearing, which makes sense given the contraction approach, which would necessitate rating the film at an even lower speed. This would result in rating it as low as ISO25 (or even less in high contrast situations!) and working with very short development times and high dilutions, which have problems of their own (accurate timing, developer exhausting after a single sheet).

That's why I now try and combine contraction with pre-flashing to find an approach that is robust and reliable enough for my sloppy workflow. The portrait above is really the first real test (apart from a still life at home) and it seems to work as well as I'd hope for; there's plenty of shadow detail in the black jeans that I would have never had without pre-flashing.

My pre-flashing technique is pretty straightforward. I took a random household item that was neutral in color, opaque and would fit over the lens. I ended up using a paper cupcake shell, but a white plastic or styrofoam cup would have worked as well, just as a piece fine and light cloth or a bit of frosted (plexi)glass. I guess just about anything should be usable as long as stray light falling onto the lens can be blocked out. I then held the cupcake shell over the lens of my dslr (which usually I use as a light meter, as it has a spot meter function) and took a reading at ISO 100 (it won't go any lower) pointing the camera at the subject from the position of the LF camera, making sure not to cast a shadow onto the cupcake shell. Given the contrast of the scene (moderate, at least the relevant bits), I rated the film at about ISO 80, so I added about 1/3 stop to the reading, which would result in a zone V exposure. I opted to pre-flash for zone II - partly because my initial test showed that there was very little benefit to picking zone III (just added density and therefore a shorter part of the film's straight curve that could be used) and pre-flashing to zone I just doesn't make much of a difference, and partly because that's the general advice I gathered from Adams' The Negative. Subtracting 3 stops from the reading yielded an exposure of about 1/10 at f/9. This was with one stop added for the bellows draw, as I had already positioned and (roughly) focused the LF camera at this point. I put the cupcake shell over the LF lens, put the film holder in, and exposed the sheet at the calculated exposure. Apart from building some base density, the process of measuring and exposing several sheets of film through a cupcake holder of course yielded sufficient hilarity with my subject so that getting her to hold still for the actual exposure was a bit of a challenge.

The one thing I'm not happy with is that I have the impression (but I'm not entirely sure) that the upper half of the image is a bit more dense and less contrasty than the lower half. I wonder if pre-flashing has anything to do with it, but next time I'm going to try a flat pre-flash implement. Then again, it might just as well have been the lighting of the scene that was the cause of this. Or uneven development. With my haphazard approach, it's hard to be sure of anything ;)

Andrew O'Neill

18-Nov-2015, 09:00

SergeiR, what rotary system are you using? I ask because I can't see how systems such as BTZS tubes or Jobo would allow development to the backside of the film.

SergeiR, could you go over to the other x-ray thread? Thanks!

koraks

18-Nov-2015, 10:05

Thank you premortho, I will do just that!

Thodoris Tzalavras

18-Nov-2015, 11:08

Thanks for sharing koraks. I appreciate it.

Here's an older one, from 2009.
Artist's Studio.
Speed Graphic 4x5"
Pinhole 0.25mm
Focal Length 75mm
f/300
Exposure Time 15min.
Agfa CP G+ at 50asa
Developed by inspection in Rodinal 1+200 at 20C for 12min.
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/627/23106829082_a84ef3f1b3_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BcSxfS)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/BcSxfS)

SergeiR

18-Nov-2015, 21:49

8x10, Kodak CSG, R09 1:125 rotary 12min

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5823/22510424234_aec44d8b2f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/AiaNSE)2015-11-18-0003www (https://flic.kr/p/AiaNSE) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

SergeiR

19-Nov-2015, 09:01

Yup. I dumped Pyrocat HD into drain (in retrospective i should have just given it to college crowd, but oh well), after doing trials with Kodak CSG and getting pretty horrible results.

R09 is what i am sticking with, as it makes my processing streamlined for any type of film i am using (rolls of 120 by Fuji or Kodak, 4x5 by Ilford / Fuji /Kodak or 8x10 and, hopefully, 20x24 lith, when i get to it) - same times, same rotary process, same dilution, no need to do some magic process stopping, time / exposure wiggling.

Again - i am not technical person, and i am sure there are people who get awesome results with it and by doing down-to-second processing stuff. Nothing against it, its just not for me. I shoot my Kodak CSG at ISO100, as i would do normal film. Flash or outside.

SergeiR

19-Nov-2015, 09:10

Still related to this question, why flash does not register on x-ray film as much as the light meter would indicate (i.e., 1.5 stops less than metered).

Non issue for me. I work with flash.. well.. quite a bit, mixed or pure flash, and its never a problem.

However - it also might depend on flash. They are not equal in quality. Also it might be metering technique. Not everyone meters studio lights same way.

Here is example of flash and natural light mixed in Kodak CSG.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7641/17114627842_bab35c4353_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/s5mWAo)Story time (https://flic.kr/p/s5mWAo) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

SergeiR

19-Nov-2015, 09:17

All of above - not to belittle what other folks use/do as far as film / processing techniques & etc. Just personal impressions . which reminds me - i keep forgetting to restock fixer and film ;)

Andrew O'Neill

19-Nov-2015, 22:24

R09 is what i am sticking with, as it makes my processing streamlined for any type of film i am using (rolls of 120 by Fuji or Kodak, 4x5 by Ilford / Fuji /Kodak or 8x10 and, hopefully, 20x24 lith, when i get to it) - same times, same rotary process, same dilution, no need to do some magic process stopping, time / exposure wiggling.

For Canucks, up here R09 is bottled as Blazinal, which is identical to R09, which is identical to Rodinal...

SergeiR

20-Nov-2015, 07:31

Ah and, Andrew, to answer your question:

Unidrum actually has 11x14 tank (to do two 8x10s) that have special ridges that lift film off the surface, so if you do 300ml its enough . Also CatLabs has 8x10 insert for Jobo tanks, that allows you to process 3 sheets of 8x10 and they are completely raised. You can hack one out of regular 120 film spindle, if you feel like it, too. I have two of those unidrum things (well one of them is actually for 20x24, its just two tubes joined together) and insert. Problem with insert is that you will loose few mm on long edges, but given scratch/worry free nature of things - doesn't seem like such a big deal.

I need to get my head together, and i will post some pictures of stuff sometime soon-ish.

Andrew O'Neill

20-Nov-2015, 12:20

Very interesting. Thank you!

premortho

20-Nov-2015, 12:28

SergeiR

20-Nov-2015, 12:32

Great pose - great lighting - great job!
thank you. Overcast day - was nearly perfect, except as i was setting up sun started to jump through, so i had to be fast :(

Andrew O'Neill

23-Nov-2015, 10:43

Thought I'd give Blazinal a go over the weekend... These are very tight crops from Two sheets of Green Latitude, double-sided, tray, intermitent agitation. Image on top, 1+200, 16:00; Image on bottom, 1+100, 9:00 (both used 5ml stock), 20C. The full negs are also shown (1+200 on top)

Tin Can

23-Nov-2015, 10:48

Andrew O'Neill

23-Nov-2015, 11:09

Yes. It's a Scottish thing. Thrifty. I neglected to say I shot both at EI 80 and no adjustments were done in PS. I was also quite surprised/happy with minimal grain and smooth tones.

Jim Fitzgerald

23-Nov-2015, 13:43

Andrew nice results. I will give Rodinal a try.

StoneNYC

23-Nov-2015, 14:07

For Canucks, up here R09 is bottled as Blazinal, which is identical to R09, which is identical to Rodinal...

Not entirely true, R09 is SLIGHTLY different than "true" Rodinal which is to say the last iteration of AGFA Rodinal that is now made by Adox (called Rodinal in the states and Adonal everywhere else).

It was a short time after the closing of AGFA where a few companies were able to buy from the same producer. But all the new stuff on the shelf is now going to be slightly different and either a varied version, or an older version of the AGFA Rodinal.

This is for legal reasons since Adox bought the rights to the last formula and exclusively produces it just for them. All other distributors have to have theirs be slightly different.

The difference is so minute that it probably doesn't matter, but just to be precise, the only company that sells the original last version of Rodinal made by AGFA is ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY made by Adox, all other versions are different. So it's not identical, but close enough.

Andrew O'Neill

23-Nov-2015, 15:55

Lemons and limes, Stone. Lemons and limes.

plaubel

23-Nov-2015, 16:49

Tin Can

23-Nov-2015, 17:06

Hello, Stone,

Adox isn't able to produce any chemicals. Not for themselve and of course not for others.
They really buy this stuff from Tetenal, like Maco too.
If you are interested in selling by yourself something like Ratinal, Jokinol or Super R 0815, ask Tetenal; they will deliver some 209 Liter barrels, and companies like Compard are able to fill in bottles.

Best regards,
Ritchie

Then what is this ADOX APH-09 made in Germany? So fresh it was clear when I got it, and now after 2 months it's dark brown unopened. In usage I cannot tell it from my sealed case of AGFA Rodinol also made in Germany which is now almost black. Both work the same for me.

I don't like the tiny squirt top on the ADOX as it makes it very slow to drink. I can chug the AGFA.

plaubel

23-Nov-2015, 18:16

Yes, the "products" from Maco or Impex change into brown soap, but they will work well for a while.
I change my own bottles after 12 moths, no trust but no problems..

The original Agfa Rodinal will probably live longer than me, so it can't be the same like RO9, Adonal, which may die after one or two years, I have heard in different Forums..
The american Rodinal or Blazinal I don't know, but it seems, that all this newer Tetenal-Rodinals work well with xray.

Tin Can

23-Nov-2015, 18:37

My Adox is dated August 1, 2015 which is one week before I bought it.

I have 8 out of 10 bottles left.

I'll use it before the old 'good' stuff.

Andrew O'Neill

23-Nov-2015, 19:37

Randy, do you take yours with a lemon or a lime? ;)

StoneNYC

23-Nov-2015, 19:48

To answer all replies to my comment.

Yes I misspoke, the particular company that produces it may be Tentenal but the R09 Tentenal made for other companies is different from the Rodinal made for Adox, the formula is just different even from the same producer.

APH-09 is the ... 1950's? formula from AGFA I believe. It's more significantly different than the subsequent adjustments between 1950 and the end of AGFA formula that Adox makes. There were various changes in-between those 60 years that other manufacturers use, that's why they can say "it's the same as Rodinal" because technically it is, you have to ask "which Rodinal?" ... It's clever language.

The color doesn't mean anything. I've used completely black Rodinal that sat (as an experiment) in an open container with only about 100ml at the bottom for a month, again in an open container, and it worked just fine. Don't let the color change deceive you, but remember I'm talking official Rodinal/Adonal and not any R09 formula which might be less reliable for long term storage, that's one of the improvements in the latest AGFA formula, longevity.

Lemons and limes make for a quick acid stop if you run out of stop, but I wouldn't recommend either for regular use ;)

Tin Can

23-Nov-2015, 20:01

Randy, do you take yours with a lemon or a lime? ;)

I always order 'Soda with lime & lemon in 1/2 pint glass, lots of ice'. Not kidding.

Then I tip more than a drink costs and don't stay too long. I quit shot and a beer some time ago. After 50 years of drankin' it was time. They still miss me money at the local.

Get me going and I will tell another story. Most are true.

Corran

23-Nov-2015, 21:16

As I discovered myself with actual testing, Rodinal isn't always Rodinal, even when its called Rodinal and sold by the same company that you always buy it from and came in the same bottles as normal.

I now no longer use semi-stand development with Rodinal because something is different than the older bottles I had, and highlight density was going all over the place. More typical dilutions/times work fine.

Do your own testing!! That should be the cardinal rule. All the history of Agfa or whatever changes every time someone tries to re-explain it. It's like Telephone. Telenal? Rodinophone?

SergeiR

23-Nov-2015, 21:49

Nice test. I use Sergei's recommendation of a minimum of 10cc per 80 sq in.

Are you seeking the absolute minimum?

;) 3 * 8x10in / (270-300ml ) - total volume

SergeiR

23-Nov-2015, 21:50

Yes. It's a Scottish thing. Thrifty. I neglected to say I shot both at EI 80 and no adjustments were done in PS. I was also quite surprised/happy with minimal grain and smooth tones.

well done ;)

towolf

24-Nov-2015, 03:57

I don't like the tiny squirt top on the ADOX as it makes it very slow to drink. I can chug the AGFA.

The only point I’m going to make here is that the MACO/Compard "Capri Sun" packs are fantastic. Easy to pour one-digit ml volumes out of, and you can squeeze them to evacuate all air easily. The rigid Compard bottles with the safety screw caps are horrible. After a few months I got crystals already, whereas the capri sun was light yellow after more than a year.

https://www.macodirect.de/media/image/AFRO59.jpg

Tin Can

24-Nov-2015, 06:24

That IS a nice bag bottle, my bottles are almost exactly the same old hard plastic bottles. I never saw a yellow stage either.

Must be different stuff in different bottles! What next?

I am using 40 ml per gallon tank. My bottles do not pour and take several tips, gasps for air and a hard squeeze with the retro bottle.

It's proven that wine lasts better in a bag...

The only point I’m going to make here is that the MACO/Compard "Capri Sun" packs are fantastic. Easy to pour one-digit ml volumes out of, and you can squeeze them to evacuate all air easily. The rigid Compard bottles with the safety screw caps are horrible. After a few months I got crystals already, whereas the capri sun was light yellow after more than a year.

https://www.macodirect.de/media/image/AFRO59.jpg

ImSoNegative

26-Nov-2015, 19:02

8x10 actually did a salt print of this

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/728/22663973793_36235890c9_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/AwJMNR)Blue Ridge Mountain Railway (https://flic.kr/p/AwJMNR) by john golden (https://www.flickr.com/photos/126756312@N03/), on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5695/22995834090_163195c86c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/B34Ej7)8x10 salt print (https://flic.kr/p/B34Ej7) by john golden (https://www.flickr.com/photos/126756312@N03/), on Flickr

ImSoNegative

26-Nov-2015, 19:05

here is another using a 120 fujinon, a bit too much rise

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5674/22923506699_776a8b5964_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/AVEXU8)blue ridge railway 2 wide angle (https://flic.kr/p/AVEXU8) by john golden (https://www.flickr.com/photos/126756312@N03/), on Flickr

seezee

3-Dec-2015, 15:34

I've got my first* test shots made with Kodak Ektascan B/RA up at my blog (http://mercury-photo.com/?p=6373). Wista 45DX with Schneider Symmar-S 5,6/150 lens & yellow-green filter, no allowance for filter factor, bellows draw, or reciprocity made.

Rated at ISO 25, 50, 80, and 160, respectively, and brush/semi-stand developed in Pyrocat HD (1:1:200; 66.5º F ~19º C.) for 15 minutes, except for #1 (ISO 50), which was underexposed and required an hour in the soup. #2 was developed the next day as a slightly cooler temperature.

All images developed under red safelight, one-at-a-time, in smooth-bottom 5×7 trays. Developer replaced for each negative.

The blog entry has a much more detailed write-up of my exposure & development.

I'm still trying to figure out why #3 is darker than #2; maybe I mixed them up at some point?

I'd like your comments and criticisms on the technical aspects of the images & I'll probably cross-post to the other thread for the same feedback; I have no experience & therefore no basis to determine proper density, contrast, etc. for film negatives. My hope is to eventually have silver-gelatin enlargements made (I'll have to job that out, as I don't have a proper darkroom or enlarging equipment). My own reaction is the #2 is the best exposure of the lot.

142992
Unaltered Scan (except for inverting the curves to make a positive image)
142993
Adjusted Curves

*These are actually my second tests, but I mis-measured the Pyro (3:3:100!) on the first batch & did not like the results, so not showing them here.

seezee

3-Dec-2015, 15:36

Cross posting from the other x-ray thread, since this contains some technical information:
I've got my first* test shots made with Kodak Ektascan B/RA up at my blog (http://mercury-photo.com/?p=6373). Wista 45DX with Schneider Symmar-S 5,6/150 lens & yellow-green filter, no allowance for filter factor, bellows draw, or reciprocity made.

Rated at ISO 25, 50, 80, and 160, respectively, and brush/semi-stand developed in Pyrocat HD (1:1:200; 66.5º F ~19º C.) semi-stand for 15 minutes, except for #1 (ISO 50), which was underexposed and required an hour in the soup. #2 was developed the next day as a slightly cooler temperature.

All images developed under red safelight, one-at-a-time, in smooth-bottom 5×7 trays. Developer replaced for each negative.

The blog entry has a much more detailed write-up of my exposure & development.

I'm still trying to figure out why #3 is darker than #2; maybe I mixed them up at some point?

I'd like your comments and criticisms on the technical aspects of the images & I'll probably cross-post to the other thread for the same feedback; I have no experience & therefore no basis to determine proper density, contrast, etc. for film negatives. My hope is to eventually have silver-gelatin enlargements made (I'll have to job that out, as I don't have a proper darkroom or enlarging equipment). My own reaction is the #2 is the best exposure of the lot.

142992
Unaltered Scan (except for inverting the curves to make a positive image)
142993
Adjusted Curves

*These are actually my second tests, but I mis-measured the Pyro (3:3:100!) on the first batch & did not like the results, so not showing them here.

Fr. Mark

3-Dec-2015, 21:36

Fr. Mark

3-Dec-2015, 21:39

Another note I have mainly decided to number the sides i.e. 1 and 2 are different sides of the same holder. A/B distinctions were too confusing. And the 5 mark goes in the middle and the 10's far side from the ones. So if film exposure is making marks ambiguous, position helps make things more clear.

Tin Can

4-Dec-2015, 00:19

JB's website is wonderful. I just read his essay on Camera Flare. Great advice!

You could file notches in the film holder flap edge to positively identify what holder each film came from. I find it a big help in tracking films and finding problem holders. It only works if there is enough exposure in that part of the film to expose the edge under the flap, of course. And, you will need to clean the holder. I used needle files. And, I used a system where V notches are at one edge and are 1-4, a rectangular/flat notch adds, 5, and round/U notches add 10. I got the idea from JB Harlin's articles on his website: jbhphoto.com

koraks

4-Dec-2015, 02:15

It almost looks like 2 through 4 are severely fogged; 2 in the upper left corner and 3 and 4 along the sides. What kind of safe light do you use? You mention you don't have a darkroom; how did you handle the negatives and are you sure there were no light leaks along the line?
Scans don't say too much, as a lot depends on scanning settings and post processing. The digital versions all look low in contrast to me, but that says very little about the actual negatives. I find that apart from densitometry, actual printing (alt process or silver gelatin) is a good way to get a feel for the actual contrast of the negatives. Especially as you gain experience, it becomes easier to see in the negative itself where an issues with exposure or handling exist. It took me about 60 sheets of green sensitive xray film to figure out how to use it properly (generic film, not ektascan). Blue sensitive film is easier to handle as it's less likely to fog under various sensitiveafelights.

SergeiR

4-Dec-2015, 10:07

I can't remember how many sheets i went through to get started.. I think main issues for me were scratches, not development. But then i didn't spend much time thinking about it, i just went with what i used on other film..

From back then.

8x10, Kodak CSG, rotary, R09, can't remember dilution and times, but given it was time i dealt with Ilford and Arista - most likely we talking 15m to 30m with 1:50-1:150 dilution (hey its been nearly 3 years!)

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8524/8612742070_b7199a31b0_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/e85y9W)Scan-130331-0005www (https://flic.kr/p/e85y9W) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8242/8654397954_e0748a7a64_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ebL3ZQ)Scan-130413-0011www (https://flic.kr/p/ebL3ZQ) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

Thodoris Tzalavras

4-Dec-2015, 11:16

...I'd like your comments and criticisms on the technical aspects of the images...

When I first started using x-ray film in 2007, I just did some basic tests like the ones described here:
http://www.viewcamera.com/pdf/2006/VC_Getting%20Started.pdf

Contact printing your negatives is the best (and cheapest) way to see what's actually in them. It will help you pin down the exposure/development scheme that best fits your needs. A used enlarger can be had for next to nothing. You just need a light source that provides controllable and repeatable exposures.

Also, the main thing is to find a way to control (as much as possible) all the parameters, from handling, to processing, to printing. Changing only one thing at a time, while keeping everything else constant, is the fastest way to learn what works and what doesn't.

Thodoris Tzalavras

4-Dec-2015, 11:48

Here's one from 2008.

Speed Graphic 4x5" with a 0.25mm pinhole.
Agfa CP G+
Exposure 2min.
Developed by inspection in Rodinal 1+300 at 20C for 5min.

Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5785/22892701984_5e7313142d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ASX5Jm)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/ASX5Jm)

Old-N-Feeble

4-Dec-2015, 12:03

Sergei, those are gorgeous... but I'm very disappointed the X-ray film couldn't see through.

Thodoris Tzalavras

4-Dec-2015, 12:32

And here is one from the Total Lunar Eclipse on the 28th of September, 2015.

Speed Graphic 4x5, with Optar 135mm, at f/8.
90 minute exposure (from the beginning of the Partial Eclipse until the Maximum).
Agfa x-ray film (CP G+).
Developed in Ilford MG 1+100 at 20C for 9min.

Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5742/21800843012_919e4dc814_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/zdt26E)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/zdt26E)

seezee

4-Dec-2015, 15:15

It almost looks like 2 through 4 are severely fogged; 2 in the upper left corner and 3 and 4 along the sides. What kind of safe light do you use?
7 watt Delta 1 Junior red safelight from Film Photographers Project.

You mention you don't have a darkroom; how did you handle the negatives and are you sure there were no light leaks along the line?
I don't have a dedicated darkroom, but I can convert the lavatory into a temporary wet area. Blinds closed + 2 layers of blackout cloth gaffer-taped over the window, close all blinds & curtains in the house, close all hallway doors, then close bathroom door.

I cut and loaded under the safelight* & developed & fixed under it as well. The light leaks look to me like they may be from my film holders.

*I bounced the light off the ceiling and worked on the floor beneath the pedestal sink, so very little light from the safelight actually reached the film during cutting & loading.

seezee

4-Dec-2015, 15:23

When I first started using x-ray film in 2007, I just did some basic tests like the ones described here:
http://www.viewcamera.com/pdf/2006/VC_Getting%20Started.pdf

I've read The Zone VI Workshop & I'm working my way thru 1 of the later editions of The Negative. I'll have a look at that & try it out; thanks.

Contact printing your negatives is the best (and cheapest) way to see what's actually in them. It will help you pin down the exposure/development scheme that best fits your needs. A used enlarger can be had for next to nothing. You just need a light source that provides controllable and repeatable exposures.

Any recommendations on an enlarger that I can fit in my bathroom? This looks tempting. (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-BESELER-DICHRO-67S-Film-Photography-Enlarger-Beseler-Lens-/111839339403) I know nothing about printing apart from what I've read on the x-ray threads. The alternative is to take it to the photo lab here in town & get their advice/have them make test prints.

Also, the main thing is to find a way to control (as much as possible) all the parameters, from handling, to processing, to printing. Changing only one thing at a time, while keeping everything else constant, is the fastest way to learn what works and what doesn't.

That's what I've been trying to do. Had to change 2 variables in #1 only because it was so underexposed. If I'd pulled it at 15 minutes it would have been blank, and I would have learned nothing from the effort.

seezee

4-Dec-2015, 15:46

SergeiR

4-Dec-2015, 16:09

Sergei, those are gorgeous... but I'm very disappointed the X-ray film couldn't see through.

Now now :) different type of thread :)

ImSoNegative

4-Dec-2015, 19:34

Now now :) different type of thread :)

haha

ImSoNegative

4-Dec-2015, 21:39

one I shot tonight rittreck view w/whole plate back, 360mm fujinon 6.3@f32, 1 hour exposure, Kodak xray film

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/731/22901704794_9e5a01b480_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ATKdXd)Blue Ridge Depot at night (https://flic.kr/p/ATKdXd) by john golden (https://www.flickr.com/photos/126756312@N03/), on Flickr

StoneNYC

5-Dec-2015, 01:17

Finally got around to scanning these!

14x17 Ektascan | 450mm @ f/9 | Rodinal | Lightroom Vignette magic added to cover up major light leak.

143063

14x17 Ektascan | 450mm @ f/22 | Rodinal | No Lightroom magic needed, fixed the leak, Few!

143064

And the video on how the camera was built!

http://youtu.be/NW4dhOJVfzk

StoneNYC

5-Dec-2015, 01:18

Finally got around to scanning these!

14x17 Ektascan | 450mm @ f/9 | Rodinal | Lightroom Vignette magic added to cover up major light leak.

143065

14x17 Ektascan | 450mm @ f/22 | Rodinal | No Lightroom magic needed, fixed the leak, Few!

143066

And the video on how the camera was built!

http://youtu.be/NW4dhOJVfzk

Old-N-Feeble

5-Dec-2015, 05:32

one I shot tonight rittreck view w/whole plate back, 360mm fujinon 6.3@f32, 1 hour exposure, Kodak xray film

Night shots aren't my favorite type of image but this one is really nice!

seezee

5-Dec-2015, 09:46

Any recommendations on an enlarger that I can fit in my bathroom? This looks tempting. (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-BESELER-DICHRO-67S-Film-Photography-Enlarger-Beseler-Lens-/111839339403) I know nothing about printing apart from what I've read on the x-ray threads. The alternative is to take it to the photo lab here in town & get their advice/have them make test prints.

It's come to my attention that the enlarger I linked to is for 6×7 cm, not inches (duh!). I should have known the price was too good to be true. My cursory research suggests I stick with Beseler or Omega. Don't think anything they make that has 4×5 capacity is going to be very compact, so it's going to be tight fitting it in the lavatory when using. Probably have to store it in the breezeway or garage when it's not in use.

Any thoughts on cold head vs. condenser, Fred Pickard not withstanding?

RSalles

5-Dec-2015, 16:24

one I shot tonight rittreck view w/whole plate back, 360mm fujinon 6.3@f32, 1 hour exposure, Kodak xray film

Hi, John! That's a supreme achievement on X-Ray in terms of everything technical one can imagine. Have you came across what's the exposure compensation needed for this film, or have used a exposure factor of another one?

Cheers,

Renato

ImSoNegative

5-Dec-2015, 17:16

Thanks renato after experimenting with it for a while I have learned that at one second you have to add a stop so far that has worked up to one hour. I tried straight time of course that didn't work so I tried after 3 or 4 sec start adding a bit of time. Its actually from one sec on add one stop all the way up so far to 30 min which is what I did last night. Longest so far. 1 hour in freezing cold but it was worth it :)

Fr. Mark

5-Dec-2015, 20:28

I think the Beseler 45 enlarger wants at least a 30" door with a standard base, 32 or 36 should keep you from having to take door off hinges and avoids skinned knuckles too. The mostly unused college darkroom where my son goes to school has an Omega 45, I didn't measure it. It was taller and I doubt the base was smaller.

Contact prints? A UV light source big enough for 16x20 or at least 14x17 is smaller and lighter than the enlarger and many contact printing processes only need a dim room once your film is developed.

tgtaylor

5-Dec-2015, 20:48

My Beseler 45MXT measures 24-2/16" across and fits perfectly in the bedroom in the corner next to the entrance door - completely out of the way and invisible until you enter. For the first week I also put it in the bathroom but quickly came to the conclusion that was the wrong spot for it. Not only is it the most humid area of the apartment (taking shower, etc) but also the most smelliest (when you do you know what in there). that frees up the bathroom for the wet side of processing. I simply expose the paper in the bedroom where i have aa small safe light set up so that I can see the easel when printing B&W, put the exposed sheet in a paper safe and walk it across the hall to the bathroom where I have the trays set-up with a Thomas safe-light. For color RA-4 I put the exposed sheet in a Jobo tank and walk it to the processor set-up in the kitchen. A viewing station is set-up on the desk in the living room to evaluate the color for correction. Alternative prints are coated and dried in the bathroom and exposed to the sun outside and processed in the bathroom.

Thomas

Fr. Mark

5-Dec-2015, 20:49

Fr. Mark

5-Dec-2015, 20:53

Also, gaffers tape is not 100% secure on cardboard or even metal and I d hate for you lens to peel off. I'd like to see some wood/screw sandwiches top/bottom holding it on.
None of which is to take anything away from the diy coolness. Good job!

StoneNYC

5-Dec-2015, 22:37

Camera is set for infinity focus? Permanently?
What 450 that covers 14x17 @ infinity?
Also, I'd suggest some washers or a board inside the camera to keep the screws from so easily pulling through the cardboard. Cool entry into the 14x17 format.
I've thought about meniscus lenses with small stops, and pinholes as ways to further reduce cost.
And, taping or magnets to hold a single sheet in the box to avoid holder cost.
For such a camera suitcases at thrift stores with latches not zippers start to be attractive...

Also, gaffers tape is not 100% secure on cardboard or even metal and I d hate for you lens to peel off. I'd like to see some wood/screw sandwiches top/bottom holding it on.
None of which is to take anything away from the diy coolness. Good job!

Thanks,

Going in reverse.

The taped board wasn't permanent, it held well though, mostly because the lens weight was centered well so it wasn't front heavy, Nikkor 450mm M seems to fully cover wide open.

I purposefully kept a toyo to Linhof technika adapter board when I sold my toyo45a and I plan to permanently affix that to my future camera, however I'm probably going to go with a more reasonable "fancy" design in the future, this whole video came from a discussion a while back on here from someone who said it couldn't be done for cheap, so challenge accepted ;)

Because of the way the T frame and square frame come together at the L, I really didn't even need the screws, it was pretty solid without them, the screws were more just so that it prevented any vibration keeping the cardboard flush to the T frame wood. But good observation and point taken.

The old American Standard travel hard cases are certainly a thought. Would make a kick ass wide angle, that's for sure!

I was just talking about this on Facebook. Before I had real holders for my 11x14 design (where the box originally came from) I had a cardboard holder with corner tabs, magnets make a lot more sense, but can still slide if jarred.

The old holder...

143116

Image from it, remember it was a pinhole at the time, but this shows the "holder edge markings" or rather corner markings, think of it like a business card that is held inside a folder.

143117

Finally, again I got the same question on Facebook, basically I set the focus for what I thought would be the kind of focus point I would want from a shot from this format, it wasn't hyperfocal exactly, it was just the kind of framing I tend to do and the kind of distance I tend to lean toward having a focus point on. Then I just move the camera back and forth until the object I want is in focus, stop down to give more depth but you probably won't really get full depth clarity with such a wide area, that and diffraction which doesn't REALLY do as much damage as people tend to claim because you're contact printing this kind of size, so it's not as much an issue IMO. Either way I set the focus for my style, YMMV as they say.

Thodoris Tzalavras

6-Dec-2015, 04:41

Thodoris Tzalavras

6-Dec-2015, 04:52

5 hours exposure on Agfa x-ray film, with a 135mm Optar at f/4.7 on a 4×5″ Speed Graphic.
Tray developed for 10min in D76 (1+5) at 24C, with minimal agitation.
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

This was a test for nightscapes with very long exposures.
Obvious marks of uneven development and scratches from handling.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3891/15367386326_88a4a9342d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ppXSyE)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/ppXSyE)

ImSoNegative

6-Dec-2015, 08:00

very cool!!

mdarnton

6-Dec-2015, 08:49

In this instance you can just tell people that you were shooting the Northern Lights. :-)

SergeiR

6-Dec-2015, 15:39

5 hours exposure on Agfa x-ray film, with a 135mm Optar at f/4.7 on a 4×5″ Speed Graphic.
Tray developed for 10min in D76 (1+5) at 24C, with minimal agitation.
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

This was a test for nightscapes with very long exposures.
Obvious marks of uneven development and scratches from handling.

i keep meaning to try it and yet never seem to get around. Thank you for sharing such an interesting experiment.

Leszek Vogt

6-Dec-2015, 15:51

Has anyone, pardon my ignorance, here used 72 IR filter with xray film ? Also, similar for pola filter ? I'm wondering what sorts of results I should expect ?
Thanks.

Les

Corran

6-Dec-2015, 16:46

An IR filter on blue or green sensitive film will result in no image I would think.

Polarizer works as it would normally, with the caveat of you still have to consider the spectral response of the film (darker blue skies will still be very bright with blue-sensitive film).

seezee

6-Dec-2015, 17:08

You could file notches in the film holder flap edge to positively identify what holder each film came from. I find it a big help in tracking films and finding problem holders. It only works if there is enough exposure in that part of the film to expose the edge under the flap, of course. And, you will need to clean the holder. I used needle files. And, I used a system where V notches are at one edge and are 1-4, a rectangular/flat notch adds, 5, and round/U notches add 10. I got the idea from JB Harlin's articles on his website: jbhphoto.com

Further thoughts on this: a while back I purchased some punches with the idea of punching my film with ones and zeros. In other words, binary. The method in JB Harlin's essay could be highly simplified by using binary. You'd only need 2 files and the number of notches you'd need to make would be greatly reduced. For instance, I have 27 4×5 holders, so the longest code I could need to make would only 6 digits long

seezee

6-Dec-2015, 17:13

Seezee,
Contact printing and enlarging, are two very different things.
For the first one, all you need is a light source connected to a timer. Any, and I mean that literally, any enlarger will do.
For enlarging, things get complicated fast. If you need more info on that, let me know.
My suggestion was for contact printing only.

You'll be happy to know that, after much research, I pulled the trigger on an LPL 4500 II from fleaBay, in any case. Needs a negative carrier & a longer lens, but otherwise complete. My friend who introduced me to photography a few years ago (he gave my his Leica M3 and a Hasselblad 500 he wasn't using) was encouraging me to explore making my own prints, after learning about my x-ray project, so don't think it's your fault!

Tin Can

6-Dec-2015, 17:21

Further thoughts on this: a while back I purchased some punches with the idea of punching my film with ones and zeros. In other words, binary. The method in JB Harlin's essay could be highly simplified by using binary. You'd only need 2 files and the number of notches you'd need to make would be greatly reduced. For instance, I have 27 4×5 holders, so the longest code I could need to make would only 6 digits long

Yes but I can't 'read' binary.

Many use the Tally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_marks) to count film sheets used, which may correspond to notches better than an entire different code.

Not that one would need that correlation, would we?

ImSoNegative

6-Dec-2015, 17:44

Fr. Mark

6-Dec-2015, 20:47

Thanks for sharing. Not sure when I will move up to ULF but it's good to be reminded it doesn't have to be astronomically expensive or time consuming.

Thodoris Tzalavras

7-Dec-2015, 03:37

Thanks guys.

Michael, I'm afraid I live too south to be able to use that excuse.

Sergei, judging from the rest of your pictures, I look forward to see your results.
By the way, one thing I never solved to my satisfaction is scratches and handling marks.
I get the 15x30cm sheets which I cut down to 4x5". This requires 4 successive cuts. Which is too much handing for this film. I have perfected (as much as possible) this process, but I still get some scratches and bruises now and then. And it's frustrating when the best shot of the lot ends up on the worst affected sheet of film.
So, I finally bought some bits and pieces to build a semi-diy 8x10 to see if shooting un-cut film will solve this problem.

Seezee, the 4500 is an excellent enlarger. I used it for a while, some 20 years ago, and was thoroughly impressed. Only (very minor) negative thing I remember, is that the one I used suffered from light leaks. Nothing that a little black tape couldn't fix. I'm sure you'll enjoy printing with it. I did.

seezee

7-Dec-2015, 12:49

Yes but I can't 'read' binary.

I could teach you in 5 minutes.

Tin Can

7-Dec-2015, 12:58

I could teach you in 5 minutes.

I know binary and any base code is easy, but I don't use it.

Fingers and toes, while I got em!

The original 'metric'. Pun intended!

StoneNYC

7-Dec-2015, 13:21

I could teach you in 5 minutes.

I know binary and any base code is easy, but I don't use it.

Fingers and toes, while I got em!

The original 'metric'. Pun intended!

I dunno, I was taught binary in grade school computer class and could never really "get it".

Tin Can

7-Dec-2015, 14:31

I dunno, I was taught binary in grade school computer class and could never really "get it".

The best way to comprehend binary is to also know numbering can be Base 2, 3, ...to Base 10 which we all use and beyond which they use on Mars.

Binary is best for electronic computers as it is on or off, black or white, dead or alive. Try Base 7 to mess with people!

But then everybody does upside down mirror writing, don't they?

Corran

7-Dec-2015, 14:36

000 001 010 011 100 101 111 etc.

Pretty easy? But I don't think I'd try to mark film holders as such...

Jim Noel

7-Dec-2015, 16:47

I thnk it is time for the thread to get back on topic "X-ray film example and comparison."

Jim Fitzgerald

7-Dec-2015, 18:20

I thnk it is time for the thread to get back on topic "X-ray film example and comparison."

Really..... how to mark holders is important but in another thread please. More images will be better. Here is one from the church interior I shot a while ago. Developed in Pyrocat HD.

Thodoris Tzalavras

9-Dec-2015, 16:00

End of summer, 2015.

The sun was setting as I was setting up for a seascape.
The people on the right were still in the dimming sunlight, while the ones on the left were already in the shade of the hill behind us.

Speed Graphic 4x5, with Optar 135mm.
Agfa x-ray film (CP G+) at 100asa.
Developed in Ilford MG 1+40 at 20C for 4min, Jobo.

Scan from contact print on Ilford MG Warmtone RC Pearl.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/660/23640102685_7c3d80d335_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/C1ZGVk)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/C1ZGVk)

premortho

9-Dec-2015, 18:35

Wow!!!
end of summer, 2015.

The sun was setting as i was setting up for a seascape.
The people on the right were still in the dimming sunlight, while the ones on the left were already in the shade of the hill behind us.

Speed graphic 4x5, with optar 135mm.
Agfa x-ray film (cp g+) at 100asa.
Developed in ilford mg 1+40 at 20c for 4min, jobo.

Scan from contact print on ilford mg warmtone rc pearl.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/660/23640102685_7c3d80d335_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/c1zgvk)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/c1zgvk)

seezee

18-Dec-2015, 17:12

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

I know this is an old post, but I'll hazard a guess that the foliage was filtering a disproportionate amount of blue light. In other words, daylight vs. shadow color temperature shift.

seezee

19-Dec-2015, 15:21

I use a water bath rinse. […] The water bath rinse allows the developer to work the shadows a little more, if you don't agitate the rinse.

Premortho, how long do you usually leave the negative in the stop bath before fixing?

seezee

29-Dec-2015, 15:21

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

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 ;))

Can you clarify what you mean by 'cone'? A cone shaped reflector? A snoot?

Agree with Premortho; this has that classic 30s/40s Hollywood glamor look. One of your best, and that's some pretty stiff competition. I just picked up a crummy POD facsimile of Mortensen's Pictorial Lighting & aspire to learn this technique.

I live about 2½ hours away from you; I hope I'll meet you someday & some of your magic will rub off on me!

Andrew O'Neill

31-Dec-2015, 10:08

This thread is for images as well as discussion... of xray film!

Tin Can

31-Dec-2015, 10:19

This thread is for images as well as discussion... of xray film!

Ok. X-Ray film is fun.

Thodoris Tzalavras

31-Dec-2015, 11:52

Wow!!!
Thanks!

Saying goodbye to 2015 with the first successful contact print from the new 18x24cm pinhole camera that I built.

--
150mm focal length
0.5mm pinhole
8sec. exposure

Agfa CP G+ (x-ray film) at 100asa.
Tray developed by inspection in Ilford MG 1+100 at 22C for 7min.

Scan from contact print on Ilford MG Warmtone RC Pearl.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1569/23460742564_61796ac4c1_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/BK9rps)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/BK9rps)

Jim Noel

31-Dec-2015, 12:05

Thanks Jim, and as usual a terrific image.

Andrew O'Neill

31-Dec-2015, 14:24

Ok. X-Ray film is fun.

I disagree. IMHO, X-Ray film is really, really fun.

premortho

1-Jan-2016, 06:31

I don't use a stop bath on large format film. I use a water bath. I leave it in there for 4-5 minutes. I also use a water bath with 120 film if tray developing. I use a stop bath with 35 and 120 in a daylight tank developing sequence.
Premortho, how long do you usually leave the negative in the stop bath before fixing?

premortho

1-Jan-2016, 06:52

Mortenson is good to study, but he is more of a highlight type of portraitist. This is more in the Rembrant van Rijn style. It is also a prime example (as is Rembrant's portraits) of chiriascuro. If you like this kind of lighting, I suggest you go to the local library, and peruse some of Rembrants work. You can learn this technique by shooting a mannaquin with a 200 watt photoflood up high on your right, and a reflector on the left. Keep moving the reflector closer, and farther to get the look you want. I use blue photofloods with ortho film, as all you do is read the highest highlight ( I use a Weston Master meter, because it is the easiest to use) put the highlight reading on zone eight, read the dark side to see if it is zone three or four, and shoot it. Try that, it should get you into the ballbark.
Can you clarify what you mean by 'cone'? A cone shaped reflector? A snoot?

Agree with Premortho; this has that classic 30s/40s Hollywood glamor look. One of your best, and that's some pretty stiff competition. I just picked up a crummy POD facsimile of Mortensen's Pictorial Lighting & aspire to learn this technique.

I live about 2½ hours away from you; I hope I'll meet you someday & some of your magic will rub off on me!

Thodoris Tzalavras

1-Jan-2016, 10:26

Guy Slacklining Between Two Palm Trees

It was late afternoon at a beach in Larnaca, and I was looking for something interesting to shoot with my newly made 18x24cm pinhole camera.
This was definitely not the best subject matter for it, but I thought why not; let's give it a try.

So I made a couple of 8sec. exposures with the young guy balancing on his slackline. He seemed happy and at peace.

Happy new year!

--
18x24cm pinhole camera
150mm focal length
0.5mm pinhole
8sec. exposure

Agfa CP G+ (x-ray film) at 100asa.
Tray developed by inspection in Ilford MG 1+100 at 22C for 7min.

Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1637/24025155951_395c10dbf5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/CB2cQK)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/CB2cQK)

senderoaburrido

7-Jan-2016, 12:32

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jan-2016, 13:10

I'm not familiar with this film, although I have several years experience with x-ray film, both single and double-side. Is this a double-sided film? If so, take extra precautions when handling it. I cut both versions between two pieces of paper. I use a very sharp knife and straight edge. It's great that we can work under a safelight! Take care loading and unloading film holders. I develop in flat-bottomed trays. Gentle agitation. I use mainly pyrocat-hd developer, but I also sometimes use a Rodinol variant. I always wear gloves, mainly for safety. No scratching issues.

senderoaburrido

7-Jan-2016, 13:17

It's single sided, I think. I use a shared darkroom belonging to a small photography club, and they only have the ribbed bottomed trays. Could I put a glass plate on the bottom? When you say you wear gloves, is that both felt gloves during cutting and nitrile gloves during development?

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jan-2016, 13:21

Yes, put a glass plate on the bottom. That is what I did before I picked up some used, flat-bottomed trays. I only wear nitrile gloves. I can't stand wearing cloth/felt gloves. :)

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jan-2016, 13:49

YAY! The threads have been merged.

Oren Grad

7-Jan-2016, 13:53

YAY! The threads have been merged.

So everyone knows what's going on: over time the X-ray image sharing thread has turned out to be heavily weighted toward technical discussion, so we've merged it with the technical thread on X-ray film and placed the combined thread here.

Tin Can

7-Jan-2016, 14:22

Now we can tell newbies to read all 4K and counting posts!

I wonder how much work it takes a Mod to merge a monstrosity like this?

Weeks?

My curiosity is personal as I am starting a forum for my building...

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jan-2016, 14:54

I reckon it takes a few minutes.

senderoaburrido

7-Jan-2016, 15:05

Andrew: I notice that you're also in Canada. Where would I even find a glass plate that's the right size?

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jan-2016, 15:06

At a shop that sells window glass... ;) Where abouts are you?

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jan-2016, 15:09

But seriously, you can use Tupperware cupcake storage containers. They're about 9x13 inches.

Jim Fitzgerald

7-Jan-2016, 15:26

Wow, George wins out! ��

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jan-2016, 15:48

Who's George??

Pierre 2

7-Jan-2016, 16:32

Andrew: I notice that you're also in Canada. Where would I even find a glass plate that's the right size?

Even cheaper than a glass seller but maybe not as cheap as cupcake storage containers : drop by any Renaissance or Armée du Salut store and pick up a few frames, with or without pictures most will have glass and you will have a nice choice of sizes... Drop me call when you have the time !

andrewch59

7-Jan-2016, 17:42

Drop in at a charity shop and see if they have any pyrex dishes

Fr. Mark

7-Jan-2016, 18:11

Ektascan B/RA is single sided.
I don't have huge film experience, but it seems robust enough when dry. Wet is problematic. Don't stick fingers where you don't want marks. You can make marks while wearing gloves. The reason for gloves is that, generally speaking, developers aren't such great things to stick your fingers in if you have the choice. I get my nitrile gloves from a restaurant supply store. They have a pretty good price. With care this can be cut and handled without resorting to film hangers.

Fr. Mark

7-Jan-2016, 18:13

I think we need a summary page on X ray film somewhere on the main page or somewhere on the forum. I Wrote one but after giving it to the moderators heard zilch. Maybe my writing isn't good enough!

Tin Can

7-Jan-2016, 18:25

I think we need a summary page on X ray film somewhere on the main page or somewhere on the forum. I Wrote one but after giving it to the moderators heard zilch. Maybe my writing isn't good enough!

Post it here now.

Jim Fitzgerald

7-Jan-2016, 18:31

I mean Gene.

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jan-2016, 22:09

Jim, I think when the moderators merged the two, it merged them by date. Since Gene started the XRAY thread, it starts with him. This thread has a new name, so no one won!

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jan-2016, 22:11

Jim Fitzgerald

7-Jan-2016, 22:16

Andrew, I was being funny! Nice to have them together.

Fr. Mark

7-Jan-2016, 22:41

Xray summary was way too big to post here. I tried to cover everything that seemed relevant that had been asked 100 times the outline went something like this:

kinds of film: blue, green, the colors refer to the design of the sensitivity of the emulsion and they were paired with intensifying screens that fluoresce in those colors because we try not to kill people with diagnostic X-rays. When printed, Blue looks more like wet plate, Green looks more like 1940s films (though, i think pan film was available long before that).
single and double sided, some vendors listed. Cost comparisons
8x10 fits in 8x10 film holder w/o cutting unlike 8x10 paper
You can cut it to any size you like if you are careful. Comes in lots of sizes not just 8x10 but even some big sizes like 14x17 and larger. Also smaller, a lot smaller, for X-rays of teeth, and scraps from cutting to 810 to 57 can be fun in small cameras but this LFPI...
Safe lights--Red LED's are fairly safe within reason. Most films don't like Orange safelights.
Exposure ratings (all over the map) but often around 100 ASA in mid day (but being ortho film, film speed changes with lighting)
Reciprocity failure characteristics
Developers and starting points: Rodinal and Pyrocat HD are common on this forum but just about any developer I'd ever heard of (and some I'd not) have been used, usually fairly diluted to tame contrast issues. NB can develop by inspection because its a red-blind film.
Don't necessarily treat Xray like lithography films, they are pretty different even if they both tend to high contrast. Xray is a lot faster on exposure. Maybe 4-5 stops faster.
It scratches easily when wet. Film hangers are a help, some people use ziplock bags or trays with glass in them. Single sided films are less of a problem. Rotary development is possible, but may require removal of the emulsion facing the tube.
Stripping emulsion: tape the negative to a piece of glass and hit it with 3-4% Sodium Hypochlorite in strong Sodium Hydroxide (better known as laundry bleach) and after some time scrub off the gelatin on the one side and pray that the valuable negative doesn't get bleach on the front under the tape. Don't ask how I know to caution this...
11x14 film holders labeled Xray follow the same dimensions as 11x14 holders for "regular" film, assuming we are talking ones that follow the standards, which a lot of ULF holders, particularly old wood ones don't.

It ran to several pages, developers and types of films taking up most of it, I think.

Tin Can

7-Jan-2016, 22:51

Thanks for posting. I suppose with have the same 3 or 5000 character limit to normal posts that we do with PM's.

Pity.

I was hoping you hit post 4000 so we could tell people go read 4000...

Andrew O'Neill

7-Jan-2016, 23:30

Oh well... it's a fantastic thread full of great information. If I find anything of interest, I book mark it.

Corran

8-Jan-2016, 06:56

Nice start. I didn't want to write it but I would be willing to edit/add to it. Fr. Mark, do you want to send the whole thing as a document to me (email) and perhaps I can help edit and such and then host on my website?

seezee

8-Jan-2016, 09:28

Just developed my first four x-ray EB/RA shots, and they came out okay. Problem is that they are scratched to hell. I knew they were fragile, but man, not this fragile. I'm not sure where I messed up. I always rigorously agitate by lightly rocking the tray. I use my fingers to switch between trays. Only other place I can imagine they were scratched was in the cutting process.

Should I wear nitrile gloves during development, and cut it over a cushioned surface instead of right on the wood art-scythe-board thing? Do you guys have any tips for keepin' 'em scratch free?

I wear nitrile gloves at all stages, both to keep my skin out of the pyro (toxic) and to avoid marks on the emulsion (it's very soft when wet & can even take fingerprints). I use a guillotine cutter (this one (http://smile.amazon.com/Dahle-North-America-18E-Guillotine/dp/B00T89GJAO/)) & place the film directly on the cutter board, but I lay a towel underneath it so the cutoffs fall on a soft surface. I like this cutter because it holds the film in place while cutting, which also helps avoid scratches.

Some members have noted that it's possible to scratch the film while loading in the holder. I've certainly done it when removing the film from the holder.

If you're having a hard time sourcing glass for your developer tray, try a charity shop or builders salvage — you might find some window glass you can have cut to size. I use vintage enamel developer trays I find on eBay, but smooth-bottomed plastic trays are available new. Just make sure all of your trays have smooth bottoms (or glass insert): soak, developer, stop, fix, and wash. If you want to try tanks + hangers, use only the Kodak steel hangers — if you go thru this thread, you'll see numerous posts about why. Another possible method is the 'taco' method, but I haven't personally tried it and I don't remember seeing anyone else on the forum saying they have, either.