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

[Corran]

Fuji HR-T is all I have used.

It is double-sided.

Rodinal 1:100 for 6-7 minutes is my standard development time - nowadays, in trays, carefully, so as not to scratch the emulsion.

[LF_Alex]

Double-sided? :( I was hoping to avoid that. How are you dealing with this? Are you bleaching one side?

[pepeguitarra]

Double-sided? :( I was hoping to avoid that. How are you dealing with this? Are you bleaching one side?

Just be careful with it. Most of the times, I don't get scratches.

[Corran]

Double-sided? :( I was hoping to avoid that. How are you dealing with this? Are you bleaching one side?

I used to, but it's a pain in the butt and takes a while, so now if I shoot x-ray film I develop it in tray carefully so as to avoid scratching.

[LF_Alex]

I used to, but it's a pain in the butt and takes a while, so now if I shoot x-ray film I develop it in tray carefully so as to avoid scratching.

Does the second emulsion interfere with printing? Contact or enlarger prints on B&W paper.

[Corran]

Supposedly slightly less sharp than "one-sided" due to having that layer, but unnoticeable in general use IMO, at least in the 8x10 film I've printed from. Still, don't expect it to resolve or look like "real" film.

[koraks]

YMMV, but I find double-sided film noticeably less sharp than single sided. The scratching issue is what eventually turned me off double-sided film altogether; I'm not wasting money on it anymore. Too much hassle with very little benefit in return, if any at all.

[Tin Can]

X-Ray of any type is excellent for learning how to load film holders.
Make the many mistakes everybody does at first on the cheap 2 sided.

If it’s too expensive cut it down to 4x5.

2X is great for learning how to process film.

It is real film!

When ready switch to 1X or any ‘better’ film with confidence.

All film was much cheaper in the past.


X-Ray is much closer in image quality to any film 100 years oid and glass plates.

Some like old emulsion qualities.

[pepeguitarra]

I have read and I think, I have understood how the X-ray film works. I will mention what I know hoping that someone may correct me if I am wrong. Regular current film is panchromatic and has light sensitive silver emulsion on one side. They also place another emulsion (anti-halation) in the reverse. This is the layer that many remove by washing the film prior to development.

The X-ray film does not need to be panchromatic, so it is orthochromatic (like the old original films). They (Kodak and Fuji) place a light sensitive silver emulsion on one side, and maybe an anti-halation emulsion in the other side. However, the x-rays do not produce light to impress the sensitive emulsion. That is when the manufacturers, place another emulsion on the back of the film that react to the x-rays by ignition producing light during the reaction. That light is the one that is going to create the image on the silver emulsion. My thought is that that emulsion that reacts with the x-rays to produce light is also mixed with anti-halation. I am not sure if this emulsion gets washed with the pre-washed, it may be. I am pre-washing for 5 minutes the x-ray film. I have heard that some photographers scrap or remove the not needed emulsion. The problem for me would be identifying which one is the side holding the image. Any comments or enlightenment?

[Jim Noel]

AS i have stated previously,I learned photography using ortho films. I developed in a tray with a red safe light to guide me. X-ray film is so similar to many films of the 30's I even use the same developers,fixers, etc. on occasion. The most important thing to me is the scale of the negative, and x-ray films meet that need.

[Mark Crabtree]

I like the x-ray film because it is orthochromatic, because its slow speed is good for lens cap exposures, and because it is cheap.

The double sided is a nuisance, but manageable. I always treat these like single sided sheet film, so the side of the film that faces the lens is treated as the emulsion side and is kept up in throughout development. You could notch it, but if you are used to darkroom work it should be simple to keep track since that side always stays up. As I learned from this thread, but worth repeating once in a while, develop in smooth bottomed trays - no ribs or troughs of any kind. Lift the film a few times during development to avoid blotchiness in the backside emulsion. If you have the space, you can run two developer trays side by side to speed things up. I've done three developer trays at a time with 11x14, but that was a handful.

I believe these are just two identical emulsions; the sides aren't marked and you can put it in the holder either way. As has been explained in this thread, the blue and green designations refer to the way x-rays are exposed, but for our purpose it is just an indicator of the color sensitivity, with green being most like traditional orho film, and what most people use as far as I know. Somebody had posted links to charts of color sensitivity at one point.

[Peter De Smidt]

I have read and I think, I have understood how the X-ray film works. I will mention what I know hoping that someone may correct me if I am wrong. Regular current film is panchromatic and has light sensitive silver emulsion on one side. They also place another emulsion (anti-halation) in the reverse. This is the layer that many remove by washing the film prior to development.

The X-ray film does not need to be panchromatic, so it is orthochromatic (like the old original films). They (Kodak and Fuji) place a light sensitive silver emulsion on one side, and maybe an anti-halation emulsion in the other side. However, the x-rays do not produce light to impress the sensitive emulsion. That is when the manufacturers, place another emulsion on the back of the film that react to the x-rays by ignition producing light during the reaction. That light is the one that is going to create the image on the silver emulsion. My thought is that that emulsion that reacts with the x-rays to produce light is also mixed with anti-halation. I am not sure if this emulsion gets washed with the pre-washed, it may be. I am pre-washing for 5 minutes the x-ray film. I have heard that some photographers scrap or remove the not needed emulsion. The problem for me would be identifying which one is the side holding the image. Any comments or enlightenment?

I'm not an expert, but I don't think that's right. The film is not exposed directly by x-rays. X-rays get emitted, pass through what they're imaging, and then hit a screen that glows in proportion to the x-rays that hit it. This screen either glows with green light or blue light, and that's what corresponds to the x-ray film being blue or green labelled. It's the glow from the screen that exposes the x-ray film. Both emulsions on a two sided x-ray film are the same, and they both respond to visible light, either blue or green (and perhaps more.) X-ray film is two sided since that leads to double the density, which is important when looking for flaws in bones.

[koraks]

Peter is right. There is no magic emulsion on xray film. It's just a very basic blue-sensitive or orthochromatic emulsion with a very flimsy topcoat. Mammography film has only one emulsion side and a water-soluble dye-based anti-halation coating on the backside, while regular double sided film just has two normal emulsion layers, one on each side.
No conversion of xray to visible light occurs in the film itself and there is no appreciable capture of xray in the photographic emulsion or even the entire film itself.

[pepeguitarra]

I'm not an expert, but I don't think that's right. The film is not exposed directly by x-rays. X-rays get emitted, pass through what they're imaging, and then hit a screen that glows in proportion to the x-rays that hit it. This screen either glows with green light or blue light, and that's what corresponds to the x-ray film being blue or green labelled. It's the glow from the screen that exposes the x-ray film. Both emulsions on a two sided x-ray film are the same, and they both respond to visible light, either blue or green (and perhaps more.) X-ray film is two sided since that leads to double the density, which is important when looking for flaws in bones.

Thank you Peter. That sounds more logical. Here is the film I am using, which is single coated: X-ray Film (https://www.zzmedical.com/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-x-ray-film.html)

[Tin Can]

This is the film that is single coated with antihalation. (https://www.zzmedical.com/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html)



Thank you Peter. That sounds more logical. Here is the film I am using, which is single coated: X-ray Film (https://www.zzmedical.com/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-x-ray-film.html)

[LF_Alex]

Thank you Peter. That sounds more logical. Here is the film I am using, which is single coated: X-ray Film (https://www.zzmedical.com/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-x-ray-film.html)

Argh, wish I saw that earlier! Now I'm stuck with 100 sheets of double-sided green Fuji HR-U :)

I've learned about how X-Ray film works from this Instructable, interesting read:

https://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Xray-Machine/

[pepeguitarra]

In the book THE IMMORTAL LIFE OF HENRIETTA LACKS, I learned that Mrs. Curie used to bring pieces of Radium in her pocket. She came from Europe in the plane with a bunch of rocks in the pocket. Then, they cut the patient open and place a piece of rock inside the body, close to the tumor. Months later, they open again remove the rock and check the reduction of the cancer tumor. That is how radiation started. She died of cancer, presumably caused by the handling of radioactive material in a really ignorante way.

[LF_Alex]

So I'm planning on using Rodinol for my Fuji HR-U developing. What should I use as fixer? Some people here mentioned using hardening fixer. Is that what everyone is using?

[Tin Can]

Use whatever fixer you have.

I use TF5 mixed with distilled water, but fixer only must be fresh enough, meaning not exhausted.

Save exposed but not processed scraps of X-ray for testing 'clearing time'.

[Andrew O'Neill]

YMMV, but I find double-sided film noticeably less sharp than single sided. The scratching issue is what eventually turned me off double-sided film altogether; I'm not wasting money on it anymore. Too much hassle with very little benefit in return, if any at all.

Yes single sided is sharper, but you can't see that unless you do side by side comparisons. Personally I feel the double sided green is an excellent x-ray film. I'm not sure why you cannot process without scratches. How were you processing it?

[koraks]

My qualm with sharpness is/was mostly with processes like salt prints, where I use an exposure box with uv tubes; this is a diffuse light source, which I think is an important factor. I also like to make fairly small prints, so fine detail is important to me.

I've tried just about any development approach within my reach. I either got uneven development, scratches, or both. Plastic trays, plastic trays with a sheet of glass on the bottom, glass trays, oven baking trays - you name it, I probably tried it at some point. Continuous agitation, with or without flipping the sheet, intermittent...no luck. The best results I got with a non-stick oven baking tray with at least 500ml of developer, but even then, I used to get small scratches in the corners of the film.

With Ektascan BR/A, no scratches at all. Frankly, because single sided film (xray or eg Foma) is still within reach, I just don't see the point in trying to make an in my view inferior alternative work. I've gone through 2-3 100 sheet boxes, most of them cut to 4x5, trying to find a dependable and reproducible method. I guess I'm just clumsy!

It's okay though, I learned a lot doing this. And anyone who insists on the beauty of double sided film has my blessing, honestly. It's just not for me.

[seezee]

I have read and I think, I have understood how the X-ray film works. I will mention what I know hoping that someone may correct me if I am wrong. Regular current film is panchromatic and has light sensitive silver emulsion on one side. They also place another emulsion (anti-halation) in the reverse. This is the layer that many remove by washing the film prior to development.

The X-ray film does not need to be panchromatic, so it is orthochromatic (like the old original films). They (Kodak and Fuji) place a light sensitive silver emulsion on one side, and maybe an anti-halation emulsion in the other side. However, the x-rays do not produce light to impress the sensitive emulsion. That is when the manufacturers, place another emulsion on the back of the film that react to the x-rays by ignition producing light during the reaction. That light is the one that is going to create the image on the silver emulsion. My thought is that that emulsion that reacts with the x-rays to produce light is also mixed with anti-halation. I am not sure if this emulsion gets washed with the pre-washed, it may be. I am pre-washing for 5 minutes the x-ray film. I have heard that some photographers scrap or remove the not needed emulsion. The problem for me would be identifying which one is the side holding the image. Any comments or enlightenment?

In a clinical setting, the x-rays pass thru the film and excite pixels on a phosphorescent screen (an "intensifier screen (https://radiopaedia.org/articles/intensifying-screen?lang=us)"). The phosphors emit visible light of a wavelength that matches the sensitivity of the silver halides on the film and exposes both layers. 2 layers = double film sensitivity; increased sensitivity reduces the patient's exposure to hard radiation. Conventional (double-emulsion) x-ray film has no anti-halation layer.

The big exception is dental x-rays. A much higher dose of x-rays is needed because no one has invented a tiny fluorescing screen that could go in a patient's mouth.

[seezee]

I always treat these like single sided sheet film, so the side of the film that faces the lens is treated as the emulsion side and is kept up in throughout development. You could notch it, but if you are used to darkroom work it should be simple to keep track since that side always stays up.

The x-ray film I've used has rounded corners. Since I cut each sheet into 4 negatives there's always a rounded corner that acts as the film notch for me. Always place it the same way and Bob's your uncle.

[seezee]

Argh, wish I saw that earlier! Now I'm stuck with 100 sheets of double-sided green Fuji HR-U :)

I've learned about how X-Ray film works from this Instructable, interesting read:

https://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Xray-Machine/

No sweat. It's cheap and it's a great way to learn. The main things is to handle it carefully. Your cutting area needs to be very clean; lay down an old, but laundered, cotton sheet under your guillotine cutter to keep the film from dropping onto an abrasive surface. Wipe down the cutter itself before using. Wear exam gloves while working with the film. Once the film is wet it becomes very soft; that's when most scratches occur. The other times are when loading / unloading the holders and during processing. A sheet of glass in the bottom of your tray may help. If the film gets stuck to the tray bottom slide a piece of scrap film under it and gently pry it up.

[seezee]

Use whatever fixer you have.

I use TF5 mixed with distilled water, but fixer only must be fresh enough, meaning not exhausted.

Save exposed but not processed scraps of X-ray for testing 'clearing time'.

I've used TF-4 and Kodafix. Plan to use TF-5 when I run out of TF-4. Supposedly acid-based fixers (Kodafix) can bleach staining developers, e.g., Pyro, but since you're using Rodinal it won't matter.

[seezee]

My qualm with sharpness is/was mostly with processes like salt prints, where I use an exposure box with uv tubes; this is a diffuse light source, which I think is an important factor. I also like to make fairly small prints, so fine detail is important to me.

I've tried just about any development approach within my reach. I either got uneven development, scratches, or both. Plastic trays, plastic trays with a sheet of glass on the bottom, glass trays, oven baking trays - you name it, I probably tried it at some point. Continuous agitation, with or without flipping the sheet, intermittent...no luck. The best results I got with a non-stick oven baking tray with at least 500ml of developer, but even then, I used to get small scratches in the corners of the film.

With Ektascan BR/A, no scratches at all. Frankly, because single sided film (xray or eg Foma) is still within reach, I just don't see the point in trying to make an in my view inferior alternative work. I've gone through 2-3 100 sheet boxes, most of them cut to 4x5, trying to find a dependable and reproducible method. I guess I'm just clumsy!

It's okay though, I learned a lot doing this. And anyone who insists on the beauty of double sided film has my blessing, honestly. It's just not for me.

I have to agree that single-sided is sharper. I've used both & it's pretty clear from my results.

[Tin Can]

Perhaps Ray parallelism or lack thereof creates unsharp as the 2 emulsions are a distance apart.

In actual X-Ray usage of X-Ray films the light emitting conversion plate would act as a 1 to 1 contact print. Both emulsions would be sharp and identical. Backup as it were. A safety factor built into X-Ray 2X films to lessen any scratches.

Using large sheets of X-Ray film pictorially with a small lens would create a spreading cone of light rays and non identical imaging.

Ektascan 1X was made for 1 to 1 copying of CRT screens, developed for data storage. Common still at 8X10", but was available as 14X17".

Long ago I used a special Polaroid camera to capture fleeting oscilloscope images.

Data acquisition has come a long way.




I have to agree that single-sided is sharper. I've used both & it's pretty clear from my results.

[pepeguitarra]

In a clinical setting, the x-rays pass thru the film and excite pixels on a phosphorescent screen (an "intensifier screen (https://radiopaedia.org/articles/intensifying-screen?lang=us)"). The phosphors emit visible light of a wavelength that matches the sensitivity of the silver halides on the film and exposes both layers. 2 layers = double film sensitivity; increased sensitivity reduces the patient's exposure to hard radiation. Conventional (double-emulsion) x-ray film has no anti-halation layer.

The big exception is dental x-rays. A much higher dose of x-rays is needed because no one has invented a tiny fluorescing screen that could go in a patient's mouth.

THAT is very informative. I am worried now about my dentist and his insistence to take x-rays every time I go there. My dentist now uses digital sensor for the x-rays. Do you know if the amount of x-rays used is less than before? I hope it is less. Thanks, Pepe.

[Corran]

I printed (digitally) one 8x10 double-sided x-ray negative to 40x32 and it was plenty sharp. Mostly I just contact print 8x10 though, and IMO anyone shooting 8x10 for contact prints should be plenty happy with the results, if they develop it well and don't scratch it of course. The most noticeable thing to me about Fuji HR-T x-ray film is the lack of anti-halation layer, making things have a slight "bloom" depending on the light and contrast. I do agree it's less sharp, I just don't think it matters.

I may be going back to x-ray for a bit for 8x10 shooting. I have been shooting up my remaining normal films and forget that x-ray is a fine alternative, with some carefulness.

In fact, I just remembered I shot side-by-side a sheet of Fuji HR-T and Ilford Delta 100 years ago. You can easily tell which is which from the highlights blooming. Sharpness is obviously more on the Delta, but not significantly. I ended up liking the "bloom" and printed the x-ray image, not the Delta image. Here's a crop from each:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/8x10-xrayvsilford0.jpg

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/8x10-xrayvsilford1.jpg

[Tin Can]

And Kodak/Carestream X-Ray films are T-Grain just as Delta and TMax.

Carestream T-Grain® emulsion that delivers high visibility of details without sacrificing speed.

The glow is a plus!

[Corran]

Perhaps I will finally give the single-sided a try - if it results in less scratching then that's a win overall. I see Carestream Green is $58 for 100 sheets at zzmedical (https://www.zzmedical.com/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-x-ray-film.html) (or buy 2 boxes and it's $55 each). Anywhere cheaper? I hadn't priced Ilford Delta in a while since I had a few boxes in the freezer but I see at B&H it's $120 for 25 sheets...

Edit: oops! I guess that Carestream film is double-sided from what I read elsewhere. I'm not that up on the single-sided stuff.

[Tin Can]

That link is to 2X. I tried correcting Pepe's link yesterday.

This is 1X https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/carestream-x-ray-film/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html

All X-Ray is up in price. The one you linked to was once under $40.

I find ZZ the best and cheapest source.



Perhaps I will finally give the single-sided a try - if it results in less scratching then that's a win overall. I see Carestream Green is $58 for 100 sheets at zzmedical (https://www.zzmedical.com/8x10-in-carestream-kodak-x-ray-film.html) (or buy 2 boxes and it's $55 each). Anywhere cheaper? I hadn't priced Ilford Delta in a while since I had a few boxes in the freezer but I see at B&H it's $120 for 25 sheets...

[Corran]

Thanks Randy! I used to always order from CXS but they don't carry single-sided it seems. Yes, everything has gone up...

But, $1 a sheet is still not bad, and about 1/5 the price of Delta 100. Let's not even discuss Kodak...

[Corran]

PS: Have you ever requested a "quote" instead of just purchasing from ZZ? One supplier I work with (A/V gear) gives about 20-40% off almost everything in their shop if you just request a quote. They want the business.

[Tin Can]

No, but I bought a 500 sheet case of 1X 14X17 and was given a 10% discount as first time buyer. I had to ask for it.

I actually was not first time and they knew that, as I had bought smaller amounts of 2X for a big order they gave it.

ZZ is a small Iowa Biz run by 2 very nice people. Call them.

When I bought the case, they had to find it, and that was 4 years ago.

I also bought 500 case of 1X 8X10. at less than current prices.

I may buy more, by the case.

Because it ships inside an outer box and survives shipping better.

The clock is ticking on all X-Ray film...




PS: Have you ever requested a "quote" instead of just purchasing from ZZ? One supplier I work with (A/V gear) gives about 20-40% off almost everything in their shop if you just request a quote. They want the business.

[Peter De Smidt]

That's good to know, Randy. I'm going to see if they have a 500 sheet case of 8x10 1-sided. I like this a bit better than the aerial film, as it wouldn't have to be cut down. I'm going to try to take a lot of 8x10 portraits this summer, as I'm not sure how much longer I can afford the studio. My class load has been cut (again) for next year.

[Corran]

Peter - if there's a big discount let us know. I wouldn't mind splitting a case with someone(s). Randy, were the cases individually packaged in 100-sheet boxes? I assume so.

[Tin Can]

Yes, 5- 100 sheet boxes. It's 100 sheets per box packed in one tear away bag. A thin single box which loads from one end.

The 8X10 ships in 1, 2 or 3 boxes OK.

The 14X17 is heavier and needs the case box.

I bought one box of 14X17 and it darn near came out of the flimsy box.


Peter - if there's a big discount let us know. I wouldn't mind splitting a case with someone(s). Randy, were the cases individually packaged in 100-sheet boxes? I assume so.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'll call next week and post what I find out.

[andrewch59]

I have just bought four 100 sheet boxes of 8x10 agfa green from Chicago Medical Supply, US$44.99 A BOX. For overseas posting, four boxes fit into a US Postal Service Medium Flat Rate Priority Box $US 85 for one to four boxes.

[Tin Can]

Cheap shipping to Australia.

I gave up trying to ship there.

[andrewch59]

Why? may I ask? dont you like third world countries??

[Tin Can]

My daughter was just in Sydney.

I wish I could have joined her.


Why? may I ask? dont you like third world countries??

[LF_Alex]

I have just bought four 100 sheet boxes of 8x10 agfa green from Chicago Medical Supply, US$44.99 A BOX. For overseas posting, four boxes fit into a US Postal Service Medium Flat Rate Priority Box $US 85 for one to four boxes.

Do you know if it has emulsion on both sides or not?

[andrewch59]

Yes, both sides, a couple of minor scratches don't bother me too much, I have a hybrid workflow and remove scratches and dust after scanning. I find agfa grain a lot more subtle than carestream, personal taste.

[LF_Alex]

For people who are removing extra emulsion with bleach - when is the best time to do it? Before or after you expose and/or develop it?

[Corran]

There is no reason to do it before. Plus you may have scratches on one side or the other. And loading a few sheets of film will just become a massive chore.

Regardless, I highly suggest you simply carefully develop in trays and don't worry about it. I bleached many, many 8x10 sheets and it was mostly a big waste of time and absolutely made the entire process not fun. Just develop it right the first time.

I used to be a big proponent of bleaching one side...I rescind all of that :).

[Tin Can]

Proud to say I never bleached!

I find I can develop 14X34" 2X X-Ray easily in a 11X14" tray with a 2" of Rodinol.

I put film clips on each end, use Red safelight and simply rock a loop of it into the solutions. No scratches, just don't let it touch the bottom. No need to get crazy, just slow even dipping motions.

These were enlarged positives.

I once lay down four 14X17" sheets of 2X and made a big positive I put in a window with backlight for night viewing.

[LF_Alex]

Ok, I'm going to give it a try as-is, no bleaching :)

[Jim Fitzgerald]

There is no need to mess with removing the emulsion. This is a double sided x-ray image. 8x10 Carbon transfer print.

[Tin Can]

I was mistaken about using Rodinol. I only use it, but for the big tray and the 14x34” 2X XRay I used Ilford PQ at 1/9 and it was fully developed in 2 minutes. Water stop for 30 seconds and TF5 fix for 3 minutes.

I could watch it develop and it was fixed quickly.

I washed quickly also.

I just remembered how I did it.

[chris73]

A few experiments with Fuji Super HR-U 30 expired since...2009 :)
Rated ISO 50, 9x12 camera.
Just for reference i photographed the negatives with a m43 camera...

Development in Caffenol Black (no vitamin C) for 50-60mins, 21oC stand or semi-stand, gives as expected low contrast but a very interesting... pictorrealistic outcome, or like a pencil drawing touch
190440

190441

Then i tried Ilfosol 3. A good starting point i think is something like:
ISO 50
Ilfosol 3 , 19+1 dillution, 21oC.
4min
Constant aggitation the first minute, 5-6 aggitations every next minute.

190442

With yellow filter 2x i had to overexpose 3 stops
190443

[andrewch59]

Your experiments have been fruitfull, I think your results are very promising, well done

[pepeguitarra]

I have not read the 532 pages, so, can anyone tell me how you deal with reciprocity with X-ray film. Thanks, Pepe.

[scheinfluger_77]

At the risk of being flippant, test with your workflow. When I read through the thread that was the overwhelming consensus, regardless of the particular question.

[Tin Can]

Pepe, most here do not shoot very long exposures.

I think I saw only one or two post about it. I have read most of the thread.

It is hard to search for but I just found these links in google. I used your words to search, there is a lot out there.

google search "reciprocity with X-ray film"

https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/42.5.471

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/x-ray-film-reciprocity-effect.62519/

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?127387-Correcting-for-film-reciprocity-failure-X-Ray-Film-results&p=1296352&viewfull=1#post1296352

[pepeguitarra]

Thank you Randy. I found the links very useful, specially the last one. I am doing my own test, that is the reason I wanted to compare with others. I found that if I don't adjust for reciprocity, I can develop the film without any problem. I tested up to one minute without problem. When I tested for three minutes, I did noticed an over exposure (that is what I did yesterday), which prompted me to ask the question. The negs are still drying, so, I will post the result of this last try later.

[chris73]

Your experiments have been fruitfull, I think your results are very promising, well done

Thank you. It is a great fun anyway :)

[Jim Noel]

I have not read the 532 pages, so, can anyone tell me how you deal with reciprocity with X-ray film. Thanks, Pepe.

Pepe,
Since X-ray film is truly orthochromatic itis sensitive only to blue light. Thus, as the sung heads for the horizon, the film slows down accordingly and I Know of no one who is using it in situations which require long exposures. I guess there are those who use extremely small apertures and might runinto reciprocity, but I haven't heard of them.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Pepe,
Since X-ray film is truly orthochromatic itis sensitive only to blue light. Thus, as the sung heads for the horizon, the film slows down accordingly and I Know of no one who is using it in situations which require long exposures. I guess there are those who use extremely small apertures and might runinto reciprocity, but I haven't heard of them.


Well, I've used it all the time for long exposures. The fastest shutter speed for me was one second... still need compensation. Very poor reciprocity. Randy linked to my data that I've been using successfully for many years in the field. :)

[Jim Noel]

Well, I've used it all the time for long exposures. The fastest shutter speed for me was one second... still need compensation. Very poor reciprocity. Randy linked to my data that I've been using successfully for many years in the field. :)

I have referred Pepe to you as a source concerning reciprocity.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have referred Pepe to you as a source concerning reciprocity.


So that explains all the people knocking at my door at all hours! ;)

[pepeguitarra]

:o :confused:

[HoodedOne]

I have not read the 532 pages, so, can anyone tell me how you deal with reciprocity with X-ray film. Thanks, Pepe.

I’m only using 8x10 x-ray film with a pinhole camera. So, exposure times range from 1 second to 16 minutes. I can give you the reciprocity data I have, although I don’t know how I got those.

[Tin Can]

Post for all for all us please

Recip will depend on light source as some have posted

Strobes vary, flashbulbs vary

Time of day daylight is A variable

LED color temp varies

Every variable varies

Testing methods vary

Some just lie. A photographer technique down the ages to protect their advantage

Misdirection is common

ymmv

😎

[andrewch59]

http://www.bwvision.com/complete-guide-long-exposure-photography-2016-edition/
I have found the timings in here pretty spot-on, as long as you are using nd filters of course.

[koraks]

That article assumes a full digital work flow and hence doesn't give useful insights into reciprocity issues as present in ilm capture.

FWIW, with Ektascan BR/A I don't notice any reciprocity issues at least up to 15-30 second exposures.

[Jim Noel]

That article assumes a full digital work flow and hence doesn't give useful insights into reciprocity issues as present in ilm capture.

FWIW, with Ektascan BR/A I don't notice any reciprocity issues at least up to 15-30 second exposures.

I agree,but have not done exhaustive testing.

[HoodedOne]

This is the reciprocity data I use for x-ray film (e.i. 50)

(Everything in seconds)
1 = 1.3
2 = 2.8
4 = 6
6 = 9
8 = 13
11 = 19
16 = 29
23 = 44
32 = 67
45 = 98
64 = 176
91 = 285
128 = 514
181 = 1224
256 = 2228
362 = 5940

[andrewch59]

That article assumes a full digital work flow and hence doesn't give useful insights into reciprocity issues as present in ilm capture.

FWIW, with Ektascan BR/A I don't notice any reciprocity issues at least up to 15-30 second exposures.

Actually it does, by chance or not I Have the exposure chart and use it regularly, that plus the fudge factor given for reciprocity work very well in my experience.
It also shows images created by Micheal Kenna, an ANALOGUE photographer.

[pepeguitarra]

Here is the data on a graphic:

190579

[Andrew O'Neill]

Since I've been playing around with Adox CMS 20II and POTA, I thought I'd develop some double-sided green latitude xray in POTA. I normally process with Pyrocat-HD and I wanted to see how it would look. Both sheets were developed for 8:00. The sheet on the left was in straight POTA. The one on the right, POTA 1+1. Tray developed (flat-bottomed). Slight agitation every minute. 24C. Reciprocity correction was given for both...4sec became 8sec.

191421191422

[andrewch59]

Quite a difference andrew, even under the stairs, are you surprised by the results??

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, I was a bit surprised. I wasn't expecting the diluted version to have more contrast. Then I realised I shot them both at the same EI. For serious work, I'd probably give a third stop more exposure (or more) when using 1+1.

[Tin Can]

Now is the Time to Upgrade to Digital X-Ray

Just got this in an email

https://mailchi.mp/zzmedical/vz93vweby3-274381?e=8b605a7efd

The End IS NEAR

[pepeguitarra]

It looks like the images taken with the X-Ray are neater than the ones taken with the LF camera. In any case, I am waiting for my request to upgrade to digital too. I have bought from them about 400 sheets.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've got about 300 sheets of 8x10 and about 80 14x17 sheets. Once they're gone, that's likely it for me and Xray. I've got so much conventional film to use...

[kendolinator324058943]

Hey all,

I have an 8x10 camera which I've shot a few negatives and it has been a complete failure. I think I'm doing everything right but must have missed something. I've processed 2 negatives at different times with no success. The first negative I got the faintest partial image when held up to light but pretty much unrecognizable. The film was very black and the emulsion was easily rubbed off with my finger nail. My second attempt yielded a completely black negative with no image whatsoever.

Here is my process, worked under a 6watt red safelight.

1. Exposed the negative. Each time was a different shutter speed and aperture.
2. developed in D76 1:1 for 9 minutes at 20c.
3. Stop bath tap water for 2 minutes.
4. fixed with ilford rapid fixer for 5 minutes.
5. water wash and hang dry.


Any ideas what's going wrong?

The x-ray film is fuji super HR-T 8x10 green latitude.

The sheets appear to have an almost silver tone tone to them. Once I put them in the developer they turn dark black after about 5 minutes but no image ever resolves. When I'm finished i'm left with a black negative, no image, and the emulsion is almost gooey and easy removed with a light fingernail scrape.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Oh I see you posted over here. Good! What ISO did you use? And probably D76 1+1 is too strong. Try 1+3 or weaker. Why the emulsion is gooey, says either something wrong with the film or processing. Xray film emulsion is very fragile when wet, so great care must be given...but it shouldn't be gooey.

[kendolinator324058943]

Yup thanks.

The film just says "medium speed" but I heard it's around 100 ISO.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup thanks.

The film just says "medium speed" but I heard it's around 100 ISO.

ISO 100 should be fine... but depends a bit on the developer and dilution, too. So, I would try again but with a more dilute developer. Xray film is contrasty.

[kendolinator324058943]

Okay thanks. I mean, would using 1:1 really cause it to be completely washed out like that? I'll try again I guess. The safelight i'm using is a large xmas light. Could that be affecting anything?

[Leszek Vogt]

Since I've been playing around with Adox CMS 20II and POTA, I thought I'd develop some double-sided green latitude xray in POTA. I normally process with Pyrocat-HD and I wanted to see how it would look. Both sheets were developed for 8:00. The sheet on the left was in straight POTA. The one on the right, POTA 1+1. Tray developed (flat-bottomed). Slight agitation every minute. 24C. Reciprocity correction was given for both...4sec became 8sec.

191421191422

Which look do you prefer, Andrew ? The one on the left seem to resemble Dev 23 (to me)....maybe it's the bright chair (in the right pic) that's not to my liking.

Les

[Jim Noel]

Okay thanks. I mean, would using 1:1 really cause it to be completely washed out like that? I'll try again I guess. The safelight i'm using is a large xmas light. Could that be affecting anything?

Possibly. It may not be a true red, or be leaking some white light somewhere.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Okay thanks. I mean, would using 1:1 really cause it to be completely washed out like that? I'll try again I guess. The safelight i'm using is a large xmas light. Could that be affecting anything?


Yes. The Christmas bulb most likely is a major issue. It's not "safe". And yes, 1+1 dilution is pretty strong (in my experience of 11 years using xray film). I prefer a longish development time. 8 to 10 minutes (dilute Pyrocat-HD).

[kendolinator324058943]

So it was the red light. I developed it it in complete darkness and it turned out ok.

On another note, I developed a piece of Orth Litho 3.0 with the last sheet of xray and it came out blank, almost transparent but not quite. Is this because i'm not using the Litho a/b developer?

[blue4130]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47984546058_1024d96994_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2g7ekMC)may2019-020 (https://flic.kr/p/2g7ekMC) by Vance (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vancelester/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40819023083_87157c642c_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/25c3as4)may2019-013small (https://flic.kr/p/25c3as4) by Vance (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vancelester/), on Flickr

Here are two recent (very different) x-ray shots of mine. These were shot on Fuji green film, cut down to 4x5. The bulb was shot at f:64 for 300 seconds. I was at about 2.5:1 magnification and took a wild stab in the dark for reciprocity.

The portrait was (memory is fading) f5.6 for 1/15th of a second.

Both were processed in hc-110 1:70 for 6 minutes in a rotary tank.

[Tin Can]

Nice Lance!

This was shot on cut 5X7 X-Ray, then made FP4 4X5 inter-negative enlarging to 16x20 negative print. It was lit, but dimmed way down at about 3-1 macro.

I have posted it before, but one good bulb deserves another...I call it Atomic Bomb.

https://live.staticflickr.com/4583/38079307405_d44bb3cd9c_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/211WpqR)Atomic Bomb (https://flic.kr/p/211WpqR) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[seezee]

So it was the red light. I developed it it in complete darkness and it turned out ok.

On another note, I developed a piece of Orth Litho 3.0 with the last sheet of xray and it came out blank, almost transparent but not quite. Is this because i'm not using the Litho a/b developer?

Please order one or two of these (https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/led-globe-lamps-and-vanity-bulbs/g11-led-bulb-5-watt-equivalent-led-globe-bulb-27-lumens/440/1477/). Use them with a reflector-type shop light (https://www.homedepot.com/p/HDX-8-1-2-in-150-Watt-Aluminum-Incandescent-Light-Fixture-with-Clamp-277894/202847393) pointed away from your work area (bounce the light off the ceiling). If you use two bulbs together you'll want this adapter (https://www.superbrightleds.com/moreinfo/household-bulb-sockets-adapters/dual-e27-base-to-e27-base-socket-adapter/2327/5670/).

[seezee]

The portrait was (memory is fading) f5.6 for 1/15th of a second.

Window light? What time of day?

[blue4130]

Window light? What time of day?
Indirect window light, about 2 pm Beijing haze. Not sure what that compares to as far as Oklahoma light. Guessing you are brighter with less pollution ;)

[Jim Noel]

Indirect window light on a hazy day will transmit less UV and the blue end of the spectrum requiring considerably more exposure for the x-ray film.

[seezee]

Indirect window light, about 2 pm Beijing haze. Not sure what that compares to as far as Oklahoma light. Guessing you are brighter with less pollution ;)

Apart from the pollution, I think you are farther north. Beijing = lat. 39.9042° N; OKC metro = 35.4676° N. So I'd probably need a slightly shorter exposure.

[blue4130]

Apart from the pollution, I think you are farther north. Beijing = lat. 39.9042° N; OKC metro = 35.4676° N. So I'd probably need a slightly shorter exposure.
The great thing about x-ray film is that it's cheap so testing to find what works in each situation doesn't break the bank or anger the better half (too much) ;)

[thomas ciulei]

film: 18x24 Kodak MIN-R S Carestream Mammography film, blue sensitive single sided

development: CPP3 with expert drum 3005, Rodinal 1:100 20 degrees C for 8 minutes, drum speed 50, 100ASA

lens: Spatz Paris La Sphere (aplanat) 24x30 cm (ca 360mm) @ f22

lights@ camera: 6 foot rotalux softbox with elinchrom flash fom above, Deardorff V8 with pneumatic shutter with flash sync



/Volumes/EUROPOLIS FILM/18x24 xray/Untitled (4).jpg

[Peter De Smidt]

Great work, Thomas.

[thomas ciulei]

thank you Peter!

[andrewch59]

The facial expressions are priceless, I guess patience was waining?? Great shot

[Simon Ayriss]

This is an old thread, but I was wondering if anyone has used or seen x-ray film without rounded corners? Essentially, square corners. I have fuji green with rounded corners but I started to cut down the 8x10 to 4x5 with a safe light and not having a rounded corner on 4x5 might be a blessing. thanks

[koraks]

I've only seen rounded corners, sorry.

[andrewch59]

The rounded corner does not effect the image at all. I also cut my film from 8x10 to 4x5 and the rounded corner gets hidden in the film holder rebate. So go ahead and have some fun.

[Corran]

Made some portraits yesterday in my festival tent, just for fun and to demo the "old" camera. Used x-ray film for obvious cost reasons. The tent is a perfect lightbox and even adds a bit of a catchlight in the eyes. Here's one image I made - background is the gridwall and small silver prints I had on display.

Wehman UL 8x10, Schneider 360mm f/5.6 Symmar, Fuji HR-T film shot at 50 and developed in Rodinal 1:100:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/artsinthepark-4118sss.jpg

[cp_photo]

I was pleased to find that it is possible to order a single 100 sheet box of 5x7" x ray film from ZZMedical, although it seems only the blue sensitive stuff is available one box at a time. I ordered one box to have a stock of 5x7. I've been cutting down 8x10 sheets of green sensitive to 5x7 for use in my Burke & James 5x7, but it will be nice to have some ready to go in the 5x7 size.

[Tin Can]

This? https://www.zzmedical.com/5x7-in-fuji-x-ray-film.html

Shipping is almost as much as the film.

I don't think ZZ had this before



I was pleased to find that it is possible to order a single 100 sheet box of 5x7" x ray film from ZZMedical, although it seems only the blue sensitive stuff is available one box at a time. I ordered one box to have a stock of 5x7. I've been cutting down 8x10 sheets of green sensitive to 5x7 for use in my Burke & James 5x7, but it will be nice to have some ready to go in the 5x7 size.

[cp_photo]

Yes, that is what I ordered, and with UPS Ground shipping to me in CA it was $52.17. The shipping does seem a bit extreme but it still offers a lot of shooting opportunities for a reasonable price, and I've had luck developing the green stuff so far.

[Tin Can]

Please let us know how it fits and how you like it.




Yes, that is what I ordered, and with UPS Ground shipping to me in CA it was $52.17. The shipping does seem a bit extreme but it still offers a lot of shooting opportunities for a reasonable price, and I've had luck developing the green stuff so far.

[Jim Noel]

I have a box of the RX-N 5x7. It is about 1.5mm too wide for a standard holder. PLease let us know if this is still true with the current stock. The ref no. n the box is 47410 - 19284. It is 13x18 mm.
Thanks,
Jim

[Tin Can]

7 X 17 X-Ray film has this problem also.




I have a box of the RX-N 5x7. It is about 1.5mm too wide for a standard holder. PLease let us know if this is still true with the current stock. The ref no. n the box is 47410 - 19284. It is 13x18 mm.
Thanks,
Jim

[NHE]

First shot where i had some success. 8x10 Carestream MXG metered at ISO 80(shadows are a bit thin so I will probably rate it lower next time). Developed in replenished xtol for 9min at 70-72 degrees.
194695

[cp_photo]

I'll be mildly annoyed if I have to cut 1.5mm off the film because my hope was to avoid cutting the stuff down in general. Although aren't there metric 13x18cm film holders that have the same external dimensions as "normal" 5x7" holders, such as the ones by Fidelity that I have? Maybe I should buy a few of those if it is oversized.


I have a box of the RX-N 5x7. It is about 1.5mm too wide for a standard holder. PLease let us know if this is still true with the current stock. The ref no. n the box is 47410 - 19284. It is 13x18 mm.
Thanks,
Jim

[Tin Can]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?136986-Dimensions-of-13X18-film-and-5X7-film&p=1376140&viewfull=1#post1376140


I'll be mildly annoyed if I have to cut 1.5mm off the film because my hope was to avoid cutting the stuff down in general. Although aren't there metric 13x18cm film holders that have the same external dimensions as "normal" 5x7" holders, such as the ones by Fidelity that I have? Maybe I should buy a few of those if it is oversized.

[Jim Noel]

7 X 17 X-Ray film has this problem also.

I never had the problem with 7x17. I was always able to get correctly sized film from Z&Z. At the moment Iwould have to go to the film freezerinte garage to tell you which film it was.

[Tin Can]

Didn't I buy the Korona 7X17 from you? With one OE Korona 7X17 holder.

Can't remember. _______________Yes, I did as I just learned from thread research.

I now have three 7X17 holders.

But the X-Ray does not fit in one or two holders.

At the same time bought 2 'S&S' 7X17 holders I think those are Korona copies off eBay

Which doesn't matter to me as I just slice the X-Ray film to fit, but it's been a while...

I just got them out, they are loaded with film and I don't want to check anything.

I do remember I had this discussion before on this forum.

Old posts.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?14805-7x17-S-S-vs-Korana-holders&p=126043&viewfull=1#post126043

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?16253-Efke-PL100-7x17-film-does-not-fit-my-holders-!!!&p=144429&viewfull=1#post144429

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/7x17-film-holder-dimensions.152758/

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?124669-Folmer-amp-Schwing-Co-7X17-Film-Folder-Dimensions-Fit



I never had the problem with 7x17. I was always able to get correctly sized film from Z&Z. At the moment Iwould have to go to the film freezerinte garage to tell you which film it was.

[Jim Noel]

No, I sold the camera to another person on this forum. The three original holders worked well with the film, as did my S&S holders which were claimed by a friend.
What kind of cutter do you use to slice off small pieces of film? I'm tired of he razor blade.

[Tin Can]

I think you sold your friend's camera to me and later sold yours to somebody else.

I am often wrong!

I was Randy Moe, but changed my LFPF name for a number of reasons.

I now cut 14X17" Ektascan down with a dedicated Dahle cutter, Never use it for paper, only film.

Dahle 18e Vantage® Trimmer is affordable and has a very gentle automatic 'holder downer' feature made of flexible rubber/plastic. It also saves fingers.

I have a smaller one for smaller format.

It's not perfect and does sometimes pull a little, but it's far better than my 24" Rota Trim at cutting film.


Here is the German Co. https://www.dahle.com/products/trimmers/guillotines/18e.php

I bought mine on Amazon some years ago, note the price. https://www.amazon.com/Dahle-Automatic-Adjustable-Gridlines-Guillotine/dp/B000W1YNNW/ref=sr_1_3?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIl9Hons-c5AIVhZ-fCh00tAPaEAAYASAAEgKkwPD_BwE&hvadid=274007543024&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9022737&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=6432351544125745370&hvtargid=kwd-460047212045&hydadcr=24602_9648846&keywords=dahle+18e+vantage+paper+trimmer&qid=1566687908&s=gateway&sr=8-3


No, I sold the camera to another person on this forum. The three original holders worked well with the film, as did my S&S holders which were claimed by a friend.
What kind of cutter do you use to slice off small pieces of film? I'm tired of he razor blade.

[Jim Noel]

Yes,I sold it to you.I didn't recognize the name change.

[cp_photo]

I won't receive the so-called 5x7 film until next week (it is being shipped from a warehouse in New Hampshire?!?) but I went ahead and bought a few NOS 13x18cm Lisco holders that should allow me to make good use of it if it is indeed larger than standard 5x7 film. I can also use them for cutting down my remaining stock of 8x10 to fit.


https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?136986-Dimensions-of-13X18-film-and-5X7-film&p=1376140&viewfull=1#post1376140

[seezee]

I think you sold your friend's camera to me and later sold yours to somebody else.

I am often wrong!

I was Randy Moe, but changed my LFPF name for a number of reasons.

I now cut 14X17" Ektascan down with a dedicated Dahle cutter, Never use it for paper, only film.

Dahle 18e Vantage® Trimmer is affordable and has a very gentle automatic 'holder downer' feature made of flexible rubber/plastic. It also saves fingers.

I have a smaller one for smaller format.

It's not perfect and does sometimes pull a little, but it's far better than my 24" Rota Trim at cutting film.


Here is the German Co. https://www.dahle.com/products/trimmers/guillotines/18e.php

I bought mine on Amazon some years ago, note the price. https://www.amazon.com/Dahle-Automatic-Adjustable-Gridlines-Guillotine/dp/B000W1YNNW/ref=sr_1_3?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIl9Hons-c5AIVhZ-fCh00tAPaEAAYASAAEgKkwPD_BwE&hvadid=274007543024&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9022737&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=6432351544125745370&hvtargid=kwd-460047212045&hydadcr=24602_9648846&keywords=dahle+18e+vantage+paper+trimmer&qid=1566687908&s=gateway&sr=8-3

+1 for this cutter. Often listed used on fleaBay for a substantial discount.

[cp_photo]

I received my 100 sheet box of "5x7" film today, and sure enough it is explicitly marked as 13x18cm on the box.

[Philippe Grunchec]

+1 for this cutter. Often listed used on fleaBay for a substantial discount.

13x18cm holders aren't that difficult to find (especially in Europe, of course)!

[Will Frostmill]

I've been using the Bill Atkinson / Outback Print (https://web.archive.org/web/20150315195404/http://outbackprint.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi049/essay.html) color test image for years to dial in color on my printer.

It would be great to have a reference for what green sensitive film can actually see. I don't have any green sensitive x-ray film right now, but maybe someone who does could take a picture of a color test image to compare?
Northlight (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printer-test-images/) has a whole page of test images to work from, so I'm sure there's something we could all download in order to compare.

[Jim Noel]

According to a previous reply to this thread Blue Sensitive and Green sensitive only refer to the color phosphors to which the film is most sensitive.

[fulltang]

Hey all, I searched to the best of my ability, but I just want to double check.. I bought some Fuji Super HR-U Medium Speed Green, what ISO should I be shooting at?

[Corran]

Start around 50-80, adjust to taste.

[fulltang]

Start around 50-80, adjust to taste.

Fantastic, thanks!

Is there a recommended starting point for that film using HC-110? Much appreciated.

[Corran]

I actually tried HC-110 recently and the results were very poor. But that was one test and I may have just been way off on development times/dilutions/etc.

I usually use Rodinal 1:100.

[Fr. Mark]

Remember these films aren't sensitive to the full spectrum of light. Your light meter will lie to you under incandescent light and v. early or v. late in the day out doors in natural light. You may need 1-2-3 stops of extra exposure or more depending on the situation. Mercifully, the film is inexpensive and you can do tests galore w/o breaking the bank.

[Jim Noel]

if you reflect the light source off the recording side of a DVD or CD the full spectrum of the source will be visible. Anything more than a bare minimal band of red indicates the available light is very weak, or totally unsuitable for X-ray, or other ortho films.

[blue4130]

Fantastic, thanks!

Is there a recommended starting point for that film using HC-110? Much appreciated.

I've been getting decent results using hc-110 1:70 for 7 minutes @ 20'c

[lanactoor]

After a few failed attempts, I successfully reversal processed an 8x10 sheet of Fuji HR-U. There were still some scratches owing to the very small volume of solutions I used during tray processing, but this was more a proof of concept so I'm happy with the result.

The key elements to doing this successfully are using a chrome alum stop bath after the first development and a dichromate (R-9) bleach step to preserve the fragile emulsion. 2nd development reused the 1st developer 1+50 Rodinol.

195236

[Tin Can]

Very cool

Will you post your exact dilutions and times?

Or if you are still testing your final process.



After a few failed attempts, I successfully reversal processed an 8x10 sheet of Fuji HR-U. There were still some scratches owing to the very small volume of solutions I used during tray processing, but this was more a proof of concept so I'm happy with the result.

The key elements to doing this successfully are using a chrome alum stop bath after the first development and a dichromate (R-9) bleach step to preserve the fragile emulsion. 2nd development reused the 1st developer 1+50 Rodinol.

195236

[lanactoor]

There wasn't anything particularly rigorous about the process since x-ray film affords the ability to do continuous inspection under a safelight, but here's a rough outline. Its essentially the same as a standard BW reversal with care taken to toughen the emulsion.

- Film exposed by strobes as per incident meter reading w/ bellows correction @ 100 ISO
- Tray develop in 1+50 Rodinol for 10 minutes. Intermittent agitation. The first development should be quite dense.
- Kodak stop bath with chrome alum added to 3% (3g / 100mL) for 6 minutes. Constant initial agitation for 1 minute then intermittent agitation.
- Water wash for 2 minutes
- R-9 bleach (.95% potassium dichromate, 1.2% concentrated sulfuric acid; roughly .95g and 1.2mL per 100mL water) for 3 minutes with constant agitation.
- Wash / Clear in 9% Sodium Sulfite (Hypoclear) 2 minutes
- Turn on the lights for reversal exposure
- 2nd Development 7 minutes (to completion, by inspection)
- Wash 2 minutes
- Fix 5 minutes, non-rapid acid fixer
- Wash / Clear in fresh hypoclear 3 minutes
- Final washing 5 minutes
* Neutralize R-9 bleach with excess sodium sulfite prior to storage as waste / disposal.

All the handling and processing with small solution volumes exacerbates the opportunity for emulsion damage, but in this case it was all physical, not degradation of the emulsion via processing chemicals. A pyro developer or hardening prior to first development might toughen things up even more. R-9 bleach seems to be a requirement, as my tests with a hardened negative and permanganate based bleach at standard concentrations always led to disintegration of the emulsion.

[Tin Can]

Thank you!

[cp_photo]

I finally got to try out the box of "5x7" blue sensitive film I recently bought from ZZMedical. I can confirm that it does NOT fit in my standard Fidelity 5x7 holders as it is slightly too wide, and it DOES fit perfectly in my Lisco 13x18cm holders. The corners are rounded. I plan to use it only in my 13x18 holders so I can avoid the additional handling of trimming. It is convenient to be able to load up the holders straight from the box. I've been developing it in my three slot Nova print processor which seems to work & helps keep away scratches (compared to developing in trays). I'm still working on exposure and developing issues but so far it doesn't seem much different from the green sensitive stuff I first tried.

[Leszek Vogt]

Would it be wiser to get 7x17 and cut into 3 ?....and green to that. At least that might be my strategy....till someone comes up with better plan.

Les

[cp_photo]

For the moment my present stock will keep me busy using it in the 13x18 holders for a while. I forgot to mention in my post above that it fits correctly in the printfile 5x7 sleeves I have which is good.
Would it be wiser to get 7x17 and cut into 3 ?....and green to that. At least that might be my strategy....till someone comes up with better plan.

Les

[Jim Noel]

I dp as Leszek suggests because it is easier to cut into 3rds, (+2")than 1.5mm off the long edge.

[ravenranger]

https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/x-ray-film-bargain-bin/14x36-in-trifold-carestream-x-ray-film-green-overstock.html

For those who want x-ray film on the cheap - 14x36 trifold is on sale at zzmedical. The website says it's a 100 sheet box but it is only 25 sheets. Still, that works out to about 5¢ a shot for 4x5

Just as an FYI, one should probably call zzmedical to verify accuracy of their sales when ordering from the bargain bin.

[senderoaburrido]

Ravenranger, is this one of the double-sided emulsion films?

On an unrelated note, what are people's experiences like stand-developing x-ray with rodinal? I've got some EB/RA to use.

[koraks]

In my experience xray film is quite sensitive to over and under agitation. EB/RA less so than generic double sided, but still. Haven't tried stand development with it as I never saw the need for it. Just try it out; if you get mottling or other forms of unevenness, you know the likely cause of the problem.

[senderoaburrido]

I'm back at shooting UV with it because I still have the, what, five year old box left. When doing experimental stuff like this, I don't want to waste my Fomapan or my HP5 bulk purchase leftovers for reasons of cost. I figure this is also a great use for the x-ray film because I'm not wasting panchromacy on images filtered to exclude everything above 405nm. I might post some pictures later. Been working on this project for years but haven't really posted my work anywhere, for fear of an enterprising individual stealing my thunder.

[Tin Can]

Yes, I do that

and a good reminder to order more 7X17 and 14X17

I have cut to as small as Hasselblad sheet film holders


Would it be wiser to get 7x17 and cut into 3 ?....and green to that. At least that might be my strategy....till someone comes up with better plan.

Les

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ravenranger, is this one of the double-sided emulsion films?

On an unrelated note, what are people's experiences like stand-developing x-ray with rodinal? I've got some EB/RA to use.

I have done double (green lat) and single sided (EB/RA) semi-stand (two agitation cycles) in Rodinal, and Pyrocat-HD. Pyrocat-HD was by far the better of the two if extreme sharpness is desired. I used hangers for the double-sided, and BTZS tube for single-sided.

[Philippe Grunchec]

I have done double (green lat) and single sided (EB/RA) semi-stand (two agitation cycles) in Rodinal, and Pyrocat-HD.

With Pyrocat which dilution do you use?
Thx.

[captainscot]

197358

Here is a 7x17 Ektascan BR/A, cut down from 14x17 (single side stuff). Developed in a 16x20 unicolor drum in HC-110, 1,000ml of water with 5ml syrup. for 15 mins.

[Corran]

That looks great. Looks like some of Venice Beach I saw last year (not that the different beaches of south Florida have many distinguishing features!).

[captainscot]

Thanx, its actually in Ncarolina. Shot it yesterday...Processing in a drum makes it easy, but i do find that longer dev times and low dillutions diminishes the streaking, i may go a few minutes longer but i think im at my limit with 5ml of hc-110...overall im happy with my results.

[Corran]

You've gotten good results it seems with the HC-110!

[scheinfluger_77]

197358

Here is a 7x17 Ektascan BR/A, cut down from 14x17 (single side stuff). Developed in a 16x20 unicolor drum in HC-110, 1,000ml of water with 5ml syrup. for 15 mins.

That’s a very nice photo with good tonal range. I’d say your 1:200 dilution worked quite well. What’s interesting is your syrup/810 ratio. Isn’t 6ml/810 the minimum Kodak recommendation? You are at almost half that... but your result speaks for itself.

[captainscot]

That’s a very nice photo with good tonal range. I’d say your 1:200 dilution worked quite well. What’s interesting is your syrup/810 ratio. Isn’t 6ml/810 the minimum Kodak recommendation? You are at almost half that... but your result speaks for itself.

Yes i was a bit surprised but i was getting some inconsistent streaking with the drum and wanted to go longer times and still keep the temp at 70 degrees. I do use a rotating base and lift it off and about every 2 mins and tilt it side to side...seems to work for me.

[bnxvs]

I received a pack of Fuji Super HR-U film yesterday. I did a test at EZ Rodinal (by P.Gainer formula). Special thanks to Maxwell Sandford for help.
A little higher contrast than I wanted, most likely due to the agitation mode (30 seconds at the beginning and 10 seconds every minute). But the film met all expectations.
197382

[robertraymer]

What speed did you rate the HR-U at? I have a box I have been experimenting with but have not had results nearly as good as yours, but I have been developing it with Rodinol 1+25, not a home made Rodinol formula

[Corran]

HR-U is around 50-80 EI generally and your Rodinal should be diluted to 1:100 for normal development - start around 6-7 minutes. At 1:25 I imagine your burning out your highlights/midtones pretty quick.

[robertraymer]

Thanks. I shot a test sheet earlier today at 50 with exposure determined by a incident meter and developed 7 min in rodinol 1:100 (I don't know why I thought I had been using 1:25). Results were ok but not spectacular. Highlights were still a bit blown out and I cant seem to tame the contrast, but I think I will keep experimenting. Just wanted to make sure I was in the right range. Previously I had been shooting at 25 and getting mixed results.

[j.e.simmons]

I’ve tamed contrast by reducing agitation.

[Corran]

A good suggestion. How are you developing - tray? Or something else?

[bnxvs]

HR-U is around 50-80 EI generally and your Rodinal should be diluted to 1:100 for normal development - start around 6-7 minutes. At 1:25 I imagine your burning out your highlights/midtones pretty quick.

I began to use Metolal instead of Rodinal, in a 1 + 50 dilution. It gives better sensitivity, judging by my tests.
197873

[j.e.simmons]

A good suggestion. How are you developing - tray? Or something else?

Now I’m using tanks and nitrogen burst, but previously tanks and raising and lowering the hangers.

[Neil Purling]

Did anyone buy any of the Foma Indux R4 NDT x-ray film?
I am just wondering if anyone managed to lower it's contrast somewhat.

[efbeo]

198985

Fujifilm x-ray green sensitive
Development in rodinal 1:50 (R09) time: 'by inspection'

kind regards, fred

[Jim Noel]

Is X-ray film disappearing?
I use FP4+ as well as X-ray in 5x12 and 8x10. Yesterday I tried to order more 5x12 x-ray only to find no listing for it. Today I will order a supply of 8x10 while it's still available. Apparently the warning of X-ray film slowly disappearing is coming true, especially in some sizes. I have a reasonable supply of FP4+ and will probably order more during the next special order.
I will have to choose carefully between the films when photographing. There are times when the scale of X-ray, which is orthochromatic, better suits the image. I also have some Ilford Ortho,but it does not come in 5x12, and is far more expensive.

[seezee]

Is X-ray film disappearing?
I use FP4+ as well as X-ray in 5x12 and 8x10. Yesterday I tried to order more 5x12 x-ray only to find no listing for it.

Who is your supplier?

[Fr. Mark]

Well, it’d be a shame to lose it, but I think a high contrast fine grain Ortho film would be easier to make than a pan film.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49505990838_bcd51c5c35_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2iqF9jb)8x10 XRay Dev Hanger (https://flic.kr/p/2iqF9jb) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

For use in my 8x10 Sinar Norma, I have some ERA 100, some very old HP5 (not+!) and a fresh box of Ilford Commercial Ortho+ I just got from B&H. $5.16 per 8x10 sheet on the Commercial Ortho+.

I want to try XRAY film, so I bought 100 sheets of Fuji 8x10 HRU on Ebay. I just cut down this Kodak 8x10 Film Hanger, so now it fits in a Patterson 8x10 tray. Has anybody here ever tried this method?

I have a gallon of Acufine mixed up (and replenisher) and I be giving this a go soon.
40 cents for an 8x10, 20 cents for a 5x7, 10 cents for a 4x5 sheet. Now I will be able to play under the safelights.

[Jim Noel]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49505990838_bcd51c5c35_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2iqF9jb)8x10 XRay Dev Hanger (https://flic.kr/p/2iqF9jb) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

For use in my 8x10 Sinar Norma, I have some ERA 100, some very old HP5 (not+!) and a fresh box of Ilford Commercial Ortho+ I just got from B&H. $5.16 per 8x10 sheet on the Commercial Ortho+.

I want to try XRAY film, so I bought 100 sheets of Fuji 8x10 HRU on Ebay. I just cut down this Kodak 8x10 Film Hanger, so now it fits in a Patterson 8x10 tray. Has anybody here ever tried this method?

I have a gallon of Acufine mixed up (and replenisher) and I be giving this a go soon.
40 cents for an 8x10, 20 cents for a 5x7, 10 cents for a 4x5 sheet. Now I will be able to play under the safelights.

I prefer a slick bottomed tray w/o ridges. Never a scratch with these.

[David Schaller]

I just got some 8x10 Carestream Ektascan that I’m planning to try with Pyrocat HD, water stop and TF-4 fixer. Do I need three flat bottomed trays or just the first one for the developer?
Thanks,
Dave

[Peter De Smidt]

Three. Or use single tray processing.

[blue4130]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49505990838_bcd51c5c35_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2iqF9jb)8x10 XRay Dev Hanger (https://flic.kr/p/2iqF9jb) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

For use in my 8x10 Sinar Norma, I have some ERA 100, some very old HP5 (not+!) and a fresh box of Ilford Commercial Ortho+ I just got from B&H. $5.16 per 8x10 sheet on the Commercial Ortho+.

I want to try XRAY film, so I bought 100 sheets of Fuji 8x10 HRU on Ebay. I just cut down this Kodak 8x10 Film Hanger, so now it fits in a Patterson 8x10 tray. Has anybody here ever tried this method?

I have a gallon of Acufine mixed up (and replenisher) and I be giving this a go soon.
40 cents for an 8x10, 20 cents for a 5x7, 10 cents for a 4x5 sheet. Now I will be able to play under the safelights.

Using that holder in the tray is not going to help you at all with scratching. The film will sag and still touch the bottom of the tray and it just adds extra steps (loading and unloading the holder) adding more possibilities for scratching.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Using that holder in the tray is not going to help you at all with scratching. The film will sag and still touch the bottom of the tray and it just adds extra steps (loading and unloading the holder) adding more possibilities for scratching.


OK Thanks for these responses. I'll get some smooth flat bottomed trays.

[David Schaller]

Three. Or use single tray processing.

Thank you Peter.

[j.e.simmons]

I use hangers in the traditional way and Pyrocat. I very rarely get scratches. That makes me think the scratching comes when the film is wet, not when it is dry.

[Peter De Smidt]

John, How's your filmspeed with Pyrocat? Mine was very low when I tested it with Fuji green.

[Jim Noel]

Yes,the film is far more vulnerable when wet than when dry.

[seezee]

I prefer a slick bottomed tray w/o ridges. Never a scratch with these.
+1 on this.

[seezee]

I use hangers in the traditional way and Pyrocat. I very rarely get scratches. That makes me think the scratching comes when the film is wet, not when it is dry.

The emulsion is much softer when it is wet, hence easier to scratch. But you can scratch it when it's dry too.

[j.e.simmons]

Peter, I use the Carestream green and it seems pretty slow. I use BTZS, so I’m not sure how to translate it to an iso.

[Peter De Smidt]

Thanks, John.

[David Schaller]

I took my first shot today with the EKTASCAN B/RA single-sided film. I seem to have some uneven development, and I hope to get a diagnosis. I would like to keep using Pyrocat HD, so my main questions have to do with presoak, dilution and agitation. Should I not presoak? Should I presoak longer? Agitate less? More dilute?


You should be able to see the problems in the upper left and lower middle. I couldn’t scan the negative (computer problems with darkroom computer), so I took a quick iPhone shot and inverted it.
https://i.imgur.com/o9nHcrO.jpg

I rated it at 80, at noon in overcast snowy weather. My development procedure, in smooth bottom 11x14 trays was:
1. 2 minute presoak with intermittent agitation in 70 F water
2. Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 @70F for 6 minutes with constant agitation for the first minute, then for 10 seconds every minute.
3. Water stop for 2 minutes with constant agitation.
4. TF 4 Fixer for 4 minutes with constant agitation for the first minute and every 30 seconds after.
5. Wash for 15 minutes in running water.
6. LFN 3 drops in 2 liters of water
7. Hang to dry.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions for me for processing the second negative of this shot.
Dave

PS. I did use the recommended red LED safelight, more than 6 feet away, pointed away from the sink.

[Peter De Smidt]

I had similar results with a different developer. I've stopped using the film for that reason. Hopefully, you'll figure it out, but I lacked the patience.

[David Schaller]

I had similar results with a different developer. I've stopped using the film for that reason. Hopefully, you'll figure it out, but I lacked the patience.
Well it’s getting me using the 8x10, so even if I don’t get it worked out perfectly, it is a low cost way to practice before using the expensive films. I’m going to try to methodically figure this out.

[koraks]

Check your safelight; this may just be optical fogging of the film.

[Dpatt711]

What base-fog is considered acceptable?

[David Schaller]

Check your safelight; this may just be optical fogging of the film.

Thanks Koraks, I will try the next one in the dark.

[koraks]

Good luck. I've had a fair sharw of safelight fogging qith xray film myself. Most red leds are not safe enough due to a secondary emission peak in the green part of the spectrum. A dim red led with an additional red filter fashioned out of a sheet of rubylith film works very well in my experience.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I followed Jason Lane's lead, and made a safelight with red LED bulb, and the deep red Kodak Ortho filter.

I have some of his Speed 25 Glass Plates, they can fog, unlike his ISO 2 plates. Also should work well for XRay.

I have 8x10 Fuji green two-sided, and four new 8x10 Cesco trays from B&H, so we will see. Rodinal 1:100 looks promising with very minimal agitation.

Looking forward to dusting off the 8x10 Norma.

[Peter De Smidt]

Well, I developed my Extascan in my Jobo....but I might have loaded it under red safelight. Thanks for the tip!

[David Schaller]

I spent most of the day solving my computer problems, but after I did, I developed the second negative with several changes in my method.
1. Developed completely in the dark, as I have done with regular film, so no red safelight.
2. Presoaked with agitation for 4 minutes.
3. A more dilute Pyrocat, 15/15/2250 (1/1/150), for 8 minutes, with agitation the first minute, and for 10 seconds every minute thereafter.
Negative is drying now, and I should be able to scan tonight.
Thanks for your help.
Dave

[jp]

I have red LEDs from superbrightleds.com or something like that and if I leave them on the whole time while developing I will get some fogging. It does not seem to create notable fog if I use the LEDs for loading/unloading the film which is generally less than a minute. Also try more liquid in the tray for pyrocat developing.

[David Schaller]

Thanks Jason. That LED might have been the culprit. I don’t mind loading and unloading in the dark

[David Schaller]

Of course this was a flat-light-on-snow day, so it looks a bit smudged, and I didn’t spot the dust, but I’d say the original problem was the safe light. I will try to shoot some more this weekend, indoors and out.
Thanks again for all the input.
Dave
https://i.imgur.com/xOLE4DL.jpg

[Peter De Smidt]

Looking good! I stopped using it because I got some unusable 8x10 negatives, and my 8x10 photography time is valuable. I'll give it another go.

[koraks]

Dave, that looks a lot better for sure! You may still have some irregular/uneven development going on there. If you have any on hand, try xtol or another low-pH developer; I find that makes it easier to get perfectly even development. Pyrocat can be a little tricky with xray film in this respect, I find.

[David Schaller]

Thanks Koraks, I will keep that in mind. I’m trying to work this out with Pyrocat because I’ve settled on that developer for my other films.

[Tin Can]

Please let us know your results. :)



Looking good! I stopped using it because I got some unusable 8x10 negatives, and my 8x10 photography time is valuable. I'll give it another go.

[koraks]

Thanks Koraks, I will keep that in mind. I’m trying to work this out with Pyrocat because I’ve settled on that developer for my other films.

Very understandable. Agitation is key, in my experience. Too much and you get thick edges, too little and you get cloudy density variations. How do you currently agitate?

[richydicky]

I had a helluva time when first trying Kodak Ektascan and Pyrocat HD. I was using a Paterson Orbital processor and got streaky marks of differing density following the pattern of agitation. Double-sided Agfa film worked fine. I then tried it in a drum, hand rolling and it seems to works fine like that with even density.

[David Schaller]

Very understandable. Agitation is key, in my experience. Too much and you get thick edges, too little and you get cloudy density variations. How do you currently agitate?

I usually process 8x10 in Patterson trays tha are just slightly larger than the negative. With the x-ray film I’ve moved up to 11x14 flat bottom Cescolite trays, so the volume of liquid is twice as large. I agitate for the first minute constantly, then on each minute by lifting the bottom of the tray x3, and the side of the tray x3. It ends up being 10-15 seconds per minute. I aim to get things moving, but it is gentle.

[koraks]

Try two agitation routines per minute and aim for as random fluid movement as possible.

[David Schaller]

Thanks. I think it’s pretty random already with the 11x14 tray, but I’ll try agitating on the 30 second mark. I’ve got to shoot again....

[jp]

You can use paper developer too if you don't want to stock multiple film developers.. I've successfully used weak dektol and dektol-pyrocathdc blends.

[David Schaller]

Thanks Jason. I’m going to keep experimenting with Pyrocat, and different dilutions and agitation schemes, for a while, then Dektol, D-23, or Rodinal might be next.

[Dpatt711]

Would Fuji IX film through an FIP7000 processor be suitable for images?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Would Fuji IX film through an FIP7000 processor be suitable for images?

If you want continuous tones, probably not.

[David Schaller]

I rushed out today when it looked like there might be some sunshine. If I’d had a bit more time I would have tried for a better composition, and more precise focusing, but this was really just another quick test shot. This is Pyrocat HD 1:1:150 (20:20:2250) in 11x14 tray for 8 minutes @70F. I pre-soaked for 5 minutes with nearly constant agitation. I agitated constantly for the first minute in the developer, plus for 5 seconds every 30 seconds thereafter. The scan was made in a sleeve on Epson 4990. I bumped the exposure slightly in LR, but it’s basically a straight scan. Exposure was 1/10 f45, Symmar 210mm, UV filter only. I shot the second negative with a yellow filter, and will develop that tomorrow, but I think this dilution and agitation are pretty close.

https://i.imgur.com/ujfBUnF.jpg

[koraks]

If that sky is supposed to be very slightly cloudy, then I think it looks great David!

[David Schaller]

Yep, those are clouds. I’m going to stick to this procedure.

[Jim Noel]

It looks as if you have found your exposure/development combo which works well for you.

[David Schaller]

Thanks Jim. If I recall correctly you also have been using Pyrocat with x-ray film. I would be interested in your procedures, if you don’t mind sharing them again. This thread is very hard to search.
Best,
Dave

[koraks]

Yep, those are clouds. I’m going to stick to this procedure.

Well done, the image looks great! This certainly seems to be working very well.

[David Schaller]

Thanks Koraks. Here’s the second negative, shot with a medium yellow filter and a stop added exposure. On this one I used 1:1:200 dilution (12:12:2400), for 10 minutes, with continuous agitation for the first minute, and 5 seconds agitation every 30 seconds thereafter. There is more tone in the partly cloudy skies, so I think using a yellow filter could be useful.
https://i.imgur.com/NxHqvy9.jpg

[Jim Noel]

Thanks Jim. If I recall correctly you also have been using Pyrocat with x-ray film. I would be interested in your procedures, if you don’t mind sharing them again. This thread is very hard to search.
Best,
Dave

My procedure is very similar to yours except I use 1.5+1.5+100 in trays and develop totally by inspection. My safelight is 6+feet from the tray, and is turned on after what I have estimated is 75% fo development time. My agitation technique consists of lifting 3 corners in succession each 30 seconds.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Pyrocat-HD works nicely with Ektascan and double-sided (green latitude). Been doing it this way since about 2008. Flat bottomed tray. 5 sec gentle agitation every minute. I always expose through a yellow #8, #15, or #11 light green filters.

[David Schaller]

My procedure is very similar to yours except I use 1.5+1.5+100 in trays and develop totally by inspection. My safelight is 6+feet from the tray, and is turned on after what I have estimated is 75% fo development time. My agitation technique consists of lifting 3 corners in succession each 30 seconds.

Thanks Jim! Is that for silver, or alt processes? I may try to get back to Pt/Pd with these negs, but for the moment I’m thinking silver contact prints.
Thanks again,
Dave

[David Schaller]

Thanks Andrew.

[Natenaaron]

Was there a change in the rules? I can't see pictures. I would really like to see the images being discussed right now.

[Jim Noel]

Thanks Jim! Is that for silver, or alt processes? I may try to get back to Pt/Pd with these negs, but for the moment I’m thinking silver contact prints.
Thanks again,
Dave

Development by inspection works for any printing process.

[senderoaburrido]

201553

Here's a shot at 1/8s and f/11 under some lamps. Carestream EB/RA developed for 7m30s in Rodinal.

[Tin Can]

Like!


201553

Here's a shot at 1/8s and f/11 under some lamps. Carestream EB/RA developed for 7m30s in Rodinal.

[dpaqu]

Is EKTASCAN B/RA gone? Are there any other single sided x-ray emulsions?

[Kiwi7475]

ZZ has currently no availability but they say they're trying to source it. So far, the only option is this, but you need to have an appetite to buy 500 sheets:

https://www.cmxmedicalimaging.com/product/kodak-ektascan-bra-film-not-interleaved-8-x-10cm/

[David Schaller]

This was the first time I’ve dealt with bellows extension and reciprocity adjustments. I used the 1:1:200 dilution for 8 minutes, with agitation for the first minute and for 5 seconds every 30 seconds. It was still pretty high contrast of course, which I’ve reduced in LR. I bet it would still print on a #2 filter or paper, but I am going to reduce time and agitation on the second negative. [This is cropped from the full negative because there were some personal items on the desk too.]


https://i.imgur.com/dxLd3YU.jpg

[Tin Can]

SOME Mammogram and Dental X-Ray is single sided

Industry uses SOME X-Ray custom to them

Most of that is smaller than 8X10

IF you want X-Ray, better stock up now

Any kind

Read this, even NDT is going Digi

https://www.carestream.com/en/us/medical/products/nondestructive-testing-ndt-solutions/industrex-film-solutions-for-ndt/industrex-film?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4LXT4-2P6AIVLYNaBR0zow4FEAAYAyAAEgKYGfD_BwE

[David Schaller]

This was another experiment, in a couple of senses. It was taken about 5:30 p.m. EDT, so I rated the film at 50. I was also using a Symmar convertible 210/370 at 370 with just the rear element. Is there some focus shift? It was windy, but I didn’t check at the taking aperture of f32. I was in a tricky camera position, so I couldn’t hold a filter in front of the shutter.

I inadvertently placed the shadow on Zone IV, rather than III, and with the extra exposure for reciprocity correction, I was in major N- territory. So I developed in Pyrocat 12/12/2400 for 6.5 minutes, with gentle agitation the first minute, and every 30 seconds.
Quick negative scan:
https://i.imgur.com/mG9PNir.jpg

[bnxvs]

201848
Fuji HR-U in Obsidian Aqua

[richydicky]

Re: EB/RA, I can't find any reference to this film on the Carestream site and it is also no longer listed by two European suppliers. The only single sided film I can see by is Agfa HDR-C in 18x24 cm size. I have tried the Agfa double sided and got great results so expect the single sided to be similar. Unfortunately I sold one of my two 18x24cm holders because I was reckoning on EB/RA so would be limited using this. Might buy a pack anyway.

[mohmadkhatab]

They don't use x-ray film in the EU?


Colleagues who love photography on X-ray films.
This small German company has everything related to X-rays and black and white films. The owner of this company is a very kind and respectful man.
I hope it's useful

[IanBarber]

I have just been given a small selection of 4x5 x-ray film mostly all double sided.
Can this be developed like regular film in an SP-445 or Paterson Tank ?

[Jim Noel]

I ordered 2 boxes of EB/RA yesterday. Short supply maybe, but it is available. Check with your normal supplier.

[blue4130]

I have just been given a small selection of 4x5 x-ray film mostly all double sided.
Can this be developed like regular film in an SP-445 or Paterson Tank ?

I don't have a sp-445, but from what I gather, the film touches the holder on one side, or at least comes extremely close to doing so, correct? This spells disaster. I use a jobo tank that holds 6 sheets, There is lots of space between the sheets for fluid to move freely. I think the Paterson would be the better option (mod54?)

[Tin Can]

Thanks for the tip Jim!

ZZ was out last week with none available under backorder, I was sad

Now they have it!

Just bought a case, just in case...

EB/RA is good film, I cut it down often for tiny format




I ordered 2 boxes of EB/RA yesterday. Short supply maybe, but it is available. Check with your normal supplier.

[IanBarber]

I don't have a sp-445, but from what I gather, the film touches the holder on one side, or at least comes extremely close to doing so, correct? This spells disaster. I use a jobo tank that holds 6 sheets, There is lots of space between the sheets for fluid to move freely. I think the Paterson would be the better option (mod54?)

Thanks, I do have a MOD54 so I shall use that.

[Jim Noel]

Thanks for the tip Jim!

ZZ was out last week with none available under backorder, I was sad

Now they have it!

Just bought a case, just in case...

EB/RA is good film, I cut it down often for tiny format

Wish I could afford a case, but my 300 sheet supply will last a while. Glad you got some.

[Tin Can]

ZZ just emailed, they are shipping 2 boxes today, the last in their Iowa warehouse.

They wrote they will ship 3 more in May as they are expecting more at that time.

As I shift gears to Alt Prints, it will be very useful film.





Wish I could afford a case, but my 300 sheet supply will last a while. Glad you got some.

[Kiwi7475]

And it’s out of stock again... ugh

[blue4130]

202150
202151
202152

Messing around with some macros and an LED flashlight. Wanted to see how the fuji green handled it before using it for portraits. Worked quite well.

[Tin Can]

Like!

[Fr. Mark]

Nice Ikebana-like flower portraits!

Sad Ektascan maybe is nearing the end. I had mixed success with it. I have a little left for when I restart my LF work but I’m probably going to be making my own films at that point.

[mohmadkhatab]

202150
202151
202152

Messing around with some macros and an LED flashlight. Wanted to see how the fuji green handled it before using it for portraits. Worked quite well.
Very cool my friend ,,
This is really creativity ,,
God bless you .
Can you tell me what kind of developer you used?

[blue4130]

Very cool my friend ,,
This is really creativity ,,
God bless you .
Can you tell me what kind of developer you used?

Thanks you, I use HC110 1:70 for 6 minutes at 20'C using constant rotation.

[mohmadkhatab]

This developer is not available in Egypt
I do not know what to do?
I have available
FX10
AGFA neoutol .wa
Kalogen

[Philippe Grunchec]

This developer is not available in Egypt
I do not know what to do?
I have available
FX10
AGFA neoutol .wa
Kalogen

Why don't you mix your own D-23?

[mohmadkhatab]

Why don't you mix your own D-23?

I have a lot of formula,
There is nothing wrong, (D23) is available and very inexpensive, but I do not see it as distinct at all. It is a very basic and ordinary formula. What do you like about that poor formula?
I love the formula (AGFA14) it is very soft and very gentle, and when I flip over violently, I get good contrast with unparalleled smoothness.
- But it is okay, I will listen to your advice, I do not reject expert advice no matter how objectionable,
I will listen to you and implement what you say, there is no problem.
But in reality, I have a very important question ,,
- Has anyone experimented with reversing the negative image to obtain positive transparency from X-ray films?
I hope to get an answer to this important question.
God bless you
Another somewhat trivial question:
- My friend has a wooden (5x7) camera.
There is a radiographer who wants to sell him (63) Sheet (10x12) cm. The question is ,, Can this measurement succeed in working on that camera?

[mohmadkhatab]

Is EKTASCAN B/RA gone? Are there any other single sided x-ray emulsions?

http://www.astrum-ltd.com/ru/rentgenovskie-plenki.html

[koraks]

[B]
- Has anyone experimented with reversing the negative image to obtain positive transparency from X-ray films?
Haven't tried it I think, but it should work just like with any other film.


- My friend has a wooden (5x7) camera.
There is a radiographer who wants to sell him (63) Sheet (10x12) cm. The question is ,, Can this measurement succeed in working on that camera?
He'll need a reducing back for his camera and appropriate film holders. With a bit of luck, the film will fit in 4x5" holders and a 4x5" reducing back can be used, but it depends on the exact dimensions of the film. Also, getting hold of a reducing back for the camera may be challenging. It's probably easier to get some larger format film and cut it down to 5x7". But of course that depends on the availability of film where your friend lives.

[Corran]

A long time ago I played around with enlarging 35mm negatives onto x-ray film, to make an internegative (positive). Then I would contact print that onto another sheet to make the negative. Intention was larger negatives for contact printing (alt processes).

I was using double-sided film which hopelessly blurred the image after the two intermediaries. I didn't have enough success to bother fine-tuning exposure/development/density tests. And, as a positive medium, the x-ray film's blue base was unappealing.

Perhaps better results would be obtainable with single-sided, but either way I didn't try anything more. But it's cheap, so try it out if you want.

[mohmadkhatab]

[QUOTE=koraks;1545866]Haven't tried it I think, but it should work just like with any other film.

God bless you, my friend ,,
Thank you very much ,,
But in your opinion, what is the available x-ray film size that fits the (5x7) camera? From your point of view?
And will this camera accept that this 4x5 film stand be installed assuming that we will find it individually one way or another depending on luck or the like?
- Regarding my question about converting the X-ray film to positive transparency, I mean that is done directly.
I do not mean to reprint an image from (35mm) film to an x-ray film in order to have positive transparency.
No, that's not what I meant.
I have been using AGFAscala since the beginning of the X-ray film development.
The file is well known and known to everyone and I think that most professors and experts in this forum know it and they have inevitably gone through that experience before (35mm) or (120mm) films, but I wanted to think about the idea that this process be applied to X-ray films, , why not ?
- The file with attachments, and of course the photographic researcher designed this process on the basis of identification with the original process (AGFAscala)202365, but with great regret, he erred in that he designed everything on the basis that it is intended to work on a machine (JOBO) only, and with a capacity (260 ml) Only ml.
Therefore, if you want to prepare one liter, you will fall into the trap of complicated calculations that I failed to calculate, because if you prepare 4 packages, each one is a capacity of (260 ml), and you add them in one container, then the result will become an increase in the concentrations of chemical elements by 300% of the original process design, so I am very confused in this regard.

[blue4130]

The problem I see with doing reversal is that the film base is not clear, its blue. So if the goal is to show the positive as the final image, it's not a B&W picture, but a mostly blue picture.

What is the end goal of the positive?

[Dugan]

I'm just putting this here for reference purposes...
B/W reversal process for many film sizes, including 5x7.

dr5.us

[mohmadkhatab]

The problem I see with doing reversal is that the film base is not clear, its blue. So if the goal is to show the positive as the final image, it's not a B&W picture, but a mostly blue picture.

What is the end goal of the positive?

What is the problem in blue?
The blue color is a very beautiful color - I don't see any objection to the blue color dominating the scene - why not?
It is basically a mono image - whatever color it dominates.
Of course, the black color with its grayscale is really comfortable for the eye and very logical, but I do not mind if the image is covered in blue and its gradations or sepia - I have no problem.
What is the purpose of obtaining a positive image?
I will answer the question with a question.
- What is the goal of obtaining a negative image?
- I can encapsulate the positive big size film (8x10), put it in a frame and hang it on the wall directly, without the need to print the picture .....................
- Perhaps we can manufacture a camera that can film a huge x-ray film measuring (30x40) cm. We will put it inside a frame and hang it on the wall directly or sell the frame and the film inside - without going into another war with the magnifier and printing.
These are just crazy ideas that complement the main crazy idea, which is the idea of ​​photographing on x-ray films.

My last question: Have you ever tried and tested this strange idea?

[Corran]

See my previous posts regarding positive internegative.

Blue is fine, but I don't think it looks good as a positive "finished" medium for a grey scale image. Highlights are blue, shadows are blackish-blue. You can do what you want, of course.

This isn't a new idea. Search in the thread and you'll find it comes up occasionally, because of course it sounds fun and easy...

By all means, enlarge whatever negative size you want on to as large a sheet of x-ray film as you can. No harm in trying, keep the film manufacturers in business. I may be buying some 14x17 x-ray soon...