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

[andrewch59]

Thanks for your input Koraks, I wont throw out my flat bottom trays any time soon then

[Alan9940]

...so i never shy away from dorking with something when i need to put things together, or rigging stuff with wires and chewing gum ;)


Just a regular MacGyver! ;) Thanks, again, for your help.

[Tin Can]

ZZ has a Black Friday sale, on Friday!

[Andrew O'Neill]

What's Black Friday? Is that like our Boxing Day up here??

[Tin Can]

Exactly

[DKirk]

ZZ has a Black Friday sale, on Friday!

And if that's them offering delivery to the UK as mentioned in another thread, with payday being tomorrow. Oh dear. . . (though I'll be tied up in a large big box retailer from tomorrow til Monday - at least I can use an tablet to order it, as "I'm demoing wifi features of cameras/printers. . .")

[Andrew O'Neill]

Oh yes of course. That's the day when shoppers get trampled to death for bargains. ;)

[Tin Can]

I stay home and spend nothing.

But I am buying a case of X-Ray film. It's double discount, bulk discount and the sale discount.

[LabRat]

I stay home and spend nothing.

But I am buying a case of X-Ray film. It's double discount, bulk discount and the sale discount.

Randy, congrats on your 8,000th post!!!!

Steve K

[Tin Can]

I had planned on quitting at 6666 but figured that would be too obvious.

What's a good goal?

A Mod rule. Hit XK and banned. :)

Perhaps Tourette's will reveal in posts and I f@@@@@@ disappear.

There's hope yet...




Randy, congrats on your 8,000th post!!!!

Steve K

[LabRat]

I had planned on quitting at 6666 but figured that would be too obvious.

What's a good goal?

A Mod rule. Hit XK and banned. :)

Perhaps Tourette's will reveal in posts and I f@@@@@@ disappear.

There's hope yet...

If you are going to go, go out with style...

Like naked and flaming, swinging from a chandelier, with a battle cry in your heart & lungs... ;-)

All good things to you!!!

Steve K

[Tin Can]

I see you know me. :) Been there done that more than enough.

Took me decades to gain civility. And now madness is back in style.

My hero is Slim Pickins at the end of Dr Strangelove.


If you are going to go, go out with style...

Like naked and flaming, swinging from a chandelier, with a battle cry in your heart & lungs... ;-)

All good things to you!!!

Steve K

[Darren Sheely]

I do not think it is advisable, but you push x-ray film? If so how many stops?

I didn't think it could be done well bc of its nature and high contrast

[koraks]

Sure, you can push it. Like with any film (and in fact even more so), this comes at the cost of shadow detail.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Push it and report your findings here, please!

[greginpa]

Any guesses to what asa i should rate some ancient 8x10 Type M Kodak xray film I just got. A quick coin and flash the lights test shows only very very minor fogging which might be the base tint ? Only thing I've gleaned online is that it is for mechanical xrays. Also no mention of safelight on the box? so panchromatic? Thanks, greg

[RickV]

Here's the Kodak Data Sheet for the film that I suspect it is. They made a dedicated red safelight filter GBX-2 which is a darker red than the Wratten 1A. It won't fog under a 1A if you lower the wattage of bulb or move it further away and, if tray processing, place a card over the top of the tray and only remove it when you need to observe what's going on. A good starting point for exposure is rating it at 80ASA. Test and change to suit your process and requirements. It will develop in D76 straight or 1:1, Xtol straight or 1:1, and of course paper developers diluted around 1:9 as starting points. Hope this helps

[greginpa]

Thanks Rick, This stuff is from the 1950s or early 60s by the box graphics, So, something else, that one's a t-grain. The ad i found online touts it's ability to x-ray copper bolts.

[RickV]

Holy crap! They were pretty reckless with the radiation in the good ol' days. I reckon it's a pretty good starting point what I've suggested. Everyone will shoot and process it a bit differently to suit their expectations so have fun experimenting but try to standardize your process tests and only change one element at a time. Forgive me if this is a case of the grasshopper lecturing the master....just sharing my experiences with it. It's wonderful stuff to play with and the results that our resident master craftsmen are getting on these emulsions is astounding!

[greginpa]

Today we are all grasshoppers : ) I'll give 80 asa a go and go at it one step at a time. It claims very fine grain and sharpness on the box. We'll see.

[RickV]

Good luck, mate.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Agfa HDR xray film, cut to 13x18
Tray developed in Rodinal 1+100 at 20C for 8min.
Contact print on very old (exp. date 1990) Agfa Rapitone paper, developed in Ilford MG 1+14
Shot and developed last weekend.
Printed in the darkroom yesterday.
Scan from print.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5500/31645411585_1f71c10ed5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Qdp1mz)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/Qdp1mz)

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Me and Ioanna, aka Book Ex Machina, proudly presenting our newest publication:
The Letters Page vol. 1
featuring some of our favorite authors, like:
George Saunders,
Joanna Walsh,
Kevin Barry,
Naomi Alderman,
and many more!
So happy to have played a part in this.

http://bookexmachina.com/theletterspage.html

Shot with Agfa HDR x-ray film, cut down to 13x18cm.
Fujinon w 250 with front tilt, at f16 and 1/30"
Rodinal 1+100 at 20C for 8min in tray.
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/499/31643874502_d674f7c6e7_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Qdg8r9)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/Qdg8r9)

[vdonovan]

159013

Playing around with Carestream single-sided film.
Camera: Sinar P 8x10
Lens: Fujinon 300
Developer: D76 6 minutes

[plaubel]

It will develop in D76 straight or 1:1, Xtol straight or 1:1, and of course paper developers diluted around 1:9 as starting points.

Rick,
do you develop film containing 8 times of silver, compared with paper, in weak paper developers diluted to a weak solution?
Usually I give strong film developers a chance to develop my papers...

After testing with a Stouffer wedge I couldn't imagine that bracketing will give linear results, concerning the technical nature/the sensibilty of this film..
I figured out better to bring the shadows into Zone 3 or 4 and to control the highlights via development.

For portraits in ambient light I seem to have some succes in completely missattracting shadows, and metering directly the face instead.
Here I have to figure out some more.

First time I tried rotation of 5x7" sheets with succes but with some higher contrast as a result; both, Rodinal and Xtol, work fine here.
I use another system than Jobo; mine is an ancient Photo Union system out of the sixties, a developing machine with two tubes, with bigger tubes and a lot of capacity, and with a lot of pimples at the inner side of the tubes ( like the Jobo plastic film holders do have, too ).

Since my 12x16" tubes are paper development tubes, they haven't any pimples, so I have to switch to tray development.
For normal contrast and as usual today, I prefer developing Xray in trays and with Rodinal; laying another Xray sheet onto the ground of each tray avoids scratches, but not completely in my case.
Printing on grade two, or three, is possible in general.

I shake the tray and flip the film until the highlights start to come out; then I flip the film each 30 seconds which gives me a mild negative without hard contrast.
Flipping each 45 or 60 seconds results in a copy of the bottom of the tray :-)

Anyway, it's so amazing to see how the developer/the film reacts immediately, after each shake or flip action!

Red LED safelight guides me through the process, but visualizing the doublesided result is hard I have found, so I always give 5 minutes a try and further inspect the result after this time.
Sometimes I decide to end up in 6 minutes of development.

Recently, my first results with stand development didn't look bad, so I will continue stand development, in Rodinal of course, expecting less scratches.

Best,
Ritchie

[senderoaburrido]

I've been using a written #44 "No-red" filter on my spot meter to more easily meter for Carestream EB/RA. Been shooting it rated 200 ISO with the #44 filter. A lot of my results are blown out.

Now, I shoot plenty of MF and 35mm, and I never get results this bad. Was the filter a stupid idea? Anyone got other suggestions for adding consistency in metering/exposing this film? And does anyone have tips for using this stuff with a flash? I have no way of guesstimating what fragment of my flash's emitted light is non-red.

Has anyone here tried contacting manufacturers for spectral sensitivity graphs? Kodak turned me around because they no longer produce EB/RA. Carestream didn't respond to my email. It'd really help to know where the film's sensitivity lay exactly.

Before someone tells me for a second time that this is cheap enough to shoot freely, I would like to emphasize that not everyone has the spare time to develop hundreds of photos in a reasonable time frame. Darkroom access and time spent out of work and not in transit is very limited for me. Besides, maintaining a good-shot-to-dud ratio as I am right now (probably 1:4) makes this fantastic hobby feel like a waste of time. Very defeating to pull these borderline destroyed negatives out of the tank so frequently.

[Corran]

By "blown-out" do you mean blown highlights or overexposed negatives?

If overexposed, the short answer would be, rate the film higher. I have no idea what the filter factor of your #44 is and couldn't find that info on Google either, but rated at 200 and assuming the filter factor is about 2 or 3, you are basically rating the film around an EI of 25 or 50. Possibly a bit hot.

If the contrast is too high and your highlights are blown, develop less.

Apologies if this is a bit "obvious" but there certainly is a bit of a learning curve with any of the x-ray films available and there is simply no substitute for a bit of experimentation - which you've done, so now you can change your workflow accordingly.

Off-hand I don't remember anyone else using one of those filters so seems like you are blazing new ground, or maybe I am just mis-remembering. I don't use Carestream so I'm sure others will chime in here. I assume your usage of the filter is intended to help meter blue-sensitive film when overly red or blue light is present such as sunset/dusk, which makes sense but may be overly complicating your system. I've only used green-sensitive film, precisely for that reason.

[senderoaburrido]

Is blue sensitive film then not only orthochromatic, but also less sensitive to green light as well? I simply assumed that, if the film was orthochromatic, a cyan "no-red" filter would provide a closer metering relative to the sensitivity of the film, especially in artificial and dusk light.

I know that at least with some of my pictures, I am dealing with a weaker, older 35mm camera speed light flash - leveraged via flash sync - which may not be emitting blue through red light equally. I have seldom used flash before, and making those mistakes is punishing. It really makes a difference, though, since indoor portraits are nigh-impossible with such insensitive film.

And at the risk of sounding stupid, what is the difference between overexposure and blown highlights? I am very technically uninformed on film photography. Probably not the best background to jump into 4x5 and irregular film use, though I am working on it and trying to learn.

[Corran]

The speed light should be emitting roughly daylight balance light - perhaps a bit bluer, and older flashes sometimes are a bit yellowed, but neither should be a massive problem. But yes, I would nail down exposure with daylight first before trying to use flash, especially if that is also new to you. Too many variables.

I honestly can't tell you exact sensitivities (it's here in this thread somewhere...but at over 4500 posts that's a needle in a haystack!) but I know green sensitive is fairly wide spectrum, outside of red of course. Blue sensitive film should still catch green I think.

Regarding overexposure/blown highlights - perhaps an example scan would help us diagnose? If your shadow areas are showing up very bright, up in the midtones or higher even, you are overexposing the film. If the shadows look okay but everything quickly goes up into white, your contrast is too high. So maybe an example image and exact technical details would help - including exposure time / aperture, as well as your developer time, temperature, agitation scheme, etc..

[senderoaburrido]

That might take a while. The biggest roadblock in my workflow is that I do not have regular access to a scanner. I was lying about enrolment and using a university archive's scanner until they figured me out. I only scanned probably my first 30 shots or so, and that was before I started keeping an exposure journal. I keep a meticuloys one now, at least. A friend of a friend who works with Aboriginal Affairs drunkenly offered to let me use the high end scanner he uses at work. I intend to try and take him up on that, regardless of whether he was sober enough to be sincere about that offer.

The primary way I'm taking a look at my pictures these days is by making quick contact prints. I haven't regularly made prints since grade 10, 8 years ago, and it shows. The quality is very poor. I might need to take a workshop or something in order to better grasp the process. Because I have to schedule my darkroom hours against university students who seem to squat the 6-10pm range, improving my printmaking technique by trial and error isn't really feasible.

[Corran]

Do you have a digital camera, or even just a phone? Take a pic of one of your contact prints or maybe even try taking a pic of your negative on top of some sort of make-shift light table and inverting it.

Since you've got an exposure journal, can you tell us at least what your exposures were and a rough estimate of the light? Like for example, "Sunny, no clouds - f/32, 1/15." That's about what I would shoot on a sunny day, so if you are exposing way more there might be the issue.

BTW local libraries have scanners sometimes.

[Randy]

I have used several brands of the "green sensitive" Xray film (double sided). I generally rate 50 ISO when shooting on sunny days but drop the ISO to 25 on very cloudy / over cast / or late afternoon in the shade. I am processing in trays - Rodinal 1:200 for 6 minutes. For flash, which I have used only once, I used two Sunpak's facing white umbrella reflectors - I just exposed for ISO 50 - came out fine...but...I am not to particular when it comes to exposure - I am happy enough when I get "close".

BTW - when I was processing in HC-110 dil. H, I had to rate same film at ISO 200 on sunny days.

[koraks]

I rate the green stuff at EI 50 and tray develop in pyrocat hd 1+1+100 for 6 to 8 minutes with continuous agitation depending on the highlights. This yields negatives that print well with Van Dyke and scan fine as well. Anything over EI 80 gives too little shadow detail for Van Dyke, but the shadows scan fine up to about EI 125 or 160.

[seezee]

When I was using Ektascan with strobes (Paul C. Buff Einsteins outputting roughly 5600º K light), I rated it at ISO 80. The half-speed-blue Carestream seems to be around ISO 160 under the same conditions. I credit the double emulsion for the speed increase.

[senderoaburrido]

Corran, I'll get to that on wednesday and come back here with some examples.

[Luis-F-S]

Ok, so I'm using 8x10 EB/RA film which I'm rating it at an EI of 80. I'm developing it in HC-110 at a dilution of 1.5 oz per gallon in 1 gallon tanks with 10 sec agitation each minute. My high densities are coming out ok, but the negatives are so wildly contrasty, they're unprintable. I read in several threads back to place shadow details in Zone III-IV and then to adjust development (under develop) for the highlights. Is that what is recomeded? I developed my last batch of film for 2, 4 & 6 min in the 1.5 oz HC-110 to 126.5 water dilution. The 6 min negatives had good highlight values, but the shadow densities were not there. Any suggestions? Thanks, Luis

[Corran]

I'm confused by your statements. You say they are wildly contrasty - so I assumed your highlights were blowing out. But if the 6-minute development has good highlights but no shadows it sounds like you are underexposing and overdeveloping. If so, I would guess you need to shoot at a lower EI, maybe 40-50, and develop 5 minutes or so.

I have no experience with EB/RA or HC-110 so that's just my thoughts with regard to the ol' adage of "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights"...

[Fr. Mark]

Ektascan B/RA is a single sided ortho film (not blue sensitive only, also green, though it is on a blue background plastic) with an antihalation backing. It's spectral sensitivity falls off after green somewhere toward red. Carestream has a data sheet on it, or did, on the internet somewhere. Like most people I rate it at 80-100 and add exposure (a stop or two or three) for when the light is more red (early/late in the day, tungsten lights. You can develop by inspection under dim red safelights (emphasis on dim: not all red LED's are 100% safe). I use pyrocat HD, though a number of developers work well like Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100 and I tend to develop for New Cyanotypes more than enlarging. Some people find that treating it like Tmax 100 for reciprocity works pretty well. I have no idea what your filter thing does, sorry.

[senderoaburrido]

http://www.spectrumxray.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/4-4_Ektascan-B.pdf

I found it! The spectral sensitivity graph is towards the bottom of the document. Sensitivity drops off sharply right around 575nm.

http://www.karmalimbo.com/aro/pics/filters/transmision%20of%20wratten%20filters.pdf

And here you can see that the wratten 44a filter isn't far off in transmission, although it does look like I am dealing with a filter factor after all. If I can adjust for that, I might end up getting much more consistent and acceptable results.

[Corran]

Nice find. If I'm reading that right it has about a 3-stop filter factor in overall light? Looking at the Luminous transmission data, which I assume is a percentage, under the #44. I'm ignoring the wavelengths. That means overall transmission of 15.6%?

[Luis-F-S]

I'm confused by your statements. You say they are wildly contrasty - so I assumed your highlights were blowing out.
I have no experience with EB/RA or HC-110 so that's just my thoughts with regard to the ol' adage of "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights"...

Not just the highlights, there is like nothing on the negative below Zone IV, just film base and Zone VII goes really dense. I tried developing for 2, 4 & 6 min at the very diluted HC-110 concentration, using 1.5 oz developer to 126.5 oz water in 1 gal tanks I guess I need to place my shadows in Zone III or IV, and lower the development time quite a bit. I'll try doing that this week when I get some time. I can't see using less developer than what I'm using. I was just wondering if anyone had achieved good results with the EB/RA film and HC-110. I had also tried developing it with Rodinal with similar unacceptable results.

[SergeiR]

8x10 Kodak CSG, 360mm Symmar-S Elinchrom Quadra Ranger heads.

As usual shot at ISO 100.
Usual rotary R09 1:120 for 11m.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/424/32077116121_9ff5be68e0_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/QSxB5e)Connie (https://flic.kr/p/QSxB5e) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[senderoaburrido]

Here are some of my mediocre prints from my crumby office scanner:
159589
159590
159591

[Tin Can]

Here are some of my mediocre prints from my crumby office scanner:
159589
159590
159591

Not all bad!

You do realize that EVERYBODY adjusts scans?

Expecting immediate perfection from ANY photographic process is unrealistic.

Keep up the good work.

[SergeiR]

Here are some of my mediocre prints from my crumby office scanner:
159589
159590
159591

Its a good result. Everyone does adjust scans. Everyone plays with curves and dodge/burning prints even when they are contact printed. Nothing wrong with helping print to look like what YOU want it to be.

[Corran]

To echo the above, these seem fine. The middle ones might could use a bit more exposure and less development for the lighting, or perhaps not depending on intended "mood."

[premortho]

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.Amen, brother, Amen!

[premortho]

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

[premortho]

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

Be well,

~StoneI had massive trouble getting back on this site until lately. I'm not that smart anyway. Probably 90% of what I know about film sensitivity is in that post. I'm an amateur photographer of 70 years experience. I remember all of the wonderful claims for the newest, latest, and fastest films ever. Very few of these wonder films ever were all that wonderful. NOTHING has ever replaced Ansco's Supreme. NOTHING has ever really replaced Plus-X. As far as that goes, even Verichrome and Verichrome Pan do things that no other film can do. Except for Ansco's competitive product, and even that had it's own personality. Kodak would love to get rid of Tri-X, and hook everyone up with T-Max 400. The funny thing about this is that the only real difference between films is in the soup they coat it with. All the rest of the roll films are made on the same equipment. Wide rolls of whatever are sliced to 120 or 35 and what usta' be film pack film. The other line makes sheet film, and cuts it to different sizes. If I ran Kodak, we'd still be making batch runs of 122 and 116. Maybe even 118 (quarter plate roll film). Advertise it like the flavor of the month. "For June, the flavor of the month is Verichrome. First week and a half, 120, other half of the second week, 118. Third week, 116. Fourth week, 122". That's 20 work days. Leaves a couple of days at the end of the month to clean up the old soup, and start cooking the next soup. Of course, I don't have a degree in economics. So they wouldn't let me near the place. My expertise was in production engineering, or in other words, making stuff.

[chassis]

Hi premortho, good to see you here. What do you think about an entrepeneur starting production of film that is as similar as possible to Ansco Supreme, Plus-X and Verichrome Pan? Is the equipment and know-how available and willing to do this? Money is usually not the issue if the business case and means of production can be found.

[senderoaburrido]

Has anyone tried using orange filters to darken skies with this film? I was looking at the spectral transmission graphs for some of B+W's green,yellow and orange filters, and there are a few orange ones that reduce transmission below mid-green.

I want to darken skies, because my outdoor shots look like they were taken during supernova. Evaluating my options and wondering if any of you guys have maybe tried colour filters with these films.

[seezee]

Has anyone tried using orange filters to darken skies with this film? I was looking at the spectral transmission graphs for some of B+W's green,yellow and orange filters, and there are a few orange ones that reduce transmission below mid-green.

I want to darken skies, because my outdoor shots look like they were taken during supernova. Evaluating my options and wondering if any of you guys have maybe tried colour filters with these films.

My guess is that you'd have a seriously underexposed negative. Since the film doesn't see to the orange part of the spectrum, and the filter you propose lets that part of the spectrum through while blocking what the film does see, you'd have a close to black image.

Having said that, x-ray film is cheap. Why not try it and report back?

[Corran]

Use a yellow filter. Seems to work okay with x-ray. Also, depending on situation, a polarizer can be helpful.

[Randy]

Use a yellow filter. Seems to work okay with x-ray. Also, depending on situation, a polarizer can be helpful.

I agree with Bryan - yellow. I tried an orange a couple years ago with the green sensitive x-ray film I had and the negs were severely under exposed.

[andrewch59]

Well I never gave up on the Mod54. I snipped off the fingers that protrude to hold the film in place, after feedback it seemed these were more of a hindrance than anything else. There is still a little groove there for the film to sit in but it does not interfere with the flow or cause unwanted marks in development because of them.
What I did do was load it up with film and marked where the film crossed the wings at each end. I t hen drilled small holes in the wings at the ends of the spool and injected gasket goo? through them to cause a small nipple that would prevent the film from slipping out. I have only tried two 4x5 at a time so far and it works a treat. The wings at each end can be pulled out slightly to allow placement of the film and then closed to hold the film in place.
159956

[koraks]

Huh, what do you know, that looks perfect! Can you post a picture of the modifications to the MOD54?

[andrewch59]

159957 unfortunately it doesn't stop scratches cause by cutting up 8x10 size film and loading. I used sergei's amounts for R09 and it has been pretty much spot on I think, thanks Sergei

[axs810]

All you really need to do for the Mod54 is feel where the film sits and feel the edges. If you can feel anything slightly "sharp" just file it down lightly. Doing that with gentle agitation makes the Mod54 a breeze to use.


I like your results andrewch59 but the sky looks a bit uneven. I'm mainly looking at the top right portion of the sky (yes I'm also accounting for where the sun is by looking at the shadows)

[andrewch59]

Hi AXS810, it was a real test run taking that photo. I had just finished grinding down the GG on my Shen Hao hzx45 iia, to try and get it a little more light sensitive, I then put a an old graflex Fresnel behind it and was trying it out for focussing. I also had my new to me super angulon 90mm f8 lens on, and a circular polarizing filter, which was the first time I had tried it. It seems that there is a change up in the filter that I need to be aware of, if not you get that uneven sky tone. I also didn't allow a couple of stops for the filter.
As far as the mod54 goes, my film would slip out of the holder during rotation, others mentioned that the longer "fingers??" disrupted the flow and left tell tale marks well into their negs. I did notice a couple of scratches on another neg I developed which seems to be from me not rounding of the fingers well enough. Hey! it was just a test to see if I could get it functioning, its not a cheap bit of plastic to buy.

[senderoaburrido]

My guess is that you'd have a seriously underexposed negative. Since the film doesn't see to the orange part of the spectrum, and the filter you propose lets that part of the spectrum through while blocking what the film does see, you'd have a close to black image.

Having said that, x-ray film is cheap. Why not try it and report back?


Use a yellow filter. Seems to work okay with x-ray. Also, depending on situation, a polarizer can be helpful.

I think that's the idea, though. Bump up exposures significantly, at least in landscape shots, to get a more balanced exposure. If you take a look at the Carestream EB/RA sensitivity graph, it's actually more sensitive to high green than it is to blue, by a smidge. Taking a second look at the B+W filter transmission graphshttp://www.ars-imago.com/productinfos/BWFilterTransmissionCurves_e.pdf, I can see that yellow would probably make a hell of a difference. It's interesting to see that even though true yellow light is supposed to start around 580nm, above the cutoff for my film's sensitivity, the filter still transmits light well below that mark.

[axs810]

Hi AXS810, it was a real test run taking that photo. I had just finished grinding down the GG on my Shen Hao hzx45 iia, to try and get it a little more light sensitive, I then put a an old graflex Fresnel behind it and was trying it out for focussing. I also had my new to me super angulon 90mm f8 lens on, and a circular polarizing filter, which was the first time I had tried it. It seems that there is a change up in the filter that I need to be aware of, if not you get that uneven sky tone. I also didn't allow a couple of stops for the filter.
As far as the mod54 goes, my film would slip out of the holder during rotation, others mentioned that the longer "fingers??" disrupted the flow and left tell tale marks well into their negs. I did notice a couple of scratches on another neg I developed which seems to be from me not rounding of the fingers well enough. Hey! it was just a test to see if I could get it functioning, its not a cheap bit of plastic to buy.


Ahh I understand now. The use of the polarizing filter would explain what I'm seeing :)

Can't wait to see your future results with this set up!

[seezee]

Huh, what do you know, that looks perfect! Can you post a picture of the modifications to the MOD54?

+1

[Westerman]

I've been trying different developing combinations over the last month for 8x10 x-ray film, and finally, after about a couple dozen over-developed, fogged, or badly scratched negatives, I've found a method that works consistently for me. I tried using a gallon size mason jar, but it leaked and was messy to use, I tried the unicolor 8x10 tube, but it scratched the negative, I tried a cibachrome tank, but it scratched the negative. I tried using a red fluorescent light that was supposed to be safe for x-ray film, but it was fogging the film. I tried developing in the Stearman Press developer that came with the SP-445, but it caused millions of tiny black spots to cover the negative, I tried developing in HC-110, but the film was very grainy and lost lots of detail.

I am now doing tray developing with a sheet of glass on the bottom in total darkness and developing by inspection using an old Eyeclops night vision toy with half strength Acufine developer. I'm still trying to learn how properly developed x-ray film looks under infrared light, but my negatives are now consistently properly developed with almost no scratches.

I think the skies are a bit mottled, because I'm not getting consistent development on the top and bottom emulsion, but I think it gives an interesting look.

Here is an example of one of my first photos with the new process:

160158

and here is another that I had posted to the Cemeteries thread:

160159

[Corran]

Nice results. I flip my negatives over every minute or so developing in tanks, which might help your mottling problem? I've never seen that on my negatives, anyway.

Acufine is a great developer! I've used it diluted a couple of times but never with x-ray, very cool.

[koraks]

Dito, although I flip the sheets over even more frequently - about every 15 seconds. This prevents hot edges, which seems to be caused by developer replenishing the bottom side of the film along the edges, but not in the center of the sheets. Continuous agitation and frequent turning of the film so far has been the only way I get reasonably good negatives.

[Westerman]

I'm sure I'm getting the mottling because I'm mainly keeping the film flat on the glass and not moving it much to keep it from getting smudged or scratched. The glass I'm using is 8 x 10 from a picture frame and still has sharp edges. I might try getting some larger glass, so the film can be moved and flipped more without being scratched. Half strength Acufine only gives me about 3 minutes of developing time, so I might try 1/4 strength and see if I have more time to flip the film.

[MAubrey]

Very first negative. I didn't put much effort into avoiding scratches. I'm cutting 11x14 down to 5x7 and I don't yet have a good cutting system. Once I have that in place, things will look significantly better (and I'll make more effort to be careful about dust, which there's also plenty of).

Still, I'm pleased. I expected the contrast to be more difficult to handle. Lot's of potential here, but I'm going to need a lot more practice! Developed with Caffenol and fixed with TF-5:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]160191[/ATTACH

[seezee]

Dito, although I flip the sheets over even more frequently - about every 15 seconds. This prevents hot edges, which seems to be caused by developer replenishing the bottom side of the film along the edges, but not in the center of the sheets. Continuous agitation and frequent turning of the film so far has been the only way I get reasonably good negatives.

I was going to ask how folk handled developing the back-side of the double-emulsion film when tray developing. Both to avoid scratches and to get even development on front and back. I haven't tried the sheet of glass trick yet, but plan to soon.

Since I'm semi-stand developing, I wonder how often I should be flipping if I go back to trays with the double-sided stuff.

[seezee]

I tried using a red fluorescent light that was supposed to be safe for x-ray film, but it was fogging the film.
Many of those on this thread, including myself, had had good luck with this lamp (https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe/g11-led-bulb-8-smd-led-globe-bulb/440/1477/). This base (https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/empty-bases-sockets/dual-e27-base-to-e27-base-socket-adapter/2327/5670/) allows you to double your output when used with a standard spring-clip shop light. As long as you point the fixture toward the ceiling or walls, away from your trays, you shouldn't fog film. It's okay to shine directly for a short time for inspection. I have left film sitting in trays for an hour under those conditions with no noticeable harm.

[Jim Noel]

I was going to ask how folk handled developing the back-side of the double-emulsion film when tray developing. Both to avoid scratches and to get even development on front and back. I haven't tried the sheet of glass trick yet, but plan to soon.

Since I'm semi-stand developing, I wonder how often I should be flipping if I go back to trays with the double-sided stuff.

I use Cesco trays which are extremely smooth and do not scratch the film. They are one standard size larger than the film size. I agitate almost constantly and flip the film every minute. No scratches and nice even development,

[koraks]

Yeah, I use a non-stick oven tray that is very smooth as well. I suppose as glass tray would work too. I don't have much hope for getting even development with semi-stand due to the underside of the film being unevenly affected by fresh developer seeping underneath the film along the edges. It should work fine if you just use one side and strip the backside. I tried stripping one side and it works fine (with chlorox), but it's a little messy and there's the risk of chlorox getting to the image side if you don't tape the negative down properly. Due to the loss of density, I haven't pursued this route yet, but it seems feasible - although it's a bit of extra work.

[plaubel]

I was going to ask how folk handled developing the back-side of the double-emulsion film when tray developing. Both to avoid scratches and to get even development on front and back.
...I wonder how often I should be flipping if I go back to trays with the double-sided stuff.

Feel free to have a look at post 4534 where I described the effects of nonflipping longer than 30 seconds in my trays.
A little hint for protecting the emulsion is hidden in this post, too :-)

If the developer doesn't reach the emulsion in a good way, you will get two densities in one negative, in the best case.

Ritchie

[senderoaburrido]

Many of those on this thread, including myself, had had good luck with this lamp (https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe/g11-led-bulb-8-smd-led-globe-bulb/440/1477/). This base (https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/empty-bases-sockets/dual-e27-base-to-e27-base-socket-adapter/2327/5670/) allows you to double your output when used with a standard spring-clip shop light. As long as you point the fixture toward the ceiling or walls, away from your trays, you shouldn't fog film. It's okay to shine directly for a short time for inspection. I have left film sitting in trays for an hour under those conditions with no noticeable harm.

I had no idea! I bought a 40$ CAD darkroom light when I could have bought that instead. Dang. Thanks for bringing it up again.


I use Cesco trays which are extremely smooth and do not scratch the film. They are one standard size larger than the film size. I agitate almost constantly and flip the film every minute. No scratches and nice even development,

This is really good information. I've been experimenting with pushing night shots a little bit, and every time I push, I do it in trays so I can observe the development. All my negatives from tray development come out scratched in patterns like the flurried flight path of moths beneath a street lamp. The communal dark room I use has some worn, old trays. I'll try these Cesco trays and see if it makes a difference.

When you agitate, do you gently move the tray laterally, in a swaying motion, or do you rock it up and down?

[Wayne]

Those bulbs are so freaking bright I can't imagine why you'd need two of them in one location. One bulb illuminates my 24 foot wet darkroom

[seezee]

I use Cesco trays which are extremely smooth and do not scratch the film. They are one standard size larger than the film size. I agitate almost constantly and flip the film every minute. No scratches and nice even development,

I've managed to scratch film even in the Cesco trays (I don't own any plastic trays).

[Jim Fitzgerald]

If you are scratching this film you have to pay attention. Be aware of loading and unloading your film. Be gentile and not in a hurry. It should be easy as you are working in the red light. Go over how you load and unload. Something you are doing is wrong. I've never scratched any of this film all the way up to 14x17.

[Barry Kirsten]

I recently started using x-ray film, double sided Kodak green sensitive. The only trays big enough that I had are cat litter trays which I use satisfactorily for paper. They have a dimple in the bottom which I knew would be a problem, and it was - scratches all over the place, both sides, since I tried to give each side the same development. I'm wondering why people are talking about a piece of glass on the bottom of the tray? To me, this is an immediate source of frustration, as the sheet sticking to the glass would make flipping the film difficult, and itself a source of possible scratching from frustrated fingers. Why not conventional fluted trays, which allow some movement of developer underneath and allow easier flipping?

[koraks]

Because the 'flutes' will also leave scratches.

[senderoaburrido]

Yeah, I'm almost completely sure that the scratching is not coming from my loading and unloading. While I could be more delicate in doing both, my drum-developed 4x5's never have scratches. It has to be the tray and possibly the way I agitate. I was getting scratches on my tray developed fomapan,too.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Yeah, I'm almost completely sure that the scratching is not coming from my loading and unloading. While I could be more delicate in doing both, my drum-developed 4x5's never have scratches. It has to be the tray and possibly the way I agitate. I was getting scratches on my tray developed fomapan,too.

Make sure you have plenty of chemical in the tray. This may help. I tray develop 14x17 and have never had a problem. Cesco tray

[seezee]

Because the 'flutes' will also leave scratches.

They've been said to cause uneven development on double-emulsion film, in earlier posts, as well.

[seezee]

Feel free to have a look at post 4534 where I described the effects of nonflipping longer than 30 seconds in my trays.
A little hint for protecting the emulsion is hidden in this post, too :-)

If the developer doesn't reach the emulsion in a good way, you will get two densities in one negative, in the best case.

Ritchie

Thanks, I had forgotten that one. So are you stand developing, but also flipping every 30 seconds? You mention stand developing at the end of the post. Or perhaps that was in tanks.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Someone inquired about filters. I tested this several years ago and posted results here. You'll have to go back and search. I prefer to use #8 or #15 yellow Wratten filters, as well as the light green #11, on double-sided green latitude.
Also, if you really want to play with double-sided x-ray and minimal agitation, you really should stay away from trays. But, flipping the film each time it is agitated is smart. And.... flat-bottomed trays are the best. Just my personal opinion! :)

[seezee]

Someone inquired about filters. I tested this several years ago and posted results here. You'll have to go back and search. I prefer to use #8 or #15 yellow Wratten filters, as well as the light green #11, on double-sided green latitude.
Also, if you really want to play with double-sided x-ray and minimal agitation, you really should stay away from trays. But, flipping the film each time it is agitated is smart. And.... flat-bottomed trays are the best. Just my personal opinion! :)

Thanks for the advice. For 4×5, I probably will. When I get my Century Universal in working order, I will be tray developing. So I will probably not be stand developing those negatives.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have some 8x10 hangers and fashioned a plexi-glass tank so that I could do full on stand in very dilute Pyrocat-HD. I think I posted results somewhere in this long thread...

[andrewch59]

I only tray developed as I had no tanks. Agitate too fast and you get flow marks and dark edging, develop too slow and you get mottling. I would try to avoid doing pics with lots of sky, as it really showed the flaws. I did control it by using very weak developer mix and agitating longer.
My best result so far was using rotary, yes with xray one slip and you just have a negative full of scratches, but wow, when it all goes correctly there is less dust marks, scratches and mottling. If tray developing use a tray a lot bigger than your film size, to prevent the developer splashing back off the side of your tray and avoid any tray that has grooves in the bottom, this causes an area of faster flow too! Thrift shops and the like always have old pyrex dishes going cheap. Perfect developing trays.

[seezee]

Those bulbs are so freaking bright I can't imagine why you'd need two of them in one location. One bulb illuminates my 24 foot wet darkroom

I have them pointed away from my work area, into a corner of my bathroom. White ceiling, seafoam green walls. Reflected, indirect light. So 2 bulbs better than 1.

160317

[senderoaburrido]

Someone inquired about filters. I tested this several years ago and posted results here. You'll have to go back and search. I prefer to use #8 or #15 yellow Wratten filters, as well as the light green #11, on double-sided green latitude.
Also, if you really want to play with double-sided x-ray and minimal agitation, you really should stay away from trays. But, flipping the film each time it is agitated is smart. And.... flat-bottomed trays are the best. Just my personal opinion! :)

I took a look and it was very helpful. You've convinced me to give yellow a try.

[plaubel]

So are you stand developing, but also flipping every 30 seconds?

No - I would call this technique flippdeveloping instead of stand developing:-)

What I have seen in my trays is that 45 to 60 seconds without flipping the negative will result in uneven development.
But maybe I have to mention that I use Rodinal, which exhausts quick, especially in dilutions of 1:100 and weaker.

The layer on the tray bottom has less access to fresh developer than the layer on top, and once exhausted, Rodinal becomes lazy as a slowt.


Stand development in a tank for me has the advantage of totally advoiding any scratches and further gives identical development on both sides of the film, without burning the highlights.
I have to look forward to the other advantages of stand development, concerning the shadows...

Ritchie

[senderoaburrido]

Used yellow filter in mail, and this weekend I'm finally picking up all the stuff from my PO box, including the UV stuff. I'm eager to share the results with you guys.

I got a 135mm chrome-barrel EL-Nikkor, which hasn't been as extensively tested as the shorter focal length EL-Nikkor's for UV transmission. Should cover 4x5, and at 30$, it was worth a try. Gonna' slap a B+W 403 filter in front and see what I can get using Ektascan B/RA film.

[Bazz8]

I recently started using x-ray film, double sided Kodak green sensitive. The only trays big enough that I had are cat litter trays which I use satisfactorily for paper. They have a dimple in the bottom which I knew would be a problem, and it was - scratches all over the place, both sides, since I tried to give each side the same development. I'm wondering why people are talking about a piece of glass on the bottom of the tray? To me, this is an immediate source of frustration, as the sheet sticking to the glass would make flipping the film difficult, and itself a source of possible scratching from frustrated fingers. Why not conventional fluted trays, which allow some movement of developer underneath and allow easier flipping?

[Bazz8]

Barry The sheet of glass placed in a 8x10 tray eliminated three dense lines in a traditional tray, no scratches and I rock the tray side to side then switch to rocking end to end.
The film does not stick to the glass,as a aid to pick up the film I cut all corners at 45deg which enable quite easy removing the neg from the developer.
I use Fuji HRT 1:100 rodinal as a developer.
I have been testing some Kodak R-Min x-Ray and this develops quite nicely in Rodinal 1:100 and LC 29 13mm +1000 which is giving a slightly denser neg Dev times 6-8 Minutes
Bazz with a Croweaters greeting

[axs810]

160537

A few years ago I bought some Ektascan BR/A X-ray film for my 8x10 camera. The film was a little slow for my needs so I didn't end up shooting too much, but looking back at images I took years ago I am wondering what caused these lines in the photo attached. I did a pre-soak and then tray developed in HC110 1:31 but forgot what development times I used.

Could these lines be caused from too strong of a developer dilution + short development time? I'm wondering if I should have used a more diluted developer to prolong to development time in hopes of a more evenly developed negative with less density.


Any thoughts or suggestion is much appreciated! :)


BTW, has Ektascan BR/A 8x10 gone up in price over the past 2 years?

[koraks]

You mean the extra density along the lower edge and in the top left corner? That looks like a light leak or a non-safe darkroom light. Local overdevelopment mat play a role as well, but it mostly looks like fogging.

[axs810]

I'm mainly talking about the lines seen across the middle of the image. Best seen on the dress

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=160548&d=1485765728

The fogging was taken care of.


edit/ added crop photo

[koraks]

It's really very hard to see what you mean, but I think I can see it. It looks more like mottling than like straight lines, can this be the case? If so, it would suggest uneven development.

[plaubel]

For me this "lines" show the same structures (grass, trees) as in the negative themselves , but with a shift to the right side, somehow looking like a double exposure - and I have no idea why.

[BetterSense]

Many of those on this thread, including myself, had had good luck with this lamp (https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe/g11-led-bulb-8-smd-led-globe-bulb/440/1477/). This base (https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/empty-bases-sockets/dual-e27-base-to-e27-base-socket-adapter/2327/5670/) allows you to double your output when used with a standard spring-clip shop light. As long as you point the fixture toward the ceiling or walls, away from your trays, you shouldn't fog film. It's okay to shine directly for a short time for inspection. I have left film sitting in trays for an hour under those conditions with no noticeable harm.

I have used that exact bulb with great results, however, be warned that the globe is held on with hot-melt glue. If you screw it into a socket that is still warm from a different bulb, the globe falls off. Mine still works fine without a globe, but might be dangerous, but I still use it. It's very bright and safe.

[andrewch59]

On the first example you show it is definitely a light leak. With my old wooden film holders I would get the same kind of result, probably the same reason for the light left side. For my 10x12 I had a big light tight sock made to cover the entire holder. I put the film holder straight into the sock and then slide it into the back of my vageeswari with the sock still on. no light leaks! With the normal regal type 4x5 holders I have taken up the practice of covering the slit the septum comes out of with a light tight material to prevent light entering

[axs810]

Yes the light leaks were an obvious problem which I fixed shortly after. The thing I am confused about is the artifacts that look like flickering luminosity similar to what you would see with CFL bulbs or CRT tv. I'm assuming it's a development problem since I was using HC110 dil B (dev time I forgot)


Not sure if it was because my tray is slightly bigger than 8x10...maybe I need to use an 11x14 tray? Or could it have been from just developing it like normal film and not using a sheet of glass in the tray? Maybe the dilution was too strong and my dev time was too short? I don't know about the last one but I'm not ruling it out. I was using the same LED bulb from superbrightled and bounced it off the ceiling so I doubt it was the safelight. I did do a pre-soak before development...not sure if that has any effect on ektascan br/a film.


If you look at the second photo I posted. Her hip area and mid thigh show the darker "banding" and then the top left tree branch shows the luminosity banding too.

[Barry Kirsten]

Hi Bazz, thanks for that. I think in the interim I'll go with the glass plate, as scratching is intolerable. I've always developed all my sheet film in trays, but spurred on by this experience I'm looking into making a tank and hanger system for the 5x12 x-ray film I'm using, using acrylic sheeting - something like the Combi Plan system. If it works out I might build something for other formats. I'm not thinking of making it daylight capable, as I'm quite happy developing in darkness of under safelight. Keep you posted. Cheers.


Barry The sheet of glass placed in a 8x10 tray eliminated three dense lines in a traditional tray, no scratches and I rock the tray side to side then switch to rocking end to end.
The film does not stick to the glass,as a aid to pick up the film I cut all corners at 45deg which enable quite easy removing the neg from the developer.
I use Fuji HRT 1:100 rodinal as a developer.
I have been testing some Kodak R-Min x-Ray and this develops quite nicely in Rodinal 1:100 and LC 29 13mm +1000 which is giving a slightly denser neg Dev times 6-8 Minutes
Bazz with a Croweaters greeting

[andrewch59]

Hi axs, yes they look a little too distinct to be developing probs? I know on one of my films I had fine circular lines, like a Fresnel screen? But was usinga 10x12 wit no fesnel in sight? Could just be one of those things. I got sick of tray developing because of all the mottling. After months of drooling over sergei's results I got a drum developer, still get a few scratches but the difference is chalk and cheese in the outcome. Not saying its the answer for all, but it worked for me. Do you use photo paper or scan?

[axs810]

Hi axs, yes they look a little too distinct to be developing probs? I know on one of my films I had fine circular lines, like a Fresnel screen? But was usinga 10x12 wit no fesnel in sight? Could just be one of those things. I got sick of tray developing because of all the mottling. After months of drooling over sergei's results I got a drum developer, still get a few scratches but the difference is chalk and cheese in the outcome. Not saying its the answer for all, but it worked for me. Do you use photo paper or scan?


I do both. Darkroom print and scan.


Yeah...I'm getting tempted to get a Jobo drum. I just feel nervous manually rolling it lol...and Jobo Processors are a bit out of my price range for now (but eventually I would like to pick one up)

[DeKlari]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/628/31794656754_fcef366c01_b.jpg160662
Korona Camera (1932), Wollensak Optical Co, 8x10 f/8 High Grade Symmetrical Brass Lens Pat 1900-1901, AGFA X-ray, Blue film, R09, 10min, contact print on Ilford MGIV RC DE Luxe pearl paper,

[andrewch59]

Through buying old darkroom lots I have managed to pickup two old electric rollers, then bought the mod54 and modified it a bit. Try Sergei's site, http://sergeirodionov.com/x-ray-film-photography/ I follow his technique to the letter and have had great results. Though I developed a couple of sheets last night, it was 35 degrees (95f) at 9 pm, so the developer would have been a little more active then normal. There were some very distinct flow marks visible.

[andrewch59]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/628/31794656754_fcef366c01_b.jpg160662
Korona Camera (1932), Wollensak Optical Co, 8x10 f/8 High Grade Symmetrical Brass Lens Pat 1900-1901, AGFA X-ray, Blue film, R09, 10min, contact print on Ilford MGIV RC DE Luxe pearl paper,
Subject matter is pretty awesome!

[DeKlari]

Subject matter is pretty awesome![/QUOTE]

thanks I have one more:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/577/31794729184_c7da8fac8f_b.jpg

[Chauncey Walden]

OK gurus, what about DeKlari's processing caused the density variations in the sky? I'm assuming that it has something to do with agitation. Too much? Too little?

[koraks]

Too little agitation is the most likely cause. I find that with tray development, xray film requires constant (gentle) agitation and frequently turning the film over so that both sides receive equal and even development. I rock the tray gently sideways 4 or 5 times, then flip the sheet over and keep doing that until it's done.

Also, by the look of those images and particularly the second one, I wouldn't be surprised if he used a ribbed tray. Any unevenness on the bottom of the tray will result in uneven development and/or scratches.

[DeKlari]

Yes, tray cause this. I try to constant agitation but still get this density. I guess my tray too small, not much room for film moving during developing.

[DeKlari]

And yes I have used a ribbed tray. Thanks for help. I will try to fix this issues in the future.

[koraks]

Considering the fact that you used a ribbed tray, the results are actually quite encouraging! Most of the unevenness seems to be caused by this; using a flat-bottomed tray should get rid of most of the problem. I see in the first image that the edges are still a little 'hot' from overdevelopment. As many others will assure you, only a bigger tray will solve this. I currently use a non-stick oven tray tray that's about 25x35cm (inner dimensions; ca. 10x14") and that seems to be just large enough for 8x10" film. For 4x5" x-ray film I use a tray that's about 13x19cm (~5x7.5") and that works fine. Don't waste your time on trays that are too small and that will just fit your film - I've been there, done that for dozens or probably even hundreds of sheets and the edges will _always_ develop faster than the center, no matter what magic you work with your body to ensure perfect agitation.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would not recommend continuous agitation with double-sided x-ray film in trays, including flat-bottomed trays. You run the risk of "skuffing" and or scratching the emulsions. Gentle north/south, east/west every 30 seconds works very well for me. Flipping the emulsion can be good advice (I don't. I don't like sticking my fingers in Pyrocat), but be very careful to not scratch with your finger nails. Stay away from ribbed trays... or place a sheet of plexi inside.

[koraks]

I wish I could get even development the way you do it Andrew, but my mileage varies too much from yours, I'm afraid ;) How you get even development without flipping the film is beyond me (well, without stripping the backside of course) - count your blessings!
You're right about the scuffing and the scratching. This film scratches if you so much as look at it.

Here's one I did this afternoon. Doubled-sided green-sensitive at EI 50, Pyrocat HD 1.5+1.5+100, continuous agitation for about 9 minutes by gently rocking the tray from side to side for 5 times and then flipping the sheet over. Wearing gloves helps to keep the nasty pyrocat off the skin. Scan from negative; I develop these for Van Dyke printing and this negative is a tad on the thin side, but it prints quite alright.
http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/8x10_archives/DB172_XRGPCHD_3.jpg

[DeKlari]

Do any of you try a vertical developing? like standard tank for 4x5 with frames? I guess for 8x10 film it will be a little problem to find such large and thin tank.
I'm sorry if you already discuss this, but this forum too big..

[DeKlari]

excellent work, I definitely should try this

[koraks]

Thanks; it's been a long and rocky road and I'm not quite there yet, but I'm finally getting somewhere at least.

[j.e.simmons]

I've successfully used tank development with hangers for X-ray film. Both 4x5 and 8x10.Pyrocat developer and various minimal agitation schemes. I make sure to agitate vigorously.

[koraks]

I haven't tried tank development personally, but I suspect that if you can live with the volumes of developer and fixer it requires, I think it should work very well indeed.

[DeKlari]

I haven't tried tank development personally, but I suspect that if you can live with the volumes of developer and fixer it requires, I think it should work very well indeed.

I just thinking, If make very thin plastic tank for 8x10. Something as 8x10 film holder to reduce the volumes of developer (it could be also transparent) and using it in the darkroom.

[seezee]

Do any of you try a vertical developing? like standard tank for 4x5 with frames? I guess for 8x10 film it will be a little problem to find such large and thin tank.
I'm sorry if you already discuss this, but this forum too big..

I use the discontinued HP CombiPlan for 4×5. But I'll be tray developing when I get my Century Universal in working order.

[Fr. Mark]

Be careful about using a too thin tank for 8x10. The film bows out from the developing hanger frames and can scratch in the middle. If I make new tanks I worry less about tank volume and more about not scratching the film. My plexiglass tanks only hold 700-800 mL for standard Kodak 8x10 hangers. If you mix your own developers they don't cost much compared to the frustration of spoiled films.

[Dirk Rösler]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/484/32549236931_02924ccc61_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RAgm9c)

a well-used French horn

Kodak Commercial Ektar 14"/f6.3 @f6.3, Rodinal 1+50 10:00 tray, Retina MOD Green Xray film (Carestream, Rochester, USA) @ISO 80, Sinar p2

My first attempt shooting and developing xray stock - I'm impressed. I took some extra care because I never developed in trays, but it worked well. At 100% it shows some scratches, but hardly any dust. I'm pleased, especially since I now have 99 30x40cm sheets left, which are 396 5x7 or 198 8x10 - at a cost of €15!

Have to see how to proceed from here, perhaps lower the contrast to get smoother tonality.

[Corran]

Very nice Dirk, a good choice of subject. In storage I have at least one of every musical instrument back from my music education days...I really should do some macro/detail images. Thanks for the inspiration.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Do any of you try a vertical developing? like standard tank for 4x5 with frames? I guess for 8x10 film it will be a little problem to find such large and thin tank.
I'm sorry if you already discuss this, but this forum too big..

I have done it for 8x10 and now only do it for stand/semi-stand. I prefer tray for conventional development, as very little developer is required.

[koraks]

Dirk, that's an excellent result - and to know that this is an initial attempt, that's really impressive! How did you agitate?

Andrew, how much developer solution do you use and how large is your tray for 8x10? I currently use 200ml in a 11x15" tray, which seems to be just about the minimum. I'm quite curious how you manage to get even development with intermittent agitation!

[Dirk Rösler]

Very nice Dirk, a good choice of subject. In storage I have at least one of every musical instrument back from my music education days...I really should do some macro/detail images. Thanks for the inspiration.

Thank you - you should indeed! And perhaps play it a little while you have it out, it makes a good contrast to taking pictures.


Dirk, that's an excellent result - and to know that this is an initial attempt, that's really impressive! How did you agitate?

Maybe it is beginner's luck, we will see. I agitated sporadically, sort of every 30s like in the 35mm days when doing inversion, but I wasn't looking at the clock really...

[koraks]

Fascinating; how much developer do you use (ml) and what size tray? I want to try and replicate what seems to work for both Andrew and yourself so I'm looking for as detailed information as possible.

[Dirk Rösler]

I used a 10x8 tray and I think 500ml of developer. I think my effective time yesterday was 7-8mins, the dev was colder than I thought.

Today I felt lucky and did another sheet in a Jobo print drum, but this time 1+100 and 12:00. However that neg is far too dense, not sure if it is overexposed or overdeveloped, possibly both. Also it shows marks where the ribs in the drum are and more scratches than the tray.

Is anyone exposing this at other than ISO 100?

[Mkillmer]

Double sided 8x10 Fuji film rotary developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 4:0 minutes
160753

[koraks]

I expose at EI 50 for good shadow detail in Van Dyke prints, but 100 would be fine for scanning and silver gelatin printing.

I find that I usually need to increase my development time when using a jobo processor, contrary to what everyone suggests. I'm not sure why this is; it may be due to developer exhaustion, even though the same 200ml of developer I'd use for tray developing 8x10 xrays results in a much weaker negative when I use that volume in the jobo processor. Haven't really figured out what's going on here.

[Dirk Rösler]

Double sided 8x10 Fuji film rotary developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 4:0 minutes
160753

Great!

[Tin Can]

I expose at EI 50 for good shadow detail in Van Dyke prints, but 100 would be fine for scanning and silver gelatin printing.

I find that I usually need to increase my development time when using a jobo processor, contrary to what everyone suggests. I'm not sure why this is; it may be due to developer exhaustion, even though the same 200ml of developer I'd use for tray developing 8x10 xrays results in a much weaker negative when I use that volume in the jobo processor. Haven't really figured out what's going on here.

Perhaps increased aeration...

[koraks]

I figured that as well; rapid oxidation. The other possibility is less exposure of the film to the developer as most of the time, the film is not in contact with the layer of developer at the bottom of the drum.

[Jim Noel]

200 ml is really minimal for 810. I am a believer in a little too much is better than a little shy. That assures that regardless of subject matter I do not exhaust the developer.

[andrewch59]

160768

This one was taken using a Hunter Penrose camera using a Ross 3A portrait lens 16 inch. Neg was 16.5 x 13.5 inches. Developed in 275ml of solution which required 20ml of RO9 developer. Too big to scan, copy taken with a tablet, isn't she stunning! Best model I could find with my reputation

[andrewch59]

Correction, that should be 2750mil of water to 20ml Ro9

[Wayne]

160768

This one was taken using a Hunter Penrose camera using a Ross 3A portrait lens 16 inch. Neg was 16.5 x 13.5 inches. Developed in 275ml of solution which required 20ml of RO9 developer. Too big to scan, copy taken with a tablet, isn't she stunning! Best model I could find with my reputation

I'm going to have nightmares now...

[andrewch59]

I wont pass that on, she suffers from low self esteem.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Here is a recent image shot on the Carestream single sided stuff. I had my meter set at ISO 25 ( for my Efke 25). I developed it in Rodinal 1:100 for 11 minutes. I develop all of my 8x10 in one gallon tanks. The print is a carbon print and the cell phone shot is of the wet print.

[andrewch59]

160868
here's something else I'm trying, the biggest probs with mottling and streaking seems to be the film sitting on the bottom of the tray, I cut off the hanger on one of my old stand drop holders. It now keeps the reverse side off the bottom of the tray avoiding scratches and spent developer remaining stationary under the film. A lot easier to flip in the tray and move into the other soups.

[MAubrey]

Here is a recent image shot on the Carestream single sided stuff. I had my meter set at ISO 25 ( for my Efke 25). I developed it in Rodinal 1:100 for 11 minutes. I develop all of my 8x10 in one gallon tanks. The print is a carbon print and the cell phone shot is of the wet print.

That looks excellent, Jim.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

That looks excellent, Jim.

Thanks.

Just a reminder for everyone. Most of us are describing what we post with all of the development info etc. Most are saying if it is a print or a scan. Just a reminder please let everyone know if they are showing a print or a scan. I think it helps the group understand how x-ray film can be presented in many ways. Very helpful information I feel.

[koraks]

Jim, great image, I bet it looks great dried and matted! You're right about it being necessary to tell if an image is a negative scan or a print scan (and if so, what kind of print) to interpret the results.

This is a scan from an 8x10" negative with some slight curve adjustments to boost highlight contrast. Green-sensitive generic, double-sided x-ray film, exposed at EI 50 with one stop reciprocity correction (exposure was something like 6 minutes), although this correction was probably unnecessary. Symmar-S 300/5.6 @ f/5.6 in quickly fading light. Developed in the tray I mentioned earlier in Pyrocat HD 1.5+1.5+100 for about 9 minutes, continuous agitation by rocking the tray from side to side and flipping the sheet every four rocking cycles. The scuff marks on the corners are caused by the curved sides of the tray, where the non-stick coating is slightly irregular. I may devise something to hold the sheet in the center of the tray to prevent this, but haven't given it much thought yet.

http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/8x10_archives/TBN1721_XRGPCHD_04.jpg

[andrewch59]

Apologies to you both, will keep my ideas to myself in future.

[koraks]

I don't follow Andrew; was that aimed at Jim and myself? I don't see the need for the apparent despondency and I don't think Jim's remark was specifically aimed at you. It looks like your experiment was quite successful indeed and I have pondered about a similar approach, but I don't have any hangers like those. Did you notice any nu sagging of the film? It looks like 4x5", which would be less prone to sagging. Have you tried this with 8x10?

[Tin Can]

Apologies to you both, will keep my ideas to myself in future.

Please keep your ideas coming. Silence is not a solution.

Is that a pun?

[plaubel]

This is a scan from an 8x10" negative with some slight curve adjustments to boost highlight contrast.

http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/8x10_archives/TBN1721_XRGPCHD_04.jpg

Koraks,

nice to see your bright work :-)

Not the final version, but I want to show it unperfectly:
12x16" green sensitive negative
again my 500mm Helvetia Extra Rapid
contact printed on Fomabrom
slightly digital coloured, because I wanted to get a first idea about sepia toning this print

160907

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Koraks, beautiful image, it looks great. My purpose for the comment was this. Remember we merged two threads about x-ray film. In my original post I was asking to show prints and also discuss your processing. So if you scan that is fine. I just think it is important to show what prints can be made with x-ray film. It gives the viewers an idea of what can be done. I've gotten many ideas from the people who have posted here and have learned quite a bit. I was using Pyrocat-HD but I found that I liked the results from Rodinal as well. The prints that I saw made me try this combination. So by all means tell us all that you do but be sure to let us know your end result. For me it is all about the print. Others a scan, no problem. I just feel that the more we know the more we learn.

[koraks]

Thanks Jim and Plaubel! Plaubel, your previous version of your image inspired me to do mine high key ;)

[Randy]

160868
here's something else I'm trying, the biggest probs with mottling and streaking seems to be the film sitting on the bottom of the tray, I cut off the hanger on one of my old stand drop holders. It now keeps the reverse side off the bottom of the tray avoiding scratches and spent developer remaining stationary under the film. A lot easier to flip in the tray and move into the other soups.

Andrew, I have tried the same thing recently with an 8X10 film hanger - I cut the "hanger" part off so it would fit my trays, though I guess I could have left it alone and used larger trays. Anyway, the ridge pattern on the bottom of my tray affected the even-ness of the development, even though the film was held above the tray bottom. I am going to try it again with a sheet of glass laying in the bottom of the tray, which should eliminate any pattern. Once (if) I am successful I'll post my procedure.

[Dirk Rösler]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/560/32371461790_6422e3780c_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RjycMy)

Effort #2 as referenced earlier, seriously overexposed and overdeveloped x-ray stock with a tone curve from hell - looks like the chemical residue paper from a peel apart Polaroid... anyway, by no means representative, just having some fun with the dense neg.

Kodak Commercial Ektar 14"/f6.3 @f6.3, Rodinal 1+100 12:00 Jobo rotation, Retina MOD Green Xray film (Carestream, Rochester, USA) @ISO 80, Sinar p2

No worries, nicer image #3 to follow shortly, looking very good so far...

[premortho]

I don't know if Kodak has released the formulas for Plus-X and Verchrome, or Verichrome Pan. I heard somewhere they have published them, because they consider film to be a dead issue. Hard to understand that film is a dead issue, when Ilford seems to get along alright making the stuff. Kodak was also "gifted" (a phrase more gentlemanly than 'The Fix is In', but means the same thing) Ansco's recipes after the Gov't seized Ansco as an "Enemy Gov't Property", and then let Kodak have all of their formulas. So, Ansco's Supreme might be very had to get the recipe for. Ansco's D-17 is a great developer that seems to work a little better than Kodak's D-76. More like D-72, but not quite as energetic. Money is always the issue. You have to produce these films to sell at the same price as Ilford or Kodak and make enough of a profit to deal with debt and plant modernisation. I don't know if Kodak has junked all of their equipment and plants yet or not. That would be the cheap way to do it. Do it in Rochester, NY. Where the expertise is.

[koraks]

I don't follow. Film is dead according to Kodak, but they're resurrecting Ektachrome and have been selling a variety of b&w and color stocks for still photography and cinema without interruption. How does the formula for Verichrome emulsions relate to x-ray film? And what's the argument concerning Ansco D-17 exactly; is it supposed to be better for developing x-ray film than something else? Have you tried it? If so, what's your experience?

Don't get me wrong; I'm trying to make sense of your post but I feel like I've missed a crucial bit of information - could you fill me in please?

[SergeiR]

Kodak CSG, 8x10, fresh batch of R09 1:100, rotary 11min.

Scan.

Extra softness comes from prolonged exposure in addition to flash. Played with something ;)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/289/32713075672_56761208d4_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RQK4G5)Corrie (https://flic.kr/p/RQK4G5) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Dirk Rösler]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2162/32124934993_00c1fa0ae2_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/QWLFXx)

a well-crafted cornet made in U.S.A.

Kodak Commercial Ektar 14"/f6.3 @f6.3, Rodinal 1+100 6:30 Jobo print drum, Retina MOD Green Xray film (Carestream, Rochester, USA) @ISO 80, Sinar p2

Quite some streaking from the ribs of the drum, also the film seems overexposed, I can probably go to EI 160 or 200. Also the dilution 1+100 is still quite contrasty in rotary processing, but the liquid volume will just become too much with higher dilution... let's see.

[andrewch59]

Andrew, I have tried the same thing recently with an 8X10 film hanger - I cut the "hanger" part off so it would fit my trays, though I guess I could have left it alone and used larger trays. Anyway, the ridge pattern on the bottom of my tray affected the even-ness of the development, even though the film was held above the tray bottom. I am going to try it again with a sheet of glass laying in the bottom of the tray, which should eliminate any pattern. Once (if) I am successful I'll post my procedure.
Randy I had the same problem, but put it down to me and my robust technique at the time, as the test was to see if I could avoid scratches and mottling. I kinda gathered I could remove those same marks by using a circular motion instead of just the lapping back and forth I did for the test. I guess part of the aim is to cut down on developer soup as well, I only used 275ml of soup for that, which equated to 2ml (how good is that!) of developer. With that little mix it expires pretty quickly and I wanted the spent developer to be washed away pretty quickly, which the frame achieves.

[senderoaburrido]

So I was looking at the graph for EB/RA film (http://www.spectrumxray.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/4-4_Ektascan-B.pdf) and I noticed that it only lines up roughly with the graph for Wratten 44a (http://www.newportglass.com/kodak/kod44A.gif). I'm going to see if I can find another cyan or blue filter that more closely matches its sensitivity in transmission. Shout out to Andrew (I think), who recommended trying the yellow filter. I've been using it and it makes a hell of a difference.

Also, here's my latest stuff from Toronto: 161310161311

Both are f/11 with flash and 90mm lens.



Double sided 8x10 Fuji film rotary developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 4:0 minutes
160753

This looks fantastic! I very much like this portrait.

[Luke79]

Kodak T-Mat 100 12x16
hektor 300mm
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170218/pyzidrjf.jpg

[SergeiR]

nice one, Luke

[andrewch59]

Randy I had the same problem, but put it down to me and my robust technique at the time, as the test was to see if I could avoid scratches and mottling. I kinda gathered I could remove those same marks by using a circular motion instead of just the lapping back and forth I did for the test. I guess part of the aim is to cut down on developer soup as well, I only used 275ml of soup for that, which equated to 2ml (how good is that!) of developer. With that little mix it expires pretty quickly and I wanted the spent developer to be washed away pretty quickly, which the frame achieves.
After pondering for a while, I noticed the hinged side of the holder which folds over to secure the negative, has no holes in it. This of course forces the developer to be more active as it laps back off this solid surface. I cut slits in the metal to allow the soup to flow through. No more dark developer marks.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Dirk, that's an excellent result - and to know that this is an initial attempt, that's really impressive! How did you agitate?

Andrew, how much developer solution do you use and how large is your tray for 8x10? I currently use 200ml in a 11x15" tray, which seems to be just about the minimum. I'm quite curious how you manage to get even development with intermittent agitation!

For stand/semi-stand, I don't use trays. Instead, I use hanger and tank. Standard development is in trays. 500ml of working solution (Pyrocat-HD) in a flat-bottomed, 8x10 tray. Agitation is one tray lift, north/south, east/west, every 30 seconds. I have also extended this to every minute.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Not a big fan of Kodak Ektalure B/RA, but it seems to work okay here. It was mainly an experiment to see how well it would handle semi-stand development. Scan.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2561/32211842163_e89df1bd50_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/R5s7r2)Coquitlam River (https://flic.kr/p/R5s7r2) by Andrew O'Neill (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62974341@N02/), on Flickr

[Leszek Vogt]

Love the quietness in this image, Andrew. After playing with it a bit, I realized that I prefer to view it at 5x8 from the bottom. Yeah, good thing we all are not driving a Pinto, eh ?

Les

[Andrew O'Neill]

My friend had a Pinto in high school in '78. I stopped riding in it when I heard about it being a bomb on 4 wheels.

[andrewch59]

Love it Andrew, quiet solitude.

[Mkillmer]

Great picture, Luke. How do you process?

[Luke79]

Thank you guys ,

it was processed in a big tube , with rodinal 1:150 , constant rotation , 6 min , 20*

[OeT]

I just shot my first X-rays this weekend and the negatives came out very dense and hard to scan.
The details looks properly exposed, mayby something went wrong when I developed them?

I used CEA green X-ray film and tray developed in 1:100 R09 for 12 minutes.
Any advice?

[koraks]

That development regime will yield quite dense negatives. They should be about right for Van Dyke.

[Randy]

...very dense and hard to scan...The details looks properly exposed...I am confused by your description of the processed negatives. Do you think you over exposed, over developed, or both? Can you share the lighting conditions, the ISO you used?
Personally, I shoot CSX Green @ ISO 50 and process in Rodinal 1:200 for 6 minutes (in trays). Not sure how that compares to your ISO and developer.

[OeT]

I used ISO 100.
Maybe I overdeveloped since you used half the time and twice the dilution.
I took a photo of the negative with my phone

http://i.imgur.com/SX8Y2Sl.jpg

Does it look alright?
Might it be the filmbase that adds to the darkness?

[koraks]

If it's overdeveloped, depends more on the way you'd like to print this. It looks pretty much on the money for Van Dyke brown, but quite hard for silver gelatin. You may want to check the edges of the film to see if you have fogging and/or uneven development along the edges; I can't tell from the photo, it may be just fine.

[OeT]

I was going to make salt and albumen prints but might give Van Dyke brown a try to.
The problem might be my old HP G4050 scanner, the preview scans look ok but "real" scan gets all blown out.
I did a couple now that came out ok but I had to pull the sliders in scanner software for highlights, shadows and gamma all the way down as far as they went and then adjust even more in Photoshop.

http://i.imgur.com/HiZOLq5.png

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

Uneven developing on the first one?
Don't mind the lines it's the scanners fault to.

[koraks]

Yeah, not all scanners will be able to deal with these high-density negatives. I can't complain with my aging Epson 4990; it does quite fine even with the densest negatives I have produced so far. It helps that the Epson software allows to adjust the curves quite well.

Going by how your negatives look, you may just be in the ballpark for albumen printing, although you'd be surprised at how insanely long-scaled negatives need to be for this process and salt printing. Van Dyke requires a bit shorter curve so if you get too much contrast in a Van Dyke brown print, you're at least close for salt printing and albumen.

Both your images in the post above look like they suffer from very uneven development, unless this is also caused by the scanner, but that seems not entirely plausible. I know that some get away with intermittent agitation as with regular film, but I haven't been able to get even development that way. For me, the only way to get even development is by using a large tray (at least one size larger than the film used), frequent flipping of the negative so both sides receive equal development and constant but gentle agitation. Your mileage will vary.

[OeT]

I did use large trays and constant agitation but I didn't flip the negative.
If I remove the backside emulsion might that help a bit?

I tried a saltprint for about 15 minutes but that was probably way too short.

[koraks]

Yeah, you could also consider using only one side of the film and stripping the other side. I personally don't like that approach; it's an extra step, it's messy, the edges of the film never look nice to me and there's the risk of bleach seeping to the image side, partly ruining the image. You would also need to increase development time or concentration significantly to get usable negatives for your purposes. I've done the stripping act a few times and it does work, but I just don't like it.

Developing without flipping the sheet doesn't work for me (I think Andrew O'Neill pointed out it works just fine for him though); the developer has easier access to the underside of the film along the edges than it does towards the center, causing gross unevenness. If you find a way to suspend or float the film in the developer, this shouldn't necessarily happen, but I haven't yet found a way to do this personally.

[mdarnton]

I do all of my scanning with the 4050, so the scanner isn't the problem--mine does quite a good job. Maybe you could hold a neg up, in a room or outside for surrounding context, and shoot a picture of that to post. That way we could see what you have to deal with. My negs look more dense than I am used to, but not unreasonably so.

[Randy]

Does it look alright?I think the negative image looks about right, as far as density goes. And the tree growing out of her head looks about right also (sorry, couldn't resist :) That old train bridge is fantastic - where was that taken?

[Rick A]

B&J Commercial View 5x7/Ilex 90/8
MXR xray film 1/8 sec @f16, (ISO 50)
Rodinal 1+100-8 mins

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2061/32672465220_e14f88ffe5_z_d.jpg

[senderoaburrido]

Anyone have any tips for using EB/RA Carestream at night? I'm curious if reciprocity failure occurs at 1m+ exposures for such slow film.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I cannot speak for EB/RA, but the Green Latitude stuff I use has brutal reciprocity characteristics. At night though, it probably doesn't matter. Just go out and shoot.

OeT... your negatives look fine. You won't know for sure until you print them. Don't go the emulsion stripping route. Negative density range will be cut in half, and tones look weak, and grainy, in my experience.

[OeT]

It is a nice old bridge that isn't used any more
It's located in Sweden in small town called Mjölby

[OeT]

Thank you all seems I'm not that far off then
I will go back and take some more pictures with the same setteings and develop in different times and dilutionand see what works best

Just buoght myself a couple of old time heavy duty paper guillotines which makes cutting the film a breeze

http://i.imgur.com/8xcSxsl.jpg

Two strips of tape to line up the sides of the film and then just cut no need to measure and done in a second.

[andrewch59]

It is a nice old bridge that isn't used any more
It's located in Sweden in small town called Mjölby
I keep going back to that first bridge shot, fabulous photo, its a shame about the mottling, would have been a great wall hanger. I imagine it would have made a great carbon transfer print too

[koraks]

OeT, that image reminds me from the early Pink Floyd song title. You know the one: "Careful with that axe, Eugene". Cutting nails and fingers sounds like a breeze as well with those, particularly with the absence of effective protection.

[senderoaburrido]

162135

Finally got a decent pic using the old Nikon speedlight. Still a little underexposed.

[stawastawa]

Hence why I would recommend using a rotary trimmer version rather than the ol chopping block.


OeT, that image reminds me from the early Pink Floyd song title. You know the one: "Careful with that axe, Eugene". Cutting nails and fingers sounds like a breeze as well with those, particularly with the absence of effective protection.

either way scratching can be an issue. anyone have any tips for preventing scratches on the negative while cutting?

[seezee]

Hence why I would recommend using a rotary trimmer version rather than the ol chopping block.



either way scratching can be an issue. anyone have any tips for preventing scratches on the negative while cutting?

I lay a dry, lintless cloth under my guillotine cutter, extending well past the blade side, so the cutoffs fall on it. Wear either cotton antistatic gloves or nitrile exam gloves. Keep the cutter base clean and free of grit. Avoid excessive sliding when handling or positioning for a cut.

[seezee]

Since the question of ISO/EI has appeared numerous times in this discussion throughout the years, I thought I'd chime in on my experience with Carestream HSB (CSHB). Shooting under Paul C. Buff Einsteins (~5600K), I'm rating this film at EI 25. This assumes my normal development regime, which is ~60 minutes semi-stand in Pyrocat-HD using a daylight tank (HP CombiPlan).

I plan to do some outdoor tests soon & will report back once I do.

[seezee]

It's more expensive than Carestream or Fuji, but in case anyone is interested, Amazon has Agfa Radiomat (https://www.amazon.com/AGFA-RADIOMAT-PCHB0810-X-Ray-Sensitive/dp/B00PCCRVB2/ref=sr_1_2?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1488822325&sr=1-2&keywords=agfa+radiomat) now.

[senderoaburrido]

It's more expensive than Carestream or Fuji, but in case anyone is interested, Amazon has Agfa Radiomat (https://www.amazon.com/AGFA-RADIOMAT-PCHB0810-X-Ray-Sensitive/dp/B00PCCRVB2/ref=sr_1_2?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1488822325&sr=1-2&keywords=agfa+radiomat) now.

Is it double-sided emulsion? Anything unique about it?

[seezee]

Is it double-sided emulsion? Anything unique about it?

Amazon has Radiomat Duplicating, which is 1 sided with anti-halation backing, but the bulk of their offerings are double sided. I have not used any Agfa x-ray, and can't really comment on quality.

[andrewch59]

I have experienced a problem with xray I have not had before. Firstly, I took some xray pics (normal green Agfa at iso 80) of my exhibition setting up. I used a new to me Schneider super angulon 90mm f5.6, 8 second exposure at f22, as the gallery only had led lighting and dimly lit except on the photos.
I went back to my darkroom to develop the first couple, did everything the same and noticed some white specs all over the pic when zooming in. Salt and pepper like, but only problem with white specs. As I use old plastic milk containers I thought perhaps the soup was contaminated with milk residue.
I went back opening night and took a couple more pics, when developing this time I used everything new, including using demineralized water for the developer mixture. The only thing I did different was to use a stop bath. Any ideas on what has caused this? The pics turned out great using the lens, but a bit of a let down zooming in.

[Randy]

Andrew, was this a new box of film or was it an opened box of film you had already used?

I purchased a box of 8X10 green sensitive x-ray film (ebay) several years ago and I probably let it sit for 6-8 months before finally opening it and shot some pics. What I got was tiny circular dots all over each sheet after processing (visible only with a loupe). I figured surely it was my processing but it turned out to be defective film. I even ran tests taking sheets from the center of the stack just to make sure it was not just the end sheets and used fresh everything (chems). Nope, the entire 100 sheet box had what I can only describe as contaminated emulsion.

Mine were tiny dots of increased density in the neg, which translated to small light dots in the prints / scans.

[andrewch59]

Hi Randy, I have been using this box for a while now, so I don't suspect the film at the moment. The dots are not uniform as such, but they have saturated the shot, which makes me think of contamination. A second hand Paterson paper washer was my first thought, but the film get a good rinse under the tap afterward, the only other thing I have done differently is use a stop bath (after reading Ansel Adams "the negative"). The beauty of large format is the resolution, now all I see is snow!

[Randy]

Perplexing Andrew - I guess you just have to eliminate the possible causes. Start with the stop bath...? I don't use stop - have been processing my own film for many years and haven't used stop since the 80's probably, for any of it, 35mm, 120, large format, X-ray...

[koraks]

A strong stop bath may cause pinholes in the emulsion. I've had this happen with x-ray film as well (at least that's my working hypothesis). X-ray film emulsion is very soft and it damages easily. It makes sense to me that hitting the alkaline-soaked emulsion with a strong acid can cause carbon dioxide bubbles within the emulsion, blowing tiny holes in it. If you insist on using a stop bath, try diluting it to 50% or even 25% of its recommended strength - or be like Randy and don't bother with it at all.

[andrewch59]

Thanks Koraks, I have only used a stop bath on two occasions, both being somewhat important to me, should have stuck with my old regime. Its a good opportunity to see if a stop bath is actually detrimental to xray film. Will shoot another in the next few days and let you know if that was the fault.

[seezee]

A strong stop bath may cause pinholes in the emulsion. I've had this happen with x-ray film as well (at least that's my working hypothesis). X-ray film emulsion is very soft and it damages easily. It makes sense to me that hitting the alkaline-soaked emulsion with a strong acid can cause carbon dioxide bubbles within the emulsion, blowing tiny holes in it. If you insist on using a stop bath, try diluting it to 50% or even 25% of its recommended strength - or be like Randy and don't bother with it at all.

Or use a plain water stop bath.

[koraks]

Yup, that's what I do most of the time to limit carry-over of the developer into the fixer. Works fine with xray film.

[andrewch59]

A strong stop bath may cause pinholes in the emulsion. I've had this happen with x-ray film as well (at least that's my working hypothesis). X-ray film emulsion is very soft and it damages easily. It makes sense to me that hitting the alkaline-soaked emulsion with a strong acid can cause carbon dioxide bubbles within the emulsion, blowing tiny holes in it. If you insist on using a stop bath, try diluting it to 50% or even 25% of its recommended strength - or be like Randy and don't bother with it at all.
No wasn't the stop bath, oxidized fixer? contamination from the around the lid thread?

[koraks]

So to get it straight, are these dark specks in the negative or clear ones? If they're dark on the negative (white on the positive), it could be debris. But that usually leaves quite uneven patterns; what does it look like? Can you post a scan or photo?

[andrewch59]

They are both light and dark depending on background, so I don't think it is the film, as they are not uniform, yes I think they are contamination. I have used RO9 and Rodinol and get the same result, so my guess is it is the fixer oxidizing. Will check today with a different fixer.
When I saw the oxidizing on the bottle neck I did filter the fixer through a coffee filter.
Have tried to post a pic for the last week but internet speed is poor at the present.

[koraks]

They are both light and dark depending on background
This suggests you have (at least) two different problems.

I'm not sure what you mean by the fixer oxidizing, but generally, when fixer decomposes, the thiosulfate is broken down into elemental sulfur, rendering it ineffective, but it doesn't cause specks in my experience. Crud, dust and to a lesser extent iron contamination of the developer can cause issues though.

[andrewch59]

162716
finally managed to get an upload in, this is a cropped part of the pic, about a tenth of the 4x5. You can see the snow on the ceiling of the gallery, but it covers the whole pic.

[koraks]

That looks like an interesting exhibition, I wish I could see it in person!

The picture isn't very conclusive; what I see looks mostly like grain. Are you sure it's not just the grain of the film that you're running into? I find x-ray film isn't particularly fine-grained for its speed. Another possibility is reticulation, which could occur if there are quite large temperature differences between the processing chemicals. A notorious example is developing at 20C and then using a stop/rinse at a much lower temperature. However, I can't be sure as I haven't had any films reticulate yet in my darkroom despite my habit of washing film with unheated tap water (around 10-12C during colder spells in winters).

[andrewch59]

Hi Koraks, no I don't think it is grain, although it covers the whole pic it is not uniform. I will have to try rotation again, it was giving me great contrasty results, the only prob was the constant threat of scratches. I have a close gallery next week for an important visitor and don't want to ruin my one chance at a good pic. May have to do some practice shots through the week. Yes I have 17 pics on display, all done with xray negs. 30 or so large format cameras, magic lanterns and the three in the pic are two hunter penrose and one deardorff studio.

[andrewch59]

162770
Heres a rotary negative I did today, same dev, same fixer. Contamination must be coming from my second hand print washer.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Agfa HDR film, cut down to 13x18cm.
Super Angulon 90mm at f64 and 1"
Rodinal 1+100 at 22C for 8min in glass plated 10x12" tray.
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3673/33193487090_818998d3dd_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Szcigy)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/Szcigy)

[andrewch59]

Thodoris not much in the way of feedback coming your way, so I'll say it a pretty damn good shot for xray. I love my new to me super angulon 90mm too. Its a pretty adaptable lens, from landscapes to architecture to studio stills.

[Thalmees]

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

Lovely every thing OeT.
Good idea this photo brought to my mind.
Wish I can see 100% crop.
Thanks for sharing.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Thanks Andrew.
I like the SA 90 too.
Bought it for 4x5" a while back, but recently realized that it actually covers 13x18cm.
This is the first picture I shot with it in this format.
Will try it out some more before making up my mind.
The f8 doesn't help much though, especially when you move off center on the ground glass.

[Fr. Mark]

Thodoris, I was pleased to learn that SA90 covers 5x7 with maybe tiny room for movements, maybe more at f64, I can't see anything on the ground glass at f64... The landscape reminds me of some I've seen in central Texas. Do you know what kind of tree it is?

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Thodoris, I was pleased to learn that SA90 covers 5x7 with maybe tiny room for movements, maybe more at f64, I can't see anything on the ground glass at f64... The landscape reminds me of some I've seen in central Texas. Do you know what kind of tree it is?

It's a large olive tree.
The perspective (point of view plus very wide, for the format, lens) is what threw you off.
And yes, looking at the gg at f64 it's almost impossible to tell whether the shutter is open or close.

[andrewch59]

Thanks Andrew.
I like the SA 90 too.
Bought it for 4x5" a while back, but recently realized that it actually covers 13x18cm.
This is the first picture I shot with it in this format.
Will try it out some more before making up my mind.
The f8 doesn't help much though, especially when you move off center on the ground glass.
Yes I had the same prob, so I bought a 5.6 really cheap, and added a Fresnel to my Shen Hao, I have a torch in my kit just in case, I can then focus on the lit area. I don't know about f64 though, I don't go much past f22 which I believe this lens is optimized for. You would suffer from diffraction at f64 I would think.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Yes I had the same prob, so I bought a 5.6 really cheap, and added a Fresnel to my Shen Hao, I have a torch in my kit just in case, I can then focus on the lit area. I don't know about f64 though, I don't go much past f22 which I believe this lens is optimized for. You would suffer from diffraction at f64 I would think.

I used to have a mini maglite on my keys up until cell phones started having the flashlight function.
It's one of the main features I look for whenever I buy a new phone these days.
(From help in focusing, to shining the light in just the right angle on the still wet negative on the wire for a sneak peek of the picture it holds.)

Also,

Wild Thyme #2017-03-13_01

18x24cm Agfa HDR xray film.
Symmar 240mm at f32 and 3'min
Rodinal 1+100 at 22C for 8min in glass plated 10x12" tray.
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2882/32894610494_9e8041e075_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/S7MtEN)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/S7MtEN)

[Fr. Mark]

That's really neat looking.

[senderoaburrido]

So my UV experiment worked! Took 7 stops compensation but I managed full coverage on 4x5, EB/RA. Was my first time tray developing in like six months, though, and I screwed it up.

I've been using Ansel Adams' recommended technique for tray developing, with the six shot stack that you cycle. Lights off, so that wouldn't explain the imprints of the negatives on eachother. Any suggestions?

I'll post prints when I nail the focus compensation. Currently I'm way off. Hard to tell whether I overcompensating outwards or I'm still focused too close. Will need to wait for clear skies to try anything. Haven't seen direct sunlight since a week ago.

With an extra 7 stops' worth duration, I was still only needing 1 second at f/11 in clear sky midday light. At f/5.6 I might be able to do some portraits. Very exciting.

[koraks]

I'm looking forward to seeing the final outcome; an interesting experiment for sure!

I think the stack shuffle approach won't work reliably with xray film, particularly the double sided film. It's too delicate and I fear that scratches are inevitable. The double sided nature (assuming you used this) could also account for the imprint of one negative on another due to local developer exhaustion - although that should leave a negative impression of one negative on another.

[senderoaburrido]

I'm looking forward to seeing the final outcome; an interesting experiment for sure!

I think the stack shuffle approach won't work reliably with xray film, particularly the double sided film. It's too delicate and I fear that scratches are inevitable. The double sided nature (assuming you used this) could also account for the imprint of one negative on another due to local developer exhaustion - although that should leave a negative impression of one negative on another.

EB/RA is single sided, so any double-sided emulsion issues wouldn't be applicable here. To more accurately describe the issue: outlines of the edges of the negatives above appear on each negative, so you see corners and rectangular imprints. No image is transferred because there is no safelight on. I developed in the pitch black. All emulsion was facing upwards, as Ansel recommends. I'm really not sure how I'm screwing this up when I'm following his instructions carefully from "The Negative".

I've had this problem before, and it was part of what made me start dong rotary development with X-ray in a Jobo tank instead. That being said, I've also experienced issues with blotchy development in the Jobo tank too. X-ray can be quite finicky in development.

[koraks]

I'm sorry, I missed the bit where you specified the film.

I've had issues similar to what you describe, but these were due to an unsafe safelight. Fixing that made this issue go away for me. I've also not experienced any uneven development in the jobo, but this is with double sided film cut back tot 4x5 and developed on a 2509 reel and the jobo (cpe2) set to its slow rotation speed.

[senderoaburrido]

I'm sorry, I missed the bit where you specified the film.

I've had issues similar to what you describe, but these were due to an unsafe safelight. Fixing that made this issue go away for me. I've also not experienced any uneven development in the jobo, but this is with double sided film cut back tot 4x5 and developed on a 2509 reel and the jobo (cpe2) set to its slow rotation speed.

Y'see I don't have a Jobo machine, I've only got the tank. I'm wondering if my rotor machine is just not spinning it evenly. I have to prop up the tank in just the right way for it to not fall off. I'm thinking that this might be the case.

I happened to win the bid on a CPA2, so we'll see soon enough whether it is the case. Can't wait to finally home dev.

I took more 4x5 UV today. Pictures of a family member who volunteered. Eager to see how it comes out. The best thing about the Canham DLC is that the rail is metered. Noted each bellows extension tested, so I can narrow it down next time.

[alanbutler57]

First X-Ray play, getting ready for civil war re-enactments

Carestream Clinicselect Half Speed Blue per pkg. 20.3 x 25.4cm
Trimmed to 200 by 250mm before quartering with rotary paper cutter
Shot at mid day in open shade, Graflex Super D, Gundlach Petzval (9" I think), Grafmatic holder,F5.6,
Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 Jobo processor with reels for 6 minutes after 5 minute pre soack @70F
Used latex glove when handling wet negatives (no other time). I got in a hurry so there is a water drop on one of them.
Cut film, loaded Grafmatic, and Jobo Reel with this flashlight (high setting) directed into a corner of the walk in closet affixed to the rail with mount below:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00W5PCTPW/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B016XLKCM0/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Scanned on Epson V750 with Silverlight in stock negative holder
Downsized in PS via Bicubic for Reduction

First image, eyes camera right
25 ISO (1/30th sec)
Scanner: exposure adjustment nil
Mid Tone: +22
Contrast: -34

Second image, eyes camera left
25 ISO (1/60th) (Therefore ISO 50)
Scanner: exposure +1.5
Mid Tone +33 (max)
Contrast: -50 (min)

A third exposure at 1/125 (ISO 100) was not salvageable.

I'd appreciate similar information on the full speed blue!

I'll be working with full speed green I bought when I have a chance.

Thanks

[seezee]

First X-Ray play, getting ready for civil war re-enactments

Carestream Clinicselect Half Speed Blue per pkg. 20.3 x 25.4cm
Trimmed to 200 by 250mm before quartering with rotary paper cutter
Shot at mid day in open shade, Graflex Super D, Gundlach Petzval (9" I think), Grafmatic holder,F5.6,
Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 Jobo processor with reels for 6 minutes after 5 minute pre soack @70F
Used latex glove when handling wet negatives (no other time). I got in a hurry so there is a water drop on one of them.
Cut film, loaded Grafmatic, and Jobo Reel with this flashlight (high setting) directed into a corner of the walk in closet affixed to the rail with mount below:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00W5PCTPW/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B016XLKCM0/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Scanned on Epson V750 with Silverlight in stock negative holder
Downsized in PS via Bicubic for Reduction

First image, eyes camera right
25 ISO (1/30th sec)
Scanner: exposure adjustment nil
Mid Tone: +22
Contrast: -34

Second image, eyes camera left
25 ISO (1/60th) (Therefore ISO 50)
Scanner: exposure +1.5
Mid Tone +33 (max)
Contrast: -50 (min)

A third exposure at 1/125 (ISO 100) was not salvageable.

I'd appreciate similar information on the full speed blue!

I'll be working with full speed green I bought when I have a chance.

Thanks

Thanks, Alan. This confirms my metering with the same film, shot under Paul C. Buff Einsteins with a nominal 5600K (±50K) color at ~1/25th second. I get about a stop more speed from Carestream (Kodak) Ektascan. I used a Sekonic L‑308S in flash mode to arrive at this exposure.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

That's really neat looking.

Thanks.
It was my first attempt to do 1:1 macro with 8x10" (18x24cm).
There is a learning curve, that I'm just starting to climb.
When shooting landscapes, adding some tilt (refocus-repeat), is pretty much all I need.
Rather intuitive.
Managing depth of field on 3D objects on 1:1 scale of reproduction seems to be more math than anything else.
Will get there, hopefully.

It was also the first try out of my new daylight "studio". A tiny space that I converted for macro/portrait work. Had never used one, and I'm quite pleased with the quality of light I'm getting.
Here is the setup, and how the negative looked in the washer (low quality cell phone pics shot for instagram):

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2826/33723271241_bd75c24041_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/To1zD4)[/url] (https://flic.kr/p/To1zD4)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2948/33468324830_3b9fa2424a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/SZtUXh)[url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/SZtUXh)

[alanbutler57]

A green full speed shot with Speed Graphic in full sun, rated 100 ISO, Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 12 min @70 jobo, vignetted with Topaz B&W plug in, second also toned with Topaz (scanned as rgb image with Epson V750).

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2838/33707701712_71cb35c843_b.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3844/33734570741_19c5aff39c_b.jpg

[senderoaburrido]

163691
163692

Here's the UV, with whatever the hell the dev issue I'm having is.

[Andrew O'Neill]

UV? Do explain. You may want to try developing one sheet alone to see if that eliminates the issue.

[koraks]

Fascinating effect, those uv exposures. Some experimentation may lead to usable results.

The development issue looks like insufficient and uneven agitation to me. How do you develop the film? In any case, try a more vigorous agitation and if this film is double sided, make sure that both sides receive a constant supply of fresh developer.

[alanbutler57]

I posted a couple in the image sharing thread from this weekend's re-enactment shot on blue x-ray film. But this one looks too modern to me.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2872/33947318825_7cfb18739b_c.jpg

Graflex Super D, Gundlach Petzval, half speed Blue X-ray film @ 25, Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 jobo 6 min.
Pleasant Hill, LA 2017

[Jim Noel]

Fascinating effect, those uv exposures. Some experimentation may lead to usable results.

The development issue looks like insufficient and uneven agitation to me. How do you develop the film? In any case, try a more vigorous agitation and if this film is double sided, make sure that both sides receive a constant supply of fresh developer.

I fully agree.

[Fr. Mark]

The modernity look of the re-enactors might be other factors: re-enactors too old, not starved enough looking to be soldiers, glasses too modern. Taking lens too modern a design? And, maybe the spectral sensitivity of the Blue film is too far into the green to look like wet plate.

[senderoaburrido]

Fascinating effect, those uv exposures. Some experimentation may lead to usable results.

The development issue looks like insufficient and uneven agitation to me. How do you develop the film? In any case, try a more vigorous agitation and if this film is double sided, make sure that both sides receive a constant supply of fresh developer.

I'm using a Jobo tank with 4509n reel. I've used it with and without the fins. While going without them seems to make this effect worse, it still occurs when I use them. It's always rotary dev on a Cibachrome roller. The weirdest thing is that I do not get this uneven development on the normal film I've developed in the tank. I've done Fomapan 100 with it and never had any issues like this.

[koraks]

Xray is a lot more sensitive to uneven development, I find. I had grossly uneven development with the same reel on a Jobo CPE2 when I set it to its faster rotation speed. The lower speed (about 30rpm I think) works fine. Maybe your roller base is a little fast? Btw, I don't use any fins in this tank any and get even development now, so it's probably not necessary.

[senderoaburrido]

Hm! That I had not thought of. Rotation may be too fast. It's a cheap rotor, so I don't think I can change speeds. Maybe I'll just try standing dev. Not sure how suited the tanks are for it.

[koraks]

Stand development sounds like a pretty sure fire way to get even more uneven development with this film, but you don't know until you've tried it! I'll keep following your experiments with great interest.

[andrewch59]

163743
Green xray film, ISO 80
90mm Super Angulon f22, 6 sec
Developed R09 by rotary 12 minutes

I have been using the graphmatic 6 sheet film holder and noticed a dramatic reduction in scratches, much easier to carry too

[seezee]

Hm! That I had not thought of. Rotation may be too fast. It's a cheap rotor, so I don't think I can change speeds. Maybe I'll just try standing dev. Not sure how suited the tanks are for it.

I have done only stand development in Pyrocat-HD with x-ray film (Ektascan & CSHB), and, while I had uneven development on my 1st attempts (due to my own inexperience), all of my negatives since then have been evenly developed.

[senderoaburrido]

I have done only stand development in Pyrocat-HD with x-ray film (Ektascan & CSHB), and, while I had uneven development on my 1st attempts (due to my own inexperience), all of my negatives since then have been evenly developed.

What did you change? It would be nice to avoid those mistakes.

[koraks]

I'm suprised at that, seezee! But it's reassuring to hear.

[alanbutler57]

163743
Green xray film, ISO 80
90mm Super Angulon f22, 6 sec
Developed R09 by rotary 12 minutes

I have been using the graphmatic 6 sheet film holder and noticed a dramatic reduction in scratches, much easier to carry too


Gorgeous shot!

I've used the Grafmatics exclusively for a few years now, only started using X-ray film though. I loaded both Grafmatics and standard carriers with X-ray for last weeks' reenactment and certainly can see why pinching film into and out of a Grafmatic septum is less prone to scratches. A word of caution though. When loading the Grafmatics I noticed some of my cut films were slightly undersized and easily slid out of the septa. So I make it a point when using the Grafmatic vertically to operate the slide from the bottom rather than the top. My fear is the film sliding out and jamming.

I pinched the film into the standard carriers as well, but then used another sheet of film, corner first, under the film being unloaded, not sure if it helped, only had a few scratches over all.

Since the biggest issue appears to be scratching when wet, maybe using Pyrocat HD that hardens the emulsion helped me out.

[alanbutler57]

This one was over exposed by a stop and a half to two stops, turned to shoot quickly and didn't adjust the aperture. Despite the massive light leak it's still possible to get a usable image from this film with Silverfast and the Epson 750 with this much over exposure. I don't think it's as forgiving on the under exposure side though.

Graflex Super D, Gundlach Petzval, half speed Blue X-ray film @ 25, Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 jobo 6 min.
Pleasant Hill, LA 2017

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2911/33149594163_af10f9ac19_b.jpg

[koraks]

Re scratching: I've never had any issues with xray film scratching when dry, but all the more so when wet. I use standard holders and that works fine, but you may want to sand down the sharp edge on the bottom lid (the one that hinges on the holder itself) as that is the only part that I've once suspected of scratching dry film in my personal experience.
I virtually only develop xray film in pyrocat and alas, it seems to scratch as readily as with the rodinal I used before.

[andrewch59]

It seems to be the dark slide itself that is scratching my film, If they are old and slightly bowed they do damage, I keep meaning to sand the edges to rid them of burrs. I use silicone baking paper in the doubles to avoid contact with the hinged flap, but still get a few scratches. Alan thankyou, I like your shot, it looks of the era. I don't mind a bit of overexposure, scanning and adjusting gives a bit more shadow detail, underexposing you don't have the detail to start with. I recently acquired an old "Amato" stand dev tank, only holds three sheets, but worked really well and no scratches, and of course my modified mod 54 works well.

[HoodedOne]

Steam engine at the old leather factory.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2841/33592399330_149302100a_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/TbrPYN)LF-2017-003.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/TbrPYN) by Hans Spieringhs (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hoodedone-photos/), on Flickr

Camera: ONDU 8x10 pinhole with yellow/green filter
Film: Fuji HR-T (e.i. 100)
Exposure: 16m40s
Development: R09 1+50 6min.

Overview of the complete engine (6x17 pinhole)
https://flic.kr/p/yWPYCh

[koraks]

Excellent capture, Hans; I saw it elsewhere, but it remains inpressive, really nicely done!
At what grade would this print on variable contrast paper, do you reckon?

[andrewch59]

Nice! Just managed to hold back that light from the window, great shot!

[HoodedOne]

Excellent capture, Hans; I saw it elsewhere, but it remains inpressive, really nicely done!
At what grade would this print on variable contrast paper, do you reckon?

!!!!!!!!
How should I know.

I'll probably use this negative for some cyanotypes, when the weather is good enough. 😁

[koraks]

Well, it would make a nice contact print on VC paper as well ;) I'm asking because it helps others (and myself) to understand what the DR is of a negative exposed and processed this way.
It'll make a gorgeous cyanotype I'm sure; if it prints just eight for that process, you have effectively answered my question ;)

Btw, if the sun keeps hiding for too long, feel free to drop by to use my exposure box!