Use of X-ray film: technical discussion with example images [Archive] - Page 20

alanbutler57

12-Apr-2017, 06:21

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

12-Apr-2017, 06:50

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

12-Apr-2017, 08:07

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

12-Apr-2017, 13:24

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

12-Apr-2017, 22:13

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

12-Apr-2017, 23:49

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

13-Apr-2017, 00:24

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

HoodedOne

13-Apr-2017, 01:46

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

13-Apr-2017, 10:02

EdWorkman

13-Apr-2017, 10:05

hporter

13-Apr-2017, 10:19

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

Randy - I have read your post about these bulbs several times and meant to order one. So last week I did. It is unbelievable the difference it has made in loading film into holders and also loading film into developing drums without scratching up the rear facing emulsion.

This seems such a simple revelation - that being able to see what you are doing, rather than fumbling around in the dark, would be beneficial. But I put it off for so long and now I wished that I hadn't. Few things have made such an impact on me, for less than $10....

So thank you for posting about your results and the product link. I now feel comfortable to try and cut down the x-ray film to 5x7 and 4x5 sizes.

Harold

HoodedOne

13-Apr-2017, 12:39

Excellent HoodOne
But from your last response I infer it to be a scan of the neg
So I would have not thought to use a contrast increasing filter, but let the blue light get into all the crannies
Any highlight blocking you did get is unnoticed in the overall . Very Cool
Scan details?? or you may keep it a trade secret
regards
Ed

No trade secrets here.
The Negative is scanned on a Epson v750 with Vuescan. And although I normally scan in 16bit grey. This image was scanned as 48bit color negative, and saved as 16bit grey. The reason for this change in scanning, was the top-left corner. In 16bit this corner was getting dense black with no detail. The scanning as a color negative gave enough shadow detail.
Imported the image in Lightroom, and only did some minor adjustments. Exported the image directly from LR to Flickr

ps. I also tried the scanning as color negative and converting the green channel to 16bit grey. but this gave a little bit less shadow detail to work with.

andrewch59

13-Apr-2017, 14:02

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!

Speaking of DR values, has anyone tried taking a 4x5 negative scan, enlarging it and printing out a digital transparency to use for alternate printing processes?
Surely the Densities can be adjusted to suit?? Or is there a thread on this topic?

koraks

13-Apr-2017, 15:35

There are numerous threads about it and it's actually the way e.g. Sandy King makes most of his carbon prints at the moment. I've done it as well, but grew dissatisfied with the covering power and pixelation of my inkjet system (Epson 3880 with initially Epson inks and currently Jon Cone inks), although Sandy said recently that inkjet with stock inks should be capable of excellent results. I've made many quite nice cyanotypes and carbon transfers this way. The big advantage is that you can manipulate digitally, which is generally a quicker route to optimal results for most contemporary users, and the ability to use custom curves that exactly suit the process you're doing while producing repeatable and predictable results. Search for "digital negatives for alternative processes" on this forum and on Google in general; you'll find a plethora of manuals, tools, user experiences, example images and even specialized suppliers offering inks, printer conversions and software to facilitate this approach. The concept has been in use for years and can be considered proven technology by now. I personally found it (in hindsight) a smooth entry into alt process printing for people who've done a lot of their work in digital space. For me, though, it also paved the way to a virtually exclusive analog workflow - but that's a different story and should be regarded as as signal that digital negatives are suboptimal.

andrewch59

13-Apr-2017, 17:42

Thanks Koraks for that info. For my gallery prints I scanned all of my xray negatives on my v800 and sent them to Melbourne for printing, as the local guy could not match the quality of the print. I think I would contact a commercial printer of that calibre to make my transparencies. Anyway, that is in the future when I start trying some of the alternate processes, have to get up to speed with xray first

koraks

14-Apr-2017, 00:57

You may want to contact bob carnie on this forum. He makes silver-based digital negatives (Lambda) all the time.

alanbutler57

15-Apr-2017, 21:07

Wyatt and da boys at the Fort Worth Stockyard.

Prior to this I tried an experiment that didn't work at all. After shooting around the yard I tried divided pyrocat: 12 blue x-ray 4x5's in the Jobo 600 ml total solution, 1:40 sol A for 5 min, 1:40 sol B for 10. . . and got absolutely nothing on the negatives, just pretty blue sheets. So, I went back to using 600 ml of 1:1: 100 for only 4 4x5's for this one. Six minutes in the Jobo, Super D, Gundlach Petzval , half speed blue x-ray rated at 25. Negative scan desaturated a little and sharpened.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2889/33220741114_92dff465c7_b.jpg

I'd really like to figure out how to process more negatives at a time, but I'm afraid simply increasing concentrations will make the contrast hard to control.

andrewch59

17-Apr-2017, 04:54

I like that shot too, bit of selenium toner, or use the NIK collection silver effect pro. I am still learning, but find xray very tolerant, to think I use half speed blue at iso100-ish and you are able to get good results at 25?

alanbutler57

17-Apr-2017, 04:59

Its' great you can get 100 out of this! I only tried one test shot at 100 and couldn't salvage anything usable but will have to try again. My SOP is to use an incident light reading when shooting, measure the bright and dark areas and average, usually tending toward overexposure.

andrewch59

17-Apr-2017, 12:34

I just stuck with the recommended speed and it turned out ok for portraits. Although I am not using the same dev concentration as I was, at that time when I started using xray film I used the recommended concentrations of dev, what a waste! I have switched to green now and use that at iso 80, dev is about 1:180-ish

alanbutler57

17-Apr-2017, 14:23

Good information Andrew. I've been afraid to cut back on developer figuring I've now got twice as much emulsion per sheet to develop. Lots of things yet to try. You got it right on the platinum, I toned re-worked it with platinum tone in Topaz and it looks quiet nice.

andrewch59

18-Apr-2017, 01:08

I took advice from Sergei who frequents the thread, he does all of his developing the same way including film. I have used the same ratio for 13x16 inch negs and found it gives me lot more time to check the neg to see were development is at in trays. In rotary I also follow Sergei to the letter and do rotary for 12 mins. You should check his site http://sergeirodionov.com/. I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs, but it helped me. Anyways...glad I could help.

alanbutler57

18-Apr-2017, 05:21

Thanks,
I'll re-read Sergei's advice. I've always enjoyed his work! But he does stat he only use the green sensitive film which most folks rate at 80-100, not the half speed blue sensitive I've been playing with.

Andrew O'Neill

18-Apr-2017, 11:38

Speaking of DR values, has anyone tried taking a 4x5 negative scan, enlarging it and printing out a digital transparency to use for alternate printing processes?
Surely the Densities can be adjusted to suit?? Or is there a thread on this topic?

I use digital negatives for carbon transfer and kallitype printing, often. My older Epson 4000, cheap Chinese ink, and QTR do a great job. I've made them from scanning in 35mm up to 8x10.

andrewch59

18-Apr-2017, 17:15

Thanks Andrew, I'm going to have a bash at carbon transfer during winter and was not sure if the print quality would be sufficient. Makes it a lot easier enlarging a 4x5 neg rather then lugging around my 10x12 vageeswari

Andrew O'Neill

18-Apr-2017, 17:43

You're welcome, Andrew. I do most of my carbon printing during the winter here...your summer, there. I was able to squeek out a few carbons last summer as it was a cooler one than usual. Another nice thing about the digital negative is that it allows you to build in your dodge/burns, etc.

senderoaburrido

3-May-2017, 19:50

I'm back with more info. Started filling my dev tank nearly to the top and I'm getting much more consistent results with EB/RA. Much more solid results, a few artifacts or aberrations aside. I'll post more UV results later.

andrewch59

3-May-2017, 21:31

I use digital negatives for carbon transfer and kallitype printing, often. My older Epson 4000, cheap Chinese ink, and QTR do a great job. I've made them from scanning in 35mm up to 8x10.
Hi Andrew, I see you do Kallitypes as well..I think the Kallitypes are pretty stupendous, looking at the examples through google search. They seem so intense and sharp, I have just bought some chems, but after looking at half a dozen recipes they are all so different and ambiguous. Hopefully getting my hands on a copy of "the book of alternate photographical processes"

senderoaburrido

4-May-2017, 04:15

164395
164396

Here's some UV. You can tell it's UV by the contrast and depth of shadows, the faintness of the designs on the sweater, and the blotching on the skin. The blotching is the patches of melanin that connect her freckles reflecting the UV light.

When I first saw my results, I double checked the transmission curve for the B+W 403 filter I'm using, and I was quite surprised to see that I am not getting anything beyond maybe a tiny bit past 400nm in the visible. It looks so much like visible light, shadows and skin aside. The only thing that has stood out to me so far is the slightly different pattern of contrast across varying surfaces (paint, glass, metal, greenery, etc.), in the same vein -though not as stark- as IR.

Mostly what you're seeing is the upper part of UV-A (350-400nm), which is pretty close to visible light. I have a plastic lens in the mail that can transmit all the way down to UV-C (not that I could capture any, it's mostly filtered out by the ozone layer). Should just about cover 4x5.

devb

4-May-2017, 18:43

Sandy Hook, NJ. Overcast. Half speed blue, rated at 125. HC-110 B for 7 minutes.

164425

For fun, comparison to FP4+ at 100% 2400 dpi V700 scan:

164426

ImSoNegative

15-May-2017, 18:23

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.

anything over 1 sec add a stop, i have experimented with this up to 1 hour and the exposure was dead on

senderoaburrido

16-May-2017, 16:35

That explains why instead of adding the recommended 5 stops for UV, I've been getting better results with 6. I've got more UV photos on the way. Have to develop them tomorrow and then I'll print on thurs.

16-May-2017, 17:42

This I shot at iso 400 on an overcast day, developed in 1+4 dektol for 5 minutes... Ektascan B/RA
I thought I had tmy2 in the holder but was wrong. Discovered what I had when I pulled the film out and felt the rounded corners in the dark.
It made a nice looking negative with useful midtones and the highlights and shadows are not extreme.
It's in the tree image sharing thread but it's nice results for Xray film worth me noting to try again.

165014

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4158/34592249235_0f5c86fa96.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/UGNjwg)
img695 (https://flic.kr/p/UGNjwg) by Jason Philbrook (https://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/), on Flickr

andrewch59

16-May-2017, 18:15

JP that is a great effect with that unusual bokeh in the background, very 3d, what lens were you using, kind of reminds me of my Sigmar

17-May-2017, 04:52

It's the Kodak 305 portrait. It's crazy in the woods. I have a sigmar too, but it's longer and I needed something wider for my woods work.

michael_wi

17-May-2017, 13:27

Chewed through thread from where I left off a few years ago. Really nice images in here.

I made a spreadsheet culled from APUG, here, blogs, flickr, and google searches. It is a few years out of date. Meant to share this a long time ago but life gets in the way sometimes.

Find on my google docs - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YFPM2J6ADKgZDTbj8MYcyuB5BU1mKmNuWobB6Zp2GlQ/edit?usp=sharing
It is set to anyone can edit.

EDIT:
It contains 4 tabs
1) name, EI/ISO ratings, sensitivity types, light exposed under (when given or obvious), and development info.
2) Film names, types, and box thumbs in an "equivalent" table. Discontinued films are also included
3) Notes, DIY developers with credit, Andrew O'Neil's X-Ray Film Reciprocity Effect chart (2010)
4) ANSI standard cut film sizes. in, mm, min/nom/max for 2" x 3" to 12" x 20" and 9cm x 12cm to 24cm x 30cm

MAubrey

17-May-2017, 13:33

Jim Noel

17-May-2017, 13:48

Tri,
Looks like another great image. t is nice to occasionally see the location in which an image was made. Thanks for this. I assume this is in your back yard. What a great place for a photographer. I'm envious of both the garden and the image.
Jim Noel

17-May-2017, 14:16

meditant

17-May-2017, 14:23

Very cool thanks !

Nukatpiat

18-May-2017, 16:26

That spreadsheet is great.
I found one I haven't seen in the thread (not that I've read everything).
It's Flow dental film. 5"x12", full speed green, in a box of 50 sheets. I would assume it's made by one of the other big companies and is the same as some of the other full speed greens, but they claim to have their own factory in the US?
I haven't tried x-ray before, but I've been using ortho film for testing and inexpensive camera development, exhibition test shots etc. I am hoping x-ray will be less of a pain.
So far I like the Flow quite a bit. I cut it on a paper cutter into 3 4x5 sheets.
It's a nice film base, seems like polyester, with a noticeable blue tint. Rounded corners.
I shot three quickie tests at 50, 100 and 200 ISO in my Speed Graphic under strobes. The box actually claims it is "Full Speed, 400". I don't know if the 400 is supposed to be ISO or some other rating?
Anyway, it looks pretty good at 100 in 1:100 Rodinal, dunk tank developed for 7 minutes. Densities are right on the money, about .25 in the shadows up to 1.35 in the highlights (and 1.5 or so in the speculars).
Definitely very orthochromatic. The blown glass candleholder immediately on the right is green, the one on the left is red. The top right one is blue. It's very green and blue sensitive, not a surprise, but some people have said their greens seemed
more blue than green sensitive, and that's not the case here.

I dropped the damned neg putting it into the scanner so it's filthy, my apologies.
165084

andrewch59

18-May-2017, 17:46

Great result to my old eyes, I think a decent scanner is a must for xray film, scratches and dust are the downside and after spending a few days on a 4x5 neg, removing scratches and dust from the digital scan. IT soon taught me to take great care loading and unloading film and finding an acceptable way to develop to avoid uneven development. I even do as Ansell Adams suggests and vacuum my film holders before loading.

andrewch59

18-May-2017, 17:46

michael_wi

18-May-2017, 21:10

The only experience I have with laser prints is when making circuit boards. There used to be a spray on light sensitive resist, can't find it any more. I now use silk screen light sensitive mask. Dichromate in a "paint". Black and white prints and the black needs some touchup every time.

Jim Noel

19-May-2017, 07:04

What is your source for FlowDental Film? I have a 5x12 camera and like to have a variety of films to work with.

Fr. Mark

19-May-2017, 20:51

My experience with laser printers is with older, well used ones, mostly. The pictures look grainy in an odd sort of way, but aren't totally unacceptable particularly to non-photographers. I've used them as gifts.

andrewch59

20-May-2017, 00:46

Thanks for the reply, the one they are using is the latest and greatest apparently, so I will see what the outcome is. I purchased the downloads from Dan Burkholder, which are really helpful and have supplied a copy for the printshop to have a look at, hopefully that can transfer over to laser. Will let the thread know the outcome, it may be helpful to some.

salvatore

21-May-2017, 00:41

I know inkjet printers are a great way to produce an enlarged negative for alternate printing methods, but in my small town the printing outlet only uses laser printers. Has anyone had any joy producing laser negs on transparencies?? I have great reference material from Dan Burkholder for inkjet printers, but very limited info on laser printers.

I am using negatives made with a laser printer with reasonable satisfaction.
I make both black and white and color prints in A5, A4 sizes.
The larger the print the better, since the negatives are somewhat grainy, but this adds a sort of "artistic" taste to the print.
The negatives are made on translucent paper. If polyester sheets are used the toner in some cases does not adhere perfectly and also static discharge effects appear sometimes.
Use also the blackest toner (original HP in my case, not compatible cheaper toners.

andrewch59

21-May-2017, 06:30

Thanks Salvatore, I'm using the emulsion coated transparency film for Laser and inkjet, yet to see the results. I have just found some toner density spray that can be used, if the density is not sufficient you just spray on another coat (Could be snake oil). I feel like its going off topic, but the basis is still the xray negative.

alanbutler57

31-May-2017, 13:58

I just tried divided pyrocat with Fuji Green and got no usable results. The staining was terribly uneven to the point of looking like every image had been double exposed with a lava lamp. Also lost a couple of stops of speed.

What I tried was: ISO 100 incident meter reading, 3 min pre wash , 5 minutes A 1:15 (with foto flow), 5 minutes B 1:15 after draining A for extra 30 sec., then stopped and fixed normally. This was done in a Jobo, 12 exposures in the drum @ 75F. I've had good luck with divided HD before with Pan F, HP5 and FP4 in sheets and 120 using this technique, but this time it was a complete waste of a day's shooting. If someone else has tried divided cat on X-ray with success I'd love to hear the details as this would be an elegant solution to the high contrast of these films.

koraks

31-May-2017, 14:30

I did it once, but on 8x10 in a tray, with a small amount (I think 100ml) of 1:10 and I think 5 minutes per bath. The results seemed quite usable indeed, but I found it a bit wasteful and not all that superior to regular 1+100 and similar dilutions in terms of contrast control. I gave up after that experiment just because I didn't really find it worthwhile.

What format was this, in which drum and how much solution did you use? Btw, I didn't use a surfactant; never sw the need for that and from what I read, it seems to cause more problems than it solves.

Sweep

31-May-2017, 14:55

Hi Guys,

I was given a couple of hundred, plus, sheets of green 10x8 x-ray film from the guy I bought my Wilderness V camera from.
I would prefer to develop in my Jobo drum with Catlabs CL81, as I don't have a dark room, and use Ilford ID-11 as I have all this to hand. I appreciate that this info might be buried in the previous 480 pages of this thread but if someone could steer me on the right track it would be great.
I'm looking for development times, temperatures, dilution rates etc.

Thanks ...Sweep

alanbutler57

31-May-2017, 15:09

HI koraks,
This was 4x5 used a Jobo 2551 tank with 600 ml of solution (1:15) with baffles. I've used this set up with other films as noted with only an occasional minor issue. Perhaps the two sided emulsion makes turbulence a bigger issue.

I don't have anywhere to tray develop so daylight tanks is my only option. Given the recommendation from Sandy King that you should have at least 70 ml of 1:100 per 4x5 sheet, I've been developing only 4 sheets per 600 ml of 1:100 with good success. This was an attempt to use the full capacity of the tank and control contrast. So I'm back to the old ways for now. Maybe next I'll try 2:100 and 8 sheets.

Thanks,

alanbutler57

31-May-2017, 15:11

Sweep
I've had good luck (until now) with Pyrocat HD though I've not shot a lot of the x-ray yet. I like the fact it is a hardening developer since the X-ray film is more prone to scratches. When I was getting started with HP5 I also used ID-11 in the Jobo, as I recall the development time was about the same as the pyrocat.

vdonovan

31-May-2017, 16:54

Check the massive development chart for "Fuji HR/RX". You'll see several entries for xray film. Fuji HR-S is a green film. http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php

I've developed many sheets of Fuji HR-S in a CL-81. It does tend to scratch the edges, but if you're careful you won't scratch the image itself.

koraks

1-Jun-2017, 00:30

I'd love to have one of the CL81 thingies, but haven't bitten the bullet yet on the costs for the holder and the appropriate tank...

Alan, the double sided nature of the film may be the issue in combination with the baffles. I haven't used the baffles, but I use a 2500 tank and the 6 film reel. With xray, I do 4 sheets in 300ml at 2+2+100 and 12 minutes for salted paper prints (ie. insane contrast). 1+1+100 at 10 to 15 minutes is about out right for Van Dyke prints; for silver gelatin, it would probably have to be somewhere around 8 minutes, but I don't do that with xray. Since the film is double sided I usually only develop 4 sheets at once as that equates 8 sheets of regular film, which is already stretching the limits of developer depletion at this volume. I arrived at this through trial and error and it may be far from optimal still, so I may do it differently in the future. However, so far, the results are very usable; good control of contrast and plenty of room to match the negatives for whatever printing process, and development is perfectly even as far as I can tell. I always load the film onto the reel with the side that was facing the lens towards the center of the reel. I'm not sure if that is necessary, it's more a matter of superstition.

alanbutler57

1-Jun-2017, 05:52

Thanks Koraks, since I scan everything I've used 6 minutes with 1:1: 100 with good success but that's with 4 double sided films in 600 ml. I got in trouble by trying to rush.

Jim Noel

1-Jun-2017, 13:05

Sweep

2-Jun-2017, 12:19

Thanks for your guidance guys but I think I've just goofed as I misread the Massive Chart and just ordered a load of Rodinal. Now as I was just about to post thanks, and re-reading the posts, I notice that the green stuff is Fuji HR-S which calls for X-tol :(
Is Rodinal something I can make work or should I return?
Please find a couple of photos of my specific film.

thanks ...Sweep
165657
165658

mdarnton

2-Jun-2017, 12:28

I believe you are thinking too hard. :-)

Sweep

2-Jun-2017, 12:52

You are a wise man mdarnton and very perceptive.
All this LF is so new to me, and I am probably trying to run before I can walk, but I am victim to information overload that the internet provides but what option do I have?
I suppose in the old days it would have been like a scene from the Karate Kid where you would have learned these skills at the side of "The Master" but nowadays we have an electronic master who provides all the information but none of the guidance :-(

koraks

2-Jun-2017, 14:03

Is Rodinal something I can make work or should I return?

It'll work just fine, don't sweat it ;)
Expose as EI 50-80 and develop for 7 minutes or so in 1+100 and see what you get. Adjust time and dilution to suit your taste. You will get an image at the EI, time and dilution I mentioned and most likely it'll print just fine somewhere between grade 2 and 4 and it will scan perfectly alright in any case.

ImSoNegative

2-Jun-2017, 14:23

this stuff will develop in pretty much anything, d76 is good as is ilfosol 3

Sweep

2-Jun-2017, 15:02

I suppose as I have so much of this stuff on hand I can afford to do a bit of experimenting.
I will load up the film holders this weekend and make, say, four exposures at ISO50 and another four at ISO80 and then develop one at a time and see how it goes. 'Unfortunately' I am using Jobo tanks so will have to experiment with the timings blind.
One good thing about 100+1 dilution is that I wont run out of dev.

seezee

2-Jun-2017, 17:20

The good thing about having lots of Rodinal is it keeps practically forever. Even when it turns dark brown & yucky looking, it just works. And it's cheap, so you're not out much cabbage.

alanbutler57

3-Jun-2017, 12:40

I went back to re-shoot Fair Park in Dallas (heavy overcast) after botching development above vis a vie divided Pyrocat, Speed Graphic 127 Ektar. This time I went back to 1:1:100 but increased the number of fuji green negatives (ISO 100) from 4 to 6 (so 12 sides of emulsion) in the Jobo using 600 ml of solution. So, this is well below the recommended minimum amount of solution, but I did increase my normal time from 6 to 8 minutes in hopes I could use every molecule of developer and got usable images (at least for scanning).

So: 20-21C, 5 minutes prewash, 8 minutes 1:1:100 PCHD, normal stop and fix, Jobo 2551

Using the "fuji NHGII" pre-set to automatically remove color cast in Silverfast resulted in showing the Pyrocat brown stain nicely I think.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4270/34945185201_09834abdf7_c.jpg

Sweep

4-Jun-2017, 00:55

Considering the green sensitivity of the x-ray film, what kind if scene should I use for my test shot? I do have a Spyder cube with white/grey/black patches which I can include in the scene but am concerned that I will not be able to accurately interpret the results due to the characteristics of the film. What I'm trying to say is what colours should I include and what should I try to avoid?

koraks

4-Jun-2017, 01:40

Just don't shoot a scene with a lot of red, as that won't register. Also avoid overly red light (e.g. the magic hour), as that will throw you off balance a bit during testing. But you can really shoot anything. I usually just use daylight for testing, preferably under light clouds, but sunshine works as well (it just gives more contrast, so measure your scene so that you know what kind of brightness range you're dealing with).

Alan, excellent image, I really like the toning! I wouldn't have known it was xray if it wasn't in this thread ;)

Sweep

4-Jun-2017, 02:19

Thanks Koraks,
Just loading film holders now. The weather is pretty much as yo describe and my backdrop will be green privet hedge.
Wish me luck :)

Sweep

4-Jun-2017, 02:35

That being said, it is probably a daft idea to focus on anything less than infinity as I might introduce another variable, that being bellows extension :(

koraks

4-Jun-2017, 03:53

Good luck ;) Don't worry too much about the bellows unless you're working at a very close distance and with and long lens. You can use and bellows correction calculator to determine how far off you'll be, but generally at a couple of yards the problem pretty much disappears for all practical purposes. Variations in you shutter are likely to be more significant anyway.

Sweep

4-Jun-2017, 06:21

Eight sheets exposed, four at ISO64/15th sec/f45 and four at ISO80/15th sec/f45.5. The CL81 and Rodinal should arrive tomorrow so I can continue the experiments then.
I will start at 7minutes at 20degC and process one of each of the two settings at the same time. I did, however, forgot to add the reference Spyder cube to the first four shots but this will actually make it easy to identify the two different settings.
By the way, these are the first ever 10x8 exposures I have ever made and have got to say I did feel a bit of a berk with the dark-cloth over my head in full view of the neighbours. Does this feeling wear off over time? :)

...Sweep

andrewch59

4-Jun-2017, 22:35

Hi Sweep, if its anything like my first time, yes I felt very self conscious, but that seems to dissipate as the confidence grows. Exciting times producing your own images, my hat off to for giving it a go

...Andrew

Sweep

6-Jun-2017, 14:43

Well, the first two sheets are out of the tank, and whilst these are only test sheets, I am a little underwhelmed.
4 min soak, 7min at 20degC with 100:1 Rodinal, Ilfostop,
The first thing that struck me was the track lines down each side which appeared to have been made by the Catlabs CL81. Hopefully this is just a consequence of the x-ray film having emulsion,on both sides, and not the CL81, as I will be devestatec if I lose nearly 1/4" off each side when I start using Ilford. Someone please tell me this is so.

Chauncey Walden

6-Jun-2017, 16:28

When I started out some time ago with Carestream CSG double sided 8x10 film I was a bit frustrated with the results in spite of trying various methods of processing. I got some Carestream EB/RA single sided and while much better it still left some things to be desired as regards evenness and consistency in development. I recently decided to try again with a different method. Now I consider it licked and it was so easy to accomplish. I picked up a Teflon coated baking tray from Walmart (13 3/4 x 9 3x4 interior dimensions). I put 400 ml of developer (Rodinal 1 to 100 distilled water 70 to 72 degrees) in the tray. With a red LED on (E27-R8-G from superbrightleds.com in a reflector about 6 feet away - although it probably doesn't matter as I use the same light for loading and for cutting film to smaller formats) I take the film from the holder and slip it into the tray with the developer. I gently rock the tray end to end and side to side for 6 to 6.5 minutes (I hold the tray under the light at 5 minutes and decide for the time). I dump the developer and flush the film in the tray with a bit (about 400-450 ml) of tap water for 3 10 to 15 second washes as a stop bath. I dump in 450 ml of film fixer and fix the film then rinse again with water in the developing tray and put the film in another tray with gently running water on it until the next sheet is ready to wash. Remove, hang and dry. So simple and so consistent. I may even be tempted to try the double sided again although if I can't be guaranteed quality results with it, it won't be worth my time.

Jim Noel

6-Jun-2017, 16:51

andrewch59

6-Jun-2017, 18:05

Reading some of the documented ways of taming xray in previous posts might help

koraks

7-Jun-2017, 00:08

seezee

7-Jun-2017, 19:09

Chauncey, that's about how I do it with double sided film as well, but that's much more challenging, as I find I have to flip the sheet over every 20 seconds or so to get both sides to develop evenly. I'd stick to single sided film if you have access to it. It's not really worth it to go back to double sided in my opinion.

So, the reason I switched to double-sided film from Ektascan was because I wanted a blue-sensitive emulsion. I want that 'colorblind' look, rather than the 'ortho' look of green sensitive film.

I'd gladly pay more for a single-sided blue sensitive film, if I could find it. Anyone know if such a beastie exists?

koraks

7-Jun-2017, 23:56

I've never heard of a single sided blue sensitive xray film. You could use a green sensitive film and fit a blue filter on the lens. You'd have to reduce the EI by 2/3 to 1 stop, I suppose.

Fr. Mark

8-Jun-2017, 21:07

You could fix out some Xray film and coat it with a color blind emulsion on just one side. See Diane Ross and the lightfarm.org

seezee

9-Jun-2017, 07:35

I've never heard of a single sided blue sensitive xray film. You could use a green sensitive film and fit a blue filter on the lens. You'd have to reduce the EI by 2/3 to 1 stop, I suppose.

I've thought about doing that. Anyone else try this already?

sinus2001

17-Jun-2017, 11:04

koraks

17-Jun-2017, 13:51

It'll work, no doubt. I'm not familiar with that developer, so you may have to experiment a bit to get a usable development time. It's probably a rapid process developer, so maybe you need to dilute it e.g. 1+3 to get a more reasonable time. The fixer is probably usable as is; xray film tends to fix out easily. I'd just expose a couple of sheets at iso 80 in daylight and then develop the first, adjust development time to suit your taste for the next sheet, and so on.
You can also use any regular b&w developer, such as rodinal or d76 or whathaveyou.

Jim Fitzgerald

17-Jun-2017, 16:51

Here is an image from a recent set up. This is an 8x10 carbon print. The Carestream single sided x-ray film was developed in Rodinal 1:60 for 12 minutes. The image is of a 110 year old Capiz window from a schoolhouse from the Philippines.

andrewch59

17-Jun-2017, 19:10

This exert was copied from another site. It was easy enough to find.

"If anyone else is looking for information I'll just post this response I got from Agfa:

G101 is a developer from our graphic department and is designed to develop line films. The recommended temperature (for lithographic films) is 35°C and the developing time should be approx. 25 seconds.
The G3231c is a microfilm developer. Standard conditions : temperature 38°C and developing time 12".

It should be possible to develop films as Tmax in G101 and G3231 but indeed the contrast will be higher and the film will be a bit more grainy.

We did never test these combinations but I recommend to make a test with a (much) lower temperature (f.e. 20°C) and a developing time of a few minutes.

hi,
for what it's worth,
couple of years late, but have been using the g3231c with technical pan at 100iso, diluted 1+63 for 6,5min @ 20dgrs. centigrade and getting pretty nice results...more testing needed, but definitely the right direction"

alanbutler57

19-Jun-2017, 06:14

A couple of vintage shots.

Dallas Heritage Villiage
Half Speed Blue X-ray/ Graflex Super D/ Petzval
Jobo w. 1:1:100 Pyrocat HD for 6 minutes at 74F.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4283/35274456761_6f2c7c54c6_c.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4241/34584578293_412a4e0183_c.jpg

alanbutler57

19-Jun-2017, 12:36

This is a shot with Green full speed, ISO 100 I decided to develop it a little longer (10 minutes vs my usual 8) with Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 in jobo (six negatives, 600 ml). Predictably the contrast did go up quiet a bit, so will go back down to 8 next time. I dropped the contrast and increased mid tones quiet a bit in the scanning software:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4245/34567384404_097b0bd095_c.jpg

michael_wi

20-Jun-2017, 12:54

re: using blue gel to change response

I've done this with chromogenic BW film. The results were a bit more subtle than true blue-only. I used a full CTB gel which has some green/yellow in the passband.

Randy

20-Jun-2017, 13:30

Been a while since I shot any X-ray...this is on 8X10 green, homemade 13" lens...in my back yard...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r0fmui9ko6yfbpj/img845b.jpg?dl=1

desertrat

21-Jun-2017, 09:20

Been a while since I shot any X-ray...this is on 8X10 green, homemade 13" lens...in my back yard...

Interested in details on your homemade lens.

Randy

21-Jun-2017, 12:07

Interested in details on your homemade lens.I had a bunch of Series 7 filter adapters and had a +3 close-up filter in that size, so I just made a lens out of the +3 filter and a stack of about 5-6 of the adapters (screwed together makes a black tube of about 30mm in length) , mounting the lens at the rear of the tube and making an aperture out of black construction paper, and mounting that at the front of the tube...kind of like an unscientific attempt at copying a Wollaston Meniscus lens (concave side of the close-up filter facing the subject)
Anyway, wide open it is about f/7 but is very soft, so the aperture I made comes out to about f/16 - still soft'ish but doesn't create a lot of "glow" in the image. The aperture is about 20mm in front of the glass - guess I should experiment by moving it closer to see how that affects the image quality - just haven't gotten around to it.

Note - since the filter adapters are 55mm, I purchased a 77mm-55mm step down ring and used that to make my mounting flange - just drilled three holes in it for the screws to mount it to my wooden lens-board.

Mike_E

25-Jun-2017, 05:23

Dear All,
I could not find any information about developing and fixing of on-hand x-ray film nor in this forum nor elsewhere on the net.
I have:
1. Film: Blue Fuji RX-N X-Ray Film
2. Developer: Developer Concentrate AGFA (G101c) 5 Liters
3. Fixer: Fixer Concentrate AGFA (G354) 5 Liters

Anyone tried this set?
Is it possible to get moderate quality image by using these set? Unfortunately, I live in a country where have access only for these stuff. If anyone tried or thinks that it is possible?!

Good morning (although it's probably evening in your part of the world). The developer you listed is a lith film developer that would work but may not give the results you've been seeing here. Others here are guaranteed to give you more information on this subject as I've never used the stuff only read about it.

However, if you go to this site you - http://www.drfrankenfilm.com/diy-rodinal/4575179217 -you will find a recipe for a do it yourself Rodinol which should make your life much easier in regards to developing your x-ray film to match what you're seeing in this thread.

Good Luck
mike

Randy

25-Jun-2017, 18:08

Some have had good luck developing X-ray in coffeenol as well - just google coffeenol for recipes.

andrewch59

30-Jun-2017, 18:06

michael_wi

1-Jul-2017, 19:21

This was a 4x5 transparency, put in the enlarger and enlarged onto a sheet of 10x12 green xray film into a negative, then contact printed as a Kallitype.
166671
Coogee Beach, Sydney Australia, judging by the costumes around the 1920's

I have tried a couple of times to "print" onto X-ray film and have never had it work. Even a step wedge that wasn't stepping. What type of light source and how much light? Thanks

I used to do something Dean Collins called "white light printing" where you measured the white light (no neg) coming from the enlarger. That way you could enlarge, reduce, or use another enlarger and get the same print. Miss my darkroom. A glossed over explanation is in this video called Black and White Standardization at the 4:55 to 5:44 mark - https://youtu.be/4aNysC-X8T0?t=293

I now use an opal bulb in a veggie can hung from the ceiling. In the half of the bathroom that is the laundry area. Yep, the dustiest and hairiest place in the apartment to print film.

andrewch59

1-Jul-2017, 22:48

Hi Michael, my setup was fairly easy, I found the fstop on the enlarger lens that would suit the exposure I wanted for the xray film, which I rate at iso 80. I think it was about a 6 second exposure for 10x12, made a holder for my glass positive that would fit into the enlarger light tight and exposed onto the xray film. Turned out pretty well.

michael_wi

2-Jul-2017, 22:18

Thanks

Looks like the bulb may be too warm for the green high speed film. 30 seconds with only minor fogging on the step wedge. I think there is a blue or even an old tungsten black light bulb somewhere that could be swapped out...

koraks

3-Jul-2017, 02:01

I've tried exposing x-ray film under a normal enlarger (fitted with a bog standard incandescent enlarger bulb) and it worked just fine. I gave up on it as contrast control was a b*tch and it would take quite a bit of experimenting to work out a predictable process. But the light source itself really works just fine. Odds are something else is going wrong, because both the blue- and the green sensitive film can effectively be exposed under a regular enlarger. The fact that the color temperature is quite low doesn't mean there's nothing going on in the blue and green part of the spectrum. After all, that's also where your variable contrast paper is being exposed, and that works quite alright, doesn't it ;)

Fr. Mark

3-Jul-2017, 22:40

The only time I tried to enlarge onto an X-ray film I couldn't get the exposure short enough and was not sure I wanted a slide with a blue background badly enough to justify using more film.

andrewch59

4-Jul-2017, 03:28

I had the same problem to start off, just had to adjust the fstop to a smaller setting and let out less light. I think my main reason was to turn a magic lantern positive image into a larger negative for alternate printing. Hopefully the image above proves it can work for Kallitypes

andrewch59

4-Jul-2017, 20:18

Andrew O'Neill

4-Jul-2017, 21:57

X-ray (single and double-sided) has worked well for me when enlarging smaller negatives for kallitype and carbon transfer printing.

koraks

4-Jul-2017, 23:24

I just went through the alternate printing thread and saw one you did (van dyke brown) of an axe or cleaver on a block of wood, the detail is amazing! Great Print!
Thanks! But I have to admit that that print was from a digital negative (although the original capture was on 35mm p Pan F+). The few enlarged xray negatives that I made didn't yield particularly impressive prints. But that was also because I reversal processed them (so negative - negative) and that introduces a whole new set of parameters to control.

andrewch59

5-Jul-2017, 04:40

The company I get my xray film from have reversal film, is it any good? I guess the cheapest way would be to make a small positive, then enlarge it onto a large piece of film as a negative??

Joel Whitely

7-Jul-2017, 16:54

David Schaller

7-Jul-2017, 18:17

Grain won't be an issue in a contact print. You may have to experiment to get development times.

Nukatpiat

11-Jul-2017, 07:31

Hello
I've been lurking around here for a couple months and was wondering if anyone uses Sprint Developer? I'm in college and Sprint is provided. (I can use other developers if approved by faculty) I am mainly worried about how much grain. I'm not a fan of noticeable grain. I am leaning towards CXS Green but would rather Ektascan because antihalation. I plan on doing different types of alternative process contact prints.

I had not ever heard of Sprint developer and looked it up online. Fascinating. Not my thing... I'd never choose an all in one system like that, but I can see the attraction for a school lab. But they lost me when saying N+1 development was a "general safety factor." Sigh.

Reading the material safety data sheets, it looks like this is a purely hydroquinone based developer. They are obscuring their exact formula (as if there were great mysteries in developers these days). Pure quinone developers seem to be very high contrast and slow acting. Slow is ok, but given that x-ray film is a bit prone to high contrast already, I'd be concerned about the contrast. Grain is probably less of a worry. The grain in my Rodinal (a notoriously grainy developer) processed 4x5s on green x-ray doesn't seem problematic to me until the print is enlarged to truly enormous sizes. If you're contact printing it will be a non-issue.

Give it a shot! It will be fun. I'd try diluting it heavily though if your lab is using it one-shot. If they are replenishing and you can't dilute it, you may need to try a water bath alternation if your contrast gets out of control. But you may need pretty extreme contrast depending on what your alt-process is? My experience is with fine silver printing so I can't speak to that.

Definitely take the time to profile your film, developer and paper (or paper equivalent in your process). It will save you a ton of time in the long run. I messed around for way too long before formally taking test shots and doing it right.

anthony.fiorillo

15-Jul-2017, 22:07

After quite a bit of effort, and nearly 50 sheets of film, I have finally managed to produce a negative from green sensitive xray which is comparable to regular panchromatic film.

My goal was to produce a negative for kallitypes, primarily studio portraits. I use Rodinal 1:100 in a flat bottomed tray with 1 liter of solution (convenient and cheap). My negatives swung between having compressed tonality--resulting in weird blotchy skin tones--or blown highlights. The key for me was using the ideas in D.F. Cardwell's article "Shaping the tone curve of a Rodinal Negative" (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/69617-shaping-tone-curve-rodinal-negative.html) to compensate for the oddities of X-Ray film. I dropped my ASA from 100 to 64, which produced nice rich skin tones, and also significantly reduced by agitation, which tamed my highlights. I did not change my development time of 6 minutes nor my dilution of 1:100 which I had come to through a failed (and lame) attempt to apply BTZS ideas to xray film.

As (hopefully) you can see from the attached scan (an 8x10 crop of an 11x14 negative, with only very minor adjustments), my negatives are quite sharp, and most importantly, produce great kallitypes. Much of the sharpness I should attribute to using strobes (which I am a novice, so please forgive the double catch-lights and other flaws in the attached sample). This was of great help, since it reduced the number of variables I was working with. Anyhow, it is too dark and rainy to go out with an 11x14.

This is very similar to my process. I do Rodinal at 100:1 shot at 64 asa. What agitation scheme did you land on yourself? Thanks.

Daniel Strasshofer

7-Aug-2017, 03:04

I will soon start with my first xray film exposures. I will use green sensitive with my 8.5x15" camera. I made film inserts for my bookform style holder from green plastic. Now the question: would you paint these in mat black? Will the lack of anti-halation of the film in combination with reflections of the green plastic cause problems?

Jim Noel

7-Aug-2017, 10:05

Fr. Mark

15-Aug-2017, 22:37

Just developed four sheets of 4x5 cut from 8x10 Ektascan BR/A rated at 100 film speed using D-23 1:6 for 8 minutes in trays, 74 degrees F in the darkroom, agitated 30 sec to start then 1x/minute. The negatives are still washing or drying but look pretty good to me. Hopefully they will be printed with Dr. Mike Ware's New Cyanotype chemistry tomorrow. One of them was my 14 yr old's first film exposure. He's not really into this but I wanted him to try it once from "oooh, that looks like a picture" to a print in his hands.

+rex

21-Aug-2017, 01:18

I had a bunch of Series 7 filter adapters and had a +3 close-up filter in that size, so I just made a lens out of the +3 filter and a stack of about 5-6 of the adapters (screwed together makes a black tube of about 30mm in length) , mounting the lens at the rear of the tube and making an aperture out of black construction paper, and mounting that at the front of the tube...kind of like an unscientific attempt at copying a Wollaston Meniscus lens (concave side of the close-up filter facing the subject)
Anyway, wide open it is about f/7 but is very soft, so the aperture I made comes out to about f/16 - still soft'ish but doesn't create a lot of "glow" in the image. The aperture is about 20mm in front of the glass - guess I should experiment by moving it closer to see how that affects the image quality - just haven't gotten around to it.

Note - since the filter adapters are 55mm, I purchased a 77mm-55mm step down ring and used that to make my mounting flange - just drilled three holes in it for the screws to mount it to my wooden lens-board.

Hi Randy,

That sounds like an interesting setup. Could you please share pictures of your setup (perhaps on a different thread as it is off-topic here) of the home-made lens? Very impressed with the outcome.

Rex

SergeiR

27-Aug-2017, 19:58

You leave forum for couple months and thread turns dull and techy...

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4392/36714900971_e4dd815035_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/XWnsVZ)Everyone needs friends (https://flic.kr/p/XWnsVZ) by Sergei Rodionov (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

rotary, R09 100:1 , 10m

Kodak CSG, Dallmeyer 3B replica test

andrewch59

6-Sep-2017, 15:04

169406
This is phone snap of a bigger file, too big to reduce down. I stopped the owner nd asked to take a snap, luckily my camera was just up the road and was able to retrieve quickly. Taken in a car park with a wolly velo, 8x10 in a 10x12 camera so it is off centre slightly

reedvalve

20-Sep-2017, 20:03

Figured I show an example of what is working for me to add a data point for those looking for useful info (this thread has been very helpful!).

This was taken using a Caltar 10" lens on Ektascan B/RA and developed in Xtol 1+1 for 9 minutes in a Jobo 3005 / scanned on a V700:

https://drscdn.500px.org/photo/228968563/m%3D900/v2?user_id=17238927&webp=true&sig=738457d51e57d61b9da79b9848330b9002c389a07fa5f32a5683f227918d3bab

LabRat

21-Sep-2017, 05:03

Doing my research for planning to start shooting green X-ray (ortho), but I was wondering what kind of tonal rendition I would get with a broad range of subjects???

I think I just got an idea while watching a re-run of Ken Burns' documentary of "The Prohibition" on TV last night... Shot after still shot of a wide range of subjects from the ortho era, and I saw the contrast, skin tones, shade vs sky, etc... (I know they sharpen/enhance most all photos shown on broadcast these days, but I could at least get an idea of overall contrast...)

Quite a tutorial for me!!!

Steve K

Nathan Smith

22-Sep-2017, 07:24

I've seen some mention of using medical film holders, but the xray film holders I've seen don't use dark slides - since they're for x-ray use, they just use a low density face & just shoot through that.

Is there a way to modify these, or is there another type of film holder for medical use that folks are referencing?

I've looked into building my own film holders, but if I can use or modify these then it would sure save a lot of time. I'm planning to build my own camera, so as long as I know what the specs of the film holder are then I'll just build to that, so it doesn't matter if the distance-to-film is different from a standard film holder.

Thanks, Nathan

22-Sep-2017, 11:07

There are some medical holders that are the same as our film holders. I'm not a doctor and don't play one on TV. However I've had people in the medical business recognize my normal photographic film holders as Xray film holders somehow.

andrewch59

9-Nov-2017, 02:27

Taken in a haunted house built in the 1870's, Shen Hao 4x5, super Angulon 90mm f5.6 about thirty seconds. Rotary dev R09 12 mins
171741

Wayne

9-Nov-2017, 17:59

I can see the ghosts.

andrewch59

9-Nov-2017, 18:23

I could feel the ghosts! There was a murder/suicide committed at one time, there is one bedroom that you can feel the weight of something. Gulp! going back next week to take some more pics

vdonovan

10-Nov-2017, 15:55

171826

I've been reversal processing X-ray film, giving a big beautiful (if slightly blue) black and white transparency. This is single-sided Carestream.
Quickie formula:
First developer: Ilford PQ Universal 1:5 8 minutes@68 degrees F
Bleach: Potassium Dichromate in Sulfuric Acid solution
Clearing: Sodium sulfite
Re-exposure: 1 minute
Second Developer: Ilford PQ Universal 1:5 5 minutes@68 degrees F

Note scratches on this example! The bleach makes the emulsion softer and even easier to scratch. This example was tray processed, leading to scratches. Usually I tank process, which gives less problems.

andrewch59

10-Nov-2017, 21:58

vdonovan

11-Nov-2017, 13:29

Tin Can

11-Nov-2017, 13:45

There is no real advantage, other than that it is unusual. In fact, I find I get less control over the resulting image because the two developers both essentially go to completion. It's hard to control contrast, so I have to be more aware of contrast when shooting.

I mount these 8x10 transparencies in back-lit LED frames. They look quite beautiful with, as you say, the right subject.

I once enlarged onto 4 sheets of 14x17" X-Ray, an image sized to the 4 panels. Hung in a backlit window. Only noticeable at night. No fade after a year.

Heck, I made an X-Ray positive print of a new clinic and gave it to my Doctor, who had no light box. As I found out...

andrewch59

11-Nov-2017, 16:15

There is no real advantage, other than that it is unusual. In fact, I find I get less control over the resulting image because the two developers both essentially go to completion. It's hard to control contrast, so I have to be more aware of contrast when shooting.

I mount these 8x10 transparencies in back-lit LED frames. They look quite beautiful with, as you say, the right subject.

Randy I remember you displaying them on the thread, looks pretty spectacular.
I have just dusted off an old book called "Photographic Amusements" by Fraprie O'Connor, it has a section on BAS-relief, combining positives and negatives to produce a unusual and sometimes 3d effect. Seems a similar procedure you are doing

andrewch59

16-Nov-2017, 13:06

Supposed haunted house, though I never saw anything. Super Angulon, 14 sec exposure, F22, developed in RO9 12 min 1:150

Wayne

17-Nov-2017, 22:42

:) I don't see anything either.

barnacle

18-Nov-2017, 14:30

Well obviously. X-rays go straight through ghosts... :cool:

Neil

desertrat

19-Nov-2017, 10:48

That 14 second exposure didn't catch the ghosts because they were floating around... ;)

mdarnton

19-Nov-2017, 11:02

My ghost photo, shot on x-ray film (staying on topic) a couple of years ago. Click through for the story:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8763/17638152002_57fc813f44_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/sSC961)
My Father Visits (https://flic.kr/p/sSC961)
by Michael Darnton (https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/), on Flickr

Tin Can

19-Nov-2017, 11:05

+1.

Andrew O'Neill

19-Nov-2017, 11:08

Made from 14x17 green latitude, double-sided. Top and bottom of negative cropped...actually, cut away with scissors. EI 100. Pyrocat-HD.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4560/38473495752_28799b34ed_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/21BLHTE)Coquihalla River Rock (https://flic.kr/p/21BLHTE) by Andrew O'Neill (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62974341@N02/), on Flickr

Paul Kinzer

20-Nov-2017, 01:44

I've got a lot more reading to do, but have been looking around a bit for more information on the differences between x-ray films. (Yeah, I know it's cheap and I can just try any type because of that, but I like to learn.)

At this google patents page (https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010110845A1?cl=en), I found the following quote:

"Radiographic Film 2-A is commercially available Carestream MXG (TMG) radiographic film that is considered to be a high contrast, low exposure latitude radiographic film. This film is coated onto a transparent blue support.

Film 2-B is commercially available Carestream TMAT-S (TMS) radiographic film that is considered to be a medium contrast radiographic film. This film is coated onto a transparent blue support.

Film 2-C is commercially available Carestream TMAT-L (TML) radiographic film. It is considered to be a low contrast radiographic film with wide exposure latitude. This film is coated onto a transparent blue support."***

I don't know enough to venture much opinion on this, but some of my reading has shown that folks think x-ray film, in general, is high in contrast. Maybe this quote can spark some discussion. I know so little that I'm not even sure if these particular films are even all available. I just thought folks might find it helpful.

Andrew O'Neill

20-Nov-2017, 08:50

It is high in contrast by nature. If I develop a sheet the same way I develop a sheet of HP5, I cannot work with it. By diluting the developer, I can end up with a continuous tone negative. Negatives that I can print on silver, or alt processes such as Carbon and Kallitype. Xray is not my main film though, mostly due to it not being a pan film... One can still make some lovely images with it.

Randy

20-Nov-2017, 09:35

I did a comparison with some "1/2 Speed Blue" that a friend sent me, and my usual stock of "Green sensitive" film. I did just one test - shot both at the same speed and developed in the same chemistry - the Green had way, way more shadow detail than the Blue but the highlights looked about the same. I am guessing playing with development could help, but I decided to just proceed with my "Green". I have no idea if any were 2-A, B, or C.

Tin Can

20-Nov-2017, 09:54

For the new person. All X-Ray is on a blue tint base that does not come off. It's blue to make it easier on Dr eyes.

EdWorkman

20-Nov-2017, 12:02

Xray film was never intended for pictorial use- It's a happy discovery by the OP -go backbackbackback
As such, it has
NO ASA,
NO ISO
Those are STANDARDS done in a particular way .
ANd Aero film stock has no ASA/ISO for pictorial work
Jim Galli tried AEro Plus X and used his experience to quickly zero in.
I studied the CI curve/times, scratched my skull and came up about where his Jimness did, by exposing and developing some.
Back to Big X
What y'all folks need is EXPERIENCE of your own to find an EI appropriate to the tools and chemicals you have-.
Buy cheap at first- ya gotta TRY IT see above.
When you learn some THEN buy some expensive Fujak or KoJI- who knows maybe brand YZ actually is - or not.
And blue background- gee variable contrast paper uses TWO emulsions Blue for highest contrast, Green for lowest.
But that's a nuance until you spend a few cheap sheets to determine the ballpark for exposure/development.
I repeat
Pick an EI for a medium speed film - say 80-160- maybe even 200.
I did that
The first neg was too thin, so I upped the amount of concentrated developer in the tray
The second was VERY contrasty, so I tweaked for more exposure and less developer time
So it's practically painless and it works

First try developers and times given for medium speed films- Usta be that such times were published and varied to achieve certain Contrast Index values-
not that you need to measure CI, but to see how time might need to be varied, or dilution changed .
Stop reading-start DOING

andrewch59

20-Nov-2017, 20:01

Never heard of the 2-A-B-C. I'm not as experienced as some of the bunch, but normally buy full speed blue, half speed blue or green, the latter is my preferred .
I started on blue but found green far less contrasty and as Randy says gives better shadow detail and softer tones. I spent a lot of time on this thread reading through the articles to find a start point and just experimented. Rather than worrying too much about development and ratios my first concern was producing an image that was not too scratched up, or blotchy. This seems to be the greatest challenge with xray film.
Start reading the threads

Paul Kinzer

20-Nov-2017, 20:20

Andrew O'Neill, Randy, and Randy Moe: Thanks for the helpful comments. Not just helpful to me, but helpful to lots of folks, some who may actually already have some experience with x-ray film, and some who may not. This thread is crazy long and full of details. And there are other x-ray threads, too. Even if what you've said has been said before, repetition is not always bad.

EdWorkman: Your comments were very helpful, too. I found the information about no normal standards for x-ray or aerial film interesting. Your practical comments about how to go about doing some testing is also helpful. I also understand, I think, why you say, 'stop reading- start DOING', but, frankly, I don't want to stop. I LIKE to read. I find it all fascinating.

I also have almost no cash to spend. (Really, if I'm honest, I have LESS than no cash to spend, since I seem to keep falling behind.) But I've got plenty of time to read. I'm very grateful to so many folks here who take the time to write about what they've done -- including you! -- so that I can figure out the best way to spend those few dollars I can scrape together in the most sensible way. (X-ray film may be really cheap, but it is not free.) Or to not spend them at all on x-ray film or some other aspect of LF after long and careful consideration.

I bet there are lots of folks who have never taken an LF image who read and find interest in these posts. Thanks for sharing what you know.

andrewch59

20-Nov-2017, 22:36

Paul, that is why I got into xray, no money to buy expensive sheet film. I get mine from chicago medical supplies, it cost me Aust$60 for a hundred 8x10 sheets, which can then be cut up into 4x5, giving me 400 sheets of film. If I buy three boxes at a time I get it for the same postage fee, as they will all fit into the same flat rate postal envelope. Hope that helps

j.e.simmons

21-Nov-2017, 04:33

Last year ZZ medical had a Black Friday sale on X-ray film. It might be worth checking this coming Friday to see if they repeat it.

Paul Kinzer

21-Nov-2017, 16:53

andrewch59: The reading I'm doing on x-ray film is really exciting me. I've wanted to get much more into LF, but money is the problem. This stuff is so cheap that I'm doing lots of thinking and drawing of ULF cameras I might build. American Science and Surplus has a 'kit' of dead x-ray film (https://www.sciplus.com/p/BLANK-XRAY-FILM_49723) that you can get for $3.25, which contains eight sheets of a variety of sizes, with 8x10 being the smallest. I just ordered two of these, since just what sizes are included is a bit random (I called to ask). Having some actual sheets in my hands will help me decide if I really want to go through with it and build a big camera, and I can then use a sheet of whichever size I choose to actually build a camera around it. Many ULF film holders cost more than I want to spend on the entire camera build, so if I do this, I'll build the holders, too. I've already got quite a bit of wood and aluminum sitting in my workshop from past telescope and camera projects. The toughest part of the project for my skill set will be the bellows.

Last year ZZ medical had a Black Friday sale on X-ray film. It might be worth checking this coming Friday to see if they repeat it.

Yeah, I read about this Black Friday special last year while slogging through all the pages of this thread (I'm up to page 192!). I hope it happens again because it will give me an excuse to order some 5x7 at even greater savings than usual. (Yeah, I'm that cheap.) If there isn't a sale that day, I'll get around to ordering it soon, anyway. I'm selling some photo stuff on eBay to raise the funds (a deal I made with my wife: to buy astro or photo goodies, I have to sell astro or photo goodies I already have).

Tin Can

21-Nov-2017, 17:31

This morning I got an email from ZZ claiming a 3% Black Friday discount on everything. I deleted it and cannot find it on their site.

I see double sided Carestream 8x10 is what it has been.

However, Carestream 8X10 single side is 40% up. Case only, 14X17 single side is the same as it has been.

andrewch59

21-Nov-2017, 20:19

Paul, I have some info, actually full instructions for bellows construction, pm me and I will send them to you. Sorry, but I downloaded them from the net and the pictorial examples seem to have vanished, but enough to let you know what you are in for.

Paul Kinzer

21-Nov-2017, 20:40

Andrew O'Neill

21-Nov-2017, 20:49

The double-sided green latitude film also looks quite nice exposed through a #11 light green or #15 yellow filter.

csergyuri

28-Nov-2017, 14:53

Hi All!

Mi first success result:172384
kodak clearstream original 18x24 (this is cut 9x12cm)
shot iso100, develop 9min 1:50 rodinal + 10ml papaer developer 1:9

Randy

28-Nov-2017, 17:19

I'm selling some photo stuff on eBay to raise the funds (a deal I made with my wife: to buy astro or photo goodies, I have to sell astro or photo goodies I already have).Paul, you sound like me. I even have resorted to making sure that when I buy anything photographic on-line, that it arrives while my girlfriend is at work - and when she sees me using it at some future point in time and asks about it, I just tell her I have had it for years, just haven't used it in a while.

Paul Kinzer

28-Nov-2017, 19:07

Paul, you sound like me. I even have resorted to making sure that when I buy anything photographic on-line, that it arrives while my girlfriend is at work - and when she sees me using it at some future point in time and asks about it, I just tell her I have had it for years, just haven't used it in a while.

Yeah, and the more beat up it is, the easier it is to have that believed.... That works with the old film stuff, but would not have flown with the 150-600mm zoom lens I bought this summer for my new Canon DSLR. I sold a lot of stuff for those two!

But I'd be living in squalor without this agreement, with lots of gear, but no home, probably.

andrewch59

29-Nov-2017, 18:49

Hi All!

Mi first success result:172384
kodak clearstream original 18x24 (this is cut 9x12cm)
shot iso100, develop 9min 1:50 rodinal + 10ml papaer developer 1:9

Well, done! that's the hard one out the way!

Roger Cole

30-Nov-2017, 02:44

It's good to be single. I buy what I want when I want and as I want. Harrumph.

Then again, I do have some self control. I have a house and no squalor, and not nearly all the toys I'd like.

Tin Can

30-Nov-2017, 07:09

It's good to be single. I buy what I want when I want and as I want. Harrumph.

Then again, I do have some self control. I have a house and no squalor, and not nearly all the toys I'd like.

Agreed! No squalor here, just stuff, ala George Carlin.

profvandegraf

30-Nov-2017, 09:35

here are a couple of tests I shot 8x10, (cropped to remove distracting elements) One is Tmax100 and one is X-ray.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4563/37699761005_7cc7e6f534_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Zrp8vp)SCAN_1_1-crop-Tmax100 (https://flic.kr/p/Zrp8vp) by Todd Harris (https://www.flickr.com/photos/todd10/), on Flickr

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4554/38530876696_746e28ab2c_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/21GQPfh)SCAN_2_1-crop-Xrayfilm (https://flic.kr/p/21GQPfh) by Todd Harris (https://www.flickr.com/photos/todd10/), on Flickr

koraks

30-Nov-2017, 10:26

Very well executed test that clearly shows the tendency towards harshness of xray film, although it looks like you've been very successful in taming it. Nicely done!

profvandegraf

30-Nov-2017, 11:39

Very well executed test that clearly shows the tendency towards harshness of xray film, although it looks like you've been very successful in taming it. Nicely done!

thanks, the most interesting aspect to me is the glass candle holder on the far left is red glass the jar behind has a green tint and of course the doll heads show the reds blocking up with the back lips and darkness of the cheeks. I have shot some images of my wife but they are not processed yet, as i am presently laid up by a slight bike accident. I hope to be able to process them and scan them next week.

t

rknewcomb

17-Dec-2017, 20:55

Hi,
I'm trying to read all this great information, 490 pages is a bit overwhelming. So, I am trying to be good and do my research but maybe one of you will help point me in the right direction.
For enlarging b&w negatives onto xray film which color sensitivity film would be best? I have a color head enlarger and a tungsten head enlarger. Color filters on the enlarger to match the film?
thank you folks
Robert

mdarnton

17-Dec-2017, 21:07

It may come down to other factors than color sensitivity, depending on your use. For instance, if for display, the Fuji HR (green) films have a strong blue background stain. Do I remember that Carestream is essentially colorless, or am I wrong about that? Also, different films have different contrasts, which would make a difference if you are making B&W transparencies.

Corran

17-Dec-2017, 21:20

I tried using Fuji HR as a replacement for Lith film, to enlarge a negative onto and then contact print that to get a negative for alt processes. The results were hopelessly soft - my guess is due to the double-sided emulsion, but not sure.

Unless you are using a red LED as an enlarger light, it won't really matter I don't think. The condenser head I used for the above mentioned enlargement was just a run-of-the-mill tungsten light. It's still plenty sensitive to the tungsten spectrum.

rknewcomb

17-Dec-2017, 21:37

Corran

17-Dec-2017, 21:49

While I did not end up making any headway with enlarging a negative for alt process, I (and many others) have printed x-ray negatives just fine. My cold-light head emits a bluish light anyway. I couldn't tell you if contrast filters have different or more/less effect on x-ray film, not having made any kind of extensive tests, but they certainly seem to work. I haven't shot x-ray film in a while otherwise I might could check more specifically.

koraks

18-Dec-2017, 03:01

Im looking to make larger negs for silver contact prints under Gum bichromate or straight gum prints.
The spectrum response part of the questions was wondering if the tungsten enlarger lamp is too red for the film to see it (the projected image). But you say it can see tungsten so that's very good.
It works. I tried it, under an enlarger with a regular halogen bulb. There's more than enough blue and green light there to make enlargements onto x-ray film. Getting exposure and contrast right will require quite a bit of experimentation though.

Any xray film that has a blue tint seems like it would surly raise contrast problems if using a multigrade silver paper, right?
Not really. It may have an influence, but I have contact printed xray negatives onto VC paper and it worked just fine.

Thodoris Tzalavras

18-Dec-2017, 06:49

Most xray films don't have anti-halation back layer.
This is the reason for the softness mentioned by Corran.
Edge sharpness is diminished by highlights bleeding into adjacent lower values.
Which is ok-ish for in-camera negatives that are contact printed, but if you enlarge (inter-positive/inter-negative, in your case) the effect will be even more pronounced.

The films I know of, which have anti-halation layer are the Agfa HDR mammography film and the Kodak ektascan b/ra film. (possibly the Fuji AD-M mammography film, but I have not tried that one yet.)

Like Corran and koraks, I too have had no problems printing with mutligrade filters/papers despite the inherent blue tint of xray films.

rknewcomb

18-Dec-2017, 08:12

Do you think this softness issue is still the same if I'm enlarging from a regular (non xray film) negative?

andrewch59

18-Dec-2017, 08:48

I have been using a 4x5 enlarger to blow up magic lantern slides onto 8x10 x-ray film, you don't get great density to make an alt process print, although they work. I then scan my 8x10 negs, which can then be adjusted and sharpened, and print them onto transparency film using an Epson p800 printer. The difference is worth the trouble, these are then used for kallitypes.

koraks

18-Dec-2017, 09:22

Do you think this softness issue is still the same if I'm enlarging from a regular (non xray film) negative?
It will always be a bit of an issue, but in my experience halation is especially an issue with very bright highlights as you'd get from the sun or strobes. It will therefore be less problematic under an enlarger.

Another contributor to softness, however, is the double-sided nature of most x-ray films. Under an enlarger you can (sort of) overcome this by stopping down quite a bit - which you will likely need to do anyway as x-ray film is a whole lot faster than paper.

In the 'real world', I find the softer backside a bit annoying and it can practically only be overcome by stripping the backside of the film after developing the negative. Which I find messy and prone to damage to the image side. Or use a single-sided x-ray film, of course, although in my area, the costs of that are pretty close to Foma 100 8x10 (in addition to the logistic issue, and the Foma product is of course panchromatic as a 'bonus'), so I personally just forget about that option, but it can be worthwhile if you're in the US.

rknewcomb

18-Dec-2017, 09:34

Is xray duplicating film single side emulsion and about the same speed as photo paper? I have made many enlarged negative on photo paper. If duplicating film would act about like paper but without all the paper fibers then that might work for me.

Thodoris Tzalavras

18-Dec-2017, 12:20

Do you think this softness issue is still the same if I'm enlarging from a regular (non xray film) negative?

In your case, the problem is not the enlarging part (since you'll use a regular negative) but the accumulation of the effect that the lack of anti-halation has, because the edge softness in the inter-positive will be added to the edge softness in the inter-negative.

At the moment I have a broken leg that refuses to heal, so I can't go to the darkroom and bring some negatives to scan and illustrate the effect, but I can tell you this:

The problem with the lack of anti-halation layer, becomes obvious in a side by side comparison of a film that has it and a film that doesn't.

If you contact print a Stouffer step wedge on both, the edge bleed that I described becomes blindingly obvious.

The double-sided nature of most x-ray films, that koraks mentioned, is indeed another thing that will work against you, twofold (see first sentence.)

The films with anti-halation layer I mentioned earlier are also single sided, providing a solution to both these problems, albeit at a price.

rknewcomb

19-Dec-2017, 07:40

Tin Can

19-Dec-2017, 08:41

Don't know your seller, but price 'real' film to X-Ray and the difference is very high. 50 sheets of Tri-X 11X14 was $1100 last year. 125 sheets HP5 11X14 $1000. Last I looked 500 sheets of Ektascan 14X17 was also $1000. I cut 14x17 to 11x14 and use the cutoff for smaller formats from MF to 5x7.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with me. I checked on the film you mention that has the anti-halation backing. I found a seller and can buy some, although its sold in a case of 5 boxes so kind of expensive.
Robert

Thodoris Tzalavras

19-Dec-2017, 10:17

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with me. I checked on the film you mention that has the anti-halation backing. I found a seller and can buy some, although its sold in a case of 5 boxes so kind of expensive.
Robert

Another film that could work for your purposes, although outside the scope of this thread, is the Arista Ortho Litho sold by Freestyle.

It has single side emulsion, anti-halation layer, fine grain, and (like xray) depending on processing (developer, dilution, agitation, temperature, time in the developer) can produce from very soft to very hard contrast.

In comparison to xray films, it's very thin (almost flimsy) and has a sensitivity closer to photo-paper than film, but it's easily obtainable in many sizes and quantities for testing.

Rapidrob

19-Dec-2017, 15:10

I have just made a box of 4x5 film from Fuji UM-MA-HC film. It is a X-Ray mammo film sensitive to BLUE light. It is a High Speed*, High Contrast and High resolution film My question is which filters would be best for outdoor photography?
Have any of you used this film? Any tips?
* If I remember right it is 400 speed equivalent.
Thanks
Rob

Tin Can

19-Dec-2017, 15:30

Why did you choose that film? I don't know if anybody has tried it.

I see what it is here. http://www.umgxray.com/pdf/fujifilmxrayummadata.pdf

I doubt it's 400 ASA. Try 100 and lower.

Why not test a couple sheets and report your results? Use the dark slide to change exposure and make test strips

I have just made a box of 4x5 film from Fuji UM-MA-HC film. It is a X-Ray mammo film sensitive to BLUE light. It is a High Speed*, High Contrast and High resolution film My question is which filters would be best for outdoor photography?
Have any of you used this film? Any tips?
* If I remember right it is 400 speed equivalent.
Thanks
Rob

koraks

19-Dec-2017, 15:48

Since it's a mammography film, it may be single-sided with antihalation backing, but the data sheet isn't conclusive. Anyway, I'd expose at iso 80 without a filter or iso 50 it a yellow filter as a starting point, as most xray film seems to be usable in that range. A yellow filter is useful outdoors and I'm contrasty situations; besides bringing blue skies down a bit, it also seems to counteract halation a bit.

I have no experience with microdol (see your separate thread with a question on it) so I can't comment, but it's not that much work to figure out a development regime that works for your purposes. I tend to cut dilution of film developers in half compared to normal film dilutions. I'd personally start with 1+3 and develop by inspection in a tray under a tested safe light (deep red and dim) that won't fog the film. Note that safelight requirements are more specific for xray film than for paper due to its much higher speed.

Rapidrob

19-Dec-2017, 15:49

I got a few cases free at work. ( just expired and have been in the refrigerated store room ) I will try it out. I've done "positive prints" using this film and the results are very good.

Rapidrob

20-Dec-2017, 16:51

I tried out the Fuji UM-MA-HC Mammo film in my view camera today. Very windy here so I had to stay behind a wind break. Graphic View Camera, Wollensak Rapax 10". F-45 @ 2 seconds. 80B filter. I did not have a Yellow filter to fit this lens (55 MM) I will try it with out a filter. I have a "normal" lens and it will take my yellow filter.
Microdol-X straight up. Nine minutes at 63 Degrees F. Agitation every 30 seconds for two seconds, stop bath, fix for two minutes.
I got O.K tonal range, all of the zones are there. Now I need to play with exposure times and developer times/chems to see if I can get a little better whites. It's been 15 years since I've played with film for a camera.
172987

Rapidrob

21-Dec-2017, 15:17

I re-shot using a diff camera and lens. Crown Graphic Graflex 135mm lens. Yellow filter. 1.5 second exposure @ ASA 80 . Microdol-x 1:1 for nine minutes at 60 degrees F.
Very windy again today,trees blurred.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]173043

andrewch59

25-Dec-2017, 00:12

Merry Xmas to all my fellow photon collectors!

Rapidrob

25-Dec-2017, 07:59

And to my colleges in the 'Down Under". May the light of 2018 expose your films at Zone 3 every time you trip the shutter!

Rapidrob

30-Dec-2017, 16:18

I repaired a C.P Goerz Apocomat Atar 6" lens in a Rapax shutter and tried the x-ray film today at a close up. 2X magnification F:9 @2 seconds,no filter.

173198

mdarnton

31-Dec-2017, 12:23

Light around the edges---is this a tray-processing artifact?

Rapidrob

31-Dec-2017, 16:29

No it is the whole negative. I cut it from a much larger film,the edge on the right is a little off plumb for being cut in the dark.
It is the way the cut silver emulsion is cut and the edge is open to the chems. All the film I have cut does that.
I'm going to next try a 1:3 dilution of Microdol-X and develop for 13 minutes as others have recommended.

Justin K

1-Jan-2018, 08:43

A friend of mine is a physician and recently unearthed the xray film photo I've pasted below when cleaning out an old medical office. I know nothing about xray film, so I'm curious if anyone knows how an image like this one may have been made--a large positive image on xray film. We also have no idea who took this and where or when it was taken, so if any boating or marina experts out there detect and clues, please share.

Thanks for any insights on this!

173228

Rapidrob

1-Jan-2018, 15:32

Yes, X-ray film was used as a "paper" and a normal enlarger was used with a negative. You get a positive image. I've done this many times.

Justin K

1-Jan-2018, 16:06

Yes, X-ray film was used as a "paper" and a normal enlarger was used with a negative. You get a positive image. I've done this many times.

I see, that's very helpful. What steps are then required to develop the xray "paper" to get the positive image? I know the conventional process for BW film and paper, but not for xray film used as "paper." Just curious--thanks again!

Corran

1-Jan-2018, 16:13

Justin K

1-Jan-2018, 16:17

Since you are projecting a negative, you get a positive - there is no difference in processing in this instance.

If you were not enlarging a negative and instead made an image with a camera, it is possible to process it as a positive. I have not tried it with x-ray film myself, but it's possible to use a first developer, then a toning/redevelopment agent, and finally a bleach and fix to get rid of the "negative" image. I won't get into the details but it is possible, just uncommon these days.

Thank you, that is also very helpful. Just to make sure I understand, if I project a negative onto xray film (used as "paper"), I could then just run that xray film through my usual develop, stop, fix process (same as I use for BW paper) and I would get a positive image on the xray film like the one my friend found. Is that correct? I've never developed xray film so I assumed it would need some other chemicals or an entirely different process.

Corran

1-Jan-2018, 16:37

X-ray film is pretty much like normal film. It is much higher contrast though, generally speaking, so those of us who have shot it generally concoct our own development strategy / times to control contrast. Also, x-ray film is a bit more delicate than other films and is easily scratched - so you may have to finesse your process depending on how you do things. Tray processing x-ray is usually pretty safe. Tube processing usually causes bad scratching. There's also different types of films that have emulsion on both sides...but this has been discussed many times in this thread if you feel like reading a bit.

Tin Can

1-Jan-2018, 20:30

X Ray film can be developed by almost any film or paper developer.

I normally use Rodinol but sometimes use Ilford PQ paper developer on big sheets up to 14 X 36”.

No I don’t have a tray that big. I put SS clips on the ends and sea saw it in 16x20 trays. Works fine and no scratches.

Rapidrob

2-Jan-2018, 08:12

Years ago you could buy a template for exposing paper to the negative that looked like a pie-chart. It had different segments of separate densities that allowed a certain amount of light through them.
You used a known time and aperture and shot the paper. You developed the image on the paper/film and used the properly exposed segment you liked as your basis to give you the "perfect" exposure.
I used the same device to expose X-ray film.
Just remember to turn off the RED safelight when shooting the image. Also keep the RED safelight at least 5 feet away and never brighter than 5 watts.
I maintained several hundred darkrooms in my working carrier that processed x-ray film as well as commercial "normal" films. The general rule of thumb is, go into to your dark room and close the door.Turn off the lights.If you have over head florescent lighting allow the tubes to dim out for at least 60 seconds before you open a film bin or film holder ( after-glow). Let your eyes get used to the dark. Look at all door seals and walls.If your eyes can see any white light light,the film can too.
I simple test you can do is place a piece of x-ray film on your working surface,easel,wet-sink,etc. Place several coins on the film and leave them under your safe light, small light leaks for 60 seconds.Remove the coins and develop the film.If you see circles where the coins sat,your safe light is not safe or you do have a light leak in the room. I could not count the hundreds of times I have found this to be a problem.
9 out of 10 times it was a too close light or someone had placed a bulb greater than 5 watts into the lamp holder. The filter film was damaged by the heat and pin holes were burned into the filter exposing the film.
Sorry for the rant, its just that it is so common a problem the user never thinks about it and gets poor results with their images and cannot figure out why?

Tin Can

2-Jan-2018, 08:47

The pie chart is still sold.

I use one.

Jim Noel

2-Jan-2018, 14:47

The pie chart is still sold.

I use one.

I don't know who makes the current one,the originals were titled, "Kodak Projection Print Scale." I still have a few which I use on a somewhat regular basis in a variety of ways.

Tin Can

2-Jan-2018, 15:16

Freestyle sells it. Now named,

Delta Projection Print Scale
Model: 41621
Manufacturer: Delta

Not Free but I find it gets me there quicker.

I don't know who makes the current one,the originals were titled, "Kodak Projection Print Scale." I still have a few which I use on a somewhat regular basis in a variety of ways.

andrewch59

9-Jan-2018, 08:42

Microdol X and x-ray film, I just found a couple of tins of the powdered variety, I have never used it, normally just stick to Rodinol, but what the hell a change is as good as a holiday. Said to give a very fine grain, research would suggest 1+3 of stock solution and about 14 min using the rotary method.
Anybody have any experience with microdol x and x-ray film?

Rapidrob

9-Jan-2018, 10:07

At 1:3 you will need 15-19 min developing time @ 68 Degrees F. Agitation every 30 seconds. If 1:1, you will need 7-9 minutes. Same agitation, open tray.
In a container be careful. X-Ray film will pressure streak if agitated too much and it sits by holes or ribs. Treat it in the tank like a too full cup of coffee.

andrewch59

10-Jan-2018, 04:36

Thanks Rob

andrewch59

10-Feb-2018, 20:52

174589174590
Here are a couple of shots I took yesterday at an annual car meet, one is slightly out of frame as I was sat in the middle of the road in fear of getting run over.
One was taken with a Sironar N 135mm, the other with a Kodak Commercial Ektar 8.5 inch. The Commercial Ektar was listed on ebay as just, an Ektar, so I got it fairly reasonably. Its performance is pretty impressive and will see a lot more action from now on. Green xray film 4x5,Rotary developed in R09 10 minutes.

Rapidrob

12-Feb-2018, 08:23

At what guessamation was the ASA? Nice images.

alanbutler57

12-Feb-2018, 09:18

Great images! What dilution did you use?

andrewch59

12-Feb-2018, 18:59

Thankyou Rob and Alan, ASA80, the Sironar N 135mm was at its optimum aperture of f22, and I think the Kodak was at F16, can you pick which is which? Alan the dilution was about 1:125-ish. 375mm of water to about 3mm of R09. I was having trouble with the Mod 54 leaving streaks due to the dev washing over the film holders, but solved that by developing for one minute in one direction, then a minute in the opposite direction for the ten minutes.

Rapidrob

12-Feb-2018, 23:05

Thank you for the info.

alanbutler57

13-Feb-2018, 15:31

Thanks! I've been meaning to try R09 with blue x-ray as time permits.

William Whitaker

21-Feb-2018, 10:16

A stupid newbie question:
Does using x-ray film necessarily mean having to deal with rounded corners?

I am waiting now for some Carestream 8x10 to arrive from Z&Z...

Thanks!

Corran

21-Feb-2018, 10:20

That's a good question! I've never shot anything but Fuji HR-T, which has rounded corners. I have never thought about it much. I am curious if some other films have "normal" straight corners.

malexand

21-Feb-2018, 10:46

I've been using Fuji HR-U green and CXC Ortho Green from Agfa (both from cxconline) - they both have rounded corners.
Doesn't bother me any more than notch codes do on trad film.

Tin Can

21-Feb-2018, 11:25

All I have seen are round corners. Buy larger and cut it down. I cut to all smaller sizes, even down to Hasselblad.

One advantage to RC is no sharp edges scratching other negs if shuffling.

Save scraps for fixer checking.

andrewch59

21-Feb-2018, 16:54

Yknow, I have only ever used xray film, haven't shot a sheet of real film since I started using large format. Cut up my own film from 8x10 to 4x5 and have never considered the round corners. I think they get lost in the holders track, dont see them during scanning.

andrewch59

21-Feb-2018, 18:12

175075
Tuesday went for a trip to the vineyards, wanted to get a shot of the big oak barrels, but settled for a couple of vines
Shen Hao 4x5, green Agfa iso 80, nikkor w 90mm f11, rotary 1:125 for ten minutes

Jim Fitzgerald

22-Feb-2018, 16:46

All of the films have the round corners.

Luis-F-S

22-Feb-2018, 17:35

All of the films have the round corners.

Man, that's gotta be a deal breaker for some.................

Tin Can

22-Feb-2018, 18:00

The round corners are nearly lost in the rebate.

Now if you are a rebate connoisseur, buy real FILM.

Just got my big Acculight boxes up and first on is 8x10 X-Ray. Looks good to me.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4675/40385814632_5aee669d0e_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/24wKREQ)X-Ray Rebates (https://flic.kr/p/24wKREQ) by moe.randy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

Dario

16-Mar-2018, 19:07

Would someone please give me a short primer on the different sorts of X-ray film.

I’m looking to buy some 10x12 film for landscapes, so presumably that means using a “green” film rather than a “blue”?

Some films have a blue base (e.g. Fuji UM-MA and AD-M), which presumably makes for difficult printing, especially on multigrade paper. Is that correct, or doesn't it matter?

Some films have emulsion on both sides, which doesn’t sound like what I want, correct?

A lot of films listed on eBay are described simply as “green x-ray” film (e.g. Konica PPG and Doctor’s Choice DC-G). Are these suitable?

Many thanks.

Tin Can

17-Mar-2018, 07:05

I'm not sure anybody has tested ALL X-Ray film for our spurious usage.

Most seem to pick one and use it, as they now have 100 sheets of very cheap 'film' that may produce images that emulate historical film 100 years out of production.

Some experts here have proposed creating a 'Sticky"' topic to deal with these common questions. Never happened. I am not that guy.

I was once in your position. I picked KODAK made Carestream CSG in many sizes. http://www.classicxray.com/kodaktmatg.html

It's 2 sided and Blue in tint. Blue to make viewing easier on Dr eyes. AFAIK all X-Ray film is blue tint. I may be wrong, I often am. All seems to have round corners, but my sample % is small.

Blue or Green is an X-Ray Trade designation of how the medical X-Ray emitter and the X-Ray Cassette converts Rays to film. An X-Ray Cassette is not the same as our film holders, but it once was. Confusing. We know.

We all use different ISO/ASA #, some use 40 others 80. That's just a starting point just as ASA is just a number on 'normal' film. X-Ray is High speed or not, whatever that means.

EU has different manufacturers and sizes. Asia differs.

I find one LED bulb works best for safe light, at 4 ft. YMMV. Others disagree. https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe/g11-led-bulb-8-smd-led-globe-bulb/440/#/attributes/13

I buy only from this source. I buy green which is blue, I buy this film. https://www.zzmedical.com/x-ray-accessories/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-x-ray-film.html

I also buy this film, but for that you need to read the history in the thread. It's not better, it's different. https://www.zzmedical.com/x-ray-accessories/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/14x17-in-carestream-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html

Expect others to differ. This is a free forum.

mdarnton

17-Mar-2018, 07:24

The advantage of the film Randy recommends is that it's single sided, and has an anti-halation coating. The single side aspect makes it much easier to develop (in tubular daylight tanks, for instance, since you don't need to worry about damage to the emulsion layer on the back where it contacts the tank walls), and it will also be sharper. And it costs more: I use Fuji HR-U, which is a "green" film, because I delight in cheap, but that's the only good reason for it, and probably my cheap film was negated by the need to purchase a full set of hangers and tanks to avoid scratching the back of the film, but I do happen to like processing that way, and would have done that anyway.

I cannot begin to say enough nice things about Randy's safelight recommendation! It is perfect for the job.

koraks

17-Mar-2018, 16:40

Randy is spot on, at least as far as my experience goes. I would have loved to try single sided mammography film, but it's virtually impossible to get in Europe at a reasonable price. I've recently switched to fomapan for 8x10 due to the easier processing, wider spectral response and better sharpness. I use fomapan in all formats, which also helps in terms of standardizing on processing parameters. Nevertheless, I've managed to get some good results with xray. And yes, most of it is double sided, and as far as I know, corners are always rounded and the base always has a blue tint. This doesn't interfere with printing or scanning in my experience; perhaps the blur base increases contrast with VC paper, but I use xray mostly for alt process printing and it appears to transmit uv light very well. With VC paper, I get good results as well; the blue base doesn't seem to be a problem in any respect. You can't beat the bang for the buck that xray film offers; despite its challenges, I find this remains true, particularly in 8x10 and ULF.

andrewch59

17-Mar-2018, 18:23

I think the speeds are different, green is normally about iso 100, this depends on your own personal exposure and developing routines. I read some entries on this thread that use green as low as iso 40. My own preference is at iso80. Blue is a higher speed and is produced in half speed blue at approx iso100 and full speed which I have not used but is said to be around iso200.

koraks

18-Mar-2018, 03:59

I've tried one type of blue, which is labeled 'high speed' iirc and a realistic EI in daylight with normal contrast was about 50, the same as the green stuff I had from the same brand. I've yet to come across as credible test that places it at 200 - although there are quite a few people who expose xray of any kind at 200 and don't worry about the lost shadow detail.

andrewch59

18-Mar-2018, 06:31

I use the half speed blue at the same iso as my Agfa green at about 80, what did you notice are the main differences between blue and green?

Tin Can

18-Mar-2018, 07:14

Corran

18-Mar-2018, 08:33

Great overview post Randy. I wish we could get a sticky or some kind of info page on the main page. What happened to our resident Father? Good point about the "tint" of the film. Confusing, to newbies.

I have directed many people to this thread from Facebook - all say "Almost 500 pages?! I'm not reading that!" So it goes. I can only type out the same general recommendations so many times before I decide to leave it to others - I'd rather be out photographing. Which is where I'm going now :).

michael_wi

18-Mar-2018, 09:52

A good jumping off point is my spreadsheet I posted back in #4786 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-Use-of-X-ray-film-technical-discussion-with-example-images&p=1390800&viewfull=1#post1390800)

There have been a couple of updates, thanks to those who did. :)

Chewed through thread from where I left off a few years ago. Really nice images in here.

I made a spreadsheet culled from APUG, here, blogs, flickr, and google searches. It is a few years out of date. Meant to share this a long time ago but life gets in the way sometimes.

Find on my google docs - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
It is set to anyone can edit.

EDIT:
It contains 4 tabs
1) name, EI/ISO ratings, sensitivity types, light exposed under (when given or obvious), and development info.
2) Film names, types, and box thumbs in an "equivalent" table. Discontinued films are also included
3) Notes, DIY developers with credit, Andrew O'Neil's X-Ray Film Reciprocity Effect chart (2010)
4) ANSI standard cut film sizes. in, mm, min/nom/max for 2" x 3" to 12" x 20" and 9cm x 12cm to 24cm x 30cm

Tin Can

18-Mar-2018, 11:49

Michael,

Great work. I missed it last year as I took 6 months off this forum. I missed Andrew O'Neal's contribution as I was not on Apug of LFPF in 2010.

This is a great compilation. Very useful.

Your link is bad in today's post, 404. The link works in the original post.

I downloaded it as .xls and it opens perfectly in Office Libre.

Perhaps add a preface about all X-Ray film is blue tint.

Your chart should be a sticky. Let's try to promote that.

Thank you!

jon.oman

18-Mar-2018, 12:11

Here is the good link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YFPM2J6ADKgZDTbj8MYcyuB5BU1mKmNuWobB6Zp2GlQ/edit#gid=839610233

andrewch59

18-Mar-2018, 22:23

Here is a link to a flikr thread and what they rate xray film speeds: https://www.flickr.com/groups/1471999@N22/discuss/72157624079554297/
CXS high speed blue is rated at iso 200 by one member, these speeds were recommended by the ADMIN:
1) Kodak Mammography Film
MIN-R 2000 Film
EI or ISO = 125

2) Kodak Scientific Imaging Film
X-OMAT Blue XB
EI or ISO = 320

andrewch59

18-Mar-2018, 22:37

After reading some of the actual xray radiology sites the sensitivity of xray film is represented by a letter and is all to do with the size of the silver nitrate crystal, one site states that half speed blue has the smaller grain size and recommended where fine detail is required. Don't ask me for references, it was just a perusal.
If you were to go way back to the beginning of this thread (1st page) recommended film speeds are offered, high speed blue is recommended at iso200.

koraks

19-Mar-2018, 01:19

I use the half speed blue at the same iso as my Agfa green at about 80, what did you notice are the main differences between blue and green?

Well, spectral response, obviously. Greens render very dark and skies always blow out white. While with green film, the sky can be held back a little with a yellow filter.

HT Finley

23-Mar-2018, 20:40

I got interested in this thread some years ago. Then went through an extended period of abject poverty before I could explore it. It's been years now. And now I want to read every post. But all the links and photos have been stripped out of the thread. Can anybody tell me how far back in time in this thread (or any other) I can go before the links and photos get removed from the posts? I want to do 8x10, and have no intention of paying the ridiculous pan film prices. I think a lot can be done with xray film, at least till they jack up prices and phase it out. Hmm..or has that time arrived?

dpaqu

1-Apr-2018, 16:32

It may help newbies that drop into these discussions without much research to always state the tint color of all X-Ray film.

As we know, a one-time reference is lost in this vast and endless thread.

This may eliminate a lot of repetitive confusion.

Is there a reference to successful development methodologies for the film you discussed? Obviously I would be thrilled if there was a summary of what has collectively been learned.

Tin Can

1-Apr-2018, 16:40

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-Use-of-X-ray-film-technical-discussion-with-example-images&p=1390800&viewfull=1#post1390800

Is there a reference to successful development methodologies for the film you discussed? Obviously I would be thrilled if there was a summary of what has collectively been learned.

Thodoris Tzalavras

7-Apr-2018, 14:14

After an interminable hiatus due to a broken leg, I'm back up and running—well, figuratively.
Slowly starting to work again.

Camomile flowers shot with a Rittreck View and a 90mm Super Angulon.
13x18 x-ray film (green sensitive Fuji HR-E).
Rotary development in Ilford MG 1+50 in diy PVC tube for 8min.
Scan from contact print on Ilford MG Warmtone paper at grade 2.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/788/27430865158_0a2949a506_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/HMYmx1)[/url][url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/tzalavras/] (https://flic.kr/p/HMYmx1)

koraks

7-Apr-2018, 16:39

I hope the leg heals quickly and completely! The image is simply wonderful, you're getting amazing results with this film. Is this double sided film? Do you strip the backside or leave it on? Can you tell more about the diy development tube; does it allow for free flow of chemicals along the backside of the film as well?

Thodoris Tzalavras

8-Apr-2018, 03:10

Koraks, thank you.

Yes, it's double sided.
No, I do not strip it.

The PVC tubes are still at the testing stage. I did some research (including this forum) and came up with a number of internal diameters which are supposed to work best for each format.
This particular film was developed in a 3" tube.

The reason why I'm testing this method, is because rotary developing has given me the most consistent and uniform results so far.

I've tried deep tank with Kodak and diy hangers, glass bottomed trays, and a number of Jobo drums, all with different agitation regimes, and rotary is what comes closer to what I'm looking for.

Still, this isn't a perfect method either.

This particular type of film (Fuji HR-E) comes out almost perfect (so far, and under my particular testing conditions), but the Fuji RX-N (blue sensitive, double sided) comes out completely scratched under the same testing conditions.

The Agfa HDR (green sensitive, single sided, AH layer) comes out almost as good as the HR-E, but I have other issues with it (in all probability due to it been expired since 2013, while the Fuji films are fresh.)

koraks

8-Apr-2018, 06:32

Thanks for the update; so your tubes are just that: tubes with two end cos and nothing else? Perhaps the hr-e has a topcoat that prevents from scratching. I know the film I use scratches if you so much as look at it.

Rapidrob

8-Apr-2018, 21:31

I'm a retired X-Ray Engineer. I have worked with film for the last 45 years and all X-Ray film is made for a mechanical film processor or even the old dip-tanks. For 99% of the film the developer is a rapid type at 100-105 degreed F for any where from 25 to 60 seconds in the developer depending on the type of film and the machine rack type ( deep tank or laminar flow tank) All the fixers have a harder in it to prevent scratches as it moves from the fix tank to the wash tank and then the dryer rack.
The rollers today ( pretty much obsolete due to digital imaging having taken over) are made of EDPM rubber compound or a compressed epoxy-paper type to prevent roller marks as the film is transported from one rack to the next.
If your fixer does not have a hardener in it the emulsion swells and will be very soft and easy to scratch until it is dry.
The dryer is hot as in over 125 degrees F and the film is made to take that kind of heat.
Mammography film is very fragile when wet but is extremely sensitive to low light making it ideal for B&W photography. If you have a densitometer, an image with an average density of 1.80 will give you the best tonal range using mammo film.
As for normal X-Ray film a 1.60 will be in the ball park.
X-Ray film is sensitive to the screens Green or Blue that fluoresce depending on the silver coating make up. But the film is very sensitive to any light other than what we see as red. It does see red but at a much slower speed so a red safe light can be used at 6 feet away and no brighter than 5 watts.
I have spent hundreds of hours in an "un-safe light darkroom" where outside light leaked around a seal or an LED of some sort fogged the film or someone putting in a 25 watt bulb or higher burning the safety coating of the safe light fogging all of the film.
Go into your darkroom and turn the lights off. If you see any white light or the overhead lights are florescent there can be an after glow. The film if close enough to the light "leak" will see it and become fogged.
A easy test to do is put your keys or change on a piece of film under your 6 foot away safe light and expose for 60 seconds ( average time to unload a cassette and place the film in a tank or machine) and develop the film If you have a ghost image of your objects, you have an un-safe , safe light of a light leak/ light source fogging the film.
Most X-Ray film is pretty tough stuff as it has to be loaded,unloaded, bent many times as it travels through the film processor machine and then thrown up on a view box or back into a film scanner by Techs that are always in a hurry due to a demanding doctor.
As for quality from batch to batch, lot number to lot number Fuji is hard to beat. Agfa is the worst for QC and was pulled from almost all of my clients due to their problems with QC.
X-Ray film loves the cold,hates the heat. If you order a box of film in the heat of Summer and it sits in a hot delivery truck for hours you will have exposure problems guaranteed.
New film sometimes called "Green film" as in new made last week can be overly sensitive to light and drive you nuts. It needs to outgass and age for a few days once opened to match your other boxes of older film.
I made my living troubleshooting these problems for decades and making sure if you had an X-Ray for a broken bone or breast cancer , you got the best results the Tech could hand to the doctor.
Always test your film before you go on that "picture of a lifetime" shoot. Just because it is new does not mean it is any good. I would send cases and cases back to the maker every week that tested poorly.
White Box or White Label film many times is Agfa film that did not meet specs; so called Factory Seconds. It will work but the next lot number can be way off than what you expected. By law it must be within 3.0 of the last lot number. 3.0! think about that? Yes Virgina, the human eye can see a 3.0 density difference and it is striking.
Hope the info helps. X-Ray film is very interesting to play with in general photography.
Results can be very impressive if you understand it.
And that is a whole other story.

Tin Can

8-Apr-2018, 23:46

Thanks for the info.

Finally we get an X-Ray Tech on board.

Welcome!

Jody_S

9-Apr-2018, 06:40

I'm a retired X-Ray Engineer. ...

Interesting. From reading that, I've been getting my best results from Agfa rejects.

Tin Can

9-Apr-2018, 06:46

And what about https://www.zzmedical.com/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html?

The info provided is useful. We didn't know it was done hot or about hardening fixer.

That said many are getting scratch free results using careful handling.

I slosh 14X36" by hand seesaw in a tray and get great results. 2 clips, 10 minutes and done. Fot that I use Ilford PQ Print develop. It's fast and reusable.

Thodoris Tzalavras

11-Apr-2018, 02:09

Thanks for the update; so your tubes are just that: tubes with two end cos and nothing else?

Koraks, yes.

They are plain PVC tubes, manually rolled on a diy roller base.

A couple of notes though:

These tubes don't accept end caps directly. They require a coupling and a screw cap with its own base.

The coupling has a sort of a stopper in its middle which is a tiny bit smaller in diameter compared to the tube itself (can't measure it with my caliper, because it's in the middle of the coupling.)

So, to avoid scratches during loading/unloading, I have only glued the base of the screw cap to the coupling, but not the coupling to the tube.

I load the film directly into the tube. Then I fit the open end of the coupling to the tube.

To deal with leakage from this unglued connection, I first rap around the end of the tube with some thread seal tape. It works fine.

Rereading all the above, I hope that it all makes sense to you and it doesn't sound like gibberish.

Randy

11-Apr-2018, 03:05

Thodoris, you said it is double sided X-ray film - with tube processing, one side of the film is against the inside of the tube. How is that side getting developer to it? I am confused.

Thodoris Tzalavras

11-Apr-2018, 04:42

Thodoris, you said it is double sided X-ray film - with tube processing, one side of the film is against the inside of the tube. How is that side getting developer to it? I am confused.

Randy, it has to do with the diameter of the tube.
For each format you have to use the "right" diameter, so that the film curls inside the tube in such a way as to not being pushed completely flat against the wall of the tube.
The 18cm dimension of the films I'm using has the right amount of tension/freedom inside a tube with a 3" diameter.
This allows for the chemistry to reach both sides of the film.

Randy

11-Apr-2018, 06:03

Thodoris,

OK, that almost makes sense to me - but at some point the outer side of the curled sheet of film has to make contact with the tube...doesn't it? The curled sheet of film can't just be suspended inside the tube, not making contact anywhere. In my minds eye I am trying to picture how the film could be suspended inside the tube allowing both sides to get even development - and the only way I can imagine that working is if the only part of the sheet of film that is in contact with the tube is the very edges. Is that correct? Sorry if I am just not understanding.

Thanks for your input - and I really like the image - reminds me of one I shot a few years back on regular 5X7 film.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ljpwkgh5552is56/rh5.jpg?dl=1

Thodoris Tzalavras

11-Apr-2018, 06:29

Randy, I can't be 100% sure of what goes on inside the tube during processing, since the tube is closed.
My comment on how this whole thing works is an extrapolation from the results I'm getting, plus how the film fits the tube when I load it in (while still dry.)
I imagine that the tension I described above which keeps the film's back from total contact with the wall when I load it, remains to some degree even after the film gets wet.
It's possible that the flow of chemicals is not the same on both sides, but there seems to be enough of a flow of liquids on the back to produce evenly developed negatives.
Again, this is only a guess.
And, I like your picture too :)

Thodoris Tzalavras

11-Apr-2018, 06:35

Rapidrob,

Thank you for sharing your experience with us.
You've packed so much great information in your post, I saved it for future reference.

I'd like to offer a couple of notes though.

First, for anyone new to xray (or who's reading this thread thinking of giving xray film a try at some point):
If you were to develop xray film as it was intended by its manufacturer (rapid developer at 100-105 degreed F for 25 to 60 seconds), you would get a characteristic curve like the ones shown in the data sheets published by each manufacturer (do a google search for the film you're interested in using, and you'll find a pdf of that data sheet.)
Those curves are extremely steep for pictorial use.
That is why most people who use xray film for in-camera negatives are using dilute developers at lower temperatures, making their own tests to determine length of development depending on whether they intent to contact print (and with which process) or scan their negatives.

Second, regarding safelight testing:
The process you describe is fine, if you'll be processing the film in some sort of daylight processor.
In my experience, if you intent to process in open trays, it leads to about 12min of safelight exposure (1-2min prewash, 8min or so of developing, and 1min rinse before the film reaches the fix, plus 1min or so for loading/unloading before processing starts).
For such a working process, the safelight testing described by Kodak in the link below is more appropriate:
http://wwwca.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/k4/k4TestSafelite.shtml

Tin Can

11-Apr-2018, 07:31

As long as we are talking processing.

This is for new folk. Old news.

I use KODAK only Film Hangers for DIY GAS Burst of CARESTREAM EKTASCAN B/RA SINGLE EMULSION VIDEO FILM. Kodak hangers have more drain holes.

I load 4- 8X10 or 8-5X7 or 16- 4X5 on 4 hangers into 1-gallon tanks, cover the tank and run through 4 different tanks in a row. I turn on white lights and relax between tanks.

Gas Burst Rodinol, still water stop, Gas Burst TF5. Last tank is bottom-up trickle wash. Times vary. Rodinol is 1/100. One shot. I reuse TF5. TF5 is made with distilled water. All temps 68F.

Remove and hang dry with no fan. Works for me.

This was with Lake Michigan water. No squeegee, no soap.

I am still setting it back up for rural water. This water is a little chunky. I have filters.

Save your X-Ray cutoffs for Fixer checking. Time to clear.

Randy

11-Apr-2018, 08:16

Thodoris, I am going to speculate that your method will work best on 4X5, work with 5X7 (13X18), but may not work at all with 8X10...which is what I shoot.
As we know, a larger sheet of film is more flexible than a smaller sheet of film, even if they are of the same thickness. A 5X7 sheet will not sag as much in the center as an 8X10 sheet.
RATS!
But, I may try fabricating a tube to try anyway.

Thodoris Tzalavras

11-Apr-2018, 09:44

Randy, according to my research, the 3" tube is the recommended size for 8x10.
The format I'm most interest in at the moment is 18x24cm (the European equivalent) and I have developed a few sheets in the 3" tubes with great results.
For 5x7 (13x18) the recommendation is 2" tubes, but my first attempt in that size was unsuccessful due to leakage problems. I might try fixing this issue at some point, but since I already made a couple of 3" tubes for 13x18 that work, I might not.
As a side note, I initially tried developing 2 sheets of 13x18cm in the tubes I made for 18x24cm, but one of the negatives moved during development and covered a bit of the other.
To fix this, I cut one of the tubes for 18x24 in half and glued between the two pieces a coupling.
The stopper that I mentioned that these couplings have in their middle, was exactly what was needed to keep the two films separated.
Hope this helps.

Randy

11-Apr-2018, 10:42

It does help - thanks. I will look into the 3" tubes. If you get a chance, perhaps post a picture of your tube assembly some time - or if there is one already posted somewhere, can you direct me to it. Thanks.

Thodoris Tzalavras

11-Apr-2018, 15:37

Randy, sure, I'll take a couple of pictures and post them here soon.

By the way, I'd like to make clear that all the posts I made about "my tubes" were only meant as clarifications. I was only trying to answer questions asked, as best I could. They should not be misconstrued as advertisement for this processing method.

I'm still in testing mode, as I've only processed about 20 sheets so far. It's too early to tell if it works consistently.

(Also, I'm not the first to have used this method. This is a diy version of the btzs tubes.
The only reason I didn't just buy a set of btzs tubes is because they cost too much to get them here in Cyprus. When you add shipping and taxes (we pay taxes on the shipping too…) they end up costing almost as much as a used Jodo expert drum.)

And even if I decide that it indeed works (for me), this method has a major disadvantage to others, like the gas burst that Randy Moe mentioned above. It's not productive. You can only process one sheet per tube, and each tube requires about 40"sec between lifting it from the rollers and putting it back on them with the next chemical.

This limits the number of tubes you can run together, while keeping your processing times consistent. It's more comparable to tray processing individual sheets.

On the plus side, they cost relatively little to make, so (in theory) you could load several and process them sequentially, without wasting time washing and drying tubes between processing cycles.

In any case, I'll keep on posting results as they come in.

Randy

11-Apr-2018, 16:40

Thodoris, thanks - I have processed several dozen 8X10 sheets in trays. Managed to finally have some luck with minimal scratching while processing 4 sheets at a time, but was not satisfied with any scratches, so tried processing in 1 ltr upright tanks - 2 film hangers at a time, but got very uneven development no mater what I did - more rigorous agitation, less rigorous agitation - just could not make it work. Tried one film hanger laying flat in a tray but still got some processing streaks. I tried processing in an 8X10 Colourtronic daylight processing tube that I purchased many, many years ago when I was printing color slides via Cibachrome. The tube is 4 inches inside diameter and has small raised ribs that run the length. The ribs left marks on the X-ray film during processing :(
Anyway, the search continues.