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

[Peter Volkmar]

12x15" = 30x40cm (approximately) - http://www.bema-kg.de/Typon-DV-G-30x40-cm-100-Bl any use? Probably others in there too.

Don't know what the film is like though I am waiting for some to play with.

Neil

Thanks Neil, but 30x40cm isn't 12x15". This is 30,5x38cm.
I own a very old and heavy 30x40 which isn't very sturdy, but could get a fine British field camera in 12x15". In Germany I could only get X-Ray film in cm. My hope was to get inch films in the UK, but I couldn't find any. In the USA the films are in inch, but there are a lot of problems to get them for me. Most supplier won't send to Germany, or if the postage is very expansive and the duty may cause trouble because it is a medical product....

Best Peter

[mdarnton]

How much speed drop under W lighting (that's chemist for Tungsten, sorry).? I tried 3 stops correction and thought it was verging on too much. Ektascan BRA in Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 for UV processes. Printable, but dense for that. Longish exposure times (upto 20 minutes) for the cyanotype prints with a printer that with thin negatives gives me 45 sec. to 6 minutes.

I haven't spent a lot of time on it because I don't use a meter anyway, but my sense of it is about 1.5 stops.

[SergeiR]

X-ray film is orthochromatic and can be handled under red light. Why then does it not render skin tones darker like the ortho film of old? Skin with x-ray film looks closer to pan film than ortho. Mind you, I'm fine with that. I'd just like to understand what's going on. Is it that the ortho of old was less sensitive to a wider range of wavelengths?

I was puzzled with Kodak CSG about that too, to be honest. Not that i complain - i like to have wider range in skin.

[SergeiR]

Btw, speaking of blue base & etc.

Here is contact print with Vandyke, sorry for crappy iPhone shot.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1600/26442184990_7576b473f4_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhB7nd)Vandyke print (https://flic.kr/p/GhB7nd) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

Took about 1.5 minutes under sun. Overprinted a bit, but hey.. its first Vandyke i actually like.

I have more of contact prints done with lith and regular process on FB and RC papers around, But it always was bugging me than I never managed to get any UV based print before. So there we go ;) And yes, its my typical dense negative.

If weather allows this weekend - i will try few more, including kalitypes ;)

[barnacle]

Thanks Neil, but 30x40cm isn't 12x15". This is 30,5x38cm.
Best Peter

Sorry Peter. I wasn't sure whether 12x15 was an exact inch measure or a metric approximation.

Neil

[koraks]

That's a fine print, Sergei! I find that with high-contrast negatives (and no need to add dichromate to the sensitizer as a result), the tone of the print is more neutral. With selenium toning, I sometimes get a nearly neutral grey tone.

[SergeiR]

That's a fine print, Sergei! I find that with high-contrast negatives (and no need to add dichromate to the sensitizer as a result), the tone of the print is more neutral. With selenium toning, I sometimes get a nearly neutral grey tone.

Thank you. Its pity i threw last of my golden toner out about year ago :( Now if only i can find place in Dallas that sells toners :(

And here is my first kalitype with another X-ray.

Basically - looks like x-ray prints in contact to vandyke, kalitype fantastically well. Now i just need to fine tune process.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1688/26448517480_151eced75f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GiayN5)Kalitype - portrait (https://flic.kr/p/GiayN5) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Peter De Smidt]

Those look great, Sergei!

[Fr. Mark]

Sergei, Love your work. You might enjoy Dr. Mike Ware's new cyanotype.

[Wayne]

Basically - looks like x-ray prints in contact to vandyke, kalitype fantastically well. Now i just need to fine tune process.



I suspected as much, and have been wanting to try it while wondering why more people haven't tried it already. Seems like an excellent match, as your portraits show

[Andrew O'Neill]

Like I said before, x-ray film was made for alt processes! :)

[Neil Purling]

I mentioned developing in Rodinal 1:200 for 6 minutes which I tried with dental X-ray film exposed in a 35mm camera.With the film developed in a tank I was agitating for the first 45 sec & then 15 sec per minute. The film was in 600ml of developer. However there was just traces of a negative. Maybe the film would have developed properly if I had given a time of 10 min, or if I had agitated continuously for the whole 6 min. Both need to be tried

A 1:100 dilution works fine with the agitation I mentioned. It certainly seems that D band dental film is around 100 ASA

[Neil Purling]

A 1:100 dilution works fine with the agitation I mentioned. It certainly seems that D band dental film is around 100 ASA

The film may be 100ASA, but is seems rather grainy. Is that likely to be because it is double-sided coating?
The image is taken from x 30x40mm dental X-ray film used for research purpose in getting a closer approximation of the dev time before I use large-format X-ray films.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Sergei, these are lovely prints.
--

The cuttings from our newly planted vineyard are coming to life.

Speed Graphic with Optar 135 at f8
Agfa HDR mammography film
Developed by inspection in deep tank, in Ilford MG 1+50 at 22C for 8.5min (semi-stand).
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1550/26127519764_df2e097b65_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FNNnmG)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/FNNnmG)

[Wayne]

is this true? I don't remember seeing it mentioned but I was offline quite a bit last fall. Fuji HR-T X-Ray Film Discontinued (https://www.zzmedical.com/blog/tag/fuji-hrt/)

[mdarnton]

I think so. I have switched to HR-U, no problem. The last I looked there was still some HR-T available on Ebay, but I thought I'd rather buy newer film than familiar film, since I'll have to make the switch sooner or later. The curves aren't very different.

[Wayne]

That figures, I'm always the last to know. I've only ever bought one box of x-ray, and its still 3/4 full. I finally got my first acceptable image and by the time its gone I'll finally know what I'm doing and I won't be able to get anymore. I'[m tempted to just throw it in the freezer and move on to HR-U right now.

[mdarnton]

Use up the HR-T---you won't see a difference, I don't think.

[Philippe Grunchec]

In Europe, we can get Super HR-E 30 and Super RX: are they OK?

[Neil Purling]

I went to the windmill at Skidby yesterday.
I was going to take a walk along a footpath into the village & back, but I saw this huge bank of lead grey clouds coming.
The last thing I wanted was for my Graflex to get rain on it, so I went home.
I had time to make the images below. In the hedgerow shot you can see the heavy grey clouds.
This is the first of the Crontex MRF-21 I used. It is single-sided and has some kind of back coating. The proper developement time for this seems to be 8-9 minutes in Rodinal dil 1:100.

[koraks]

Nice, Neil, it works! You do seem to have some issues with uneven development, especially along the edges. You might want to check your agitation scheme and eliminate any possible causes of light-induced fog. But agitation would be the first place I'd look.

[seezee]

This is the first of the Crontex MRF-21 I used. It is single-sided and has some kind of back coating. The proper developement time for this seems to be 8-9 minutes in Rodinal dil 1:100.
Most likely an anti-halation dye.

[Neil Purling]

You do seem to have some issues with uneven development, especially along the edges.

It is something that happens with the Fink-Roselieve tank if one tries to develope too many sheets of film at once. However, in this instance I was distracted from my duties.
I usually develope no more than four sheets of film at a time and follow the normal agitation pattern of 1st min continuous and then 15 sec/min.

[barnacle]

Hmm. Getting a little peeved with Bema-kg who have not delivered film in three weeks and are not responsive to phone or email.

Neil

[Jim Noel]

I suspected as much, and have been wanting to try it while wondering why more people haven't tried it already. Seems like an excellent match, as your portraits show

I have been using Ektascan for VDB and Palladium for about 2 years. It's orthochromatic contrast is ideal for these and other UV processes. The major problem is that the film base density is so low it prints too fast.

[Wayne]

I have been using Ektascan for VDB and Palladium for about 2 years. It's orthochromatic contrast is ideal for these and other UV processes. The major problem is that the film base density is so low it prints too fast.

what is your light source?

[mdarnton]

This looks interesting:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?130946-Why-use-divided-development:
Is anyone trying this with x-ray film to control contrast?

[Tin Can]

11x14 Contact print 2-sided Kodak

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7482/26459396864_33db39d3f5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Gj8jRE)Macro 11X14 (https://flic.kr/p/Gj8jRE) by moe.randy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[jon.oman]

Nice image Randy!

[Tin Can]

Nice image Randy!

Thank you!

[Jim Noel]

what is your light source?

Either fluorescent tubes or NuArc mercury vapor unit depending on which process, and negative size.

[barnacle]

Hmm. Getting a little peeved with Bema-kg who have not delivered film in three weeks and are not responsive to phone or email.

Neil

Anita, who is in Berlin this week, finally managed to talk to someone at Bema-kg. He was not particularly helpful, said he didn't have it in stock, didn't know if that size was still made, didn't know when he'd have some, yadda yadda yadda. Apparently he is to refund my payment... I'll believe it when I see it.

She wasn't really in a position to ask if he had any other options in that size, but I think I'll be avoiding them in future.

Meh.

Neil

[plaubel]

Sorry for the bad deal, Neil.
I never have had problems with them.

Ritchie

[barnacle]

No blame to you, Ritchie.

I don't know why they don't seem to want to sell to me, even in Germany. Anita reported her exchange with them as not particularly pleasant (and she's a native German speaker).

Shame, because the website looked so good.

Neil

[mdarnton]

This looks interesting:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?130946-Why-use-divided-development:
Is anyone trying this with x-ray film to control contrast?

Answering my own question here: I spent today doing tests. I started with the high end of potassium ferricyanide concentration listed in the article which, after all of the super-stock>stock>working solution dilutions, figures out to .5gm per 5L, (I think--I'd be happy if someone checks my math on this!), and moved up to 4gm per 5L via 1gm and 2gm. . . and the 4gm was with no potassium bromide at all because I wasn't seeing any fogging. All I saw was a very tiny loss of speed, and I'm not even sure of that. So unless my math is wrong and I'm using too weak of a solution, this isn't going to work on Fuji HR-U.

I have one sheet of the test scene left, and I might do something really gross with it, lots of ferricyanide, but not today.

Let me repeat: if anyone finds a math error, I'd love to hear about it.

[Tin Can]

https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7792/27156461311_8971a1bea9_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/HnHXQc)28X62 X-Ra7 5-24-2016 2-43-51 PM 2448x3264 (https://flic.kr/p/HnHXQc) by moe.randy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr


This is an older image for me. Started as greater than 1-1 macro on 5X7 X-Ray. Later contact copied to 4x5 FP4 eliminating negative space.

Last night enlarged from 4x5 onto 5 sheets 14X17" X-Ray.

To be taped together, translucent backlit for my storefront window. A conversation piece.

DIY LED 5X7 head for 3 seconds at f45 150mm lens 60" above baseboard.

Developed in paper strength Ilford PQ, citric stop, Arista Fast fixer. 2 min dev, 10 sec stop, 2 min fix, 2 min wash. Obviously I lost count on upper left.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Cool!

[Jim Noel]

X-ray film is orthochromatic and can be handled under red light. Why then does it not render skin tones darker like the ortho film of old? Skin with x-ray film looks closer to pan film than ortho. Mind you, I'm fine with that. I'd just like to understand what's going on. Is it that the ortho of old was less sensitive to a wider range of wavelengths?

All the ortho films of the past were not the same, just as all current pan films are different. I will have to search for a negative which I have kept from the 30's and ppost it when I do. it was made on Verichrome and developed to completion, as were most films of the era. the skin tones are quite normal, not ruddy at all.

[Peter De Smidt]

Good to know, Jim. Thanks!

Nice work, Randy!

[Tin Can]

Thanks Andrew and Peter.

[Pali K]

That's really neat Randy. I like it!

[mdarnton]

All the ortho films of the past were not the same, just as all current pan films are different. I will have to search for a negative which I have kept from the 30's and post it when I do. it was made on Verichrome and developed to completion, as were most films of the era. the skin tones are quite normal, not ruddy at all.

There's an interesting discussion of the old film types and response charts starting here: https://archive.org/stream/pictorialphotog01andegoog#page/n74/mode/2up

[Tin Can]

That's really neat Randy. I like it!

Thanks Pali!

[barnacle]

Ok, the Agfa green got here, and the guillotine got here, so hopefully I should have some film in holders by the weekend (I have to wait until after midnight to lose the street lighting around here).

Quick reminder for exposure and possible starter time for dev in RO9, please?

Neil

[Tin Can]

Ok, the Agfa green got here, and the guillotine got here, so hopefully I should have some film in holders by the weekend (I have to wait until after midnight to lose the street lighting around here).

Quick reminder for exposure and possible starter time for dev in RO9, please?

Neil

Try 50 ASA for daylight or strobe, in Rodinol/RO9 1/100 for 8 minutes. Then as they say, adjust!

[SergeiR]

nicely done, Randy.

How did you project it, if you don't mind me asking? :)

--

i need to develop film.. got about 10 holders full of film laying around ;(

[barnacle]

Thanks Randy!

Neil

[Tin Can]

nicely done, Randy.

How did you project it, if you don't mind me asking? :)

--

i need to develop film.. got about 10 holders full of film laying around ;(

FOTAR 10X10 enlarger with DIY head LED Shop light from Costco $40, 3500 lumens. Too powerful, so I stopped way down with one layer of LD Makrolon diffusion. Needs 2 layers.

150mm Componon. 4X5 interpositive at 60" filled entire baseboard.

My test strips were 8x10 X-Ray.



Not tanks, tray developed one at a time.

[rdelung]

Great Pic. I'm a Harley guy myself. Was this a contact print, or a scanned? What was your exposure time, and development time?
Again, nice job looks like my 03 Sportster. West Cost Randy.

[Tin Can]

97, but I have 3 sets tins, 1995, 97, 03. It's an iPod shot of RC paper contact print. The 11x14 X-Ray CSG double sided developed in Rodinol 1-100 tray for 8 minutes. No scanning, I prefer prints.



Great Pic. I'm a Harley guy myself. Was this a contact print, or a scanned? What was your exposure time, and development time?
Again, nice job looks like my 03 Sportster. West Cost Randy.

[SergeiR]

FOTAR 10X10 enlarger with DIY head LED Shop light from Costco $40, 3500 lumens. Too powerful, so I stopped way down with one layer of LD Makrolon diffusion. Needs 2 layers.

150mm Componon. 4X5 interpositive at 60" filled entire baseboard.

My test strips were 8x10 X-Ray.



Not tanks, tray developed one at a time.

Thats a big one :) Thanks for detail :)

[senderoaburrido]

What size are normal 4x5 negatives, exactly? The guillotine I'm using isn't very sharp or precise, and my negatives end up rather irregular. It's preventing me from being able to use the 2509n Jobo reel I've got. So far I've just been chopping about .25 inches off each edge and they barely fit the holders. Is that incorrect?

[Tin Can]

What size are normal 4x5 negatives, exactly? The guillotine I'm using isn't very sharp or precise, and my negatives end up rather irregular. It's preventing me from being able to use the 2509n Jobo reel I've got. So far I've just been chopping about .25 inches off each edge and they barely fit the holders. Is that incorrect?

I use a 'real' 4X5 neg as template, especially when I can't see the ruler. Lights out.

0.25" off 4X5 is way too much. I suggest trying 4.9X3.9" as a start and most likely that is too small also. 1/16th off is about right.

[Tin Can]

I measured HP5, but my device is poor. Looks like 4.93X3.93,

Getting the film squarely cut can also be an issue.

Tape a perfectly 90 degree stop to your cutter. Cut 12 pieces to that size. Put them in a very darkplace, reset your production stop for the other dimension and it should work.

[seezee]

I measured HP5, but my device is poor. Looks like 4.93X3.93,

Getting the film squarely cut can also be an issue.

Tape a perfectly 90 degree stop to your cutter. Cut 12 pieces to that size. Put them in a very darkplace, reset your production stop for the other dimension and it should work.

Use 2 pieces of white Dymo label-maker tape to mark the cut width and length on you guillotine cutter, using a sheet of real 4×5 as a template for placing the marks. Work under a red safelight, located not too close to your work area (even safelights can fog film).

I use a Dahle 15E Vantage Series Trimmer (http://smile.amazon.com/dp/B000W1SU9A/), which has a rubber clamp that drops onto the workpiece when you make the cut and keeps it from shifting about. It also features a moveable stop. I'm sure there are other, comparable cutters available, but this one has served me well.

[barnacle]

The guillotine I bought was/is a pile of poo; it won't cut square and the guide is basically pointless. It's similar to the Dahle you mention but lacks the clamp; without that clamp it wants to move the work around as it cuts.

Chopping the 8x10 in half makes it too wide.

Neil

[Tin Can]

The guillotine I bought was/is a pile of poo; it won't cut square and the guide is basically pointless. It's similar to the Dahle you mention but lacks the clamp; without that clamp it wants to move the work around as it cuts.

Chopping the 8x10 in half makes it too wide.

Neil

I use a 12" Dahle (http://www.dahle.com/FAQs/FAQguillotines.htm) chopper, the holder-down thing is absolutely the best I have seen and does not damage emulsion. If fact I bought an 18" also. Here (USA) they are very affordable. German company I believe and made in China I assume, but cannot find out either...

I have a Made in UK Rotatrim, but it's better for other things, not negatives. Nice trimmer but different.

[Duolab123]

I use a 12" Dahle (http://www.dahle.com/FAQs/FAQguillotines.htm) chopper, the holder-down thing is absolutely the best I have seen and does not damage emulsion. If fact I bought an 18" also. Here (USA) they are very affordable. German company I believe and made in China I assume, but cannot find out either...

I have a Made in UK Rotatrim, but it's better for other things, not negatives. Nice trimmer but different.

I second the vote for the Dahle, guillotine. The hold down thingy works great, mine has a rotating blade guard to reduce amputations. I bought mine 30 years ago works great. I haven't cut film but it always did a nice job on paper.
Best Mike

[barnacle]

As an aside - I managed a couple of shots yesterday on the Agfa Green.

An image stuck to the film but it's so far less than wonderful: exposed at 64 ASA, one interior and one exterior, and both look seriously underdeveloped - eight minutes in R09 at 100:1 - mind you, the R09 is somewhat ancient and rattles when I move the bottle. I've discussed this before.

I think it's time to splash out on some new developer :)

I have images taken at the same time on Adox CHS50 which I have not yet developed, so it'll be interesting to see a comparison.

Neil

p.s. the film has an interesting blue colour in the base.

[seezee]

As an aside - I managed a couple of shots yesterday on the Agfa Green.


p.s. the film has an interesting blue colour in the base.

I think that's standard on x-ray film. Carestream (Kodak) Ektascan and Carestream HSB (half-speed blue) both use a blue polyester substrate.

[Jim Noel]

After following this thread from the beginning of its two predecessors, I finally am ready to contribute more than occasional comments. By the way, I preferred the two separate topics.
Here are a few notes and an attempt to answer some ongoing questions which popped up as I reread all 4285 entries.
I learned to process film in the 1930's when most of what was available, particularly roll film, was orthochromatic and all emulsions were very soft and fragile. There was no pre-hardening of emulsions. Development was carried out under a red safelight. Careful handling was a necessity and that is perhaps why I don’t understand all the problems with scratching whether single or double emulsions.
Today’s x-ray films may not be exactly the same as the films of the 30's, but they are close. Only the characteristic curves are different. Orthochromatic films are not necessarily by their nature more contrasty than panchromatic ones, they just have a somewhat different response to colors, particularly red and its immediate neighbors. I do not see a problem with contrast so long as the color sensitivity of the film is understood, and appropriate developers and dilutions are used.

1. How do you get film out of a holder wearing a glove?
I don’t, I only wear a glove on my left hand leaving the right free and dry to remove film from the holder.
2. How do you pick up a sheet of film in a tray while wearing gloves?
Put your gloved hand in the tray at one end. Pick up the other end of the tray and the film will float enough to allow your fingers to pick it up easily.
3. An easy way to assure only red light in the room, use a CD and bounce the light off it. The full spectrum of light available will show up. If all you see is red, you are safe, so long as the source is not too close or too bright. I use two 8x10 Kodak safelights with ruby bulbs, and a filter.
4. How are scratches avoided while loading and unloading holders?
To prevent the film sliding across the flap, pull the dark slide out far enough that it does not restrict the sides of the holder at all. Slide one long side of the film under the lip of the holder, then use a slight bend and slide the other side of the film under the opposite lip. Finish by pushing the film the final 1/4 -1/2 inch into the holder before closing the flap and dark slide.

My methods with Ektascan B/RA X-ray film.
I rate this single sided film at 100 in the middle of the day, and make appropriate adjustments at each end of the day to account for the added red in the spectrum.
One method of development is in a flat bottomed tray with HC110-H, 6 minutes at 70̊F after a 5 minute pre-soak. Agitation is for 30 seconds, then 5 seconds each minute by lifting the corners of the tray. Then a 1 minute water rinse followed by the fixer (the cheapest rapid fixer I can find, or I mix my own.). A 10 minute wash, or 5 one minute soaks in a succession of water changes, then one minute with agitation in LFN, never Photo Flo.
My second method used particularly if the image needs separation in significant highlights is Pyrocat HD 2+2+100 in a tray 7'45" at 70 degrees. The rest of the process is as above.

Method with Fuji HR/U 7x17 rated at 80:
I use green seed starting trays which have 3 rounded grooves running the length of the tray.
2 liters of Pyrocat HD 1+1+200 in a 10x20 seed starting tray for 10 minutes @70 deg. Agitation 1st 30 seconds, then 3 lifts of corners each minute. One liter is enough to develop the single sheet of film, but the additional amount seems to assure the film doesn’t sink to the bottom and stay there. The red light over the tray is turned on half way through to check progress, then for the last two minutes of development. Water stop bath, then hardening fixer before the final wash and treatment in LFN. No scratches or evidence of the grooves.

Negatives are never scanned. I print primarily salt, VDB, kallitype, and Pt/Pd. Occasionally I proof on Azo.

[Michael Roberts]

Thanks, Jim! This is great, practical advice. Much appreciated!

[Tin Can]

Excellent Jim, perhaps your post should be put in the Info page also, so we can find it easily in future and point to it.

Few have read all the X-Ray posts. I read 50% some time ago and recently started over at the beginning. I forget things. Really.

What we all forget, I think, is how relatively new and unknown, even hated, X-Ray film usage is. I had one guy tell me 'get real film'...

[seezee]

What we all forget, I think, is how relatively new and unknown, even hated, X-Ray film usage is. I had one guy tell me 'get real film'...

Tell me about it. I unleashed a torrent of vitriol over at APUG (http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/super-fix-viii.136975/) when I posted a question about using x-ray film with Super Fix VIII.

[Tin Can]

Tell me about it. I unleashed a torrent of vitriol over at APUG (http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/super-fix-viii.136975/) when I posted a question about using x-ray film with Super Fix VIII.

You got off easy. I use TF-5 for all films, not paper. Love TF-5!

I buy 'real' film from Ilford AND Kodak, wary about Fuji, but also buy their really good Acros.

PE lives in Rochester, he deeply needs Kodak to survive. I highly respect that and I highly respect PE.

I seldom visit APUG or any other forum.

[Tin Can]

Another thought.

It may be that X-Ray film disappears from market before reel film.

Nobody wants analog X-Ray do they? Most likely no doctors, vets or hospitals. Or patients.

We are simply using the last dregs of second gen X-Ray technology that will soon be history.

Ist gen was the nasty Fluoroscope which killed my sister, in 1949.

[mdarnton]

Tell me about it. I unleashed a torrent of vitriol over at APUG (http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/super-fix-viii.136975/) when I posted a question about using x-ray film with Super Fix VIII.

Idiots will say what idiots say. Currently I'm using these companies' product in 80 square inch bites, where before I was using hardly any of it, thanks to the 10X price difference they feel "real" film is worth over x-ray film. The pricing of film sounds a lot like industry collusion to me: silver goes up > film goes up; silver goes down > film goes up. It's like jacking up the car: no matter which way the handle moves, the car goes up. I'll try not to be cynical, but since when does the medical industry get the lowest prices by 10X for anything???

I suppose we will all have to learn to make our own film eventually.

[Tin Can]

And Kodak could have kept X-Ray.

Who makes 'Carestream' anyway?

[Taija71A]

... PE lives in Rochester, he deeply needs Kodak to survive...

? ? ? ? ?

[Jim Noel]

Excellent Jim, perhaps your post should be put in the Info page also, so we can find it easily in future and point to it.

Few have read all the X-Ray posts. I read 50% some time ago and recently started over at the beginning. I forget things. Really.

What we all forget, I think, is how relatively new and unknown, even hated, X-Ray film usage is. I had one guy tell me 'get real film'...

I would do that, if I knew how. Perhaps if the moderators have the same feeling they will tag or move it appropriately.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Jim, I've always followed your advice and I admire your dedication to your craft. Thanks again for your wonderful contributions.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Once you have worked around the differences, be it soft emulsion, scratchability, double-sided-ness, ortho... X-ray is great to work with. I sure do love that double-sided, green latitude stuff!

[seezee]

And Kodak could have kept X-Ray.

Who makes 'Carestream' anyway?


Carestream Health, formerly Eastman Kodak Company's Health Group, is an independent subsidiary of Onex Corporation, Toronto, Canada. Onex is one of Canada's largest corporations.

Or so says Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carestream_Health).

[Will Frostmill]

After following this thread from the beginning of its two predecessors, I finally am ready to contribute more than occasional comments. By the way, I preferred the two separate topics.
Here are a few notes and an attempt to answer some ongoing questions which popped up as I reread all 4285 entries.
I learned to process film in the 1930's when most of what was available, particularly roll film, was orthochromatic and all emulsions were very soft and fragile. There was no pre-hardening of emulsions. Development was carried out under a red safelight. Careful handling was a necessity and that is perhaps why I don’t understand all the problems with scratching whether single or double emulsions.
Today’s x-ray films may not be exactly the same as the films of the 30's, but they are close. Only the characteristic curves are different. Orthochromatic films are not necessarily by their nature more contrasty than panchromatic ones, they just have a somewhat different response to colors, particularly red and its immediate neighbors. I do not see a problem with contrast so long as the color sensitivity of the film is understood, and appropriate developers and dilutions are used.

1. How do you get film out of a holder wearing a glove?
I don’t, I only wear a glove on my left hand leaving the right free and dry to remove film from the holder.
2. How do you pick up a sheet of film in a tray while wearing gloves?
Put your gloved hand in the tray at one end. Pick up the other end of the tray and the film will float enough to allow your fingers to pick it up easily.
3. An easy way to assure only red light in the room, use a CD and bounce the light off it. The full spectrum of light available will show up. If all you see is red, you are safe, so long as the source is not too close or too bright. I use two 8x10 Kodak safelights with ruby bulbs, and a filter.
4. How are scratches avoided while loading and unloading holders?
To prevent the film sliding across the flap, pull the dark slide out far enough that it does not restrict the sides of the holder at all. Slide one long side of the film under the lip of the holder, then use a slight bend and slide the other side of the film under the opposite lip. Finish by pushing the film the final 1/4 -1/2 inch into the holder before closing the flap and dark slide.

My methods with Ektascan B/RA X-ray film.
I rate this single sided film at 100 in the middle of the day, and make appropriate adjustments at each end of the day to account for the added red in the spectrum.
One method of development is in a flat bottomed tray with HC110-H, 6 minutes at 70̊F after a 5 minute pre-soak. Agitation is for 30 seconds, then 5 seconds each minute by lifting the corners of the tray. Then a 1 minute water rinse followed by the fixer (the cheapest rapid fixer I can find, or I mix my own.). A 10 minute wash, or 5 one minute soaks in a succession of water changes, then one minute with agitation in LFN, never Photo Flo.
My second method used particularly if the image needs separation in significant highlights is Pyrocat HD 2+2+100 in a tray 7'45" at 70 degrees. The rest of the process is as above.

Method with Fuji HR/U 7x17 rated at 80:
I use green seed starting trays which have 3 rounded grooves running the length of the tray.
2 liters of Pyrocat HD 1+1+200 in a 10x20 seed starting tray for 10 minutes @70 deg. Agitation 1st 30 seconds, then 3 lifts of corners each minute. One liter is enough to develop the single sheet of film, but the additional amount seems to assure the film doesn’t sink to the bottom and stay there. The red light over the tray is turned on half way through to check progress, then for the last two minutes of development. Water stop bath, then hardening fixer before the final wash and treatment in LFN. No scratches or evidence of the grooves.

Negatives are never scanned. I print primarily salt, VDB, kallitype, and Pt/Pd. Occasionally I proof on Azo.

Jim,
I have read nearly every post in this thread, many at least three times. This is the best contribution I have seen, ever. Thank you for sharing your insight and experience, I appreciate it very much. I think many others feel the same way.

And, because I can't leave well enough alone, what are your thoughts on using D-23?

Will

[Tin Can]

Or so says Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carestream_Health).

I'm a factory man. Where is the factory?

[Paul Cunningham]

Is there a list somewhere of the current single-sided films? Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jim Noel]

Thanks Jim and other for your supportive comments.
As for D-23, I have always kept heavily used D-23 on hand for those images which need total development, a process I learned as a teenager.
I began my tests of x-ray film with D-23. It works well with patience, but I found that to get the DR I need for salt prints the development time was extremely long, so moved to HC110 and Pyrocat HD.
While on the subject of developers, I have never understood why people use diluted paper developers when trying to soften the contrast of film. Paper developers are by their nature more active than film developers. To prove this, try developing a silver gelatin print in your favorite film developer.

Jim Noel

[Jim Noel]

Is there a list somewhere of the current single-sided films? Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only easily obtainable one I know of is 8x10 Carestream Ektascan EB/RA which I obtain from Z&Z Medical. I would like to find a source for this in larger sizes.

[seezee]

I'm a factory man. Where is the factory?

Don't know about that, but their US offices are in Rochester (https://www.carestream.com/contact-us.html) (!)

[seezee]

The only easily obtainable one I know of is 8x10 Carestream Ektascan EB/RA which I obtain from Z&Z Medical. I would like to find a source for this in larger sizes.

It's available in 14″×17″, but only in case quantities. 500 sheets for $920 USD.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Is there a list somewhere of the current single-sided films? Thanks!


There is also:

Agfa Mamoray HDR-C Plus, and

Fujifilm AD-M (Mammography film)

Both come in 18x24cm and 24x30cm sizes, and they're single sided, with Anti-halation backing.
Could not comment on their availability in the US though.

--

In a related subject:

Can someone with firsthand experience comment on the properties of the following films, or better yet post pictures (or links to pictures) made with them?

Fuji Super HR-E30

Fuji Super RX

Kodak T-MAT-G/RA

All three come in 13x18cm size, a size I'm currently exploring.

[Paul Cunningham]

Agfa Mamoray HDR-C Plus, and

Fujifilm AD-M (Mammography film)

--

Fuji Super HR-E30

Fuji Super RX

Kodak T-MAT-G/RA


Thodoris, are these last three double-sided then, or discontinued?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Thodoris, are these last three double-sided then, or discontinued?


Paul, the last three are "regular" x-ray films – double sided, without Anti-halation backing.

Sorry for the confusion. It was meant as a separate question.

[barnacle]

First negative from Agfa Plus G x-ray; exposed at 50 ASA and developed in new (woohoo!) Rodinol R09 at 50:1 for nine minutes - in the same soup as a theoretically identical Adox CHS II 50 ASA. The idea being to see how it compares to the Adox and then see how the rest of the batch should be developed... this looks overdeveloped, as expected; it's a lot denser than the Adox but also has a slight fog on the blue base. I'll try the same time but at 100:1 for the next batch.

http://dnbprojects.co.uk/steam/0438.jpg

Neil

[Tin Can]

Great! 1/100 is a sweet spot for me. Depending on film. I use RO9/Rodinol for almost all film.

Lately I am developing X-Ray in Ilford PQ 1/9 standard paper strength. I do this for speed of process. 2 min dev, 10sec citric stop, 2 min fix, 2 min wash. I use this only if I want higher contrast.

Now you are rolling!

[Jody_S]

First negative from Agfa Plus G x-ray;
Rodinol R09 at 50:1 for nine minutes

Neil

Remember X-Ray is a very thin-emulsion film designed for processing in under a minute by machine. 9 minutes in any soup will develop to completion. If you're wanting to do compensating developing to tame the very strong contrast you'll be getting, you'll end up trying more dilute developers, shorter times, or my favorite, developing to exhaustion (by measuring 1.5-2ml of concentrated developer per sheet - seems to hold across HC-110 and similar soups - so if I'm doing 10 sheets, I mix 20ml of HC-110 into 2000ml of water, then use 200ml of dilute solution per sheet, single use of course; compensation for each sheet is done by increasing or decreasing the amount of solution per sheet, from 150ml to 250ml).

[barnacle]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Agfa G-Plus exposed at ASA 50, developed in R09 1:100 for nine minutes. This did require a lot of gamma to lift the blacks, though - probably not helped by steam enthusiasts being red paint enthusiasts also, and G-plus not seeing red...

http://dnbprojects.co.uk/steam/0442.jpg

(also includes very vague portraits of the engine's owner, me, and the camera in the boiler reflection.)

Neil

[barnacle]

Anita, who is in Berlin this week, finally managed to talk to someone at Bema-kg. He was not particularly helpful, said he didn't have it in stock, didn't know if that size was still made, didn't know when he'd have some, yadda yadda yadda. Apparently he is to refund my payment... I'll believe it when I see it.

She wasn't really in a position to ask if he had any other options in that size, but I think I'll be avoiding them in future.

Meh.

Neil

Well, surprises all round: my film has finally been delivered in Berlin. Now I have to wait for Anita to visit again to bring it back :)

Neil

[Tin Can]

Not sure if this is allowed to be posted here as it it 6x17 2x enlarged onto X-Ray.

Here is a link to it. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?69756-6x17-Images&p=1338079&viewfull=1#post1338079

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I have a box of the Carestream EB/RA single sided x-ray film and I'm getting this weird line in the upper left hand corner of several of my negatives. I've started to pull from the center of the package and on some the mark shows and others none. Wondering what it could be. Static electricity? It is always the same pattern and in the same place on the negative.

[Tin Can]

https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7418/27893534950_12cf1d1c30_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/JuRE9o)14x36 1a (https://flic.kr/p/JuRE9o) by moe.randy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

More info just posted here. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?69756-6x17-Images

[barnacle]

I think I'm getting the hang of the Agfa Green. All exposed at 50ASA using the sunny 16 rule... developed in Rodinol at 50:1 for 7 minutes with a 2 minute prewash at 72F/22C.

http://dnbprojects.co.uk/xray/0426.jpg

http://dnbprojects.co.uk/xray/0427.jpg

http://dnbprojects.co.uk/xray/0428.jpg

http://dnbprojects.co.uk/xray/0430.jpg

Around Whitstable and Chislet, Kent, last weekend.

Neil

[Tin Can]

I think you got it Neil!

[Tin Can]

https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8728/28105410451_ede6d90ab5_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/JPzzmg)Double reverse (https://flic.kr/p/JPzzmg) by moe.randy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr


Here's a use of X-Ray that is seldom seen. I shot the illuminated light bulb with 5x7 X-Ray, later I contact printed a FP4 interpositive of the center.

Then I enlarged onto normal paper making a 'negative' appearing print on paper.

[Fr. Mark]

I've used close to a full box of Ektascan B/RA and not seen that weird line, Jim. Pinholes in the emulsion sometimes, but not that.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I've used close to a full box of Ektascan B/RA and not seen that weird line, Jim. Pinholes in the emulsion sometimes, but not that.

Thanks, maybe I should contact ZZ medical and see what they say.

[barnacle]

Fascinating shot, Randy. Looks almost like, um, an x-ray of the bulb!

Neil

[Tin Can]

Thanks. I had fun making it.

I exchanged a print of it for a big stash of film, paper and chem. The Pro liked it. :)

A kind word is deeply felt.


Fascinating shot, Randy. Looks almost like, um, an x-ray of the bulb!

Neil

[Donald Qualls]

I've started to pull from the center of the package and on some the mark shows and others none. Wondering what it could be. Static electricity? It is always the same pattern and in the same place on the negative.

Your mark is light on the negative, and not sharp. I think it's the shadow of a hair inside your bellows. Static would be dark on the negative.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Your mark is light on the negative, and not sharp. I think it's the shadow of a hair inside your bellows. Static would be dark on the negative.

Donald, thanks I will check.

[andrewch59]

Here are a couple of long exposures, green xray film at 80 iso with a ten stop nd filter. Excuse the scratches, that's another hurdle
152874152875

[Tin Can]

How long?


Here are a couple of long exposures, green xray film at 80 iso with a ten stop nd filter. Excuse the scratches, that's another hurdle
152874152875

[andrewch59]

If I remember correctly the chimney was f22 and about seven minutes, the lake was about f32 and five-ish

[Tin Can]

That is no reciprocity correction.

Cool. Great work.



If I remember correctly the chimney was f22 and about seven minutes, the lake was about f32 and five-ish

[andrewch59]

As you know its not an exact science with clouds and changing light conditions more guestimate after taking a meter reading to get in the ballpark. Was pleasantly surprised, use the filter a lot more now to get the added shadow detail and contrast. The one with the chimney has my wife placed to the left of the chimney, I took her out of the shot at the three minute mark. Gives the effect of ghosts from the past.

[Jim Noel]

I have a box of the Carestream EB/RA single sided x-ray film and I'm getting this weird line in the upper left hand corner of several of my negatives. I've started to pull from the center of the package and on some the mark shows and others none. Wondering what it could be. Static electricity? It is always the same pattern and in the same place on the negative.

Jim,
I had this on a few negatives but attributed them to a chemical streak until I read your post. I have no idea what can cause them other than a drop of water or developer rolling down the film before or just after development and before fixing.
I have not had the problem in the current box of film.

Jim

[barnacle]

Interesting thought above about reciprocity: I took a couple of long exposures - four minutes and ten minutes - inside Canterbury Cathedral, a very gloomy place. That was as metered, plus a guestimated 100% increase for reciprocity, and ended up way over-exposed - looked like three or four stops. Examination of the focus doesn't suggest that I left the lens wide open...

Scanned with my default settings, which on the X-ray film sets the blue base to 9% and peak white (i.e. peak density) to around 95%, in this case placed the black level in excess of 60% and compressed the white - rather nicely I think - to about 98%. Agfa Green, 50ASA, 7 minutes in 50:1 Rodinol.

153201 153202

(first image as scanned; second after playing with black and white level and a little gamma - 0.9 - and some unsharp mask. A fine set of ghosts wandering through the shot - four minutes - not helped by a fellow on a powered chair who seemed keen to maintain his batteries...

Further investigation needed here, I think; there were too many variables to be sure what happened.

Neil

[andrewch59]

http://www.bwvision.com/complete-guide-long-exposure-photography-2016-edition/
On the complete guide site they have a chart you can download, Its my point of reference, then I just look for changes in light condition and try and guess accordingly. Like your Cathedral shot I shot down at our lake with fog coverage and exposed for two minutes with another thirty seconds for reciprocity, turned out pretty spot on.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/135622527@N03/27886471364/in/dateposted-public/
The only manipulation was backlight adjust on scanner and removal of scratches

[Fred L]

Finally got around to exposing some Ektascan B/RA X-ray film. Read as much as I could on this thread for processing info and went with Rodinal 1:100 for 6 and 7 minutes (this particular shot was processed for 7') around 72°f. single sheet in a Jobo drum (2xxx series with cog lid and cup) on a CPP-2.

Shadows were a bit thin (forgot to factor in bellows extension) and highlights kind of hot. Knew it was contrasty going in but happy for first effort. Photographed in afternoon shade so will try in warmer light to see how it responds.

Will also photograph a scene with more range and if it looks good, I will definitely shoot more of this film.

Zone VI 8x10 Schneider 300 5.6 Apo-Symmar. Exposure was 1s @f8

[Fr. Mark]

Neil 1:50 Rodinal may be too strong, too. Different films but I had better results with 1:100.

[barnacle]

Mark, I found 100:1 too thin. I posted some other 50:1 developed shots upthread on the eighth of June.

Neil

[DeKlari]

153236

Wollensak Rochester Voltas F8 lens (1912), Improved Seneca View Camera (1906), 5x7, AGFA X-ray, Blue film, I shot as ISO 100, (f5.6, 1/25) then I run it through a tray of X-ray film T2 developer (diluted 3 times) for just one minutes. The film was transferred to the water tray and after fix for 5 min. After fixation film was washed for 10-15 minutes in running water.

[Michael Jones]

Jim:

Did you ever get a reply from ZZ or find additional sheets with the line in your box?

Thanks.

[rothsonia]

Nice work Gene!

I have been messing with green sensitive x-ray film
http://hautavis.net/146/o.png

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Jim:

Did you ever get a reply from ZZ or find additional sheets with the line in your box?

Thanks.
Yes, I did get a reply from them right away. They were very concerned. It seems like there was something in the bellows of the camera from the move. I told them and they said if I had any further problems to let them know. Great C/S. It was the owner that I spoke with.

[Fr. Mark]

This is probably obvious to people with more experience: everything else being equal and never mind that it never is, if when developing film the water temperature goes up and you try to compensate with decreased development time, is it likely that grain will increase and contrast too? It seems like that's what's been going on. Water is around 83 F right now (later summer here) and my Ektscan development times drop to about 5 minutes and it seems like grain and contrast are going up. Can't measure either one, but it seems like it. Been using pyrocat HD either 2:2:100 or 1:1:100.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Perseids 2016
210mm lens at f5.6
1 hour exposure on 13x18cm Agfa X-Ray film
Tray developed by inspection
Scan, finished in PS

This lens, on this format, produces a field of view that is a bit too tight for this particular purpose.
I saw at least 5 rather big meteors right outside the confines of this frame.
A wider lens would have caught them for sure.
Next time.
Yet, if you look closely, you can see a couple of tiny dust particles burning upon entering the atmosphere.

https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8112/29078557692_5b3cbccd0f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Lizd7Y)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/Lizd7Y)

[stawastawa]

nice foreground anchor.


Perseids 2016
210mm lens at f5.6
1 hour exposure on 13x18cm Agfa X-Ray film
Tray developed by inspection
Scan, finished in PS

This lens, on this format, produces a field of view that is a bit too tight for this particular purpose.
I saw at least 5 rather big meteors right outside the confines of this frame.
A wider lens would have caught them for sure.
Next time.
Yet, if you look closely, you can see a couple of tiny dust particles burning upon entering the atmosphere.

https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8112/29078557692_5b3cbccd0f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Lizd7Y)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/Lizd7Y)

[Fr. Mark]

I think I see an airplane, too. 13x18cm is around 5x7 and on 5x7 150mm and 90mm start to get pretty wide. I'd wanted to see the Perseid shower of meteors but we got endless cloudy nights and rain showers. I need to find a hill with a commanding view and try this even w/o meteors.

[andrewch59]

Wonderful! It actually looks like a normal shot for me with all my scratch marks!

[DeKlari]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/126027782@N03/28242733493
154260
Korona Camera (1932), Bausch and Lomb Unicum shutter and lens (1897), 8x10, AGFA X-ray, Blue film, I shot as ISO 100, (f5.6, 1/15) then I run it through a tray of X-ray film T2 developer (diluted 3 times) for just one minutes. The film was transferred to the water tray and after fix for 5 min. After fixation film was washed for 10-15 minutes in running water. Scan Epson V500, merge all images in CS4.

[andrewch59]

Congratulations on the birth and great photo. well done!

[ValoPeikko]

I'm trying to source EU store where to order X-ray film from (which would provide shipping to Finland at reasonable cost) and I come empty handed... Where can one find 18x24cm film in EU these days? Mammography film would be preferred but not required :)

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Thanks guys!
(stawastawa, Fr. Mark, andrewch59)

Mark,
astronomy was my gateway to photography as a teenager. Stargazing still gives me more pleasure than most things. But it's rather hard to get to a nice dark sky with all the light pollution we're creating.

andrewch59,
even though I've been using x-ray film for a long time, one of the main problems I never managed to fix to my satisfaction were the scratches.
That is, until I found this thread.
I used to buy 15x30cm film and cut it down to 4x5", which required four successive cuts (I was removing all the round edges). In addition to the too much handling for the cutting part, and because the process was tedious and time consuming, I also used to do it in batches.
Mistake number two.
All those sharp edged 4x5" sheets stored in film envelopes, inevitably scratched each other.
So, after reading some very helpful comments in this thread, I decided to build a camera set-up around a film size available to me locally, instead of trying to make the film fit my 4x5" camera/holders.
For the past few months I've been using 18x24cm film, which I use either un-cut, or I cut once to 13x18cm.
In addition to the format change, I now cut, load, unload, and develop each individual sheet separately, instead of storing them all together in film bags (either un-exposed or exposed).
This way of working, plus the glass bottomed processing trays, seem to have solved the problem of scratches for me.

ValoPeikko,
Someone mentioned the following site some time ago:
http://www.bema-kg.de/navi.php?a=150786&lang=eng
I haven't used them yet though, so cannot comment on how good they are.

[ValoPeikko]

Bema doesn't seem to want to ship anywhere other then germany and austria.. Oh well, search continues. I used to purchase my film from local vet, but since they've all gone digital there's no source for me anymore.

[andrewch59]

Try contacting AGFA I think the are in Belgium?

[bob carnie]

Ok newbie questions here on X ray film


Please do not ask me to look at over 500 posts to get this answer- yes I am lazy.

I am trying to figure out if this film could work as an Interneg film?? for large scale digital silver negatives .


How would xray film compare to normal ortho film ??

what approx ISO would I be dealing with this film?

Do you think it would work in a laser exposure unit?

[koraks]

I am trying to figure out if this film could work as an Interneg film?? for large scale digital silver negatives .
It should, but I have no experience in this particular area.


How would xray film compare to normal ortho film ??
Probably quite similar, but it is very fragile (regular, contemporary ortho film probably has a tougher top coat) and the spectral sensitivity might differ from whatever ortho film you compare it to. Note also the difference between green-sensitive and blue-sensitive x-ray film. The former comes closets to regular ortho film.


what approx ISO would I be dealing with this film?
Generally between 50 and 100, with 80 being a good starting point for further testing.


Do you think it would work in a laser exposure unit?
Yes, I think so, but you may run into trouble with the double-sided film, as it generally suffers a bit from scattering, which will possibly degrade the recorded detail. You'll have to test it to see if it works and if the results are up to the standards you require.

Your best (safest) bet is probably Ektascan BR/A, which is a single-sided, green-sensitive ('ortho') film with an anti-halation coating on the backside. I think it only comes in 8x10" though. There may be alternatives that share similar properties (single-sided, with anti-halation backing) that come in more sizes, but I'm not familiar with them.

[bob carnie]

thank You koraks- very nice response

I will see if the Ektascan BR/A can be purchased in 20 inch or 30inch roll, its got to be cut from a master roll.

[plaubel]

Bob,

for your task, it may be of some interest that the carrier of the film is couloured, instead of transparent.

I don't believe in a generally classic orthographic sensitivity, because depending on the Xray product, and their excist a lot, the sensivity differ.
So in my opinion, "The" Xray film doesn't excist.

Best thing may be to study some data sheets and to buy a cheep pack in smaller size, for doing some experiments.

Ritchie

[Fr. Mark]

ZZ medical sells 14x17 Ektascan but you have to buy 500 sheets at a time for about $2/sheet.

Internegative: I thought I would make a positive on the way to an internegative. I got massive over exposure with the shortest times and smallest f stop on my enlarger. YMMV.

The base of the Ektascan is blue as is most XRay film. There is a spectral response curve on the Ektascan data sheet. It is not v red sensitive but super bright LEDs are not 100% red and even so they will fog the film if you make the darkroom too bright.

I'm tempted to buy more but also tempted to make my own emulsions. I guess it is a former chemist who wants to play in the lab thing. The 8x10 fits directly into typical 8x10 film holders. It is notched in one corner but the two sides are obvious under dim red light.

[Fr. Mark]

I imagine that the moderators thought they did us a favor combining the XRay film threads but for a new person reading 4382 posts has to be intimidating. Maybe we need a summary of what we've learned on the main page?

[Peter De Smidt]

People have talked about a summary for awhile.... Just get some and jump in.

[Luis-F-S]

I'm still trying to figure developing times in H -110 to tame the contrast!

[Jim Noel]

I'm still trying to figure developing times in H -110 to tame the contrast!

Try HC 110, 1+100, 6-8 minutes @ 75 degrees, in a tray with light agitation.

[Gene McCluney]

It's amazing how many posts there are to my original post on X-ray film, these many years ago. This is quite a popular topic!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Gene, nice to know what you started a long time ago has taken on a life of it's own. A lot of information here.

Yesterday we developed four sheets of 14x17 single sided x-ray film. I have a workshop student staying with me. I built Matt's 14x17 camera for him and we never got to test it out before we moved north. So we shot some x-ray film and developed it in 1:1:150 Pyrocat HD for about 12 minutes and have some wonderful negatives. I've also used Rodinal 1:100 for 9 minutes with great success. The Pyrocat tames the contrast very well. Now for me because I print carbon transfer I'm not to concerned about to much contrast. Never a problem as there are many controls. I'll go over all of these with Matt when we expose, develop and print some 8x10 negatives. He should leave with a good understanding of the entire process.
X-ray film is a great teaching tool. It is inexpensive so you can shoot many images, easy to develop because you can see it develop and it prints well when doing carbon transfer.
So again Gene, thanks for turning us on to x-ray film.

[Tin Can]

+10

[andrewch59]

May I third that motion. I started with xray as a cheap alternative to bring an old camera back to life. This thread has been a valuable source of information, cant see myself using any other kind of film now. Thanks Gene

[Peter De Smidt]

If you're getting too much contrast, you might try one or more of the following:
1) Expose more and develop less,
2) Use a softer developer. For example, if you like Pyrocat, try the two bath technique.
3) Use David Kachel's SLIMT technique,
4) Pre-expose the film to zone 0, i.e. 1 stop below zone 1,
5) Strip one side with bleach, if using two sided film,
6) Make a contrast reducing mask,
7) Switch from silver gelatin printing to one of the alternatives that likes negatives with a high density range,
8) Add fill light.

[Fr. Mark]

Peter thanks for these ideas!
May I tentatively add, keep the developer water a sensible temp in the summer with some water from fridge to avoid over development? I've not tried it since I realized it might be the cause of some of my problems because I suddenly got busy.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Olive Harvest 2015

135mm lens
4x5" Agfa green X-Ray film
Rotary processing
Scan from film, finished in PS

https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8292/28825467073_d7c3d48621_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/KVd46B)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/KVd46B)

[scheinfluger_77]

Huh. It looks like you got some true solarization in the sun. Is that a possible artifact of X-ray film?

[Luis-F-S]

Try HC 110, 1+100, 6-8 minutes @ 75 degrees, in a tray with light agitation.

Jim, I process in 1 Gal tanks with the film in hangers. Will try some sheets tomorrow at 1:100 HC-110 at 68 F with light agitation. Thanks, L

[Andrew O'Neill]

Excellent photograph, Thodoris. Good job holding all that detail in the sky. Steve, that is possible with conventional B/W film, too. AA talked about it in one of his books.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Huh. It looks like you got some true solarization in the sun. Is that a possible artifact of X-ray film?

Though x-ray film is capable of capturing true solarisation, the effect is somewhat subtle.
For a more pronounced effect (the sun disc turning black) I use direct positive paper.
There are a couple of examples of that on my flickr page.


Excellent photograph, Thodoris. Good job holding all that detail in the sky. Steve, that is possible with conventional B/W film, too. AA talked about it in one of his books.

Thanks Andrew.

[Tin Can]

Heads up.

ZZMedical of Iowa has a sale price today only, of 5% off all X-Ray film.

https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film.html


I have no connection with ZZ, but have bought from them.

[seezee]

Heads up.

ZZMedical of Iowa has a sale price today only, of 5% off all X-Ray film.

https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film.html


I have no connection with ZZ, but have bought from them.

Great! I just ordered 2 more boxes of CSHB.

POLL: Do you use blue or green sensitive x-ray film? Do you have a preference? WHY?

I use half-speed blue for a couple of reasons: I want a spectral sensitivity that mimics older ortho or even colorblind films, and I need the slower speed because I'm using a barrel lens with a Packard shutter & need to deal with longer exposures due the mechanical constraints of my setup.

[Tin Can]

Great! I just ordered 2 more boxes of CSHB.

POLL: Do you use blue or green sensitive x-ray film? Do you have a preference? WHY?

I use half-speed blue for a couple of reasons: I want a spectral sensitivity that mimics older ortho or even colorblind films, and I need the slower speed because I'm using a barrel lens with a Packard shutter & need to deal with longer exposures due the mechanical constraints of my setup.

I use Ektascan and cut it 11x14, I use the same exact stuff in 8x10. https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/kodak-x-ray-film/14x17-in-carestream-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html

I also use Kodak Carestream CSG1 – Green in various sizes. This stuff https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/kodak-x-ray-film/14x36-in-full-length-carestream-x-ray-film.html

Never tried the blue. I really know nothing about it. Why is it 1/2 speed? What does that mean to us? Why is the above link to CSB1 – "Full Speed Blue".

Why do you think blue is so different? CSG Green IS also blue base tint. I think it all X-Ray is blue as it's easier on Doctor's eyes on a light table. They stare at this stuff for hours...Maybe I'm wrong. I started with Kodak CSG Green and it works well for me.

Since I am happy with how my 2 chosen by chance X-Ray works for me, I am not testing any other brand or type.

Tell us more about your reasoning.

[Fr. Mark]

I used some CXS green but did not like the halation nor dealing with two emulsions even with hangers and the too narrow tanks I made I still got scratches. I do not like the look of blue only films/emulsions so I picked the green. I prefer Ektascan B/RA for its Ortho sensitization, single emulsion and anti halation layer. It fits 8x10 holders well. I've cut it for 4x5 and 5x7. I've even put left over strips of it from making 5x7 into 35mm cameras.

[seezee]

Why do you think blue is so different? CSG Green IS also blue base tint. I think it all X-Ray is blue as it's easier on Doctor's eyes on a light table. They stare at this stuff for hours...Maybe I'm wrong. I started with Kodak CSG Green and it works well for me.

It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that green/blue refer to the spectral sensitivity of the emulsion, not the color of the substrate. AFAIK, all x-ray film uses the same base: blue tinted polyester.

[koraks]

I find the blue stuff is even more prone to halation than the double sided green stuff, which is the only kind I can get here at reasonable costs. I also don't particularly like the spectral response of the blue film. I only use green now.

[Tin Can]

It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that green/blue refer to the spectral sensitivity of the emulsion, not the color of the substrate. AFAIK, all x-ray film uses the same base: blue tinted polyester.

I'm not young nor wealthy enough to test all iterations of X-Ray. When I was wandering in the Red light (dark) a few years to. I closel listened to Jim Fitzgerald whom I think said just pick one, they are similar for our purposes. So being the Kodak 'Hater' (kidding!). I am from anger, I chose Kodak CSG 2X and later Ektascan for its single coating, despite many very good practioners of X-Ray, such as Sergei Rodonov saying it was a waste of money and cheapest Realn X-works just fine. Sergei certainly produces results that I can only admire and I doubt eve approach.

My advice is Jim's and Sergei's, buy the cheapest X-Ray possible and shoot it like clay pigeons. Meaning use a whole box of 100 sheets, ASAP you will know what it is.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Randy is right. Don't over analyze it. Int is cheap so shoot a lot and you will learn what you like. For 8x10 buy some single sided stuff and some blue and green. You will be out less than 200 and have 300 sheets of film. Man you can experiment like crazy and you will learn a lot. I do not give it any extra exposure for reciprocity and it works fine. Develop in Pyrocat HD or Rodinal and enjoy. I have this stuff in 11x14 green and blue and all three in 14x17. What is not to like!

[SergeiR]

Yep. Spectral responses.. Special magic doohickies..

Seriously - buy film, shoot it, then work on refining things.

Little to no knowledge actually required to deal with that (or any other in fact) film, if you possess basic developing skills and have little discipline to figure out sensitivity & etc.
Its fraction of the cost of any other large format film, specially if you go with double sided versions. Now where you will take it after you got film working for you - entirely different matter, but that is where actual photography starts.

[captainscot]

7x17 Fuji green X-ray developed in Rodinol 1:100 for 6 mins. 154699

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use both single and double-sided. For the double-sided it's green latitude. I prefer the double-sided's look. Lovely stuff when using light green or light yellow filters. I also shoot the green lat in 14x17. Because I like full, luminous shadows, I apply reciprocity compensation.

[SergeiR]

I use both single and double-sided. For the double-sided it's green latitude. I prefer the double-sided's look. Lovely stuff when using light green or light yellow filters. I also shoot the green lat in 14x17. Because I like full, luminous shadows, I apply reciprocity compensation.

thank you for reminder! I kept thinking i want to try something and yes - it was green-yellow filters again!
We having awesome clouds lately, of course by time i get into field everything will be gone, but i can hope, right? :)

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

I've only used films that are available locally. Which means, Agfa only (Kodak closed its distribution center here about a decade ago).

I used green sensitive Agfa CP-G+ for a long time. It has no AH backing, and it has rather pronounced halation where highlights meet with shadows—or even mid-tones for that matter.

Now, I'm using green sensitive Agfa HDR. It's single sided and it has AH layer.

In a comparison with the CP-G+ (shot the same scene with both emulsions), I found HDR to have better definition. This is more of interest for enlargements. In contact prints, examined from a normal viewing distance, it's hard to spot the difference.

Fr. Mark was kind enough to send me some Ektascan B/RA to test, but the past few months have been crazy busy (with a literary project) so, I haven't found the time to do some comparative shooting between it and the HDR.

[seezee]

I've read every post in this topic from before & after the 'big merge,' & it seems that most prefer the green sensitive film. I'm curious why — price? extended spectral sensitivity? it was easiest to find/purchase? something else? I'm sticking with what I have, so don't interpret this as a plea to convince me otherwise — I just want to understand people's choices.

[Tin Can]

No reason for me, I just picked green and stuck with it.

There may be no difference for our purposes.

Test them both and report?

[Andrew O'Neill]

There is quite a difference in the look between Ektascan single-sided and CSX Green Lat. double-sided, in my opinion. Green Lat. is softer, and renders greens lighter, especially when a light green filter is used.

[Corran]

So do we no longer have a simply image sharing topic for specifically x-ray? That's unfortunate. It's true that both threads would get a bit of discussion and a bit of simple photo sharing. Hmm...does anyone think we need a specific "x-ray" thread in the Image Sharing subforum? I guess it's already quite granular.

I've never used anything but the green stuff. It seems to work fine. I went through some different developers over the years but I'm back at Rodinal 1:100, now in tray. I stopped stripping them because I'm lazy. Sometimes they get scratched. The single-sided stuff seems nice but I still like the cheap stuff.

Here's a couple shots from Thursday morning, both on Fuji HR-T. First with a 240mm Graphic Kowa and second with a Nikkor 120mm:

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/bloodmtn-4165ss.jpg

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/bloodmtn-4163ss.jpg

[Andrew O'Neill]

One x-ray thread makes it easier.

[Tin Can]

11x14 Kodak X-Ray CSG 2 sided not stripped Rodinal 1/50 tray 4 minutes, Imagon 360 f7'7 holes open crop to 8x10 from scan on V700 cleaned up in PS

Second shot different from the one in Sept Portraits.

Discussion welcome

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7780/29660990280_11c5fc45dd_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Mc3k39)erin 2 XRay2x11x14crop (https://flic.kr/p/Mc3k39) by moe.randy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Peter De Smidt]

Great job Randy!

[Pali K]

Randy that is just beautiful. Pali

[Tin Can]

Those pearls look a little odd!

This film exposed better than fresh Delta 100. It underexposed the face shadow side at ISO 100. All things same. almost...:(

I gave the X-Ray one more stop to ISO 50.

[Cor]

Those pearls look a little odd!



Imagon at work! great job, Randy !

best,

Cor

[Tin Can]

Thanks guys, I had almost given up on soft focus. Fortunately my model can sit very still as I slowly focus.

[diversey]

It is elegant! I wish I could do something like this. :)


11x14 Kodak X-Ray CSG 2 sided not stripped Rodinal 1/50 tray 4 minutes, Imagon 360 f7'7 holes open crop to 8x10 from scan on V700 cleaned up in PS

Second shot different from the one in Sept Portraits.

Discussion welcome

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7780/29660990280_11c5fc45dd_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Mc3k39)erin 2 XRay2x11x14crop (https://flic.kr/p/Mc3k39) by moe.randy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[bloodhoundbob]

11x14 Kodak X-Ray CSG 2 sided not stripped Rodinal 1/50 tray 4 minutes, Imagon 360 f7'7 holes open crop to 8x10 from scan on V700 cleaned up in PS

Second shot different from the one in Sept Portraits.

Discussion welcome

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7780/29660990280_11c5fc45dd_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Mc3k39)erin 2 XRay2x11x14crop (https://flic.kr/p/Mc3k39) by moe.randy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

Outstanding, Randy! BTW my wife, who is a Black South African, told me to have you tell her how beautiful she is and that she loves her hair.

[Rory_5244]

Awesome portrait, Randy

[Tin Can]

Thanks everyone!

[Rick A]

MXR Blue xray film iso 50
B&J 5x7 Tailboard camera Wollensak 7 1/4
4 sec @ f16
dev Rodinal 1:100/9 min rotary
contact printed on Agfa MCP 310

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8360/29973520606_4f1fed31f4_c_d.jpg

[Andrew O'Neill]

Very nice work, Randy.

[senderoaburrido]

So after getting the approximate size of normal negatives from you guys, and buying a Dahle guillotine myself, my negatives are a bit better in shape. Still regularly off enough that it causes issues for the 2509n reel. Any tips for the actual procedure of cutting?

Specifically I keep having these little two to three millimeter slivers of extra stuff that need to get sliced off, and the Dahle chokes on little cuts like that. Mangles the negatives and creates irregular shape. Doesn't happen on every single one.

Even the ones that look and fit as it they were the right shape are without proper exposure borders when I develop them.

I've also been stacking up developed negatives. Looked at the prices to scan at the best of the two or three local labs here, and at 4$ per low-resolution scan, I might as well buy a dang scanner. Not really in my budget but there are no obvious alternatives. Funny because I've been keeping the most detailed photo-journal in my life, and I can't evaluate the results for cross comparison.

[seezee]

So after getting the approximate size of normal negatives from you guys, and buying a Dahle guillotine myself, my negatives are a bit better in shape. Still regularly off enough that it causes issues for the 2509n reel. Any tips for the actual procedure of cutting?

Specifically I keep having these little two to three millimeter slivers of extra stuff that need to get sliced off, and the Dahle chokes on little cuts like that. Mangles the negatives and creates irregular shape. Doesn't happen on every single one.

Even the ones that look and fit as it they were the right shape are without proper exposure borders when I develop them.

I've also been stacking up developed negatives. Looked at the prices to scan at the best of the two or three local labs here, and at 4$ per low-resolution scan, I might as well buy a dang scanner. Not really in my budget but there are no obvious alternatives. Funny because I've been keeping the most detailed photo-journal in my life, and I can't evaluate the results for cross comparison.

I'm not sure what's causing your problems with the cutter. There will always be a small 'waste' cut-off, due to the difference between nominal and actual dimensions for 4×5, but my Dahle cutter handles that with aplomb. Did you mark the cutter with e.g., Dyno tape, so you can accurately set the guide with reliable repeatability? Are you trying to cut more than 1 or 2 sheets at a time?

As to the scanner, I just bought a scanner after having paid for the cost of an Epson v850 in $5 + tax chunks, that being the price of a 2400 dpi scan with dust removal & output to TIFF at my local lab. So I feel your pain.

[Tin Can]

Very nice work, Randy.

You are kind Andrew and I am nearly impossible to satisfy.

IMHO it barely qualifies to post. But I am loosening up about that and I know I can improve if as I keep at it. I throw out or give away a lot of developed X-Ray film, fortunately I know an artist that wants scraps. She did a cool installation with 100's of MF slides. An out of reach room divider above a wall. All found slides. Back lit it works and has lasted 5 years now in a movie studio.

[senderoaburrido]

I'm not sure what's causing your problems with the cutter. There will always be a small 'waste' cut-off, due to the difference between nominal and actual dimensions for 4×5, but my Dahle cutter handles that with aplomb. Did you mark the cutter with e.g., Dyno tape, so you can accurately set the guide with reliable repeatability? Are you trying to cut more than 1 or 2 sheets at a time?

As to the scanner, I just bought a scanner after having paid for the cost of an Epson v850 in $5 + tax chunks, that being the price of a 2400 dpi scan with dust removal & output to TIFF at my local lab. So I feel your pain.


These local guys don't even remove the dust. The 4$ is for a low resolution scan.

How exactly are you cutting? Please, could you explain your process?

This is what's happening to me:155729
I end up with that 2/16' lip at the edge, and it's just too slight for the Dahle Vantage guillotine blade to snip. I've tried pushing the blade slow and pushing it fast. Either way, it refuses to cut the paper and simply bends it instead.

[seezee]

These local guys don't even remove the dust. The 4$ is for a low resolution scan.

How exactly are you cutting? Please, could you explain your process?

This is what's happening to me:155729
I end up with that 2/16' lip at the edge, and it's just too slight for the Dahle Vantage guillotine blade to snip. I've tried pushing the blade slow and pushing it fast. Either way, it refuses to cut the paper and simply bends it instead.

Exactly. 4×5 is ~1/16″ smaller in each dimension than nominal. You should wind up with a ⅛″ waste piece, which the Dahl should be more than capable of handling.* Here's how I do it:


Cut 1 sheet at a time, beginning by making a 4-15/16″ wide piece and a 5-1/16″ wide piece for each sheet. The 5-1/16″ is the one that falls off the cutter bed.
Set the 4-15/16″ pieces aside. Trim ⅛″ from each of the wider pieces.
Reset the guide. Cut each piece so you get a 3-15/16″ piece and a 4-1/16″ piece.
Set aside the narrower pieces and trim ⅛″ from each of the wider ones.


I always place the round corner against the fixed top guide and the adjustable guide. If in doubt, hold the film in place with your (clean) hand — although, in my experience, the clamp does just fine. By the way, if you load the film holders with the round corner in the same position that you would put the notches on conventional film, you'll alway know which side was facing the camera. If you're using Ektascan this doesn't matter, but it's useful on the double-emulsion stuff.

I do not find that the speed at which I make the cut has any affect, good or ill.

*Is it possible your cutter is defective?

[Tin Can]

Is your cutter old? Mine does those cuts easily one at time. I set up stops and cut 4 sheets into 16 all the time.

I pull the knife towards the counter edge slightly.

I use a piece of 'real' as the pattern and use it to set dimensions.


These local guys don't even remove the dust. The 4$ is for a low resolution scan.

How exactly are you cutting? Please, could you explain your process?

This is what's happening to me:155729
I end up with that 2/16' lip at the edge, and it's just too slight for the Dahle Vantage guillotine blade to snip. I've tried pushing the blade slow and pushing it fast. Either way, it refuses to cut the paper and simply bends it instead.

[Fr. Mark]

For cutting film with a guillotine cutter that I borrowed from church from time to time I used an oops sheet of film to get close. Then, I made a corrugated cardboard template very slightly over sized compared to commercial film because it fit my holders with less slop. Then, I used some blocks of maple with sharp (not rounded) corners to create stops on the guillotine cutter. These I held in place with a small C clamp. The guillotine cutter works better if I cut one sheet at a time and (and this is key with the one I used) you have to press the blade toward the stationary part of the cutter, at least a little. For 5x7 I cut off an almost 1" strip 10" long. I do a bunch of these and then put everything away light safe. Then I re-set the stop so I get the 5" dimension. Yes, you do end up with slivers of film. 4x5 is similar but easier to mess up because the dimensions are more similar. I'd do a bunch of one, reset, then do a bunch of the others. Before I get too far I like to check how they fit in the holders just to make sure I've not made a dumb mistake like making the film 4x4 or 5x5. Don't ask how I know I need to do this...

My local photo store has a rotatrim. That costs a LOT more but cuts beautifully. Maybe some day. Meanwhile, I scored a free guillotine cutter at a yard sale this summer, but haven't tried using it yet. The bigger one from church could break down 14x17--->whole plate, but that is also a future if ever need...

why goto all the expense and hassle of scanning when you can make contact prints? Just saying...

Back to film cutting: from what I've been told, in the bad old days of glass backed negatives being common, the plates actually were 8x10." Then, people started coating emulsions onto (?cellulose nitrate? cellulose acetate?) some kind of plastic. The plastic film was MUCH thinner than the glass plates of old and flopped around too much to use them in glass plate holders. So, someone had the bright idea of making an insert into the glass plate holders that would allow you to use your existing film holders with the new film. This insert was made out of sheet metal. The sheet metal adapter holder has some size to it, so 8x10 exactly films did not fit, they had to be an 1/8 or 3/32 or some such smaller side to side and top to bottom. Thus, 8x10 film is a little smaller. When we go to cutting 4x5 or 5x7 from 8x10 those losses get doubled in both dimensions in 4x5 and in one dimension in 5x7 because they did the same thing (I think) with 4x5 and 5x7 holders. In the end, the slightly smaller than the nominal dimensions became the standard even for purpose made film only (glass plates would not fit) film holders. I have had the blessing to end up with 5 8x10 holders that have the metal inserts or could be used with glass plates. Since I want to make my own films some day, I'm really glad to have them even if I have to have a non-standard set up for the camera back.

If that's not weird enough I have a 1/2 plate camera that came with three holders all of which had adapter inserts for 4x5. These are much more crude than the nice ones sold by E.Kodak, but they work! (after a fashion).

[senderoaburrido]

Exactly. 4×5 is ~1/16″ smaller in each dimension than nominal. You should wind up with a ⅛″ waste piece, which the Dahl should be more than capable of handling.* Here's how I do it:


Cut 1 sheet at a time, beginning by making a 4-15/16″ wide piece and a 5-1/16″ wide piece for each sheet. The 5-1/16″ is the one that falls off the cutter bed.
Set the 4-15/16″ pieces aside. Trim ⅛″ from each of the wider pieces.
Reset the guide. Cut each piece so you get a 3-15/16″ piece and a 4-1/16″ piece.
Set aside the narrower pieces and trim ⅛″ from each of the wider ones.


I always place the round corner against the fixed top guide and the adjustable guide. If in doubt, hold the film in place with your (clean) hand — although, in my experience, the clamp does just fine. By the way, if you load the film holders with the round corner in the same position that you would put the notches on conventional film, you'll alway know which side was facing the camera. If you're using Ektascan this doesn't matter, but it's useful on the double-emulsion stuff.

I do not find that the speed at which I make the cut has any affect, good or ill.

*Is it possible your cutter is defective?


Is your cutter old? Mine does those cuts easily one at time. I set up stops and cut 4 sheets into 16 all the time.

I pull the knife towards the counter edge slightly.

I use a piece of 'real' as the pattern and use it to set dimensions.

I hope it is not defective. It isn't old, though. Bought it ~2 months ago at a Canadian office supply company.

I'll take the advice offered here and cut much closer to the edge of the board, in case the spring tension is keeping it an integral millimetre or two away.

[Jim Noel]

"why goto all the expense and hassle of scanning when you can make contact prints? Just saying..."

Agreed!

[Jody_S]

For cutting down to 4x5, I drilled holes in the wooden bed of my guillotine, into which I place finishing nails. Make the 5" cut, move the nail over to the 4" hole, make 4 more cuts... Easy, even in the dark. I then snip a corner with scissors if needed to serve as notches.

[Fr. Mark]

X-ray is fine in dim red light. So notches are t needed even with single sided stuff. It's really obvious. The non black side goes toward the lens. With double sided it doesn't matter. I bought a nifty antique ticket punch before I figured this out. I should re-sell it.

[senderoaburrido]

I tried again last night. Worked a lot more carefully. Pushed the blade a little closer to the edge, which seemed to make perfect cuts and curved cuts alternatingly. Ended up with about 1/2 good negatives, and another half that needed extra trimming with scissors. Much better rate of success, much firmer fit in the holders. Thanks guys! I'll have to pay closer attention next time to improve my technique.

[Tin Can]

I suggest sitting down.

[senderoaburrido]

I suggest sitting down.

Wouldn't work with my current setup. I work on top of my washer in the bathroom at midnight after blocking out the back porch window and the seams of the door. Thankfully, the bathroom itself is windowless. There really isn't any other room that would work for this purpose in my apartment. The amount of space left in that room does not accommodate a chair and a lower table.

[seezee]

I suggest sitting down.

I actually work on the bathroom floor so I get as little red light on the film as possible while I work (the pedestal sink blocks most of it). I put a lintless cotton rag (actually an old pair of worn pajama bottoms cut in to rag-sized pieces) under the cutter so the cut-offs drop onto it, and not the bathroom floor.

[LabRat]

Wouldn't work with my current setup. I work on top of my washer in the bathroom at midnight after blocking out the back porch window and the seams of the door. Thankfully, the bathroom itself is windowless. There really isn't any other room that would work for this purpose in my apartment. The amount of space left in that room does not accommodate a chair and a lower table.

Do you have a bathtub in your bathroom??? I'm asking because my film processing room is a small spare bathroom with a tub, and for an extra work surface I cut 2 pieces of 2X4 lumber to go across the length of the tub about 1' foot apart, that rests on the upper ends of the tub, and took a old Ikea-like pine tabletop (I found in a dumpster) to rest on the wood rails to make a VERY sturdy table top over the tub, for cutting and tray development processes... I sealed the wood pieces well, so they can be clean wiped down easily, or can even be hosed down after spills, and it works GREAT!!!! The pieces are removable and hide behind the open bathroom door when not in use...

You can cut & process easily that way!!! And you can get a small "milking" stool to sit on while processing in the dark...

Steve K

[LabRat]

It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that green/blue refer to the spectral sensitivity of the emulsion, not the color of the substrate. AFAIK, all x-ray film uses the same base: blue tinted polyester.

So, I started thinking that maybe the reason some users are having excessive contrast issues with this stuff is because if using MG papers to print on, the deeper than normal blue base could act a little like a contrast filter, as the contrast layer of the MG paper is more sensitive to blue light, the film base would pass more blue, and it would somewhat filter out a little more green light (green is the flatter contrast layer) so could it tilt the print contrast higher???

Hmmm... Made me think...

Steve K

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Do you have a bathtub in your bathroom??? I'm asking because my film processing room is a small spare bathroom with a tub, and for an extra work surface I cut 2 pieces of 2X4 lumber to go across the length of the tub about 1' foot apart, that rests on the upper ends of the tub, and took a old Ikea-like pine tabletop (I found in a dumpster) to rest on the wood rails to make a VERY sturdy table top over the tub, for cutting and tray development processes... I sealed the wood pieces well, so they can be clean wiped down easily, or can even be hosed down after spills, and it works GREAT!!!! The pieces are removable and hide behind the open bathroom door when not in use...

You can cut & process easily that way!!! And you can get a small "milking" stool to sit on while processing in the dark...

Steve K

Steve, this is how I did all of my developing and carbon printing for years except I had a piece of Hardi Backer board cut to fit the tub. Cement board. It was rigid and I developed and printed all the way up to 14x17. I finally have a darkroom in the new house with plenty of space.

[senderoaburrido]

Do you have a bathtub in your bathroom??? I'm asking because my film processing room is a small spare bathroom with a tub, and for an extra work surface I cut 2 pieces of 2X4 lumber to go across the length of the tub about 1' foot apart, that rests on the upper ends of the tub, and took a old Ikea-like pine tabletop (I found in a dumpster) to rest on the wood rails to make a VERY sturdy table top over the tub, for cutting and tray development processes... I sealed the wood pieces well, so they can be clean wiped down easily, or can even be hosed down after spills, and it works GREAT!!!! The pieces are removable and hide behind the open bathroom door when not in use...

You can cut & process easily that way!!! And you can get a small "milking" stool to sit on while processing in the dark...

Steve K

That's a dang good idea. I live in a big city, so scrap lumber shouldn't be a hard find. It doesn't affect your ability to apply leverage on the guillotine by being in a sitting position? That was my only other concern. I'm so used to doing all this stuff standing up.

[Rick A]

So, I started thinking that maybe the reason some users are having excessive contrast issues with this stuff is because if using MG papers to print on, the deeper than normal blue base could act a little like a contrast filter, as the contrast layer of the MG paper is more sensitive to blue light, the film base would pass more blue, and it would somewhat filter out a little more green light (green is the flatter contrast layer) so could it tilt the print contrast higher???

Hmmm... Made me think...

Steve K

I think you are correct. I have a devil of a time getting the contrast down to where I like printing on VC paper. I've had to really work on getting flat/low contrast negs with xray film.

[Peter De Smidt]

Try using a graded paper.

[LabRat]

That's a dang good idea. I live in a big city, so scrap lumber shouldn't be a hard find. It doesn't affect your ability to apply leverage on the guillotine by being in a sitting position? That was my only other concern. I'm so used to doing all this stuff standing up.

I've always used a roller cutter to trim film... Seems to buckle less, and self-sharpens (on some, or some have cheap replaceable blades), the only drawback is the film has to go under the cutter guide bar (not too bad, though)... I have even tried those cheap Fiskars cutters and can they work pretty good, too... But just do one sheet at a time...

Steve K

[senderoaburrido]

Has anyone tried using this stuff for UV photography? I was looking at getting a cheap U330 glass filter, a small one, just to try it out. It seems like an appropriate filter as it would line up well with the sensitivities of this film on the red side.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Try it and please do share your results here.

[barnacle]

The spectra I've seen show a response well into the UV. However, the focus will be different and indeed it may not get through your lens.

Neil

[senderoaburrido]

I googled a few of my lenses and no one seems to have tried UV photography (and posted online about it) with them. Are there any pieces of information about a lens that would allow me to anticipate its UV transmissibility?

[andrewch59]

Ok just to get back to picture taking. I thought I might try something new. I have now dabbled a bit with nd10 filters using xray and it works pretty well. The company that makes the ND fIlter I purchased also makes star filters, these are designed for digital, so I thought it might be fun to see what the effect would be using xray film. Please excuse the quality and the out of focus pic, but I was mainly interested in effect.
155944

[Jim Noel]

So, I started thinking that maybe the reason some users are having excessive contrast issues with this stuff is because if using MG papers to print on, the deeper than normal blue base could act a little like a contrast filter, as the contrast layer of the MG paper is more sensitive to blue light, the film base would pass more blue, and it would somewhat filter out a little more green light (green is the flatter contrast layer) so could it tilt the print contrast higher???

Hmmm... Made me think...

Steve K

Why not just keep experimenting with developers, dilutions, time and agitation methods to get the contrast where it needs to be to print on the desired paper? That is what most of us have done more than once in our lifetimes to get the desired results. What works for me may very well nt work for you.

[SergeiR]

8x10 Kodak CSG, 360mm Symmar-S, rotary 12 minutes in R09 (2.5ml : 270ml)

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5716/30142304921_1bb2f35d39_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/MVzc7r)Ed (https://flic.kr/p/MVzc7r) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/)

Ed actually used to be a 4x5 shooter (speed graphic) back in high school and post school days, shooting society pages in Pasadena, CA and then was photographer whilst serving in navy.

[Tin Can]

8x10 Kodak CSG, 360mm Symmar-S, rotary 12 minutes in R09 (2.5ml : 270ml)



Ed actually used to be a 4x5 shooter (speed graphic) back in high school and post school days, shooting society pages in Pasadena, CA and then was photographer whilst serving in navy.

Next time use less developer. You are so wasteful! Kidding! :)

Nice job!

[plaubel]

Next time use less developer. You are so wasteful! Kidding! :)



Since 2,5ml and 270ml in rotation work, I don't believe that either developer or water are required for Xray development - it must only be the movement :-)

Ritchie

[SergeiR]

Next time use less developer. You are so wasteful! Kidding! :)
Nice job!

Wellllll ;) Challenge accepted - I will retry 1:300 with something i don't mind to loose

(for 3 sheets, mind you).

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

After Everyone Left

A little after the sun had set behind the hills in the west.

210mm lens at f16
13x18cm Agfa HDR mammography film
Tray developed by inspection
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5768/29750828804_b3886ab8c1_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/MjYLUd)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/MjYLUd)

[Fr. Mark]

Very nice!

[Alan9940]

Just got a box of CSG Green Sensitive Carestream 8x10 x-ray film from zzmedical to try; I believe it's Kodak film, though nothing on the box indicates that. I've looked through this thread for EI suggestions, but haven't found anything related specifically to this film. I'm thinking an EI of 50 - 100 to start...what say you?

Many thanks!

[Tin Can]

It's Kodak. Start at 50 ISO.

[Alan9940]

It's Kodak. Start at 50 ISO.

Thanks, Randy.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Which developer will you use, Alan?

[Randy]

Looking at my notes I have used "CSX Green" - no idea if that is Carestream or not. I rated it at ISO 50, processed in Rodinal 1:200 for 6 minutes or 1:100 for 4 minutes (tray).

[Tin Can]

I have recently used Ilford PQ paper developer in trays on CSG and it is well cooked in 2 minutes.

[Alan9940]

Which developer will you use, Alan?

Probably the same ones I experimented with when shooting Ektascan: Rodinal, 510-Pyro, and Obsidian Aqua. I will process in BTZS tubes with the Rodinal and tanks/hangers for the staining developers. Generally, I've found the staining developers control the contrast better, but my only experience thus far is with the Ektascan material. But, some absolutely lovely images posted here using the green sensitive material has prompted me to give that a go.

[seezee]

Just got a box of CSG Green Sensitive Carestream 8x10 x-ray film from zzmedical to try; I believe it's Kodak film, though nothing on the box indicates that. I've looked through this thread for EI suggestions, but haven't found anything related specifically to this film. I'm thinking an EI of 50 - 100 to start...what say you?

Many thanks!

FYI, I've used Ektascan rated at ISO 80 and Carestream half-speed-blue (CSHB) at ISO 160 under studio strobes with good results. Semi-stand developed in 1:1:200 Pyrocat-HD using the HP-Combi tank (tray developed the Ektascan). YMMV.

[Alan9940]

OK, I wouldn't say my testing of CSG Green has gone very well. So far, I've only processed using tanks/hangers; Rodinal 1:100, though the contrast of the negative looked pretty good, was just too grainy for my taste, and 510-Pyro was on the thin side and somewhat under-developed. Also, had a couple scratches which is probably to be expected using tanks/hangers.

I'd like to try rotary processing this film next, but, to be honest, it baffles me a bit due to the dual-sided emulsion. If the one side is basically plastered against the wall of the tube/drum--I can use BTZS tubes or a Jobo Expert Drum--and doesn't see much, if any, chemistry what is that side going to look like? Or, does it not matter? Also, are there any other developers, besides Rodinal, that you have used to process this particular type of film using rotary processing? Time/temp/dilution?

Thanks for any insight provided.

[Corran]

8x10 BTZS tubes will scratch the backside of the film like crazy - you'll have to strip that side to get rid of the scratches if you use the tubes. The BTZS tubes in 8x10 size don't make the film flush against the sides, but the 4x5 size does. Not sure about any Jobo drums as I don't have/use them. X-ray film is definitely grainier in general, but is not noticeable usually IMO. I printed an 8x10 scanned negative to 32x24 and you could practically use a magnifying glass and not see any grain. That's as big as I could print, which admittedly is only about 3x.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nope. don't use tubes with the double-sided stuff. Trust me on this. You could strip that side, but from my experience, stripped film looks terrible printed. The tones looks weak and it's grainier. I have developed using hangers, but one must be very careful inserting and pulling the film out of the hangers. Really gentle agitation... I barely pull the hanger out of solution. My favourite method is still flat-bottomed tray.

[Tin Can]

I use tanks and hangers and they work fine.

I also scratched X-Ray in the beginning and everybody told me be gentle.

I have shot X-Ray with Hasselblad, very sharp.

[Fr. Mark]

Xray is also sharp in an Olympus OM-1 with 1.8 50mm zuiko lens, f16, 1 sec., mirror lock up, self timer. CXS green is not care stream/Kodak. Packaging is totally different. I do ektascan in trays and have done cxs green in hangers and tanks but made the tanks too small/narrow for 8x10, the film bows a bit and catches the lip of the tank and scratches. multi 5x4s' not so bad if v. careful.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well Randy, you're just so damn rough! ;)

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

New Moon – Aug 2016

210mm lens at f16
13x18cm Agfa HDR mammography film
Tray developed by inspection in very old Rodinal 1+100 at 22C for 7 min.
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://c6.staticflickr.com/6/5505/30659074885_f1eea7b83e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/NHeLPp)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/NHeLPp)

[Alan9940]

Thanks, all, for your replies. I'm starting to think that me and x-ray film just don't get along very well. ;)

@Andrew - I've tried single sheet tray processing with regular 8x10 film when using staining developers--mostly ABC Pyro--and I've never been satisfied with the results; basically, uneven development was the primary issue. And, I rocked the tray for 12 out of every 15 secs moving counter-clockwise around the tray on each corner. Therefore, it was pretty much continuous agitation. Still...not great. Using the shuffle method--4 to 6 sheets in stack--provides much better results. But, I can't see even trying that technique with double-sided x-ray film; I'm guessing I'd have a lot of scratches no matter the method of handling the stack.

[Jim Noel]

Thanks, all, for your replies. I'm starting to think that me and x-ray film just don't get along very well. ;)

@Andrew - I've tried single sheet tray processing with regular 8x10 film when using staining developers--mostly ABC Pyro--and I've never been satisfied with the results; basically, uneven development was the primary issue. And, I rocked the tray for 12 out of every 15 secs moving counter-clockwise around the tray on each corner. Therefore, it was pretty much continuous agitation. Still...not great. Using the shuffle method--4 to 6 sheets in stack--provides much better results. But, I can't see even trying that technique with double-sided x-ray film; I'm guessing I'd have a lot of scratches no matter the method of handling the stack.

You need to check your agitation method in the tray. To develop a good technique fill the tray with the same amount of water as the developer you use (this may be too little if you get poor results). Put one drop of food coloring in the middle of the tray then agitate in your normal manner. If the color spread evenly you have a good technique, if not, try other methods until you get good results.
I used to have student do this as I watched andthey were usually amazed to discover they were really agitating very little.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Weird. I always get even development using flat-bottomed trays for either types of xray films... 1 litre of solution in an 8x10 tray. I only agitate north, south, east, west once every minute... the first minute is constant agitation. It's important that all of the developer moves over the film, so slightly vigorous movement of the tray is works best for me. Too gentle, then mottling may occur. Too vigorous, then excessive contrast or worse, scuffing/scratching.

[Alan9940]

Thanks, Andrew. I will try your technique next. If that doesn't work out for me, then I'm afraid x-ray film is not going to be part of my repertoire.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I almost gave up on the stuff when I first started using it back in 08. You'll figure it out!

[seezee]

In terms of evenness, my first attempt at tray developing x-ray film was terrible, too. But subsequent trials proved much better. I used the hake brush method, and as I've stated in previous posts, I'm semi-stand developing (1:1:200 Pyrocat-HD, 1 minute agitation, 29 minutes rest, 30 seconds agitation, 29½ minutes rest, then on to the stop bath. Temperature is 20 to 22 C°), so this may not work for you. I move the brush north to south for 15 seconds, then east to west for 15 seconds, until the time limit is reached.

[Tin Can]

I was a bad scratcher of X-Ray until I decided to try everything and even scratch the heck out it for testing. I use tongs when I just want a fast answer. Almost like Polaroid.

X-Ray is cheap, try everything. Several members here told me to try ZipLocks. Which does work well. Good for Hotel bathrooms.

Now I can develop a scratchless 14x36 inch enlarged negative X-Ray in a 11X14" tray by using film clips sloshing it curled. For that I use Ilford PQ 1-9. 2 min dev, 1 min plain water stop, 2 min TF5, 2 min wash. Even dries fast.

I would love to see how Vet Techs do it.

Play with it. Waste it. Cut into small format. Use scraps to check Fix clear time. It's good practice for premium film. When I get $25 a shot film. I need some confidence. That day is coming.

[andrewch59]

Thanks for the tips Andrew, I developed two negs of a church yesterday, the first developed with mottle and streaks, that was flat bottomed no agitation ro9 2.5ml to 275ml dilute. The second I tried the same technique in the same developer turned out well. I can see the mottling in the soup underneath the negative, so agitation well may be the cure to keep it all mixed

[koraks]

So far, I've gone about using x-ray film in a bit of a haphazard way: rate it somewhere around 50 or 100 and develop to inspection in whatever developer seemed handy. While this yields usable images quite often, I get nowhere near the success rate I'd like for making e.g. Van Dykes. Hence, I did a little testing today. This wasn't intended as a formal Zone System test. I only made some Van Dyke prints and scans from the negatives to see if my development times were in the ballpark I needed. I do not have access to a densitometer.

First, I set out to establish a development time that I can use for further refinement, if/when I feel like it. I cut up a sheet of green-sensitive film to 4x5's and exposed some sheets at identical settings, rating it at 50 based on experience so far. I chose a scene that featured a 10-stop brightness range. I then manually developed each sheet in a tray, each time using an excess (300ml for one 4x5) of freshly made developer. I opted for Pyrocat HD, as it's economical and has so far proven to be excellent for my purposes (mostly Van Dyke brown printing and scanning). This yielded the following:
http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/zut/testing/XRGT_1611a_PCHDw.jpg
The first sheet I developed was the one that says 7m30s. It also yields the best Van Dyke brown print, although the 8m45s sheet is pretty close. The 6m15s sheet is clearly underdeveloped for Van Dyke prints at least, although it scans fine and still has plenty of shadow detail. For scanning and silver printing, this would be just fine.

I then decided to bracket some shots to see how the film responded to under- and overexposure. I shot the same scene (but with more subdued light) at ISO 25 - 50 - 100 - 200. I wanted to get some detail in the black tolex of the speaker cabinet left to the chair, underneath the plants, so I imagined this area to be around zone I to II. I chose to develop the sheets in one go in my Jobo, opting for a 9 minute development time. This is the result:
http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/zut/testing/XRGT_1611_PCHDw.jpg
With these parameters, I could get away with ISO 100 if the shadows don't matter much. There's a little shadow detail I could rescue in digital post processing. But ISO 50 seems like a good compromise. ISO 25 gives more shadow detail, obviously, but the highlights are only preserved because the total brightness range of the scene was quite limited. ISO 200 is underexposed to the point of being unusable.

My preliminary conclusion is that for a scene of fairly normal contrast, ISO 50 is a safe bet for this film and developer, but I'll have to keep placing important shadows at zones III-IV for Van Dyke brown prints, as in that process, shadow contrast is limited in my experience. I may try some contractions and expansions to get a feeling for how to deal with low- and high-contrast scenes.

[Jim Noel]

Koraks thanks for sharing these tests. I believe it would be most helpful to see unaltered scans of prints. It is obvious that the most appropriate negative for VDB, and thus other alt prints, is not the one which looks best as a digital positive. so seeing these prints would be of help to many observers.

[koraks]

Koraks thanks for sharing these tests. I believe it would be most helpful to see unaltered scans of prints. It is obvious that the most appropriate negative for VDB, and thus other alt prints, is not the one which looks best as a digital positive. so seeing these prints would be of help to many observers.
Jim, you're absolutely right of course. With the caveat that my purpose is dual: I want my negatives to print well with VdB, but I also want them to scan well. The latter is obviously the easier requirement, as negatives that make for good VdB prints generally scan just fine as well. In fact, it's much easier to extract particularly shadow detail from a negative by scanning it than by printing it as a Van Dyke. So in the end, for me, the way these negatives scan is just as important as how they print as VdB.

All the negatives of the ISO bracketing test came out pretty thin, with only the ISO 25 one being appropriate for printing. This is due to development; I noticed that when I develop in my Jobo rotary processor, I tend to get weaker negatives than when processing for the same time in a tray. I think it has to do that the negatives spend quite a bit of time suspended above the developer in the Jobo tank (I fill the 2509 with 300ml of developer). For the test posted above, I didn't compensate for this. As a result, the ISO bracketing test only makes sense when the negatives from that same batch are compared in a digital scan. I only printed the 25 ISO negative and it produced a usable VdB, but if intended specifically for that purpose, I would have developed it either in a tray for 9 minutes or in the Jobo for something like 12 minutes. I would have to test but don't intend to do so, as I never use the Jobo for x-ray. I only did it this time because I wanted these particular sheets to be processed identically.

Having said that, the negatives made with the different development times (all at ISO 50) were all printed. These are quick and dirty prints and by no means well done. However, they do illustrate the difference in terms of what the negatives are capable of. Below is the scan of all three prints together so that they can be compared in a sort of useful manner. I only altered the color a bit to get it to approach the actual prints (which I didn't quite succeed in). Of course, the Epson scan software applies its own Japanese-magic curve, so I think there's really no such thing as an 'unaltered scan' of a print. It's always a second-hand approximation of the real thing. The best I can give you is a direct comparison with the same processing parameters for the prints.
http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/zut/testing/XRGT_1611aVdB_PCHDw.jpg
These prints were made with the following parameters:
* Sensitizer: 5 drops of 20% ferric ammonium citrate, 4 drops of 11% silver nitrate, 2 drops of 8% tartaric acid
* Paper is Schut drawing paper, 160g/sqm with a rather coarse surface
* Exposure: Philips face tanner (50W of UV fluorescents) about 5 minutes at ca. 10cm distance
* 1 minute rinse with tap water with continuous agitation, followed by a quick (5-10 second) rinse with tap water.
* Fixed with exhausted film fixer at a dilution of ca. 1:15 (I mostly use exhausted film fixer for work prints).
* Quick rinse and then dried with a hair drier.
Obviously these prints are in no way archival and were never intended to be. Their sole purpose was to get a feeling for how the different negatives compare. Besides, no matter how hard I try, I never get two Van Dyke browns to get to look absolutely identical.

In the prints above, note the huge difference between the first and the second print, while the difference between the second and the third is much more subtle.

[Alan9940]

Andrew,

THANK YOU so much for posting your tray technique with xray film. I just tried it this morning using CSG Green and finally...FINALLY...I've produced my first usable neg! :) No scratches, no mottling; just a nice clean neg. I didn't develop it long enough for pt/pd printing, but that's easy to fix.

Thank you, again, as I was on the verge of giving up. And, thank you to others who encouraged me to push on and keep trying.

[Jim Noel]

Even though the prints are not intended as the final ones, they stil provide more useful info than the previous negative scans.
By the way, I don't like to put x-ray film in a Jobo unless time necessitates it. I normally use a tray for the 7x17's and 8x10's. When I do use the Jobo I use an Expert drum and fill it with water prior to loading film. ALso, I mix my VDB by the liter. It stays in a brown glass bottle at a relatively constant temperature in the darkroom, and I have had it last up to 2 years.

[koraks]

Do you use double sided film? I have a jobo print tank that I never use and I'd love to be able to use it for xray 8x10s, but I don't see how I could get even development without resorting to stripping the emulsion off the backside. Is that the approach that you take or have you found a more elegant way?
As to the VdB sensitizer: I used to mix batches of 50ml or 200ml, but I found that the results were not entirely consistent between fresh and older sensitizer, so I switched to mixing it fresh. It also gives more flexibility in varying the recipe this way. I sometimes add more or less tartaric acid to control the contrast. Especially rising the tartaric acid concentration upwards of 1.5% w/v of the mixed sensitizer (below that point dmax suffers) gives some possibilities of boosting the contrast without the speed penalty and toxicity of using dichromate. I suppose everyone has their own ways of going about alt processes and I'll probably keep adjusting my methods as well.

[Jim Noel]

Do you use double sided film? I have a jobo print tank that I never use and I'd love to be able to use it for xray 8x10s, but I don't see how I could get even development without resorting to stripping the emulsion off the backside. Is that the approach that you take or have you found a more elegant way?
As to the VdB sensitizer: I used to mix batches of 50ml or 200ml, but I found that the results were not entirely consistent between fresh and older sensitizer, so I switched to mixing it fresh. It also gives more flexibility in varying the recipe this way. I sometimes add more or less tartaric acid to control the contrast. Especially rising the tartaric acid concentration upwards of 1.5% w/v of the mixed sensitizer (below that point dmax suffers) gives some possibilities of boosting the contrast without the speed penalty and toxicity of using dichromate. I suppose everyone has their own ways of going about alt processes and I'll probably keep adjusting my methods as well.

Yes i use double sided film occasionally. The cylinders which hold the film in Expert drums are barrel shaped enabling chemicals to get to both sides of the film. I have never stripped the emulsion off the back side as it reduces the contrast too much and is a waste of time as far as I am concerned. Your approach to VDB is interesting to me. I may give it a try to see if it suits my methods.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Stripping literally cuts the DR in half. You also end up with a muddy looking, grainier image. Definitely a waste of time. If you have to strip, then best to use a single-sided film like Ektascan.

[koraks]

Yes i use double sided film occasionally. The cylinders which hold the film in Expert drums are barrel shaped enabling chemicals to get to both sides of the film.
Ah yes, of course, there are barrel-shaped drums as well. The one I have is perfectly round though, so this approach doesn't work for me, sadly. Single-sided film is also very hard to come by here in Europe.

[SergeiR]

Nope. don't use tubes with the double-sided stuff. Trust me on this. You could strip that side, but from my experience, stripped film looks terrible printed. The tones looks weak and it's grainier. I have developed using hangers, but one must be very careful inserting and pulling the film out of the hangers. Really gentle agitation... I barely pull the hanger out of solution. My favourite method is still flat-bottomed tray.


Oh really? :) :)

I love how dogmatic this keep getting. "no rotary" "must strip" & etc...

Rotary is only thing I use. I have not stripped single sheet in about 2.5 years, didn't like what it gets me. I have not scratched sheet in about 3 years, i think.
I do loading into tube inside of smallish tent. Loading of holders typically - in darkened room. Using both old wooden holders and modern plastic ones.

I think it is important to just find something that works. Experimenting is pretty much only one way to get there. I had film scratched during loading and while getting it out of tubes, till i figured and got all the moves right for myself. We all humans - we all have different control over fine motor skills.

There are days i can walk with cup of water on my head. There are days i can barely walk straight and need to hold onto stuff.

--

Much like with anything else - may 1000 flowers bloom, may 1000 schools prosper.
--

8x10 Kodak CSG double sided, 110:1 R09, 12m rotary

https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5611/30188000034_4ce57d9bc3_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/MZBoFd)Eduard (https://flic.kr/p/MZBoFd) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[andrewch59]

Once again an amazing result Sergei, I have ordered a mod54 insert for 4x5, you have convinced me to give rotary a try!

[SergeiR]

Thanks , Andrew.

Mod54 is a bit funky. I threw mine away (no one wanted it back in Russia). I never got it to point where at least one of regular film sheets would escape or get scratched.
It was 1st revision, and honestly saying - i wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
Imho Jobo did WAY better job. But then one can make similar hack for paterson's tank from just unused 120mm spindle , i think. But i heard 2nd revision was a bit better.

[andrewch59]

Thanks Sergei, yes I have read bad things about the mod 54 for inversion, but thought rotary would be a lot more gentle on the film. I'll try it, if it causes too much angst I will return to tray, which I find relaxing anyway.

[Alan9940]

Hello SergeiR,

I am always very impressed with the work you produce using CSG Green. You mention Jobo above...do you use Expert Drums? Do you process on CPA/CPP style equipment or more manual like a roller base?

I have had recent success processing CSG Green in flat bottom trays, but that's single sheet at a time. My Expert Drum would enable me to process multiple sheets in one go. :)

[SergeiR]

thank you, Alan

Ii use both Jobo and Unidrum tanks, depending on work load and how i feel. As a result its either Jobo's CPP2 (ancient one, without lift) or Unidrum's rotary base (i don't like it bc you have to watch damn thing like a hawk, so drum won't fall off, but its far more compact space wise).
I have manual Jobo base too, and used it with 20x24 tank, but its rare. So my batch is 2-3 sheets in one go.

There is actually full description on how i deal with Xray film on my site/blog ;)

I do not own any expert drums :( I really wanted one for color work, but they are more expensive and i do have only ancient Jobo CPP, so its not like i can use it anyway)

[koraks]

Once again an amazing result Sergei, I have ordered a mod54 insert for 4x5, you have convinced me to give rotary a try!

I tried the MOD54 once with double idd film cut to 4x5. I wasn't happy with the results because the 'fingers' of the MOD54 that hold the sheets left visible impressions on the backside of the film and too far into the image area to my taste.

[andrewch59]

Hi Koraks, yes on another thread they say that the middle holders, which have a solid support, forces the soup to divert around and causes a faster flow which makes for uneven development. Was that with rotary or inversion??