Use of X-ray film: technical discussion with example images [Archive] - Page 2

Andrew O'Neill

8-May-2010, 15:01

sanking

8-May-2010, 16:28

It's sharp enough for contact printing. Yes, it's due to emulsion on both sides. My carbon prints look very nice. I've never tried to enlarge with it and I don't entend to.
I don't understand how a formalin pre-soak would work as a hardener. Wouldn't the film have to be dried first so that the formalin can "harden" the emulsion?

Also, placing a sheet of glass in the developer tray is a good idea, but my trays are flat bottomed and smooth, so not necessary. The key is to use minimal, gentle agitation. I tried the ziplock bag method, and it worked very well.

I was thinking that if you could run the film in the formalin pre-soak before processing it would make it easier to handle the film without scratches. But it might not work as the formalin could render the emulsion useless so I just wondering if anyone had actually tried a pre-soak. Maybe this has already been answered but the thread is very long.

Sandy

Jason Greenberg Motamedi

8-May-2010, 19:30

As I understand it, the formalin presoak is primarily for "tropical" or high temperature development, and prevents the emulsion from swelling. I have no idea if this would help with xray film.

Regarding the (lack of) sharpness, only on rare occasions do I see the sort of bleeding highlights I would expect from the second emulsion causing halation. Rather the emulsion (for lack of a better adjective) seems thin--lacking body and depth--which often means that the "razor" sharp edges are absent. Of course, this is largely irrelevant with most alt processes. I do notice however that when I use studio strobes or in contrasty and directional outdoor light, the film is notably sharper than when I with diffuse light.

Andrew O'Neill

8-May-2010, 19:51

And I imagine the type of light used in the exposure system would have an effect on sharpness. A point source system like halogen perhaps would be slighty sharper than a a bank of uv flourescent tubes.

Andrew O'Neill

9-May-2010, 18:09

Today I developed a sheet of x-ray film in a zip lock bag but this time I inflated the bag with air after I poured in 2 litres of developer. It was then placed in an 11x14, flat-bottomed tray. Why did I inflate the bag? This way the top side of the bag won't touch the film and makes agitation a lot easier. Because I blew in air from my mouth, the temperature of developer after development rose from 20C to 21C. I now know that I am full of hot air...
A bit of water in the same tray set to 20C should control the temperature.
Film is scratch free.
Sandy, if you read this I'll bet you could develop a 20x24 sheet in a black plastic 20x24 photo paper bag.

EdWorkman

10-May-2010, 09:57

Andrew
What developer and why so much?
Please and thankyou
And Jason , don't forget the stripping of one emulsion side technique- that should tell us if it's the diffusion due to the base or the emulsion- my WAG is that a slow ortho emulsion should/would/could be pretty sharp on its own.
But NO GUESSING

Jason Greenberg Motamedi

10-May-2010, 10:37

...And Jason , don't forget the stripping of one emulsion side technique- that should tell us if it's the diffusion due to the base or the emulsion- ...

Somewhere earlier on this thread someone reported stripping one side of the emulsion, and as I recall, the difference in sharpness did not appear significant.

evan clarke

10-May-2010, 11:46

I tried a goofy thing a while back just for fun. I added 4 grams of glycin to D76 and it knocks the contrast on identical sheets back about 1 stop.. It's easy to do and I just ordered some 11x14 x-ray film to play with so can contribute more once I have exposed and developed some...Evan Clarke

EdWorkman

13-May-2010, 10:10

I just finished developing a sheet of Blue in a ziplock bag. Pyrocat HD in glycol .75-.75-100 oz. 15 min 68 degress agitate by flipping the bag 3 cyles , 15 sec per minute. I poured 16 oz in the bag and inserted the film. This amount let the film sit just above the level of liquid [ 10 '' horizontal, 8'' vert] until turned it flat.
NO SCRATCHES as reported,
but
a strip of high density along one edge- could possibly be not procedure related, but that edge was nearest the bottom of the bag, hmmmm.
Bad news- I did a presoak in a different bag and transferred the wet neg to the develope bag, leving my prints in the middle of the top long edge of the neg, sigh.
Neg try will be presoak in the bag and pour the developer onto the film. As pyro is so dilute I fear/expect Mackie lines, i hope the presoak will solve that. But I have to think on this more before I jump in again. The neg is still wet, so no conclusions about how it will print on VC- I think I might increase develope time a bit. As I struggled to get the neg into the bag, I pulled it out and trayed it in TF-4 fixer.
If I just had several more thumbs.

Andrew O'Neill

17-May-2010, 09:01

I decided to check out this films response to long exposures. Someone earlier said that this film is not affected by reciprocity effect. Not true.
Please see attachment of curves for 1, 10, and 100 second curves. The 1/8s curve is my reference curve. You can see that there is considerable speed loss even at 1 second.
I also carried out a tonal/colour response comparison with conventional b/w film. I'll upload later.

Andrew O'Neill

17-May-2010, 10:10

I forgot to mention that the film was Green Latitude type and was exposed under my enlarger with a 31 Stouffer step tablet. ND filters were used rather than stopping the lens down. Developed in Rodinol 1+50. Tray.

BetterSense

17-May-2010, 16:16

FWIW, I made some ~10s exposures on CXS green latitude, tungsten light, side-by-side with some Fomapan 100, and found the Green latitude substantially faster than the Fomapan 100 at those conditions. The fomapan shots were unusable; the xray film shots were thin but usable. Of course Fomapan 100 has really poor reciprocity characteristics as many have found, but CXS green latitude was better.

Andrew O'Neill

17-May-2010, 18:36

Fomapan 100 must be pretty bad then. Out of all the films that I have used, the x-ray film has the worst reciprocity characteristics.

Andrew O'Neill

20-May-2010, 17:07

Andrew O'Neill

21-May-2010, 12:57

Here is a rough tonal/colour sensitivity comparison between X-ray and TMY-2.
Green does appear slightly lighter and yellow and beyond, darker.
I do not have a film scanner, so please excuse the poor quality.

evan clarke

21-May-2010, 13:19

You guys got me!. I received a 100 sheet box of 11x14 green latitude Kodak film today. At least it's only $.50 a pop!!..Evan Clarke

Accordionist

26-May-2010, 11:08

Hello, could artificial light from clasic mirror lightbulbs cause strong underexposure when used with green sensitive film? I have done some portraits with these bulbs, and the film is allmost clear. (face is in zone 2?) When i prolonged the time for maybe 3EV it looks much better. Thank you...

Andrew O'Neill

28-May-2010, 17:22

May I ask why you placed the face on zone II?

BetterSense

29-May-2010, 18:10

Indeed. Zone II plus 3EV would still be about a stop under, at least it seems to me.

As I said above, I have shot some still lifes with this film, lit with plain tungsten lightbulbs. Despite the tunsten color balance working against it, it was faster when shot this way, than Foma 100 which I shot side-by-side with xray. So I'd say that it works fine under tungsten.

Accordionist

31-May-2010, 00:41

May I ask why you placed the face on zone II? No, the face FALL in zone II :) I want only to say, that there is only very minor texture on the negative. Sorry, i wrote it maybe wrong. (my English is weak) I have used exposure from incident light. And everything was underexposed... So, when the film is not sensitive to reds and the light from the bulbs is also reddish - this is maybe the problem...

Jim Fitzgerald

4-Jun-2010, 07:19

Does the lack of sharpness come from the coating on both sides? And is all of the xray film coated on both sides? Jim Fitzgerald is using this stuff for carbon transfer printing, which is a very sharp process, (with ULF negatives at that) and I can not imagine that he would be using the stuff if it did not give sharp results.

Sandy King

Well, everyone I'm back. Sorry for the delay. Computer problems and life events in the way.
I have gotten great results using the green sensitive film for my carbon work. The film is very sharp (in my opinion). I've used old and new lenses and love what I get.

Jim Fitzgerald

4-Jun-2010, 07:24

I would be very grateful if any x-ray green latitude film users the next time you're out shooting, if you could apply my reciprocity effect data to your exposure. Works for me, but curious to know if it would work for you. Thankyou. :)

Andrew, thanks for this info. Next time I'm out I'll give it a try. In the past I've not used any reciprocity factors in my exposure and have been very satisfied with the results. So i'll see what happens.

Jim

Andrew O'Neill

5-Jun-2010, 16:22

Jim, how long are your exposures usually?

Jim Fitzgerald

6-Jun-2010, 07:06

Jim, how long are your exposures usually?

Andrew, they can generally run from about 20 seconds to a couple of minutes or more.

Jim

jan labij

3-Oct-2010, 10:02

I read this whole series of posts only because x-ray film comes on a thicker base than the arista ortho I usually use. I was afraid the thin base arista ortho would sag or buckle in 8X10. I was turned off by the scratch problems 'till I read about the zip-loc bag process, which sounds so promising I'm going to have to try it.

Andrew O'Neill

3-Oct-2010, 10:17

and be very careful loading your film holders.

WayneStevenson

19-Oct-2010, 23:05

The scratches are really bothersome. I definately do not enjoy them on my film. Had an idea to throw a sheet through my Durst print processor to see what happens. Then decided I didn't want emulsion stuck to all of my rollers........

But for the hell of it, I just gave Dektol (1:2, 18C) a go on two frames I shot and it works great. Zero scratches on the second sheet in the minute they were in the trays. Cutting back that time in there, cuts back on the risks of scratching.

Bottom sheet scratched up some on the bottom of the tray. And it was just laid there. Stand developed for the duration. So I'm thinking there isn't any way around those scratches. Though it does look like that one sheet on bottom protects the next sheet from becoming scratched up. Like I said, zero scratches.

Negatives look great but are still drying. I'll try to do some prints tommorow to really see how good it worked.

venchka

20-Oct-2010, 05:07

Could you keep a sheet of fixed out film to place on the bottom and protect the sheet being developed?

Jim Fitzgerald

20-Oct-2010, 17:24

Guys, 8x10 in hangers in tanks. Zero scratches.

Jim

Brian Bullen

20-Oct-2010, 18:45

Could you keep a sheet of fixed out film to place on the bottom and protect the sheet being developed?

Yes, it works very well. I have used this method for 11x14 and 8x10 before I got hangers and scratches were pretty much eliminated. The film does have to be flipped so each side is evenly developed but if the film on the bottom of the tray is larger than the sheet you're developing, it's easy.

WayneStevenson

23-Oct-2010, 10:40

Doing a marathon print session in my darkroom late last night and had a last-minute urge to grab an exposed sheet and feed it into my Durst processor before I shut her down. Worked very well but I did end up with minor scratches (not deep into the emulsion) where it came into contact with something. They're very uniform lines so I'll see if I can track down what caused it and see if it's something that can be remedied.

Hangers definately would be the best remedy. But I haven't found any shops these days carrying any........Plenty of tanks. No hangers to go with them.

Andrew O'Neill

24-Oct-2010, 22:11

The scratches are really bothersome. I definately do not enjoy them on my film. Had an idea to throw a sheet through my Durst print processor to see what happens. Then decided I didn't want emulsion stuck to all of my rollers........

I prefer to use a ziplock bag with developer poured inside. The bag combo is placed in a flat bottom tray. Puff a bit of air inside the bag, seal, and Bob's yer uncle. You won't need as much solution as you would with the hanger/tank method.
I'm currently working on some xray green latitude film and pyrocat-hd curves using 1+1+200 and 1+1+100 dilution. I also have curves for Rodinol. works very well with this developer. A few months ago I generated some reciprocity data that has been serving me well. I do believe I posted it here somewhere.

AF-ULF

16-Nov-2010, 10:53

When developing large prints in the darkroom, I place a sheet of glass in the tray the same size as the bottom of the tray. This has eliminated scratches on the prints. Would the same thing work for x-ray film?

Question: The X-ray film I am looking at comes in 1. Medium speed green; 2. Half speed blue; 3. Full speed blue and 4. High speed green. I get the difference between the blue and green. Does the speed of the film make much difference in the final image? Is the high speed more contrasty? Anyone know the equivalent EI rating for the medium/half speed films and the high/full speed films?

dfoo

20-Nov-2010, 20:51

Michael Roberts

21-Nov-2010, 09:31

And, for those ULF sizes...

Ziploc® Brand Big Bags are available in three big sizes:
•L equivalent to 3 Gallon (11.4L) 1.25 FT. x 1.25 FT. (38.1cm x 38.1cm) 5ct.
•XL equivalent to 10 Gallon (37.8L) 2 FT. x 1.7 FT. (60cm x 51 cm) 4ct.
•XXL equivalent to 20 Gallon (75.7L) 2 FT. x 2.7 FT. (60cm x 82 cm) 3ct.

jon.oman

9-Dec-2010, 10:48

Two questions on development. Since x-ray film has an emulsion on both sides, should you use twice the normal amount of developer? (I'm thinking of developer exhaustion.) For replenishment in a deep tank, would you need twice as much replenisher?

Thanks!

cosmicexplosion

10-Dec-2010, 02:34

[QUOTE=Andrew O'Neill;641882]I prefer to use a ziplock bag with developer poured inside. The bag combo is placed in a flat bottom tray. Puff a bit of air inside the bag, seal, and Bob's yer uncle. You won't need as much solution as you would with the hanger/tank method.

great thanks:) :) :)

cosmicexplosion

10-Dec-2010, 02:35

[QUOTE=AF-ULF;649920]When developing large prints in the darkroom, I place a sheet of glass in the tray the same size as the bottom of the tray. This has eliminated scratches on the prints.

great idea thanks:) :) :)

mdm

29-Dec-2010, 16:49

I prefer to use a ziplock bag with developer poured inside. The bag combo is placed in a flat bottom tray. Puff a bit of air inside the bag, seal, and Bob's yer uncle. You won't need as much solution as you would with the hanger/tank method.
I'm currently working on some xray green latitude film and pyrocat-hd curves using 1+1+200 and 1+1+100 dilution. I also have curves for Rodinol. works very well with this developer. A few months ago I generated some reciprocity data that has been serving me well. I do believe I posted it here somewhere.

Andrew, may I ask your agitation routine and pyrocat dilution when developing in ziplock bags?

Andrew O'Neill

8-Jan-2011, 11:01

Andrew O'Neill

8-Jan-2011, 14:55

If you are a carbon printer (or alt printer for that matter), who requires a negatives with long DR's, then stripping the emulsion away from the backside of xray film is not a good idea. I took a negative that had a DR of 2.20, stripped it ending up with a DR of 1.00. So to get more DR, I developed another sheet for twice the time getting a DR of 2.31. Not much of an increase in DR. After stripping the DR was 1.13. The stripped negative also had poorer tonal separation, especially in the highlights (worse for the film that received extended development) than the unstripped negative.
Contact printed, unstripped xray film in carbon looks pretty good. Not as sharp as TMY, but acceptable.
No stripping for me.

jon.oman

8-Jan-2011, 16:17

WayneStevenson

9-Jan-2011, 22:03

Yes. You've doubled the surface area to be developed so you need to factor that in for your chemistry.

As for replenisher, is it not based on how much film you have developed? In which case you would replenish sooner.

mdm

10-Jan-2011, 00:28

Sorry but just reading your question now...

Pyrocat-hd is diluted 10ml's part A + 10ml's part B + 1000ml's water. Film gets constant agitation for one minute, then about 5secs every 30 sec for remaining time. My development time is quite long as they are intended for carbon transfer printing.
I have also had success with a much stronger dilution (500ml's water instead of 1000ml's). Development time is cut from 17:00 to 8:00. My normal EI is 125.

Going down to the darkroom now to see what stripping of the emulsion on the backside of the film will do for me...

Thanks for your reply. Sorry, I dont seem to be subscribed to this thread and only read your answer now.

I have been having trouble with marks in the sky or wherever there is a large area of a paler tone, except with 1:1:200 Pyrocat M.

Anyway I need negs with a density range of +-log 3 so am going back to BTZS tubes and 1:1:50 as sugested in another thread with 12-15 min.

Thanks

jon.oman

10-Jan-2011, 11:00

Tri Tran

14-Feb-2011, 22:38

Here are few images from X ray film for your to preview. I process them in a 20x24 tray, 4 (8x10 ) sheets at a time. 6 min with D76. Great density for Carbon/ Platinum Print.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3476/crystalcove4.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/crystalcove4.jpg/)

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8149/crystalcove3.jpg (http://img137.imageshack.us/i/crystalcove3.jpg/)

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5866/crystalcove1.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/i/crystalcove1.jpg/)

Jim Fitzgerald

14-Feb-2011, 22:52

Tri, very nice. Good to see the other one. easy as can be!

Randy

15-Feb-2011, 09:00

Jim Fitzgerald

15-Feb-2011, 09:12

Randy, Tri and I shoot green sensitive x-ray film. I'm not sure what agitation he uses but in the tray we were rocking it while talking under the red safelight. I wasn't paying close attention. We were also doing some of my first 14x17 negatives. We both use ISO 80 metering the shadows to Zone IV. I'm not sure of his dilution but I'm sure Tri will chime in. Tray developed and I do mine in tanks in Pyrocat-HD.

Randy

15-Feb-2011, 09:39

Jim and Tri, in the tray, you didn't flip the film during agitation?

Also, was the tray flat on the bottom or did it have ridges? Some have said you must use the flat bottom trays to minimize scratching of the emulsion.

Michael Batchelor

15-Feb-2011, 18:41

TT, can you offer your type of X-ray film (green...blue?) and the ISO you are using?
Also, your agitation method and dilution in D-76?
I just got a 100 sheet box of the CSX Green sensitive but haven't opened it yet.

I'm also curious if it's double sided film like the box I bought. I've tried the chlorine bleach trick to remove the back side image, but it's a lot of trouble.

If this is double sided, is this with both images intact? Or do you remove the one not facing the lens?

Tri Tran

16-Feb-2011, 08:49

Hi Micheal,Randy
I process them with normal ridge tray, flip the neg during processing is recommended . Both emulsions are intact.

Michael Batchelor

16-Feb-2011, 15:03

Hi Micheal,Randy
I process them with normal ridge tray, flip the neg during processing is recommended . Both emulsions are intact.

Have you made any contact prints from them with both emulsions still on?

The chlorine bleach trick works pretty well, frankly, but it is an awful lot of trouble. If both images are in reasonable focus, then it is merely a density building mechanism. But I've only shot 4 sheets of the film so far.

What I found is that in my drums I have to be very careful pulling the film out, since the emulsion facing the outer wall is easy to scratch. Not an issue if you're removing it anyway, but that's more work than developing the film.

Jim Fitzgerald

16-Feb-2011, 17:27

Michael, no bleach, no drums. Simplify your life. Tray, D-76, red safe light on and develop for 6 minutes or so till done. Develop by inspection. Simple.

Ron McElroy

16-Feb-2011, 17:43

So since development is under a red safe light, then I assume all handling of film can be done in the same conditions?

Vaughn

16-Feb-2011, 17:48

I cut down the film under a faint red safe light.

I try to keep the red light to a minimum when developing -- film does seem to gain some sensitivity when first in the developer -- I stand so my shadow is over the dev tray for the first half or so of the dev time.

The developer I use is fairly cheap, so I use a good amount in a ribbed tray -- the film never touches the bottom.

Vaughn

j.e.simmons

16-Feb-2011, 18:46

There is also available an x-ray safelight filter that fits the Kodak bullet safelights.
juan

toolbox

18-Feb-2011, 15:12

I just read this entire thread...and ordered a pack of the blue film in 8x10 :D. Fantastic info here guys...many thanks to everyone who contributed!

Jim Fitzgerald

18-Feb-2011, 16:27

At $.25 a sheet if you mess up it doesn't cost you much. I think it is a great way to learn.

cosmicexplosion

18-Feb-2011, 20:51

where is the best place to get x-ray film?

Jim Fitzgerald

18-Feb-2011, 21:04

CSX online.com. Just google them. You can use their csx brand. I buy their green sensitive and shoot it at ISO 80.

deadpan

19-Feb-2011, 11:43

Maybe i'm just missing something, but when I google them I get only Acura csx results. When I google csx xray film all I get is threads here and on APUG. Any help?

CSX online.com. Just google them. You can use their csx brand. I buy their green sensitive and shoot it at ISO 80.

Roger Thoms

19-Feb-2011, 11:56

Maybe i'm just missing something, but when I google them I get only Acura csx results. When I google csx xray film all I get is threads here and on APUG. Any help?

Yeah it took me a little googling, my first attempt yielded lots of results for rail freight.

http://www.cxsonline.com/text/subcatalog.tmpl?command=showpage&sn=807889&category=1001&cart=12981415929866338&location=1001

Think Jim just wants us to work a little.

Roger

deadpan

19-Feb-2011, 13:02

Thanks,

as soon as I arrived at the site, I remembered I had already stumbled upon it a while ago...and then subsequently ruled it out, as i'm based in the UK :(

"Most items ship out of Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
We only ship to the US and Canada."

Yeah it took me a little googling, my first attempt yielded lots of results for rail freight.

http://www.cxsonline.com/text/subcatalog.tmpl?command=showpage&sn=807889&category=1001&cart=12981415929866338&location=1001

Think Jim just wants us to work a little.

Roger

Ralph Weimer

19-Feb-2011, 16:57

www.kellysearch.co.uk/i/instrumentation/x-ray-film

A number of x-ray film distributors in UK, even listed by region. Just ignore the little survey and scroll towards the bottom of the page.
RW

Curt

19-Feb-2011, 23:19

I'm going to have to order some 11X14, I'm working each day on my 11X14 View camera even though I don't have a regular holder, only two glass plate holders which have the same outside dimensions. I'm going to have to make regular film holders.

The camera is going to be made using the hardware, where appropriate, from a Kodak 2D model. It's not my last 11X14, I plan on making a true flat bed design, but in the mean time I'm getting this done. I've got the back frame, bases, front uprights made and the rest won't present any problems. I have the bellows material from Porters, they don't carry it now, I'm making a bellows for it. I have the gg and springs so it's an assembly project. Since there isn't a rack and pinion to be made it save a lot of time.

When I make a publicly presentable model out of fine hard wood and hand made hardware with a bellows from Camera Bellows UK, I'll show pictures. I'm making a 5X7 and an 11X14 after this one is done. I got luck and have springs, glass, and a Canham new bellows for the 5X7. It's going to be a "Wista" type clam shell, flatbed model made of some 30 year old Honduras Mahogany I have in two nice planks.

I'll have to start practicing with the X-Ray film I got from CS in 8X10 while I finish the 11X14. I'm planing to use my RD Artar 19", I have two of them, one in a shutter and one in a barrel. I have a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar in a shutter too that would work, I have others but haven't decided or checked to see which might work. Jim beat me out of a nice lens on eBay a while back, I was distracted away and he got it for next to nothing. It's a good thing, I didn't know that he was bidding and to bid hard on something with someone you know and like would be really bad. I hope that lens works out for you Jim, I forgot to ask if you have used it yet.

It's so cold in the shop right now that I figure out what step is next, plan it out and go and do it then get out of there. It's amazing how cold a table saw or shaper top can get. Also I bring the wood in at night so the moisture content doesn't change radically. That's woodworking, the first camera I made was in an apartment. It is a cherry and brass "Wista" type 4X5. The bellows is still light tight after decades of disuse. The first one is the most difficult, but now I have a shop so it's easier to work, except in the cold when I'm too lazy to fire up the pellet stove.

Jim, that BIG camera turned out very, very nice, what a joy to look at and use. I can't make it to Joshua Tree unfortunately but someday I'll see it in person I hope. You never know what will happen.

Curt

Gene McCluney

20-Feb-2011, 12:59

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

reyno bundit

20-Feb-2011, 17:13

http://www.asomerville.ltd.uk/xray-film_1.html

shipping 7 pounds in the mainland u.k

Andrew O'Neill

20-Feb-2011, 19:07

Yup. It's all your fault Gene! Thanks for starting this thread and getting me as well as others hooked on xray film.

Gene McCluney

20-Feb-2011, 21:24

Yup. It's all your fault Gene! Thanks for starting this thread and getting me as well as others hooked on xray film.

My pleasure, and its about time I get fired up with it again. I have found that "some" X-ray film sizes are not "exactly" like comparable sheet film sizes, hence can be a tight fit into traditional sheet film holders. 7x17 comes to mind. It is cut a wee bit bigger and tends to buckle in the holder. Very frustrating, since it needs to be shaved down, and any excessive handling can bring scratches.

Jim Fitzgerald

20-Feb-2011, 21:32

Gene, sorry to hear that but it is good to know.

cosmicexplosion

21-Feb-2011, 04:17

i just found a chinese site that has 8x10 for .17 a sheet...

minimum order 5000 sq.mtr!!!!

toolbox

22-Mar-2011, 10:14

Finally got a chance to develop my blue x-ray film this past weekend... I cut it up for use in my 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 baby Speed Graphic (got 5 sheets per 8x10 :)). I developed it in a Yankee tank that I've had good luck developing 4x5s in. I used divided D-76 (Photographers Formulary recipe) for 5 minutes in each bath. Results were ok, but the grain seemed like it was unusually big/heavy--to the point it really affected the ability of it to resolve detail. That might be fine in an 8x10 neg, but it's a problem in a format this size... Just wondering if anyone else has had this problem? I've been developing TMax in this DD-76, and the results have been great. Do I need to try another developer?
Cheers,
Scott

Vaughn

22-Mar-2011, 10:33

7x17 comes to mind. It is cut a wee bit bigger and tends to buckle in the holder. Very frustrating, since it needs to be shaved down, and any excessive handling can bring scratches.

And 14x17 can not just be cut in half for two 7x17's -- slightly small. At least for Agfa X-ray and the 7x17 holder I have.

grahamcase

24-Mar-2011, 19:33

For any Canadian shooters (Especially those in BC's lower mainland) there is a dealer in North Vancouver that sells Kodak and Agfa X-Ray film. It seems more expensive than the US counterparts, but they have a storefront, so you can drop by and try it out: http://www.canadianxraysupplies.com/xray-film.php

gth

25-Mar-2011, 17:09

Does anyone here have experience with Kodak Min-R EV or Kodak Min-R S Mammography Xray film?

Andrew O'Neill

25-Mar-2011, 18:01

Graham, thanks for that!

camerabrain

25-Mar-2011, 18:34

can you use other developers other than xtol? I have sprint developer,diafine,and hc110

EdWorkman

25-Mar-2011, 19:14

gth
NO
But mammography film is supposedly single side emulsion
Sizes seem to be limited
And more costly
If it's cheap to you, please try it and report
-
camerabrain
Like I said- use what you have- HC110 would seem like a pretty sure bet.

Andrew O'Neill

26-Mar-2011, 10:08

can you use other developers other than xtol? I have sprint developer,diafine,and hc110

Yes. I've developed xray film (green latitude) in pyrocat-hd, rodinol, D-76, and D-19. All diluted more than normal, especially D-19. I'm using this film just for carbon transfer printing. You shouldn't have any problems in the developers that you have on hand... I've never used diafine, though.

Robert Hughes

26-Mar-2011, 10:55

I've used D-76 with green sensitive xray film, it works just fine. Xray film is easily scratched, though, so handle with kid gloves, or perhaps baggies.

Andrew O'Neill

27-Mar-2011, 13:29

i just found a chinese site that has 8x10 for .17 a sheet...

Do you have a link?

Raidahl

28-Mar-2011, 03:24

Do anybody know any place to make orders about x-ray films here in Europe?

K. Praslowicz

9-Apr-2011, 06:30

Michael Batchelor

9-Apr-2011, 13:07

Two quick 8x10 self portraits I did with Fuji 100NIF Xray last night.

http://img.kpraslowicz.com/share/self-port-diafine.jpg
Exposed at 100ISO, developed in Diafine

http://img.kpraslowicz.com/share/self-port-hc110.jpg
Exposed at 100ISO, developed in HC-110

These look pretty good. There seems to be a number of types of 100 NIF emulsions.

Are any of these designations on the film? (No, I don't know what they mean, I just found them with Google.)

AX(Q-AX)　
MG-SR(G-S)　
C Type (Q-CT)
He-Ne Laser Image Film
LP-670T (QHN-670T)
Mammography Film
CM-H (Q-CMH)

K. Praslowicz

9-Apr-2011, 13:16

These look pretty good. There seems to be a number of types of 100 NIF emulsions.

Are any of these designations on the film? (No, I don't know what they mean, I just found them with Google.)

http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/8x10-fuji-xray-film-p-384.html T2 Blue RX is what I'm using.

camerabrain

14-May-2011, 17:02

I have used the Fuji blue x ray film the higher speed stuff (Fuji RX Full Speed Blue Film)and shot it at 800 then developed it in Diafine with Saran wrap in the bottom of the trays to prevent scratches, with excellent results. I tried shooting it at 200 its supposed speed and developing with HC110 mixture B and it came out like crap. Too too dark. Has anyone tried this with Hc110 and got good results?

K. Praslowicz

14-May-2011, 17:05

I have used the Fuji blue x ray film the higher speed stuff and shot it at 800 then developed it in Diafine with Saran wrap in the bottom of the trays to prevent scratches, with excellent results. I tried shooting it at 200 its supposed speed and developing with HC110 mixture B and it came out like crap. Too too dark. Has anyone tried this with Hc110 and got good results?

I've been getting good results with HC-100 in studio portraits. Dilution H at 68 degrees w rotary processing.

K. Praslowicz

15-May-2011, 09:22

I tried shooting it at 200 its supposed speed and developing with HC110 mixture B and it came out like crap. Too too dark. Has anyone tried this with Hc110 and got good results?

Also, just to make sure, you aren't judging the negative density without stripping off the back layer of emulsion are you?

EdWorkman

15-May-2011, 10:00

I always found that B was too "hot" for [forTriX]
Dilute it more if you can't cut development time.
"its supposed speed"- is a starting point, not a standard
Strip or don't strip, but if it's not boiler plate [assuming "too dark" means a dense neg, not a print from a very thin neg] try a print to see what you really have

EdWorkman

15-May-2011, 10:03

Hey K.P. very nice success

WayneStevenson

13-Jun-2011, 22:09

I've been mainly shooting High Speed Blue CXS.

HC-110b worked great for me in both tray, and rotary. Found Rodinal really easy to work using the times listed I think on page 1 of this discussion as well. Xtol and T-Max work good too. Heh. I think I mentioned Dektol working great too.

Doubt you'd find anything that doesn't work with this film so use what you usually use.

joselsgil

14-Jun-2011, 00:48

I have a newbie question about the X-ray film. I plan on using the half speed green film as my Betax no. 4 shutter is very slow.
This film is considered ortho, so can it be handled under red safelight conditions? Meaning, can it be loaded into the film holders under safelight or is it like a pan film that needs to be handled in total darkness?
I'm thinking that if it can be handled under red safelight, I might cut some 8X10 down to 5X7 and 4X5 and try it on my smaller camera backs.

Thanks for sharing your info, this thread has been very helpful.

Jose

Wooohooo, I just hit my 50th post and today (June 14th), is my 50th B-day. My brain still thinks I'm 13 years old, my body tells me another story. :D

Jim Fitzgerald

14-Jun-2011, 06:52

Jose, yes, you can load, un-load in the red light. Just be careful doing so. I think a lot of people scratch the negative during this process. Also, be careful trying to cut this down for the same reasons.

Jim Fitzgerald

22-Jun-2011, 16:23

So this thread was one that needed examples. Here is a recent shot. If you have been following this thread you already know what I shoot and how i develop. This is a carbon print.

Michael Batchelor

23-Jun-2011, 06:40

Also, just to make sure, you aren't judging the negative density without stripping off the back layer of emulsion are you?

I've been doing a few experiments with half speed blue film, and I've tried both stripping the emulsion off the back and leaving it on to increase density.

The biggest issue I have is that I scratch the back emulsion loading and unloading about 10% of the time.

But I haven't really done enough testing to know which I like better.

Does everyone here tend to strip the back emulsion? Or do some folks leave it in place?

Michael

Tri Tran

23-Jun-2011, 07:04

Why do extra work ? Xray film has some defective sheets once in a while...scratch, unsual coated marks but is minimal. They sure are passed the quality control .
My negative most of them came out flawless, I kept the air compressor next to my film loading station to clean all the holders before loading the film. Through out the process please remember wash your trays, filter your developer ! More handling = more scratches with Xray film .

Jim Fitzgerald

23-Jun-2011, 07:41

I agree with Tri on this. Also, the bigger you go as in 11x14 and 14x17 you have to be even more careful.

K. Praslowicz

23-Jun-2011, 08:25

I'm currently loading mine in a far too small changing bag and rotary
Processing. The back layer tends to be unevenly developed and looks like a cat went after it, so I'm much forced to strip. Once I move into my new apartment, tray processing and non-bag loading will be an option so maybe I won't have to anymore.

nolindan

23-Jun-2011, 18:41

i just found a chinese site that has 8x10 for .17 a sheet...minimum order 5000 sq.mtr!!!!

$16,469

96,875 sheets of film ...

Jim Fitzgerald

27-Jun-2011, 20:38

Okay, here is one of several images I shot on green sensitive x-ray film. This stuff is the bomb!! This is a carbon transfer print, of course.

Tri Tran

27-Jun-2011, 21:28

Okay, here is one of several images I shot on green sensitive x-ray film. This stuff is the bomb!! This is a carbon transfer print, of course.

I like this batch tissue tone a lot. It looks very classy .I hope you took note for this recipe. Well done Jim.

Curt

27-Jun-2011, 21:56

Jim, what pigment did you use?

I had a fantastic time at the workshop in Canada with Vaughn. I have one 11x14 filmholder 99% done. The wood is acclimating for the run after all evaluations have been completed on the working model, which is usable but in a different wood species.

Nice image there.

Curt

Jim Fitzgerald

28-Jun-2011, 06:57

Thanks, I do love the tone in this image as it fits the mood of the church and scene. Now Tri, come on now you know I always keep good notes! That was one of Vaughn's first comments to me and as I recall I have said the same thing to my students. I put a little extra in the black cat.

Curt, nice going if you are building your own film holders. Let me know how they work when you get them done. That is very difficult to do.

mgeiss

10-Aug-2011, 16:33

Here are some 8x10" pinhole images taken on Fuji HR-U green sensitive film.
Developed in Rodinal 1+100 for 6 minutes, backside emulsion stripped using chloride bleach.
Exposure was measured around ISO 50-100 depending on the light.

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk01.jpg

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk03.jpg

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk04.jpg

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk06.jpg

mgeiss

10-Aug-2011, 16:35

Another two:

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk07.jpg

http://www.mgeiss.de/bilder/lochkamera/lk10.jpg

BarryS

10-Aug-2011, 16:49

Outstanding work, mgeiss. It shows how much you can do with a simple camera and inexpensive film.

Jay DeFehr

10-Aug-2011, 17:22

mgeiss, bravo! Well done, indeed. Inspiring! What were your exposure times like?

jon.oman

10-Aug-2011, 19:00

I agree, nice images!

Jim Fitzgerald

10-Aug-2011, 19:57

never seen the need to do the stripping. Never done it and my images print just fine. KISS is how I work.

Jay DeFehr

10-Aug-2011, 20:06

I'm definitely going to try the stripping, along with a few other wild ideas I have. Thanks for the tips. I'll let you know if I learn anything useful.

mgeiss

11-Aug-2011, 02:52

Thanks for your comments!

@Jay
Exposure was between a few seconds in sunlight and a few minutes on cloudy days. The camera has an f/300 pinhole and i usually add some exposure for reciprocity effects.

@Dann
Yes, the stripping works just fine. A few seconds and all that is left on the backside is a nice clean film base.

@Jim
It depends on how you develop the film. I use Jobo Expert drums when i have more than one sheet to develop, or a Jobo 1520-1530 combo for single sheets. When the wet films are taken out of the drums, I get big scratches on the back almost every time. I never got to like tray or tank processing and don't have a permanent darkroom.

Jim Fitzgerald

11-Aug-2011, 06:37

So there is the problem. If you are going to shoot x-ray film you need to use flat bottomed trays or tanks. I use tanks for the 8x10 and trays for my ULF stuff. Remember you can scratch the film loading and unloading. It amazes my how people scratch film, but they do.

mgeiss

11-Aug-2011, 07:38

I don't see it as a problem much, it's just two minutes more work with every sheet and soon becomes routine. I don't need the extra density from the second emulsion either, so for me there's no need keeping it. :)

I know many people prefer tanks or trays, but I really like the expert drums for anything 4x5" or larger.

Besides that, I use it only for pinhole imaging and do my normal 8x10" work on Efke.

Scott --

11-Aug-2011, 07:53

And for the stripping, you tape the negative, good side down, to a sheet of glass and paint on the bleach mix, then rinse off, right? Or has the protocol evolved?

Think it's time I pull the trigger on some green 10x12...

Jay DeFehr

11-Aug-2011, 07:59

Danke, herr Geiss! I only tried drum development of X-Ray film once, with exactly the results you describe- I got a perfectly developed negative with huge scratches on the back. Now I wish I hadn't thrown that negative away!

Andrew O'Neill

11-Aug-2011, 08:06

If you intend to use xray film for alternative processes such as carbon, you should not strip the backside emulsion as you will end up with a negative with half the density range. No problem if you are printing on VC or graded papers silver papers.

mgeiss

11-Aug-2011, 08:15

Dann,

I didn't use anything but pure bleach (Danklorix brand here in Germany) yet. I tape the sheet to a piece of glass and keep it horizontally. I haven't experienced any problems with this method and just use a soft 2" brush to apply the bleach, wait a few seconds to let the bleach work and give it a short rinse. Most of the time, there will be some spots left, where the emulsion didn't go away, so I do a second run. After that, I rinse again and wipe everything with a soft, damp and lint-free cloth.

Scott --

11-Aug-2011, 08:35

never seen the need to do the stripping. Never done it and my images print just fine. KISS is how I work.

Jim, I work with a hybrid workflow (for now), so scan my negatives. Also, I do daylight drum developing, and have no facilities for tray developing, so a scratched back emulsion is going to happen. So stripping looks like it might be the way to go for me. I might try carbon one day, and have a proper darkroom to develop in, but today ain't the day...

Ari

11-Aug-2011, 08:36

I have a question regarding this topic, as I don't print carbon. Since I strip the emulsion on x-ray film, I always expose my film as if it had only one emulsion layer. How much additional exposure would be required to print carbon with one emulsion layer?

Dann,
I'm not sure how much you are already compensating for the stripped emulsion.
Once I found the film's speed, in my case ISO 320, I treated it like regular film, at least with regards to exposure.

Vaughn

11-Aug-2011, 11:23

A salt print made with an 8x10 negative -- blue sensitive x-ray film, developed at the hospital's lab.

Andrew O'Neill

11-Aug-2011, 14:14

I have a question regarding this topic, as I don't print carbon. Since I strip the emulsion on x-ray film, I always expose my film as if it had only one emulsion layer. How much additional exposure would be required to print carbon with one emulsion layer?

I tried exposing more as well as developing more. Exposing more did nothing but give me a negative with waaaaaay too much base + fog. And you can only go so far with over-development before you get too much base + fog. I only tried this with pyrocat-hd. Maybe with a high contrast developer such as D-19, it might work. Wanted to try it, but have been too busy making carbon prints rather than experimenting.

Very, very nice salt print, Vaughn!

Jay DeFehr

11-Aug-2011, 15:32

Andrew,

I'm sure I can get plenty of contrast and Density Range one side of X-Ray film for carbon printing by developing in 510-Pyro. My developing times are short, and so there's a lot of room for increased development. I'm not sure why increased exposure would produce fog, unless by fog you mean excess density. Since I plan to increase development significantly, I'll decrease exposure to compensate for the increased development. To extend density range it's important to keep the low densities low while extending the higher densities. Increasing exposure is contraindicated in this scenario.

cyberjunkie

17-Aug-2011, 10:24

I found two boxes of 18x24cm mammography film.
This is what i found online:

"HDR-C Plus Mamoray film is a single-sided orthochromatic mammography film that is part of the Agfa HealthCare film / screen system for mammography. The film uses both Split Emulsion Layer (S.E.L.) and the Cubic Crystal technologies. Agfa’s Split Emulsion Layer technology provides the Mamoray HDR-C Plus film with three emulsion layers on one side of the film. Each layer consists of monodispersed Cubic Crystals of identical size.
A particular strong point is the system’s high dynamic range. For every image, the contrast is optimized for each density range. Equally, the system provides excellent visualisation of details which are further enhanced by the masking effect of high maximum density in the non-image area adjacent to the skin-line."

It should be less contrasted than standard double-sided X-Ray film, and the three-layer emulsion should be a nice solution for pictorial photography (wide range of illumination level on the same picture).
There are very few mammography film available, so i guess that somebody had the chance to test the Agfa HDR-C.
What's the best EI/developer combination i should start with?
Are the results comparable with modern orthochromatic film?
I don't like the rounded corners and the lack of notch codes: the former is not a really a problem, while the notches could be punched under red light.
If the film turns out to be usable, then i have 200 sheets for every kind of test, bellows checking, film holders checking, experimenting with developers, etc. for a very affordable price. After that, i should still have a lot of sheets left :)
I am not going to do any alt. technique in the near future, just scanning (with stitching) and contact printing on silver paper, so the contrast of the negative should be kept under control.

have fun

CJ

gbogatko

17-Aug-2011, 11:58

I'm getting good results developing "green latitude" using Dektol at 1:10 by inspection. I'm going to try the bleach next.

Joe Forks

21-Aug-2011, 07:31

I wish xray were available in 12x20, but it is not, that I am aware of.
It is available in 24x24 and 10x12 though, which gives me two options.

1) splice two sheets of 10x12 together - emulsion on both sides though, how do I keep them in place? A small piece of tape or two on the backside at the splice?

2) cut down 24x24 - I've heard it over and over this stuff scratches easily.

Are either of these viable options if I want to play with cheap film? Or am I SOL? I mean for the chump change they are asking I might play anyway, just thought I'd get some feedback first before I place an order.

Vaughn

21-Aug-2011, 16:20

2) -- I tape down a clean sheet of paper on the cutting board to reduce the possibility of scratching while cutting down 14x17 x-ray to 7x17, 11x14 or 8x10. Seems to help.

Thanks Andrew -- I might be printing it and the negs of my other two sons in platinum.

Vaughn

tgtaylor

22-Aug-2011, 09:56

I've been following this thread over the years with only a passing curiosity since I shoot 4x5 for which high quality B&W film is still "reasonably" priced. However a couple of months ago I took the plunge and purchased a Toyo 810G and X-ray film suddenly became a viable choice to shoot a lot of images with that camera that I wouldn't ordinarily do because of the cost. So yesterday I ordered a 100 sheet box of Kodak's green sensitive x-ray film: http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/8x10-kodak-xray-film-p-419.html

I have one question that hasn't been addressed in this thread so far: How long do the negatives last before they start to fade? I ran across this issue yesterday while searching the web for a Kodak Data Sheet on the film. Supposedly X-ray negatives fade over time. If that is correct then is that fading do to the chemical processing they typically receive in the health care environment and would the standard B&W processing that we photographers use would prevent that fading?

Finally, here's an interesting local (San Francisco) news feature on a local ULF photographer that uses X-ray film that was broadcast last week: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8310514

An exhibition is currently at Inclusions Gallery in San Francisco thru 9/18/2011 where a Discussion/Q&A session will be held this Thursday from 7-9PM. The artists Reception was held this past Saturday and the gallery curator told me that the place was completely packed with people standing out on the sidewalk.

Thomas

Robert Hughes

22-Aug-2011, 10:33

How long do the negatives last before they start to fade?
If you fix and wash them properly, they should last as long as the acetate backing does.

here's an interesting local (San Francisco) news feature on a local ULF photographer that uses X-ray film that was broadcast last week...
How they fit last week's film sheets into a broadcast stream I'll never know.

tgtaylor

22-Aug-2011, 20:18

If you fix and wash them properly, they should last as long as the acetate backing does.

From what I have been able to determine, practically all x-ray film manufactured in the past 30 years is on a polyester base and not acetate.

Here is a quote from the reference that I ran across yesterday regarding fading - actually fogging:

"X-ray film will fog slowly with time, the extent depending markedly on how well it is stored. This fogging, along with the optical density of the film base, will generate a low density in the toe section of the Characteristic Curve." See http://www.e-radiography.net/radtech/f/film.htm.

Finally, here is a link to the Kodak Data sheet that I found: http://www.taldent.ee/est/med/filmid/mxg.pdf

Thomas

Cor

23-Aug-2011, 01:34

From what I have been able to determine, practically all x-ray film manufactured in the past 30 years is on a polyester base and not acetate.

Here is a quote from the reference that I ran across yesterday regarding fading - actually fogging:

"X-ray film will fog slowly with time, the extent depending markedly on how well it is stored. This fogging, along with the optical density of the film base, will generate a low density in the toe section of the Characteristic Curve." See http://www.e-radiography.net/radtech/f/film.htm.

Finally, here is a link to the Kodak Data sheet that I found: http://www.taldent.ee/est/med/filmid/mxg.pdf

Thomas

It's true that Xray film builds up B+F slowly before exposure (seen it happen at the lab when we used a lot of it for autoradiography), but after processing there is no reason that the negative is as stable as normally processed negatives..maybe the grain size is smaller than standard film..

I guess fading after processing is due to sloppy processing (running the developing machine too long with exhausted fixer, washing too short etc..)

best,

Cor

EdWorkman

23-Aug-2011, 08:42

That word they are using on the film section"
"supercoat"
I don't think it means what they think it means.
How about overcoat or last, soft, coat

Andrew O'Neill

26-Aug-2011, 18:22

I'm sure I can get plenty of contrast and Density Range one side of X-Ray film for carbon printing by developing in 510-Pyro.

That's good to know. I'll have to try some single sided xray film. Thanks Jay.

andrew

tgtaylor

26-Aug-2011, 18:27

My doorbell just rang and UPS forked them over:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6083/6084415898_1e5b2c93cf.jpg

Michael Roberts

26-Aug-2011, 19:14

Joe, I think the 24x24 is cm not inches. I think you have three options:
1. buy 14x36 and cut down to 12x20; leaves a piece of 11x14 as well
2. use two sheets of 12x10 side by side; yes, use clear tape if needed to hold into place
3. cut 14x17 down to 12x17 and tape down one end to center in your 12x20 holder

I wish xray were available in 12x20, but it is not, that I am aware of.
It is available in 24x24 and 10x12 though, which gives me two options.

1) splice two sheets of 10x12 together - emulsion on both sides though, how do I keep them in place? A small piece of tape or two on the backside at the splice?

2) cut down 24x24 - I've heard it over and over this stuff scratches easily.

Are either of these viable options if I want to play with cheap film? Or am I SOL? I mean for the chump change they are asking I might play anyway, just thought I'd get some feedback first before I place an order.

tgtaylor

27-Aug-2011, 08:27

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6083/6084415898_1e5b2c93cf.jpg[/QUOTE]

FWIW, the above Kodak ClinicSelect Green X-ray film was until recently named KODAK Medical X-ray Film / 5156 / MXG and the data sheet that I linked to in my earlier post is for this film. Incidentally the films current manufacturer, Carestream Health HQ'd in Rochester, was formerly Eastman Kodak Company's Health Group.

Thomas

Jim Fitzgerald

28-Aug-2011, 17:39

With all of the recent interest in x-ray film I thought it would be helpful to have a thread dedicated to the images made. If you do not have prints done yet then post the scan of the neg. That is okay I guess but for me printing is where it is at. Tell us what you used and the details if you wish. This should show what can be done with x-ray film.

8x10 carbon transfer print. Green sensitive x-ray film Developed in Pyrocat-HD in Tanks 1:1:100 for 6 minutes.

This was one of my first prints from x-ray film. "Faces in the Palm"

Joe Forks

29-Aug-2011, 06:56

Very nice Jim! Nice idea for a thread too. May I ask at what iso you rated the film? And IIRC you used the CSX online green, right? I ordered some Fuji green sensitive, it's on the way.

Michael Batchelor

29-Aug-2011, 07:05

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6083/6084415898_1e5b2c93cf.jpg

FWIW, the above Kodak ClinicSelect Green X-ray film was until recently named KODAK Medical X-ray Film / 5156 / MXG and the data sheet that I linked to in my earlier post is for this film. Incidentally the films current manufacturer, Carestream Health HQ'd in Rochester, was formerly Eastman Kodak Company's Health Group.

Thomas[/QUOTE]

And this is single sided coating or double sided coating? I looked at the website link and either I'm a dummy or it didn't say.

MB

desertrat

29-Aug-2011, 07:39

I have a box of the Kodak High Speed Green X-ray film in 8X10. I believe it's the same stuff, except the emulsion is faster. Mine is double sided. Mamography film is single sided, but comes in weird sizes. I think most 8X10 medical X-ray films are double sided.

Jim Fitzgerald

29-Aug-2011, 07:40

Joe, I'm bad. I rated this at ISO 80 and yes it is the CSX Green sensitive. Here is another print. Now I believe that the film is great regardless of how you print. I print carbon transfer and love the density I get with this film but you can develop it to the density you need for your printing process. Loading, unloading and developing in a red safe light make it easy.

Same info on this shot.

Philippe Grunchec

29-Aug-2011, 07:48

Jim, do you mean the CXS Green film made by Agfa? Thanks.

Jim Fitzgerald

29-Aug-2011, 09:05

Yes, that is the one. I have found that just about any of the green x-ray films behave the same.I have McKesson 11x14 green and 3m 14x17 green sensitive. I shoot them all at 80.

Tri Tran

29-Aug-2011, 09:25

It's very nice of you to create this thread Jim. It will be a useful threat with lots of info for Xray user.
@ Philippe: The green Xray is rated at 100 ISO that means it will fit to the Green Xray Lab film holder. I rated it at 80 for my application for both PT/PL and Carbon print. The film is super contrast so I usually exposed the shadow at Zone IV.
The Blue Xray is rated at 400, and it fits to the Xray lab blue holder. That's it.

Philippe Grunchec

29-Aug-2011, 09:45

Thanks, Jim and Tri!

Jim Fitzgerald

29-Aug-2011, 19:39

What is nobody printing or having any success with x-ray film? Hard to believe. Here is another one. Some Lilies shot in the studio.

Vaughn

29-Aug-2011, 21:35

Scanned silver prints from 8x10 blue-sensitive Agfa x-ray

Ari

29-Aug-2011, 21:45

Scanned silver prints from 8x10 blue-sensitive Agfa x-ray

I really like these.

Vaughn

29-Aug-2011, 22:14

Thanks, Ari,

I made a nice salt print from the negitive on the right last week. I might try the negatives with Platinum/palladium.

Below is the third image (accidently reversed), and a carbon print of Alex and a redwood. All on the Agra blue-sensitive.

Jim Fitzgerald

29-Aug-2011, 23:00

Vaughn, they look very nice to me! You have to learn x-ray film just like any other film. Once you do it is not so bad. It has a unique character.

Robert Hughes

30-Aug-2011, 05:53

My issues with x-ray film have come from its soft, two sided emulsion. Do you strip away one of the emulsions with bleach, or keep both sides?

Ari

30-Aug-2011, 06:10

A search of the forum posts will give you that answer in great detail, but from what I have read and observed, stripping one side of the emulsion does not produce a sharper negative.

Tri Tran

30-Aug-2011, 06:39

Vaughn,
The image #2 is typical Xray caracteristic, plenty of contrast and sharp.However the the shadow lost details because of its hight contrast so I usually placed at zone IV. The soaking time for Xray is crucial , soaking time for larger neg raised accordingly. Please remember to use latex glove when handle ULF neg , avoid crossed contamination handleling during processing.

desertrat

30-Aug-2011, 16:50

I've been working with Kodak High Speed Green X-Ray film for a few months. I think it's mostly the same as standard speed green X-ray film, except it's supposed to be twice as fast. If most people are shooting the standard speed film is around EI 80, then this should be about EI 160. Maybe because of the developer I'm using, I have to give it a lot more exposure, about EI 50. This negative was exposed at 1/10 sec @ f32 under sunny sky and developed in a 16X20 tray using a developer made with:

2 liters water
2 grams metol
8 grams sodium sulfite
3 grams borax

Development was about 8 minutes with continuous gentle agitation.

The negative was contact printed onto Arista.EDU Ultra VC RC glossy paper using grade 2 filtration. The light source was an Omega color enlarger and the filtration was yellow and magenta using the settings from an Ilford Multigrade IV FB data sheet.

The print was scanned at 100 DPI resolution and cropped in Gimp, because when I do a scan I get the whole scanner bed. I think the contrast was adjusted slightly to match the print a little better. Then it was uploaded to Photobucket with no other changes. Unfortunately, the scanned print loses a lot of fine detail, even thought it's slightly larger than original size on my screen.

For this and the next several images, I used an 8X10 Improved Seneca View and an 8X10 Turner-Reich Triple, a late one with the Fairport address. The TR does a lot better job than these scans show. :o

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh237/dezzertrat/Film%20Photography/Large%20Format/X-Ray%20Film/House_driveway.jpg

desertrat

30-Aug-2011, 17:06

For this one I drove out to some volcanic basalt cliffs near Lucky Peak Dam, not far from Boise. A Sunpak Y-2 yellow filter was used to darken the sky somewhat. Based on previous experiments I gave it two more stops exposure, 1/2 sec @ f32. Processing and printing were as the previous image.

I guess I could try to pass off what's in the sky as thin, whispy clouds, but it was actually clear, blank sky in the scene. What I thought was a good processing routine turned out to be no good at all when there was a lot of blank sky.

Back to the drawing board, to find a way to get more even development.

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh237/dezzertrat/Film%20Photography/Large%20Format/X-Ray%20Film/Luckypeak_cliffs.jpg

Jim Fitzgerald

30-Aug-2011, 17:07

Great information. Thanks. Nice to hear all of the information regarding exposure, processing, printing etc. Keep it up folks!

desertrat

30-Aug-2011, 17:15

My next attempt back at home was to try to get more even development. After doing a little research, I decided to try longer development with a less active developer. So I dropped the Borax from my favorite recipe, and went with just Metol and Sodium Sulfite:

2 liters water
2 grams metol
25 grams sodium sulfite

This would be similar to D-23 diluted about 1:6. Developed for 11minutes with continuous, gentle agitation. Still using a yellow filter over the T-R, in the hopes I might get a future shot with some clouds in the picture. Clear skies again when I took this shot. Results were a little better, but not much. Back to the drawing board again.

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh237/dezzertrat/Film%20Photography/Large%20Format/X-Ray%20Film/House_sky.jpg

desertrat

30-Aug-2011, 17:58

Woot! Finally got a shot with some clouds in the sky. The yellow filter helped bring them out, I think. Did some more research, and thought maybe I was agitating too much. This time, used the same developer as the previous image but reduced agitation down to 5 seconds of gentle agitation in the tray every 1minute. Developed for 14 minutes. Things are looking up! By the way, I exposed 3 sheets of film for each of these shots, and sacrificed 2 of them getting development times down, as I was changing things between shots. A little uneven density can still be seen in the sky by careful inspection, but I think the clouds saved this shot. Without them it would be more noticeable.

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh237/dezzertrat/Film%20Photography/Large%20Format/X-Ray%20Film/Clouds_sky_house.jpg

Jim Fitzgerald

30-Aug-2011, 18:09

Thanks for posting the images and explanation. I think it is good to show the problems as well as the successes. I have found that uneven skies can be a development issue and I think that to much agitation can be the cause.

desertrat

30-Aug-2011, 19:22

Thanks, Jim. It seems the less I agitate the negatives, the more even development I get. Uneven density would be a very bad thing on a medical x-ray, and the standard process obviously overcomes that, so I did some research on how it's done. I downloaded the data sheets for the Kodak x-ray films.

They are developed in tanks using a proprietary Kodak developer for 7-8 minutes with no agitation after initially tapping the film hangars to dislodge bubbles. It looks like stand development for 7-8 minutes.

I might try stand development or switch to Pyrocat, which has a reputation for even development.

It looks like I might be able to get where I want, which is to use the green x-ray film for landscape photography and print it on variable contrast enlarging paper. The variable contrast filtration seems to work OK, even through the blue base of the film. When developed to the lower density used for enlarging papers, the grain isn't so bad. It's a little grainier than Plus-X, but a lot less grainy than when I got some dense negatives by overdevelopment. I can see the grain in a contact print with 10x magnification, but it doesn't show up in the contact print scans due to poor scanning resolution. I think the last negative could withstand 2x or 3x enlargement and still look not bad.

I scanned the last print again at 600 DPI and cropped out some small insets to give a better picture of the resolution I'm getting. Even at 600 DPI, the grain isn't visible on the scan and the smallest and finest detail on the print isn't visible either.

You can see how the highlights bleed out into the surrounding dark areas just a bit. I'm pretty sure this is halation because there is no anti-halation backing on the film. The second emulsion layer is there instead.

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh237/dezzertrat/Film%20Photography/Large%20Format/X-Ray%20Film/Chimney_tree.jpg

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh237/dezzertrat/Film%20Photography/Large%20Format/X-Ray%20Film/Bench_deck.jpg

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh237/dezzertrat/Film%20Photography/Large%20Format/X-Ray%20Film/Bench_flowers.jpg

Andrew O'Neill

30-Aug-2011, 19:47

I've only seen those kind of marks (mottling) when the developer barely covered the film and agitated once every 30sec...2 litres of developer in a 16x20 tray is about half inch deep, if it's a flat-bottomed tray...but you were giving the film continuous agitation.. very strange, indeed. Anyways tonally, especially the last image you posted, looks great!

Don Dudenbostel

5-Sep-2011, 18:20

How about this. I most often use HP5 but for this one I used Kodak Mammography film.

Jim Fitzgerald

5-Sep-2011, 18:34

Don, great use of x-ray film

Don Dudenbostel

5-Sep-2011, 19:05

If you want to use x-ray film for traditional photography I would suggest mammography film. Standard x-ray film is coated on both sides and mammo film is coated on one side only. I use it for x-ray work with the appropriate screens like the image above but can't remember if it's blue or green sensitive. I don't think I'll stick my head in the machine to find out ;)

gbogatko

6-Sep-2011, 04:43

A search of the forum posts will give you that answer in great detail, but from what I have read and observed, stripping one side of the emulsion does not produce a sharper negative.

Stripping reduces the contrast. Imaging exposing two pin registered negs and then trying to print with both of them against the paper. That's what the double coated x-ray is like. And if you're shooting at 80, then you're definitely getting density on both sides. The stuff does NOT have an anti-halation coating and for all I know is just a single coating on either sides. Just like the first films.

I shoot the green stuff at iso 200. "green" acts like blue/green sensitive (orthochromatic), and blue means only blue sensitive. Blue looks VERY old school, zero sky detail. Both give results that look like stuff from the silent film days. Both work very well with soft focus lenses -- much closer to the film for which the lenses were designed.

If you've gotten used to developing the stuff by inspection, you'll be disappointed the first time you strip off one side and see almost 1/2 your density disappear leaving a grainy mess. I just arrived at this point. Develop by inspection is wierd because one thinks they're overdoing it. I'll have to get a feel for the 'right look' if I'm going to strip off one side.

"Stripping" consists of pasting the film to a piece of glass (larger than the neg) using blue painter's tape, spritzing clorox all over it, then smushing around the clorox until all the emulsion is gone. Wash it off and take a look. If you're lucky, it's all gone, but most times there'll be stuff left behind (it looks like really bad mottle). A 2nd spritz and smush gets the rest. The painter's tape is what keeps the clorox away from the 'good' side, so pay attention to how you paste the the neg down.

Stripping is an artistic decision. X-ray has a really unique look. Sometimes it's appropriate, and sometimes it isn't. I stripped a shot taken with a soft lens that looked right out of a pictorial book. Then I stripped off one side and it looked awful. Practise, practise, practise.

I'll put up some of my stuff later tonight when I get back home.

George

gbogatko

6-Sep-2011, 07:05

Oh, and I've been using Dektol 1:12, "by inspection." Then it's like developing lith film.

Scott --

6-Sep-2011, 07:13

How about this. I most often use HP5 but for this one I used Kodak Mammography film.

Don, where are you getting the mammography film?

gbogatko

6-Sep-2011, 07:16

Here's one done with a verito 14.5. Not 'stripped'.
Not a print, I don't have the equipment to do pt/pl much less gum, but I could get close to the look in P.S.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=60755&d=1314971721

Don Dudenbostel

6-Sep-2011, 15:28

Don, where are you getting the mammography film?

Got it off of ebay.

DD

Erik Larsen

6-Sep-2011, 17:14

Scanned silver prints from 8x10 blue-sensitive Agfa x-ray

If the Little Rascals ever do a remake, your son in the left picture would make a good Alfalfa:). Very cute.
Regards
Erik

gbogatko

7-Sep-2011, 06:18

Here are some shots on "green latitude" film.
All scanned. My darkroom is only usable after the sun goes down, so prints are rare.

The 2nd one shows the effect of overcompensating for the uber-contrast. I'll post some actual prints next.

George

gbogatko

7-Sep-2011, 06:53

The brownish one is a scan, the other a silver print.

gbogatko

7-Sep-2011, 06:57

again, brown -- scan, other -- silver print.
This silver print was done on VC paper with a 00 filter and alternating Dektol 1:3 and water bath -- in other words, it was really hard to get it to look like what you see. The contrast was just about uncontrollable. Also, I'm not a very good wet printer :) .

Scott --

7-Sep-2011, 07:35

Question: How finicky are holders for nominal film sizes? Mammo film is available in 24x30cm, but not 10x12". How close is close enough?

Scott --

7-Sep-2011, 07:44

George, you're stripping the back emulsion, right? Great scans you're getting.

Vaughn

7-Sep-2011, 07:50

If the Little Rascals ever do a remake, your son in the left picture would make a good Alfalfa:). Very cute.
Regards
Erik

I was on an airplane to Australia that showed the remake of the Little Rascals. Painful experience...I don't want to talk about it...

gbogatko

7-Sep-2011, 07:59

George, you're stripping the back emulsion, right? Great scans you're getting.

No, those are not stripped.

But, here is a "before/after" example -- before on the left, after on the right. As you can see, the striping took away about 1/2 the density, which was not a good thing -- the result is now an underexposed neg. Getting any character in the window over her left shoulder introduces really ugly grain now. My next attempt at exposure/dev/stripping will have to keep that in mind.

I might try the film at ISO 80 and stripping that. All of this is really worth the effort if you're going to shoot with old soft focus lenses as they were designed to work with older film, and I think stripped X-ray film acts just like the older stuff.

George

EdWorkman

7-Sep-2011, 10:29

Gotta do your own homework on that one, probly. Close enough for hand grenades surely.
But 10x12in is 25.4x30.48 cm so it doesn't sound all that close to us former engineers.
Now if there is about that much extra space in a 10x12 holder, you might just have a serendipity, by not having to sliiiiiide the film in, but tape it at the edges under the safelight. no wait, set it under the thingy on one side and get more tape room , less tape on the other. [ that's my fantasy plan for a 14x36 inch holder -did I say fantasy?]

Philippe Grunchec

7-Sep-2011, 10:52

http://www.foma.cz/foma/dokumenty/RadioProdukt.asp
http://www.foma.cz/foma/produkt/ndtsystemy.asp?seznam=indux

Are Foma X-ray films available in the US? They have medical (including mammo) and industrial types: what is the difference?

Jay DeFehr

9-Sep-2011, 07:26

George,

I stripped my first sheet of X-Ray film, using soapy bleach and a foam brush. The sheet was developed in a tube with rotary agitation, and the results are very good, but next time I'll develop more. The phrase, Gamma Infinity comes to mind. My first sheets of X-Ray film were exposed with my Verito, and a print from one of them hangs on my wall.

gbogatko

9-Sep-2011, 07:40

The phrase, Gamma Infinity comes to mind.

Ummm. The term used by W.M. no doubt? I'll have to try that as well with some D76 1:1 for 1/2 hour. :)

George

szadow

9-Sep-2011, 07:41

I've already posted this in September Portrait thread, but it also belongs here :)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Nwk30LnEXrA/TmnisCyMSzI/AAAAAAAAAjI/b10I8XFyN0c/s640/MarekTryptyk.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/macieklesniak/6129018897/)

My first ever photos made on an X-ray film :)
Globica 13x18
Lens Zeiss Tessar 250/4.5
KODAK Medical X-Ray Film , Rodinal 1+100 tray processing

Jim Fitzgerald

9-Sep-2011, 08:18

I had these interesting light streaks also when I shot a model some time back. It is a nice effect. I couldn't figure out what caused it but it was nice as are these images. Thanks for posting them.

Jay DeFehr

9-Sep-2011, 08:38

George,

I think W.M. might have liked X-Ray film. The creative possibilities seem endless, and it's cheap enough to play with. I want to try my hand at negative retouching, among other things.

jumanji

9-Sep-2011, 10:11

I think I did overdevelop this shot. The shadow details (hair) is ok, but the highlight is too bright. Am I right? Or because there is only one light source (sun light)?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6062/6129437573_10360a84df_z.jpg

gbogatko

9-Sep-2011, 10:27

I think I did overdevelop this shot.

No. That's the way the stuff acts. It's why some people strip off one side.

szadow

9-Sep-2011, 10:52

I had these interesting light streaks also when I shot a model some time back. It is a nice effect. I couldn't figure out what caused it but it was nice as are these images. Thanks for posting them.

I know what caused mine, a tiny piece of wood broke of on top of the holder (about 1/3 of an inch wide) :)

MIke Sherck

9-Sep-2011, 11:30

Harvard Univ. says someone stole 500 to 600 lbs. of old X-ray film.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/09/09/harvard-university-police-man-stole-500-lbs-of-x-ray-film/

Watch out for deals in the Boston area which seem too good to be true. Chances are they're just trying to get the silver out, but you never know!

Mike

Philippe Grunchec

10-Sep-2011, 04:16

@ Scott: their Indux films do come in 10x12, but I don't know yet (I asked Foma) what these Industrial X-Ray films are!...

gbogatko

10-Sep-2011, 20:49

Plain Jane Green xray 8x10 film from CSXOnline.
Shot ISO 80. Schneider Symmar-S 300mm. Shadows on III. A dull day, easily within 5 zones.
Developed D76 1:1 in a Uniroller (kinda like a Jobo) for 20 minutes.
Stripped.
Not prints -- scanned, then P.S. edited and pseudo-toned.

I like the results. It's an aesthetic thing. Definitely not something you'd get from modern Pan film.

George

gbogatko

11-Sep-2011, 07:50

An enlarged section of the previous post (pic #1).
ISO 80 and stripping gets you a result that is much more controllable.

Jim Fitzgerald

16-Sep-2011, 18:13

George how do the prints look? Scans look nice.

gbogatko

24-Sep-2011, 07:01

George how do the prints look? Scans look nice.

Workin' on it -- just got back from Indiana -- more to develop and then waiting for evening.

George

Jim Fitzgerald

24-Sep-2011, 07:58

Workin' on it -- just got back from Indiana -- more to develop and then waiting for evening.

George

Great. Looking forward to the prints!

grahamcase

24-Sep-2011, 10:19

I'm getting scratching (I think from loading, as my film changing bag is too small), and I'm working on my development time (this was about 2.5 minutes in Ilfosol 3 1+9).

It prints better than it scans!

http://www.grahamcase.ca/blog/images/xray001.jpg

Miguel Coquis

27-Sep-2011, 08:06

...a try on 8x10"
B Fuji 14x17 cut to smaller
out dated film
Aero Ektar 300mm f:2,5
10 sec exposure
Dev:D76 6 min 20°C
I am sure there must be something I do not remember...:)

http://macoquis.caraldi.com/scaled/Selection%20jpgs/Window-Knob.jpg
Window Knob

Jim Fitzgerald

27-Sep-2011, 08:13

Looks great to me!

Curt

27-Sep-2011, 19:13

Andrew O'Neill

29-Oct-2011, 12:07

Green latitude exposed with Wratten #12 (minus blue) filter. Pyrocat-hd.

Jimi

29-Oct-2011, 12:09

Andrew, fantastic feeling of light in the photograph! Love it.

Andrew O'Neill

29-Oct-2011, 12:31

Vaulting inside Westminster Abbey, Mission, BC. Green latitude film. Developed in pyrocat-hd. Thank you, Jimi!

SMBooth

6-Nov-2011, 04:40

desertrat

6-Nov-2011, 09:50

OK going to bump this to the top again, I see a lot about developing the film here but not on normal printing. The MXG (Kodak, Green Sensitive) Ive just got has a real blue base to it, will this cause much of a problem using normal VC papers?
I've recently used Kodak high speed green film with Arista VC RC paper. The contrast filters for the paper seem to work more or less normally with the blue base of the film. Here is a thread on X-ray film images in the Image Sharing subforum:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=80011

I posted a couple of images printed on the VC paper.

Foma 120 roll film also has a blue base, although not as deep blue as the X-ray film, and VC printing filters seem to work OK with the Foma also.

Jim Fitzgerald

6-Nov-2011, 10:30

It has been a while for images with x-ray film. Here is another shot on green and printed in carbon with an experimental batch of a new tone.

Andrew O'Neill

8-Nov-2011, 07:33

smbooth, xray film prints fine on VC papers. The image that I posted in the thread mentioned by desertrat of the abbey tower is on Ilford Multigrade. I should also mention that the image of the vaulted ceiling is a carbon print.

PViapiano

9-Nov-2011, 01:21

Looks good, Jim...I like the tone.

mat4226

9-Nov-2011, 08:45

Jim, I'm not usually a fan of floral imagery, but the antiquated feel of this new tone gives it a breath of fresh air, well done! Can't wait to start trying out x-ray film for myself.

Jim Fitzgerald

9-Nov-2011, 09:42

Thanks everyone. I was trying for a look from the past. It has to grow on me.

Tri Tran

9-Nov-2011, 11:07

It has been a while for images with x-ray film. Here is another shot on green and printed in carbon with an experimental batch of a new tone.

Now I see what you mean. The true classic vanilla chocolate flavor :)

Andrew O'Neill

10-Nov-2011, 09:00

Exposed a couple of green latitude film one through a wratten #11 (green) and the other through a #15 (yellow) filter. Regular factor applied for each. No colour image for reference, but labelled objects Y, R, LG, etc.

Curt

10-Nov-2011, 19:34

Curt

10-Nov-2011, 19:46

It has a rich beauty to it.

Andrew O'Neill

10-Nov-2011, 22:17

Curt, I prefer the #11.

Curt

11-Nov-2011, 07:28

I agree, it snappier and visually brighter.

SMBooth

11-Nov-2011, 20:27

Still learning to use X-ray film this is an old water tower on the Hume Hwy near Euroa.
Kodak MXG X-Ray film cut to 8x10 Developed in Rodinal 1:200 6min in rotary processor.
Scan and PS tone

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6052/6336424896_35e727b34c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/isisford/6336424896/)
Euroa Water Tower (http://www.flickr.com/photos/isisford/6336424896/) by SMBooth (http://www.flickr.com/people/isisford/), on Flickr

Tim k

11-Nov-2011, 22:19

SMBooth

11-Nov-2011, 22:37

No the only PS was tone and slight levels adjust. I shot two image as a test one with yellow filter and one without, this is the one without. Unfortunately I messed up the processing of the other I never noticed that the drum wasn't sitting correctly and not rotating until the last 1min, stupidly I didn't think to keep developing I just finished it off and saw the result. I does look like the yellow filter drops the contrast some what but bit hard to tell with what I finished up with.

Tim k

12-Nov-2011, 06:45

Its a very respectable looking print. I am about to push the "add to cart" button on some xray film. One of the things that was concerning me was the sky going away thing.
This is very encouraging.
Thanks for the info.

szadow

19-Nov-2011, 04:53

http://www.artlimited.net/user/0/0/2/0/4/8/6/artlimited_img339714.jpg
(http://www.artlimited.net/image/en/339714)First test shot with my new self made DIY camera.
Camrea Kulkon 160 + Zochar 83mm/f40 lens
Film Kodak Medical X-ray film
Dev Rodinal 1+200 at 18°C for 6 minutes

Jim Fitzgerald

19-Nov-2011, 09:26

Nice! Congrat's on the camera build. Looks like you nailed it!

Andrew O'Neill

19-Nov-2011, 13:21

Tim k

19-Nov-2011, 16:28

Ok, I have to ask, whats the line in the middle all about? I do like the tonality of whats going on here.

http://www.artlimited.net/user/0/0/2/0/4/8/6/artlimited_img339714.jpg
(http://www.artlimited.net/image/en/339714)First test shot with my new self made DIY camera.
Camrea Kulkon 160 + Zochar 83mm/f40 lens
Film Kodak Medical X-ray film
Dev Rodinal 1+200 at 18°C for 6 minutes

jon.oman

19-Nov-2011, 17:36

I bet he taped two pieces of film together.

tgtaylor

19-Nov-2011, 20:40

SMBooth

19-Nov-2011, 21:57

SMBooth, how are you able to rotary process xray film? Isn't there emulsion on both sides, or is this one a single side coating?

Andrew, I just use a unicolor drum and roller which takes 4 4x5 or 1 8x10. Just roll it up and carefully place it into the drum , the edge catches on one of the ribs which I assume stops it from moving around to much. When developing is finished I roll the sheet inwards so it does not hit the side of the drum when its draw out. So far this has worked out OK, the most scratches I got was from trying to get the film out of the holder with short finger nails because I cut the film at 240mm not 250mm and it slides back and forth.

gbogatko

20-Nov-2011, 07:23

From a session with some friends to use as promo material for a CD.

Green x-ray 8x10 (CXSOnline) shot at iso 50 with a Verito. Skin on zone 6.5
Tray developed, Dektol 1:10 for 2.5 minutes.
One side stripped with Clorox.
Scanned and P.S. processing. (I could never get the final look with my meager wet darkroom skills, but now that it gets darker earlier I may try.)

George

gbogatko

20-Nov-2011, 07:32

I've also developed x-ray in PMKPyro in a Uniroller -- Iso 50-80, 10 minutes. I don't worry about the 'other' side because I then strip that side with Clorox. Very unscientific.

Robert Hughes

20-Nov-2011, 07:40

From a session with some friends to use as promo material for a CD.
Nice stuff. Do you know Monica from Cranford? If so, give her my regards.

SMBooth

25-Nov-2011, 17:22

Still playing around with MXG, this shoot at sunset was about 1 sec at f11 (ISO25) with swing on 8x10. No filter and developed in Rodinal 1:200 for 6min I did get some rub marks from the drum but cloned out while toning in PS.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6102/6402256861_4000ecec5b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/isisford/6402256861/)

tgtaylor

25-Nov-2011, 20:20

Not the best developing job I'm afraid.

View from Aquatic Park, San Francisco

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6215/6366876087_460257e398_b.jpg

Cyanotype from a Kodak green sensitive negative. Toyo 810G, 360mm lens. Image cropped in PS to eliminate the more serious devlopment flaws.

Thomas

The more I look at this image the more I like it notwithstanding the uneven development which was probably the result of lining the tray with shrink wrap. In fact the uneven development seems to add to it's "antique" look: It looks like it was taken in the 19th century.

Thomas

Joseph O'Neil

26-Nov-2011, 11:35

this thread has me interested, but I don't knwo where or how to find x-ray film here in Canada. the only exception seems to be dental x-ray film, and that stuff is far form "large format". :)

any suggestions?
thanks

Ari

26-Nov-2011, 11:36

tgtaylor

26-Nov-2011, 11:54

Carestream manufactures the kodak product and has distributors in Canada:

http://www.carestream.ca/canada.html

Thomas

gbogatko

29-Nov-2011, 18:53

Plain Jane Green xray 8x10 film from CSXOnline.
Shot ISO 80. Schneider Symmar-S 300mm. Shadows on III. A dull day, easily within 5 zones.

Finally.... Got in some dusk-room time ;)

Here's the results.
The first one is blue-sensitive (one side stripped). His blue jeans jumped right out. Wolly Velo -- 12 inch. Printed on Adorama paper with a #4 filter.

The others are green sensitive (also stripped). The leaves jump out... because they're green.:rolleyes: Printed on Slavich Bromportrait grade 2.
Leaves: Schneider Symmar 12"
Creepy: Verito 14"

George

Fragomeni

29-Nov-2011, 19:59

Someone touched on this a few posts back. The sizes listed on the most commonly listed source's website (http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/xray-film-fuji-xray-film-c-28_103.html?page=1&sort=20a) are without the units of measurement. I'd like to try some x-ray film in my 20x24 camera. Can it be had in that size? I was planning on buying the listed 24x24 and cutting it down but then I saw the post saying that the listed film is in fact 24x24cm not inches. By comparing the prices and sheet counts between the different options they list, it looks like the 18x24 is also cm and not inches. It looks like the 14x17 is the largest sheet they carry. Can anyone confirm that the 14x17 is actually in inches?

I remember (at least I think I remember) a while back seeing a video of some guy shooting a 20x24 using x-ray film (I'll try and see if I can find it). That means that either he must have found a source for 20x24 X-ray film (maybe a zoo has something like this for x-raying elephants haha) or he was piecing it together from smaller sheets. Any insight? Any source for 20x24 size film?

This thread trails back several years and is ridiculously long but it has been very useful and is a testament to the power of collectively building knowledge over time and across geographic limitations. Bravo to you all.

Jim Fitzgerald

29-Nov-2011, 22:14

I shoot 14x17 inch green x-ray film. I have not seen any 20x24 inch x-ray film. Does it exist????????

SMBooth

29-Nov-2011, 22:22

Man I like that last image George

Tri Tran

30-Nov-2011, 07:27

They are not available for this size 20x24 Xray film nor custom order through CSX I already asked. They are listed but in CM metric system.There is ortho film ar 3 ISO that you can use.

gbogatko

30-Nov-2011, 09:09

Man I like that last image George

hee-hee
Promo material for some buddies of mine (TFP)

1-Dec-2011, 10:12

No experience with this vendor yet, but I visited http://www.ksrxray.com/index.html and wrote to xrayman511@aol.com and asked:

I am looking for single-emulsion (single sided) 14x17 xray film. Is
that something you sell? I'd be using it for photography, and many
other photographers would like single sided film too if it's
available.

They wrote back:

The cost for 14x17 single emusion is $ 99.00. the price will be going up january 1st.

Might save the effort of stripping or dealing with scratches if it is indeed what he's stating. I might order a box.

jon.oman

1-Dec-2011, 12:29

This is my first 8x10 inch image, and also the first image on X-ray film.

CSX 8x10 inch Green Laditude film
Cambo Legend 8x10
Caltar II-N F5.6 300 MC
F22, 8 seconds, 80 ISO
D-76 full strength, 6 minutes, 68 degrees F.
Deep tanks were used.

The exposure was adjusted for the bellows factor.
The image was cropped to a 2:3 ratio.

http://www.gophotog.org/allphotos/film/large_photos/Vendange_8x12.jpg

Jim Fitzgerald

1-Dec-2011, 13:21

Jon, very good! keep it up!

jon.oman

1-Dec-2011, 13:42

Jon, very good! keep it up!

Thanks Jim!

gbogatko

1-Dec-2011, 16:45

This is my first 8x10 inch image, and also the first image on X-ray film.

And a nice one it is too!!
Try iso 200 as well if you're not going to strip one side. A different level of contrast, but seems to hold the shadows as well.

George

Tim k

1-Dec-2011, 16:48

Jon, Looks pretty good.

jon.oman

2-Dec-2011, 14:51

And a nice one it is too!!
Try iso 200 as well if you're not going to strip one side. A different level of contrast, but seems to hold the shadows as well.

George

Thanks!

I did not strip my image.......

I will try 200 ISO to determine the difference.

jon.oman

2-Dec-2011, 14:52

Jon, Looks pretty good.

Thanks Tim!

Tav Walraven

2-Dec-2011, 17:04

I shoot 14x17 inch green x-ray film. I have not seen any 20x24 inch x-ray film. Does it exist????????

Jim....

This morning I ordered a box of 25 sheets of Fuji green sensitive in 14"x36" from zzmedical. Bryan was a great help and did mention that on their site where is shows 24x30, that is cm, not inches. But the 14x36 IS inches. Somewhat confusing and happy I talked to Bryan before ordering. This is the largest size they have. I also ordered a box of 100 Kodak MXG in 11x14 for $71.00. So at least from zz, there is no 20x24 inch film. They also have this expensive (only because you have to buy a case of 500 sheets) of this film as it states that the "gradation reproduction" is equal to silver halide films. Jim, have you thought about this one? Comes 14x17 for $1.50 a sheet................
http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/14x17-fuji-dihl-dry-laser-film-p-809.html

Tav

SMBooth

2-Dec-2011, 17:58

That looks like a write to film, as opposed to develop out film. Never seen silver halide film that can be load in daylight..

Gene McCluney

3-Dec-2011, 07:54

Jim....

They also have this expensive (only because you have to buy a case of 500 sheets) of this film as it states that the "gradation reproduction" is equal to silver halide films. Jim, have you thought about this one? Comes 14x17 for $1.50 a sheet................
http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/14x17-fuji-dihl-dry-laser-film-p-809.html

Tav

That is a material for use in a laser-printer for making final images from digital x-ray photography, not light sensitive. You could say it is akin to printer paper, but transparent.