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

[Kino]

I just mixed up some D-23 after reading on Mr. O'Neil's experiences with it and Fuji HR-U and I was stunned at how easy it is to make. Never paid much attention to the formula before; only 3 ingredients, one being water?

I'm in love.

I have enough bulk chemicals to make thousands of gallons of this stuff. Hope it works as well for me as it does for Andrew.

[TorontoBuilder]

651 pages of posts on shooting with xray film makes it really hard to find an easy simple entry point into the game...

Has anyone created a brief "Getting started with xray films" PDF?

Or should I just order a ton of fuji film and then start looking for chemicals and processing info?

[Kino]

651 pages of posts on shooting with xray film makes it really hard to find an easy simple entry point into the game...

Has anyone created a brief "Getting started with xray films" PDF?

Or should I just order a ton of fuji film and then start looking for chemicals and processing info?

On page #638, posting #6378, Tim Meisburger summarized a lot of information and wrote a "primer" for shooting with X-Ray film.

If you wish to stray beyond what he has summarized, then reading the entire thread and taking notes is about the best possible solution to see what others have done.

[TorontoBuilder]

On page #638, posting #6378, Tim Meisburger summarized a lot of information and wrote a "primer" for shooting with X-Ray film.

If you wish to stray beyond what he has summarized, then reading the entire thread and taking notes is about the best possible solution to see what others have done.

Thank you so much Kino!

[Kino]

Irony of all irony, I think the Fuji HR-U I bought was fogged by... an X-ray machine!

There is a band of density across the middle of both of the sheets I shot just now and processed.

I expected crappy exposures, scratches and finger prints, but not a band of exposure.

I will update this post with images as soon as the negatives dry.

UPDATE: Images

247246

[Kino]

For some reason I can't upload 2 images, so this second posting...

247247

[Andrew O'Neill]

It could very well be from being xrayed. I had banding on IR sheet film, but it ran the width of the film, not the length, like yours. And there was more than one band.

[Kino]

Guess I should pull a sheet from the center of the pack and process that in total darkness to see if it's all hosed.

[shuji]

Andrew O'Neill, Thank you that's great to know. I'll continue happily buying as much as possible from my local ebay ��

[shuji]

651 pages of posts on shooting with xray film makes it really hard to find an easy simple entry point into the game...

Has anyone created a brief "Getting started with xray films" PDF?

Or should I just order a ton of fuji film and then start looking for chemicals and processing info?

I'd start with searching for whatever cheap film you can find locally. Search for that here. Then search for whatever developer you have on hand.
Give that a try.
If you don't like the look but want to go deeper down the rabbit hole then comeback to fine tune.

I only had Fuji's superprodol years ago and tried that and it worked well. I'm currently using hc110 but only because I was given a bottle from a friend.

[Eugen Mezei]

Can it be pressure?

[Kino]

Well, I pulled a sheet from the middle and the back of the pack and I cannot see this defect.

I did, however, discover that the small, red AC safelights sold on Ebay are NOT safe with Fuji HR-U Xray film. I did a 1 through 10 minute wedge with the film on my enlarger baseboard, about 5 feet away with the light reflected. There is practically no difference between the steps, but the ruler I laid over one edge was perfectly clear.

I am not saying these don't work for other applications, but be aware of my experience if you are thinking of using them for X-ray film.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/235241444895

[Kino]

Can it be pressure?

I am beginning to suspect my film holders. Will be testing those.

That's the problem trying to resurect a 100+ year old camera; everything is suspect...

[James R. Kyle]

Well, I pulled a sheet from the middle and the back of the pack and I cannot see this defect.

I did, however, discover that the small, red AC safelights sold on Ebay are NOT safe with Fuji HR-U Xray film. I did a 1 through 10 minute wedge with the film on my enlarger baseboard, about 5 feet away with the light reflected. There is practically no difference between the steps, but the ruler I laid over one edge was perfectly clear.

I am not saying these don't work for other applications, but be aware of my experience if you are thinking of using them for X-ray film.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/235241444895

=====

I have great success with what is called a LED "Neon Rope strip".
I left a sheet of paper out for 30 minutes = Then developed it. It came out WHITE. I did the same with Fuji HR-U. It was the came = Nothing.
I have been using this safe lighting system for three years now.
Here is the Amazon link for what I use. (I do not know about the other LED lights = I Know this works.:

https://www.amazon.com/Maxlaxer-Waterproof-Outdoor-Decorative-Adapter/dp/B0BMF7PP28/ref=sr_1_13?crid=1V1FZT11685FP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RTdjwgwupsNSFTUHXp-7DL4EOnW4v0Ceynmo2qZ-EibzB7SE6yUyjyOarhp3xFs34RcQymHgADPAjuNkHkXHrbIGoAY_hfl91A5djlTuUoEVO_2mYVkVjxrNzWRNeEGHWYKZUEdD71qA88RAv7hp-UgTz6bfsQydMmQavBSyYUHW9qQhTq6AbvFfm_hTHN-hyrMHTwjSySiubRsiOYfQEFiZzEAg2KUjHBELoLi7ulujbG3xg2uosN2bcM_bFhNQTv1a3uiqu3dAk-dRBccUmF3bcxTdrnSkcg6u8V4wjyY.BrhsBYIKOey4BM8LZxnkzPSBpp4YRudlM7V1E-XXAl4&dib_tag=se&keywords=LED%2BRED%2BNeon%2Blight%2Bstrip%2BWITH%2Bpower%2Bsupply&qid=1709608778&s=hi&sprefix=led%2Bred%2Bneon%2Blight%2Bstrip%2Bwith%2Bpower%2Bsupply%2Ctools%2C130&sr=1-13-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9tdGY&th=1247384

[James R. Kyle]

Here is what I am using for the development of X-ray (Fuji HR-U) film.
It is my reformula of Ansco-30 = For TANK DEVELOPMENT.

--
Here is the Ansco-30-JK reformulated “Tank Developer Solution”.

Water - at 120 Degrees F. -------------------750ml.
Metol --------------------------------------------------------- 3.0 Grams. (Reduced)
Sodium Sulfite ----------------------------------------- 70.0 G. (Increased)
Hydroquinone ------------------------------------------- 4.0 G. (Reduced)
Sodium Carbonate ------------------------------------ 20.0 G. (Reduced)
Potassium Bromide ------------------------------------- 5.5 G. (Increased)
Cold water to make a Full 1 liter of Solution. (STOCK solution.)

For a working solution --
Take One Part of this Stock to 24 Parts of Water. That is a 1:25 Ratio. (i.e.= 1 Oz. stock to 24 Oz. Water)
The times will vary with the temperature of the working solution, anywhere from four to seven minutes.
(20 Degrees C. = 6 minutes)
----------247392
247393
247395

[Eugen Mezei]

Regarding pressure, how you store your film? On the boxes is imprinted, that no pressure should be applied to them. Now guess why I suspect your problem could be pressure: My mother always places things in the fridge onto my boxes of film, although I told her thousands of times not to.

[Eugen Mezei]

Here is what I am using for the development of X-ray (Fuji HR-U) film.

Here is the Ansco-30-JK reformulated “Tank Developer Solution”.

Take One Part of this Stock to 24 Parts of Water. That is a 1:25 Ratio. (i.e.= 1 Oz. stock to 24 Oz. Water)


What is meant by tank? Tanks for roll films or dip and dunk tanks?

Is that not rather a 1+24 ratio?

[Kino]

Thanks James for the neon rope link; that looks ideal.

A bit scattered at the moment, but will pull it together soon.

Too many irons in the fire at the moment...

[Kino]

Regarding pressure, how you store your film? On the boxes is imprinted, that no pressure should be applied to them. Now guess why I suspect your problem could be pressure: My mother always places things in the fridge onto my boxes of film, although I told her thousands of times not to.

Upright on a shelf in the darkroom; not refrigerated yet. Just got the film last week and don't want to refrigerate the box I am working with at the moment. The other is most certainly not stacked under anything in the fridge.

Like I said before, I am under the growing conviction it is my ancient film holders leaking light.

These things take time to sort out, but thanks for the ongoing input.

[James R. Kyle]

What is meant by tank? Tanks for roll films or dip and dunk tanks?

Is that not rather a 1+24 ratio?

------------

Ok... Whatever.

[Nights]

Has anyone determined around how long Fuji super hr-u lasts on average after expiration? Trying to determine if I should cut this film to size and put it in the fridge or just keep it out in my ~70-80F darkroom.

[James R. Kyle]

Well, I pulled a sheet from the middle and the back of the pack and I cannot see this defect.

I did, however, discover that the small, red AC safelights sold on Ebay are NOT safe with Fuji HR-U Xray film. I did a 1 through 10 minute wedge with the film on my enlarger baseboard, about 5 feet away with the light reflected. There is practically no difference between the steps, but the ruler I laid over one edge was perfectly clear.

I am not saying these don't work for other applications, but be aware of my experience if you are thinking of using them for X-ray film.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/235241444895

---------------------

Here is what I use:

https://www.amazon.com/Maxlaxer-Waterproof-Outdoor-Decorative-Adapter/dp/B0BMF7PP28/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=ZVXbX&content-id=amzn1.sym.d0ebfbb2-6761-494f-8e2f-95743b37c35c%3Aamzn1.symc.50e00d6c-ec8b-42ef-bb15-298531ab4497&pf_rd_p=d0ebfbb2-6761-494f-8e2f-95743b37c35c&pf_rd_r=0YEE5VT3S0426RTXXCMY&pd_rd_wg=EH12P&pd_rd_r=68d67832-719d-45ac-aa9d-d64b136018a7&ref_=pd_gw_ci_mcx_mr_hp_atf_m

[Kino]

---------------------

Here is what I use:

https://www.amazon.com/Maxlaxer-Waterproof-Outdoor-Decorative-Adapter/dp/B0BMF7PP28/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=ZVXbX&content-id=amzn1.sym.d0ebfbb2-6761-494f-8e2f-95743b37c35c%3Aamzn1.symc.50e00d6c-ec8b-42ef-bb15-298531ab4497&pf_rd_p=d0ebfbb2-6761-494f-8e2f-95743b37c35c&pf_rd_r=0YEE5VT3S0426RTXXCMY&pd_rd_wg=EH12P&pd_rd_r=68d67832-719d-45ac-aa9d-d64b136018a7&ref_=pd_gw_ci_mcx_mr_hp_atf_m

James, I purchased this red LED rope and agree; they work great with absolutely no fog for Fuji HR-U.

Now if I can only get the scratching under control. Using a Pyrex caserole dish because 6.5 x 8.5 film hangers are rare to non-existent, but even then I get abrasions.

Exploring a way to 3D print these, but it will be a while so I will cut it down to a smaller format for the time being.


247789 247792

[Eugen Mezei]

Now if I can only get the scratching under control. Using a Pyrex caserole dish because 6.5 x 8.5 film hangers are rare to non-existent, but even then I get abrasions.

If you like sweets go into a supermarket and look for something like this: https://www.profipacking.ro/caserole-pentru-tort-si-prajituri
You have to find the packaging that is flat. Some are reinforced at the bottom and not in the lid. There you can get the lid. You also should experiment with the transparent and the black version and find out which is softer.
I got one type where the lid is transparent, not reinforced by profiles and of soft material.
You an buy than that and it practically comes free, after you eat the cookies.

First I bought different other foods, but no matter how good I cleaned them, grease did not go completly away. But the sugary residues clean up completly.

Important is, that what will become the bottom of your tray is not reinforced by a profile. Completly flat is best, but hard to find as they have somehow to give strenght to the flims foil these recipients are mad of. If the profile has no hard edges and the material is soft plastic, than it also will not scratch.

[Nights]

Cut some 1 year expired Fuji Super HR-U for my 120 camera.

Shot at 100iso 6x6 on my Yashica Mat 124G (lens has some haze)
Developed with 1:5 Dektol for 2 minutes at 20C

247822247823247824247825

[chris73]

I use polystyrene "trays" (the foam type) after i consume the food contained :) They are light to use and soft for the X-ray films.
https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/chemicals/polystyrene/

[kurik]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=247996&d=1710926980
Fuji HR-U 80ISO D-23 1+2 9min

[kurik]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=247997&d=1710927096
Fuji HR-U 80ISO D-23 1+2 9min

[Tin Can]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=247996&d=1710926980
Fuji HR-U 80ISO D-23 1+2 9min

Well done!

[shuji]

Very nicely done!

[gavjenks]

I haven't read all 654 pages, so maybe I'm not the first one to try this, but I'm happy to announce my experiments with cutting X-ray film into 35mm and 120 film have been successful!

Fuji sells 36"x14" chest xray sheets the size of my torso, and I realized that 120 rolls of film are only about 32" long... 35mm rolls are longer, but you can get a 20 shot small roll out of 36".

Cutting Method:

(This is under red safelight) I made this guide form from wood and stuff I had lying around. The floating fence in the middle is just resting in the peg holes with bolts, not bolted down. This allows me to slide a gigantic sheet of xray film under it while holding its weight up. I haven't gotten any meaningful scratches yet, but I could but felt on the bottom of that if need be. The raised fence on the far side is glued down in just the right place to make it the width of a film roll versus the one that is aligned with the pegs. It was important to make sure the cutting happens BETWEEN a row of holes, or the blade etc will dip down into the peg holes all the time. I then slide the film sheet under the floating fence, butt it up against the straight one, and either use this cutting tool shown below, or (more accurate but more of a pain), a sharpie and then hold the sheet up to the safelight and cut with scissors. Conveniently, 35mm film is precisely 1" narrower than 120 film, so moving the floating fence over 1 peg switches between the two.

248167248168

To load and shoot 35mm film: I have cassettes from old commercial 35mm film I shot with 1" of leader still sticking out. I simply tape the xray strip to that on both sides, stick it into a spare camera body with manual rewind, and rewind it up. Then I stick a short section of leader on the front of normal film -- this helps takeup and also wastes minimum xray film on leaders, since the roll is already short. I can then shoot the roll of film in specifically a Canon 10QD SLR, which does not require perforated film (it uses a mechanical roller to keep track of how much film has passed by). AFAIK this and the NIkonos II are the only two modern SLRs to be able to use un-sprocketed film. Xray film seems to suffer from "light piping" or similar and gets bad leaks if loaded in daylight in 35mm specifically. I think the felt traps don't work well with it. 120 film actually works better (See below), but 35mm you should absolutely load and possibly unload it in the dark/safelight.

To load and shoot 120 film: I have old spools and backing paper from commercial rolls I already shot and developed. Before I begin, I roll out a bit of the paper and mark off the starting point of the film in white gel pen. it's roughly like 10 inches in or so, it depends how short you cut the roll and how many shots and your format etc. Sacrifice one roll to plan it all out in the daylight, then from then on you can just roll out a bit, mark the line, and roll it back up. In the darkroom, with safelight, I begin rolling the backing paper onto a new spool. When i get to the gel pen line, I take the cut strip of xray film (which I have hanging from a twine like drying sheet film would be) and add it into the roll and start rolling it up too. When I run out of film, I tape it to the backing paper (this must be the ONLY tape involved!), and then finish rolling the paper, and rubber band the roll off. It leaks like a *****, so i tend to load it in the darkroom. You can do it in daylight, but it's risky. The issue is that the xray film is thicker than normal so it baaaaarely is contained by the reel flanges at the ends, and if you don't wind it super tight, it will leak a bit on some frames. You can also just make do with a shorter roll instead to reduce bulk. The xray film is also stiffer and it will want to spring out and unspool on you. You must be diligent in maintaining pressure until it's loaded properly, then it's fine once in camera. The camera's Ive used have had no problem rolling it tight again on the other side (I have a Minolta Autocord hand cranked, and a Pentax 645 battery motor drive which happily uses this film).

The frame spacing on both 35mm and 120 has been totally fine in my experience, the cameras do not get meaningfully confused by the thicker film base. Occasionally but only maybe once every 10-15 frames and can be cloned out usually if digitized. I have also not seen hardly any scratching of the film on the backing paper or pressure plate side. YMMV.

35mm samples: The last one is out of focus and scratched, but I just wanted to show the crazy halation at 35mm scale you can see sometimes in scenes like this. All of these I think were shot with either a Canon 50mm 1.8 or a Tokina atx-pro 28-70 f/2.8
248177248178248179248180248181248182

120 medium format samples:
248183248184

(see next post for more 120 examples)

Stock is Fuji HR-U Green, rated at 100 ISO, and Development is ideally D-76 1:3, agitate 1 minute straight, then stand 30 minutes. Sometimes though if I'm processing it along with normal film, I use a compromise method to avoid bromide drag on the rolls with sprockets in the same tank, where I do D-76 1:3, 10 minutes, agitate, 10 minutes, agitate, 10 minutes, agitate, 5 minutes, end. it makes the xray contrastier and denser, but acceptable.

[gavjenks]

A few more xray HR-U home rolled 120 film samples (645 format) since it cut me off at 10 attachments from my immediately previous post above this one. All were shot on a pentax 645 with either a 45-85mm pentax zoom lens, or a 80mm Zeiss Jena Biometar 2.8:

248185248186248187248188248189248190248191

[shuji]

Thanks for the detailed write up. The images look great. You must have the patience of a saint.
I greatly envy your lighter x-ray film set up. My RB 67 can be a pain in the ass to lug around all day.

[shuji]

A few shots from the past few weeks. Nothing special just roaming around town with my RB 67 and two grafmatic 23 backs loaded with Fujifilm PX 100NIF. Developed in HC-110.

248194248195248196248197

[fotna]

Photos from Ami 66 (Polish camera 6x6)
248250
248251
Xray HR-U / R09

[gavjenks]

FYI for anyone interested, I got a iso-luminant (same brightness all across) image of the color gamut in HSL space, and took a photo of it with Fuji HR-U green xray film
Then lined up the spectrum image with the photo (adjusted to control black and white card points I included as well) and graphed out the sensitivity of the film by sample points, using the lightness of the B&W HR-U scanned negative

248636

So I believe this is pretty much the spectral curve of HR-U, unless you know something I did wrong. I ordered some RX-N, I will do that one too later.

[shuji]

FYI for anyone interested, I got a iso-luminant (same brightness all across) image of the color gamut in HSL space, and took a photo of it with Fuji HR-U green xray film
Then lined up the spectrum image with the photo (adjusted to control black and white card points I included as well) and graphed out the sensitivity of the film by sample points, using the lightness of the B&W HR-U scanned negative

248636

So I believe this is pretty much the spectral curve of HR-U, unless you know something I did wrong. I ordered some RX-N, I will do that one too later.

thanks, that's very useful to know. looking forward to your future tests too!

[gavjenks]

I was going to do the same thing with the curve I did above but for RX-N blue, but then I realized that unlike HR-U green, Fuji publishes a spectral chart for it:

250322

Ummmm... has anyone ever tried RX-N ""blue"" film for infrared photography? It looks like it would be absolutely amazing at it if this is true?

Or am I completely misunderstanding, and the right side only shows the spectrum of an SLG-8U safe light? <--Yeah the more I look at it, the two Y axes have different labels. This is just the safelight.

ANYWAY, the left side of this is the spectral curve for blue xray film for you. I assume that in real life outdoor shooting, it gets some extra boost from UV beyond the left of this chart. If it can get through your lens.

[malexand]

A few more xray HR-U home rolled 120 film samples (645 format) since it cut me off at 10 attachments from my immediately previous post above this one. All were shot on a pentax 645 with either a 45-85mm pentax zoom lens, or a 80mm Zeiss Jena Biometar 2.8:

Nice work!
I’ve also been spooling x-ray, but in my case 6” spools for my home built Cirkut panorama. I get one 6”x36” image per spool. These are more like 220, a paper leader and follower, but no film backing.
I bought a x-large rotary cutter reasonably online - great for the precision needed to get the paper cut juuuust wider than the spool
250323

[Tin Can]

Very good!

Glad to see another knows how to post Pano!


Nice work!
I’ve also been spooling x-ray, but in my case 6” spools for my home built Cirkut panorama. I get one 6”x36” image per spool. These are more like 220, a paper leader and follower, but no film backing.
I bought a x-large rotary cutter reasonably online - great for the precision needed to get the paper cut juuuust wider than the spool
250323

[Fr. Mark]

Years ago now I cut some 8x10 Xray down to 5x7's and a strip just big enough for a little more than the image height (landscape mode) of a 35mm camera. I loaded some into reusable 35mm cartridges and took some pictures. I did not like how hard it seemed to advance the film using an Olympus OM-1, some of the internal parts are plastic of a "certain" age, and at some point I ran out of 1x8 pieces. Along the way I did get a bunch of usable images. I enlarged one, developed in Tylenol made into Rodinal, I think. It made a very nice 5x7 and that was cropped a bit so I suspect it would withstand considerable enlarging beyond that. The taking lens was the kit lens for the camera an F1.8 50mm, probably at f8 or 11 and I used the self timer for the exposure, so very little shake. I think this was all done with Ektascan-BRA mammography film that has/had an antihalation layer to it so I don't have weirder highlights than normal. The detail possible reminds me of a couple of rolls of Tech Pan someone gave me.

[Fr. Mark]

the only "panoramic" stuff I've done with film was putting 3 sheets of 8x10 xray into a pinhole camera for a 24x10. It was way too curved a can for this and the distortion was not to my taste. I could live with the central sheet, but the "wings"? No thanks. Someday I may build a better setup for W-I-D-E photos, but not any time soon, likely, too much non-photo going on.
Still, I'm encouraged to see the panoramic and general "small" camera usage. I have a couple MF cameras and a few 35mm ones, besides the LF ones, some with lenses some as pinholes.
Thanks for a nice break, I'd better get back to work.

[Peter De Smidt]

Tests...Fuji HRT, along with testing my new scanner. There was a big light leak along the bottom, so this is more from a 8x8" section of the negative.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j0x0zx3my47qz69ft5h84/_DSC0425-Pano-Edit.jpg?rlkey=o07eq8g6gzusqbp9l3ou11zcn&st=lsda9ptx&raw=1

[Tin Can]

Looks good to me!

[Peter De Smidt]

Thanks, Randy. None of those....poplar?....... trees are there anymore. :(

[Eugen Mezei]

"is intended for standard or rapid cycle processing using hardened developers such as KODAK X-OMAT EX II or KODAK RP X-OMAT
Developer and Replenisher." is what the technical paper of a Carestream X-ray film states.
No, I do not intend to use that developer (as I suppose it is a very fast and hard working one), but I am interested to know if there can be hardening in the developing stage. Until now I thought this can happen not before fixing.
So how do I prepare a developer that hardens the emulsion but still lets the developing agent diffuse into the gelatin? My hope is, attacking the problem in the earliest stage possible, to avoid scratches.

[gavjenks]

Just leaving a note here for a development routine that I doubt anyone else has tried: I've been getting excellent results with XTOL 1:7 (yes, 7) stand development at 2 hours. Anywhere from ISO 50-250 or so.

The highly dilute stand developing is very compensating, so a range of ISOs work, but you get more grain still higher up and more contrast. it's just that it remains acceptable in some cases in my opinion to 250, if the speed is needed. I try to stick to 125 if the speed isn't needed. 400 can work if you artistically are fine with or want a partially blown/blocked high or low key image. 25 is getting too dense and losing information. That's for HR-U.

For RX-N, the same development works for clear sunny days, for overcast I add 1 stop versus HR-U (there's less blue light compared to other colors)

I wanted to use XTOL due to environmental and low toxicity reasons. And then stand for compensation, and as a bonus it's incredibly cheap due to the dilution. And low effort as you are not standing there agitating it.

[j.e.simmons]

I use pyrocat developer because of its hardening qualities. I get fewer scratches with that developer.

[Tin Can]

I don't get scratches

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Two things to consider, for those trying to solve the issue of scratching:

--
Do not cut your films to fit your holders.
It might sound weird, but in the long run it's cheaper and far less frustrating to buy a user camera and film holders to fit your chosen film stock, than cutting film to fit your existing camera and film holders…
This solution, besides the initial extra cost, restricts you to specific film formats...

--
Now, if you must cut xray film, *never* let two cut pieces contact each other, either before or during processing.
The cut edge is too sharp, and they will scratch and bruise each other, no matter how careful you might be…

Instead, load each cut piece into a film holder, right after cutting it, and only remove it from the holder to process it.

Processing should be done individually, either in flat bottomed trays, in Jobo expert drums, or in hangers (actually, I have never gotten good results with hangers, but others seem to have).

Also, even though all xray films are finicky in terms handling, some are worse than others.

For example, from the 7 makes and models which I tried before settling to Fuji mammographic films (first AD-M, and later UM-MA) the very worst was the Fuji RX-N.

--
Best of luck…

[Eugen Mezei]

That are all sound practices. Still I am interested in what I asked, how hardening in the developing stage works.
Also let not forget, all these practices of manipulating X-ray film like a raw egg is nonexistent in the industry these films were intended. I doubt the nurse developing dozens to hundreds of sheets daily even know about scratches. So procedures must have been in place that did not rely in the person doing the developing.

[the4x5project]

That are all sound practices. Still I am interested in what I asked, how hardening in the developing stage works.

Hi Eugen,

as far as I know you cannot harden before developing the film. There might be a developer which has a hardening agent added though.
Usually this film will be developed in machines. Once in the machine you will not touch it until it is finished.
As far as I know this film is not made for hand developing.

Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Martin

P.S. You can cut the film without any problems with normal paper cutter. I did this all the time. The scratches appear during developing when the film is wet and the emulsion very soft.

[Michael R]

Hardening can be done at any point in the process (or before processing). The type of hardener depends on which part of the process, but what it does is toughen the gelatin (the hardener causes the gelatin molecules to cross-link) which makes a previously unhardened emulsion somewhat more resistant to mechanical damage while it is wet. The processing chemicals can still penetrate the emulsion, though processing times may require adjustment. In pre-hardeners or hardening developers the hardening chemical is typically an aldehyde compound (formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde), while in acid stop baths and fixers the hardening compounds are alums.


That are all sound practices. Still I am interested in what I asked, how hardening in the developing stage works.
Also let not forget, all these practices of manipulating X-ray film like a raw egg is nonexistent in the industry these films were intended. I doubt the nurse developing dozens to hundreds of sheets daily even know about scratches. So procedures must have been in place that did not rely in the person doing the developing.

[surdo]

Hello, and apologies that these following shots weren't taken with an LF camera (I don't have one and I'm using Mamiya C330 with a single exposure back), but this seems to be the place with a solid discussion of x-ray film. I've started using Fujifilm UM-MA film. Having read about the fast development times of x-ray films, I started using D76H (homebrew variant on D76) at a dilution of 1:5 at 21°C and exposing at ISO 64. I've also tried the dilution at room temperature, which is probably around 27°C and the time was probably around 9 minutes with a denser neg but I seemed to get more spots on the negative. The best result that I've had so far was doing a 1 minute pre-soak in filtered water and then development in D76H 1:4 at 21°C but the time to develop was probably 16 to 20 minutes.

Are there any Fujifilm UM-MA users here and if so, what dilution and temperature would you recommend with a D76 type developer? My thoughts are to try a dilution of 1:2 @ 21°C after a pre-soak but I'd be keen to hear what others are doing with this film.

Here are two of my better results digitised with a DSLR and tidied up in Darktable - the first (mango tree leaves) was with a 1:5 dilution and no pre-soak and the second (hat) was with a 1:4 dilution and pre-soak:

All the best,

Iain

[the4x5project]

Here are two of my better results digitised with a DSLR and tidied up in Darktable - the first (mango tree leaves) was with a 1:5 dilution and no pre-soak and the second (hat) was with a 1:4 dilution and pre-soak:


Hello Ian,

these look fantastic and thanks for sharing.

Cheers,
Martin

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Hi Iain,

The examples that you posted are lovely.
I'm using UM-MA, but only with the RO9 version of Rodinal.
If you need any pointers for that combination, let me know.

[surdo]

Hi Iain,

The examples that you posted are lovely.
I'm using UM-MA, but only with the RO9 version of Rodinal.
If you need any pointers for that combination, let me know.

Thanks a lot Thodoris (and Martin). Yes, please send. I still have some "Agfa forumula" Rodinal that I bought online from an independent seller. I think that's the same as RO9, or at least similar. If you have any tips with fixing please send too. I tested an off-cut of UM-MA in Kodak Rapid fixer and it cleared in 15 seconds. So I've been fixing for just 1'30"

While I'm here. I'll paste a few links to more photos. The last was interesting. I'd lost patience in the darkroom and left the negative extremely thin (so thin that I couldn't tell which side was the emulsion side when I digitised it - and judging by the lighting, it was upside down), but the result has an almost wet-plate look.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/xicaradecafe/53755793079/in/dateposted-public

https://www.flickr.com/photos/xicaradecafe/53758510505/in/dateposted-public

https://www.flickr.com/photos/xicaradecafe/53785420175/in/dateposted-public

Cheers,

Iain

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53289293012_7e873515cb_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2pbZyf1)Makiflex 150 Xenar HRU D23 Octobox 150 (https://flic.kr/p/2pbZyf1) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Plaubel Makiflex 150mm Schneider barrel Xenar 4x5 Fuji HRU XRAY D23 1:1 8x10 Aristo #2 RC Omega DII laser aligned. Dektol 1:2 Broncolor Octobox 150 with frosted bulb and Octobox Supplemental Diffusion. Backround by David Maheu "Tim Kelly Classic".

I like this one.

[James R. Kyle]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53289293012_7e873515cb_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2pbZyf1)Makiflex 150 Xenar HRU D23 Octobox 150 (https://flic.kr/p/2pbZyf1) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Plaubel Makiflex 150mm Schneider barrel Xenar 4x5 Fuji HRU XRAY D23 1:1 8x10 Aristo #2 RC Omega DII laser aligned. Dektol 1:2 Broncolor Octobox 150 with frosted bulb and Octobox Supplemental Diffusion. Backround by David Maheu "Tim Kelly Classic".

I like this one.

==========

WOW! Very good. In fact, excellent.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Hi Iain,

The examples in your links show good shadow detail and tamed highlights, so you might as well keep doing what you're doing.

--
Here is my approach, for negatives that proof well at grade2 (minimum exposure for maximum black) on Ilford MG papers.

I use my Sekonic 508 at 1 degree spot, set at 16ASA, underexposing by three stops from the reading in the shadows which I want to have some minor texture. This leads to shadows with about 0.15 density above base and fog.

As a starting point for your own testing I would suggest 5ml of Rodinal/RO9 concentrate in 1lt of water (1+200 dilution) for 8min at 22.5C (you can adapt time and temperature for your initial tests to fit your working conditions using a time/temp compensation table).

I use a 5min pre-wash in water at same temp as the developer, and for pre-wash, developer, fixer, and photo-flo I only use distilled water.

For most of my processing in the past few years I've been using a Jobo 3005 drum loaded with 5 sheets which I manually roll on a diy roller, but for single sheets, and even more so for pieces of cut-off film, I use a Cesco flat bottomed tray.

I used to lay out a line of flat bottomed trays, one for each solution, but I found that the act of lifting the film from tray to tray introduced some degree of mechanical damage, so I switched to what is referred to as the "single tray method".

In this method, you prepare your solutions in wide mouthed measuring jugs, and you pour them in and out of a single tray. This way, you never handle the film, until it's time for washing.

When you lift the tray to pour the previous solution back into its jug, the film "sticks" to the bottom of the tray because of surface tension, but once you start pouring the next solution into the tray it gets "unstuck" and allows you to resume agitation.

By the way, I would suggest to keep away from "minimal agitation". It does not work.

We are severely under-developing these films in order to create continues tone negatives, and constant and vigorous agitation is our only safeguard against issues with uniformity of development.

On this subject, I would suggest at least one, but better yet two, sizes larger tray than the film you're developing. This protects you from "hot edges". Each time you lift one side of the tray for agitation, the developing solution hits the opposite wall and comes back. The smaller the tray, the faster this "coming back" is. The periphery of the film receives a higher degree of fresh developer than the middle, and you end up with over-developed edges.

As far as fixers go, I use an Agfa rapid fixer with hardener, which has a clearing time of about 25sec, and I fix my films for 4min. After fixing I use Kodak HCA for 2min.

To prevent pinholes and similar issues, try to keep all solutions as close you can in terms of temperature, including the final wash.

As a side note, regarding Rodinal/RO9:
Both Agfa and most users claim that you must have at least 3-5ml of concentrate per 8x10" film.
My findings show that this is not true.
I regularly develop 5 sheets of 18x24cm UM-MA in 1lt solution containing only 5ml of concentrate, without any signs of developer exhaustion.
BUT
Working solution of Rodinal/RO9 oxidizes quickly.
Never reuse this developer for a second, consecutive, development.
Always throw it out and make fresh.
Developing five sheets at once, and developing them one after the other in the span of 1 hour, is not the same thing.

--
Please note that all the above are personal findings and the way that "I do it".
Take it with a grain of salt, run your own tests, and find your own way.

Best of luck.

[Daniel Unkefer]

==========

WOW! Very good. In fact, excellent.

Thank you James R. Kyle :)

[surdo]

Here is my approach, for negatives that proof well at grade2 (minimum exposure for maximum black) on Ilford MG papers.


Lots of great advice here Thodoris. Thanks very much. Interesting that you expose at ISO 16. Even my "good" negatives have been very thin. I thought perhaps my very long development times (and thin negatives despite this) were due to dilution issues, but 2 stops more exposure should help. I'll try ISO 16. Have mixed a fresh batch of D76H and will try again a dilution of 1:4 before upping the strength.

The hardener in the fixer makes a lot of sense for this film! I didn't think of that. I've never used hardener, but have a bottle that came with the Kodak rapid fixer, so I'll prepare another solution.

Since I'm an interloper here on the large format forum, using approximately 6x9cm film sheets, I've been using 500ml glass beakers to develop and fix the film with stainless steel clips that dentists use to process those small x-ray films of theirs (I use a 1000ml beaker to wash under running filtered water). The clips hook onto the lip of the beaker and with the emulsion side facing the centre of the beaker, I don't think there's much risk of mechanical damage (I'll attach a photo).

The advice on trays is great. Part of my reasoning for trying x-ray film on medium format, is to see if I like the processes and results. The idea being to eventually move to larger format photography and using trays makes a lot more sense there.

I use a plain sodium sulphite solution as HCA for fibre-based paper, but I'll get hold of some sodium bisulphite, which I gather is safer to use with film.

Once I'm satisfied with D76H processing of UM-MA, I'll give the Rodinal a try!

All the best,

Iain

250611

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53798601518_0c6e218e1d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2pXZTV9)1000mm F16 Apo Ronar Test HRU XRAY D23 Octobox (https://flic.kr/p/2pXZTV9) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

First Fuji 8x10 HRU XRAY film 1000mm F16 Rodenstock Apo Ronar. D23 tray developed with four Xray clips, One in each corner to keep it off the bottom of the 11x14 Cesco Tray. Lens set to F32, actual exposure F64 with two stops bellows draw. Exposure appears sharp, next test with be some panchromatic film. This was fun to do. Eighteen pops of the Octobox 1600J Primo were required.

[Tin Can]

Time day matters

and latitude

I mostly shoot inside with strobes

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53806418713_2dbd85fa49_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2pYFXGn)First Test of NPL 8x10 HRU 1000mm F32 18 pops Octobox (https://flic.kr/p/2pYFXGn) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

First test of Negative Lab Pro, a program which converts large format negatives (small ones too) into nice looking positives. This is 8x10 Fuji HRU XRAY Film, D23 replenished. Neg copied with Sony Nex-7 (36mp) with 50mm Zeiss F2.8 Touit, an AWESOME optic. Big learning curve ahead :)

[Eugen Mezei]

Would somebody do me a favor and lick his finger for touching a sheet of Kodak/Carestream Min-R (anywhich subtype of the series) on both sides?

It is the Carestream/Kodak mammography line of films, but from the data sheets I have avaible I can not decide if the base is coated one bot faces or only on one. Carestream writes about double coating but at the same times mention they coated with a fine grain coat and a coarse grain. So it is not clear to me what they mean by double coated.

I already wrote Carestream twice but they dont care to answer.

[XrayShooter]

Would somebody do me a favor and lick his finger for touching a sheet of Kodak/Carestream Min-R (anywhich subtype of the series) on both sides?

It is the Carestream/Kodak mammography line of films, but from the data sheets I have avaible I can not decide if the base is coated one bot faces or only on one. Carestream writes about double coating but at the same times mention they coated with a fine grain coat and a coarse grain. So it is not clear to me what they mean by double coated.

I already wrote Carestream twice but they dont care to answer.

I can't do a lick test for you but I think MIN-R is both double emulsion and with two different (dual) emulsions on one side. I will try to find the brochure that shows this. I think it was for the RS version.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I'm shooting some 18x24cm Min-R today, and even under my safelights I can see a distinct base and emulsion side. Plus it is notched so you are sure of the emulsion side. Right now I'm trying processing in my venerable 8x10 Black Unicolor Unidrum II Print Drums. So far it looks very clean, no flow marks I can detect. Seems to fit tightly in the 8x10 slots meant for 8x10 enlarging paper. I kind like running a sheet a time, I'm working on a good neg with straight D23 Replenished, my current soup of choice. So far I have reduced the development time to 4 3/4 minutes (on a Unicolor Uniroller) and each neg looks better with each try. Zeroing in on what I want, maybe more exposure and even less development? Will try that maybe tomorrow. It is fun to be back in the darkroom, I'm enjoying it.

Prolly has two layers on the emulsion side? So far no defects from running Min-R in my four Unidrums (poor man's JOBO) :)

[Eugen Mezei]

In the meantime I found, well hidden and not from the Carestream official website, a Spanish commercial brochure where they show the layers in the film:
https://healthstore.cl/pdf/Film-Min-RS.pdf
And here the poor quality English version: https://www.ti-ba.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Min-R-S-Brochure-final-5-5-08.pdf

I am wondering if this both side coating is true only for Min-R S or all the other versions.

Would like to find out what the differences are:
- I found Min-R EV described as the premium product. A slightly higher price supports this. From the 2014 sales brochure, for boxes of 100 sheets:
EV: 18 x 24 100 892 5356 £216.53 / 24 x 30 £368.03
2000 Plus: 18 x 24 £206.33 / 24 x 30 £351.28
- Min-R 2000 is normal quality, Min-R 2000 Plus being a 2011 higher density reformulation with a deeper blue tint. (C. claims radiologists prefer more blue. We surely not.) https://www.itnonline.com/content/new-mammography-film-gains-image-quality-greater-processing-stability-fewer-artifacts and https://www.auntminnie.com/clinical-news/womens-imaging/breast/article/15600049/carestream-launches-updated-mammo-film, etc.
- I am not sure where Min-R and Min R S fits in the product line.
- I do not know what Min-R L is.

I thought/hoped mammography film to be always single side coated. In the meantime I have the feeling that all Min-R variants are coated on both sides but intended to be used in casettes with only single (green) emitting intensifiying screen.
Would have been nice to know before I ordered a life supply of boxes with the Min-R EV.

[stiganas]

So, the film is notched - this means is asymmetrical - the normal X-ray film is symmetric, no orientation mark. From the brochure is clear it has two different senzitive layers one on one side and one on the other side and also have the extra antihalo layer (not present in normal X-ray film).

So it looks like a hybrid film - something between the simple X-ray and the (almost) photographic mammography X-ray with the emulsion on one side and antihalo on the back.

[j.e.simmons]

When loading cut down 4x5, I put the rounded corner where the notches would normally go. For 8x10 I use scissors to cut one rounded corner flat and use that like notches.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52222110706_6deac495ff_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nyFY85)18x24 Mammo Shortie Sawed Off Norma (https://flic.kr/p/2nyFY85) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

This is a test shot (my Shorty Norma) French Kodak 18x24cm Mammo Film, processed in D23 1:1. Taking camera is my new Annie/Avedon inspired 8x10 Norma. I applied 30 degrees of front and rear swing, the Norma original recessed lensboard is sharp all the way across the field. I like how the DOF drops off with the 360mm f5.6 Norma Symmar. There appears to be highlight blooming, which I find kind of attractive. Best thing about this film was that it was not at all expensive. And I have a lot of it

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50549038488_b5881ae3bc_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2k1R33m)Ashton Pond Norma Handy HRU Mic-X 2 (https://flic.kr/p/2k1R33m) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Ashton Pond Columbus Ohio Sinar Norma Handy 4x5 Fuji HR-U XRay 65mm F8 at F22 Schneider CF + Sinar Norma Dark Yellow 103mm Glass Disk 1 sec at F22 Legacy Mic-X replenished stock in tray 18 mins at 62F Arista #2 RC 4x 8x10 Multigrade dev

[James R. Kyle]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50549038488_b5881ae3bc_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2k1R33m)Ashton Pond Norma Handy HRU Mic-X 2 (https://flic.kr/p/2k1R33m) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Ashton Pond Columbus Ohio Sinar Norma Handy 4x5 Fuji HR-U XRay 65mm F8 at F22 Schneider CF + Sinar Norma Dark Yellow 103mm Glass Disk 1 sec at F22 Legacy Mic-X replenished stock in tray 18 mins at 62F Arista #2 RC 4x 8x10 Multigrade dev

=============

Very good.
I particularly like the Blacks of this. Nice exposure.

Only one suggestion =

Get A Frame = Hang it. ;-)

[Daniel Unkefer]

Thanks James R. Kyle :) The Norma Handy is indeed Uber Handy. I still have eclipse peacock 4x5 HP5+ to develop. I used my StarD l light weight Tiltall type tripod which is very portable and not too much to carry around. Does work good with HRU and the Handy.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50547233136_edcf434139_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2k1FMnA)Ashton Pond Norma Handy HRU Mic-X (https://flic.kr/p/2k1FMnA) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Ashton Pond Columbus Ohio Sinar Norma Handy 4x5 Fuji HR-U XRay 65mm F8 at F22 Schneider CF + Sinar Norma Dark Yellow 103mm Glass Disk 1 sec at F22 Legacy Mic-X replenished stock in tray 18 mins at 62F Arista #2 RC 4x 8x10 Multigrade dev

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50470083408_4527099208_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jTSnrS)HRU Filter test 4 Yellow Dark 103mm Norma (https://flic.kr/p/2jTSnrS) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Sinar Norma Handy tripod mounted, 65mm F8 Super Angulon with Schneider 65mm F8 Center Filter. Fuji HRU XRay film 8x10 cut down to 4x5 in Graphmatic back. EV 8 1/3 ZIII Sinar Norma 103mm Yellow Green Glass Disc. F22 1/3 at 1 second EI 50. Tray developed by inspection under red safelight straight Microdol-X 12 minutes at 68F. Arista 8x10 RC print Omega DII Omegalite Diffusion Head Multigrade develope

[James R. Kyle]

Thanks James R. Kyle :) The Norma Handy is indeed Uber Handy. I still have eclipse peacock 4x5 HP5+ to develop. I used my StarD l light weight Tiltall type tripod which is very portable and not too much to carry around. Does work good with HRU and the Handy.

============

I have used a "Reformulation" of the X-ray Developer "ANSCO-30". The original was WAY too strong - and is for a "developing machine". Here is what I could best for my development for Fuji HR-U Film. This is for TANK DEVELOPMENT. A total of 12 negatives in a "Yankee Tank" for 4X5 sheet films.
(So IF you have the raw chemicals, you might give this a try):
-------------

Here is the Ansco-30-JK reformulated “Tank Developer Solution”.

Water - at 120 Degrees F. -------------------750ml.
Metol --------------------------------------------------------- 3.0 Grams.
Sodium Sulfite ------------------------------------------- 70.0 G.
Hydroquinone ---------------------------------------------- 4.0 G.
Sodium Carbonate -------------------------------------- 20.0 G.
Potassium Bromide --------------------------------------- 5.5 G.
Cold water to make a Full 1 liter of Solution. (STOCK solution.)

For a working solution --

Take One Part of this Stock to 24 Parts of Water. That is a 1:25 Ratio. (i.e.= 1 Oz. stock to 24 Oz. Water)
The times will vary with the temperature of the working solution, anywhere from four to seven minutes.
(20 Degrees C. = 6 minutes)
----------

[Eugen Mezei]

If I can choose, should I buy the X-ray film with more contrast and density or with less?

I can buy Carestream-R EV or Carestream-R 2000 plus.

From the technical data sheets:
EV has: sensivity 150, contrast 4,5 or 4,7 (depending of the X-ray developing machine used), D-max >4.5
2000 plus: sensivity 150, contrast 3,9 or 4,1, D-max 4.0

251149
251150

[Tin Can]

X-Ray film is very

Needed

For Industrial uses


nothing can replacement it

Very expensive

Japan is selling lots of INSTAX

It is real film also

[Peter De Smidt]

If I can choose, should I buy the X-ray film with more contrast and density or with less?

I can buy Carestream-R EV or Carestream-R 2000 plus.

From the technical data sheets:
EV has: sensivity 150, contrast 4,5 or 4,7 (depending of the X-ray developing machine used), D-max >4.5
2000 plus: sensivity 150, contrast 3,9 or 4,1, D-max 4.0



With less.

[Eugen Mezei]

X-Ray film is very

Needed

For Industrial uses


nothing can replacement it

Very expensive

Japan is selling lots of INSTAX

It is real film also

I wonder why they can not use the same digital equipment for nondestructive testing that is used for medical applications.

Are you sure Instax is film and not a stamp? My problem with it is the size. Come on Fuji, at least make it the size of packfilm. Also would not hurt to make it the size of the 4x5" packfilm.

[Eugen Mezei]

With less.

Too late, I now bought EV. But when I scratch together some money I will buy 2000 also.

[dimento]

Been reading through this gigantic thread. One question, where did all the sample images go? Have they been archived somewhere on the forum, or just removed by the original posters- would love to see some examples of the different films/subjects. Cheers, D

[Corran]

There was a major purge years ago when the backend had some issue, with local files. Others, I assume folks have website changes or refreshes and they disappear.

Here's one I shot last weekend. Fuji HR-T, EI of 80, developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 6:30 at 70F:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2AndhH94P0snhU-7LndfRwlIyLX86C6VGDRGoO85GHjyxahDjFTbsscLBss93Gbkq2geEUdit7HRxXlRU0PmIl4CFZX-KQM8Vq3UcXQtUpL-FLvDKmq6PSA_VAnE2UNaZ6bRq_8GFe7MnqonSGDb-oabFPBMJVJsGqs27GbZxP-lrTFdcFmFQ7Lhw68rJ/s850/graflexsuperd-4312s.jpg

[Tin Can]

Love it

Thanks for posting

[younghoon Kil]

I have posted my cutting method many times

I use dedicated cheapest Dahle to reduce dust and the unique film holder downer never scratches 12" and 18' does it all

https://www.dahle.com/trimmer/item/12e

One sheet at a time


Which is safer and easier to use, the Dahle 12e Vantage Paper Trimmer or the Dahle 507 Personal Rotary Trimmer? Is the Dahle 12e good enough? :rolleyes:

- https://www.amazon.com/Dahle-Automatic-Adjustable-Gridlines-Guillotine/dp/B000W1QOS4
- https://www.amazon.com/Dahle-Personal-Rolling-Trimmer-A4/dp/B083FBYHXR

[emag]

Hello guys! I'm a new user. I need some advice. I received a few years ago some Fujifilm di-al expired in 2012. I know this could be a problem. today I tried to develop them but the plates are transparent even after exposure to the sun. I used rodinal 1+50 at 28 degrees celsius for 4 minutes. Is there any special procedure for these films? they might not work anymore, I would be very sorry.

[Corran]

https://shop.mxrimaging.com/fuji-di-al-daylight-load-for-fm-dpl-imager.html

It says to use laser energy to develop the latent image. I'm curious now, perhaps that "film" is non-reactive to chemicals? I have no idea, but kind of interesting (sorry I know that's not helpful). If you aren't getting any development from Rodinal after fully exposing the sheet to daylight......

[dave_whatever]

As far as i know medical dry imaging film isn’t sensitised in the photographic sense so you can’t use it in camera. It’s dedicated to the dry imaging laser technology (whatever that actually is) so no surprise it doesn’t work.

[Eugen Mezei]

Intend to buy red LEDs. Which color temperature would you recommend?
I can get 550 nm, 630 nm, 650 nm, 670 nm, 700 nm, 740 nm, 770 nm. Which would you recommend for green sensitive X-ray film manipulating in the darkroom and developing by sight?

[Fr. Mark]

I don't know about developing by inspection, but the longer the wavelength the less likely you are to fog the film, everything else being equal. That said, most light sources aren't just one wavelength. LED's may be better about a narrow band of wavelengths than the fluorescent tubes, but I've not seen the spectra to be sure about it. BTW, 550 nm light is green, so not a good choice, at least I don't think so. I believe I read once that human vision is most sensitive in green light, but I still think it would be a bad idea. 630, 700, 740 should all be red. 770 is generally outside "visible" and into "infra-red" so not a good choice for inspection of film because you wouldn't see anything at all. I hope someone in our group who develops by inspection can guide you better than I can. I've thought about the using IR night vision gear to be able to see in the darkroom especially for making my own film one day. That's far in the future for me right now though.

[Eugen Mezei]

Yes, in theory the further in the red, the less chance to fog the film. But I am interested in practical experience, the theory we know it all. I am not convinced that going as far as possible into the deepest red will hit the sweet spot between securely excluding fogging and still being able to comfortabely see the image developing.

550 nm was a typo, I meant 570-590.
What I see are red LEDs offered as: red and deep red. The reds are around 600 nm, maybe up to 630 nm. (So it is more orange in my opinion.) The deep reds are above 630 nm, typically 660-670 nm. And then some producers offer far red (although sometimes they refer with this to just what I presented before, different producers, different naming schemes) going up to 700 and a bit beyond. (And then ofcourse come the IR LEDs, these are not what I am interested in.)

So what practical knowledge did you guys aquired in this regard?

[XrayShooter]

Here is the Spectral Absorption chart for the GBX-2 Red filter we use with regular incandescent bulbs.
Kodak recommends this filter for most blue and green sensitive xray film. No fogging issues after 17 minute safe light test with our fastest film.

I would think that if you have access to your LED Spectral Output chart and it fits in the shaded area you would be safe.

252537

[ericantonio]

There's over 660 pages on this thread and looking for information is kinda hard, and search engine not that great. Sorry if I am repeating a question, honest I looked for it.
There was someone, maybe it was on this thread? Maybe it was a web page? I don't remember
But it went something like:

@ISO, generally do speed/fstop combination, because it doesn't read the same stuff as a normal light meter.

Does anyone remember reading this? I took a shot a couple weeks ago, and I managed to shot it at 200, and I metered on like a grey chair. Turned out okay but that was when I remembered someone had it written down. Maybe my question is, can I use a reflective light meter the same way on a subject with xray film? I see most people are rating Fuji xray film from 50-100.

[mdarnton]

I rate it at 50, otherwise you don't get enough shadow detail, then I develop with gentle D23, sort of let the highlights take care of themselves, since I'm scanning, not printing. Know that since the film is not sensitive to red, i.e. warm colors, it won't "see" tungsten light as very strong at all. I don't know by how much. Adding two or even three stops might be a good idea.

This is my first xray shot. https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/14692136852/in/dateposted/ There's a complete explanation of what I did underneath. Eventually I switched to some very mild agitation about once a minute, that's the only change. I use hangers for development--you will find that the stuff has about the scratch-resistance of jello when it's wet. That particular photo was "scanned" by holding the hanger up to the sky and shooting the neg with my phone camera then running it through Photoshop.

Almost all of the photos in that particular Flickr group are shot on xray film.

[ericantonio]

I rate it at 50, otherwise you don't get enough shadow detail, then I develop with gentle D23, sort of let the highlights take care of themselves, since I'm scanning, not printing. Know that since the film is not sensitive to red, i.e. warm colors, it won't "see" tungsten light as very strong at all. I don't know by how much. Adding two or even three stops might be a good idea.

This is my first xray shot. https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/14692136852/in/dateposted/ There's a complete explanation of what I did underneath. Eventually I switched to some very mild agitation about once a minute, that's the only change. I use hangers for development--you will find that the stuff has about the scratch-resistance of jello when it's wet. That particular photo was "scanned" by holding the hanger up to the sky and shooting the neg with my phone camera then running it through Photoshop.

Almost all of the photos in that particular Flickr group are shot on xray film.

Good info! Rate at 50 and meter like I would if it was a regular film? Sort of around that middle grey area, plus 1 or 2 if I want whites to be whiter, that sort ot normal film stuff?

[dimento]

There was a major purge years ago when the backend had some issue, with local files. Others, I assume folks have website changes or refreshes and they disappear.

Here's one I shot last weekend. Fuji HR-T, EI of 80, developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 6:30 at 70F:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2AndhH94P0snhU-7LndfRwlIyLX86C6VGDRGoO85GHjyxahDjFTbsscLBss93Gbkq2geEUdit7HRxXlRU0PmIl4CFZX-KQM8Vq3UcXQtUpL-FLvDKmq6PSA_VAnE2UNaZ6bRq_8GFe7MnqonSGDb-oabFPBMJVJsGqs27GbZxP-lrTFdcFmFQ7Lhw68rJ/s850/graflexsuperd-4312s.jpg

sorry slow reply. Like the image, thanks for posting

[dimento]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52222110706_6deac495ff_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nyFY85)18x24 Mammo Shortie Sawed Off Norma (https://flic.kr/p/2nyFY85) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

This is a test shot (my Shorty Norma) French Kodak 18x24cm Mammo Film, processed in D23 1:1. Taking camera is my new Annie/Avedon inspired 8x10 Norma. I applied 30 degrees of front and rear swing, the Norma original recessed lensboard is sharp all the way across the field. I like how the DOF drops off with the 360mm f5.6 Norma Symmar. There appears to be highlight blooming, which I find kind of attractive. Best thing about this film was that it was not at all expensive. And I have a lot of it

lovely tonality in this shot. Hard to get 8x10 mammo film in EU, looks like I'll have to buy a couple of 18x24 holders :)

[arri]

lovely tonality in this shot. Hard to get 8x10 mammo film in EU, looks like I'll have to buy a couple of 18x24 holders :)

In Europe I know only the Fujifilm UM-MA and it is available only in 18x24cm and 24x30cm.
I spend a lot of time to find single coated xray film in 8x10" but end of the day it ends with the 18x24cm size.
The different is not realy large but the filmholders are more rare than the 8x10" versions.

The film itself is excellent, it has a very high silver content and a speed of ISO 50-160 in relation to the colour of the light.

I buy the films in Germany here: roentgenexpress.de
I guess they deliver it to Irland as well.

A sample? Here it is:
18x24cm Fuji UM-MA, Kodak HC110 1+79
Schneider G-Claron 9/210mm

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53835467084_83b0b3ce76_h.jpg

[dimento]

In Europe I know only the Fujifilm UM-MA and it is available only in 18x24cm and 24x30cm.
I spend a lot of time to find single coated xray film in 8x10" but end of the day it ends with the 18x24cm size.
The different is not realy large but the filmholders are more rare than the 8x10" versions.

The film itself is excellent, it has a very high silver content and a speed of ISO 50-160 in relation to the colour of the light.

I buy the films in Germany here: roentgenexpress.de
I guess they deliver it to Irland as well.

A sample? Here it is:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53835467084_83b0b3ce76_h.jpg

Nice work. Yes the filmholders seem pricey alright. I'll keep an eye out. I know a fairly skilled woodworker who might be able to modify an old wooden 8x10 holder for me.

[wouthazel]

You can make a 3d print from this site: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6666371

I haven't use it yet, but i'm planning to do.

[dimento]

You can make a 3d print from this site: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6666371

I haven't use it yet, but i'm planning to do.

That's v handy thanks. I have access to 3D printing at my Uni library.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

[...]The film itself is excellent, it has a very high silver content and a speed of ISO 50-160 in relation to the colour of the light.[...]

The sample you posted shows good shadow detail, but could you please provide some data in support of your 160asa claim for the UM-MA?

Preferably sensitometric data of your development, along with the average subject brightness range of the subjects you are shooting at 160asa?

Alternatively, a picture of a negative exposed at 160asa (shot on a light table or a backlit window), along with a picture of the actual scene taken with a cell phone?

The reason for this request is that my own testing with RO9 (1+200) for a gamma of ~0.65 rates UM-MA at 16asa.

I find it hard to believe that HC110 (1+79) could give a 3+ stop speed boost, but I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.

[Tin Can]

I use your parameter with R09 1/100

but it does vary with Sun

and I find it dies at 20 minutes

I use RO9 only for years




The sample you posted shows good shadow detail, but could you please provide some data in support of your 160asa claim for the UM-MA?

Preferably sensitometric data of your development, along with the average subject brightness range of the subjects you are shooting at 160asa?

Alternatively, a picture of a negative exposed at 160asa (shot on a light table or a backlit window), along with a picture of the actual scene taken with a cell phone?

The reason for this request is that my own testing with RO9 (1+200) for a gamma of ~0.65 rates UM-MA at 16asa.

I find it hard to believe that HC110 (1+79) could give a 3+ stop speed boost, but I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.

[Urgs]

Sorry, I cannot find it. Possibly the numbering has changed somehow?

[landstrykere]

lHard to get 8x10 mammo film in EU, looks like I'll have to buy a couple of 18x24 holders :)

it's easy to make inserts from paper..... I do that for whatever sizes.

18x24 sheet inside 8x10 holder:

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

left and top edges is a L insert made with a regular office paper (~ 80g) and canson ~170g (could be some more) glued over it. The edges of the underlaying regular paper slides into the holder, the thicker canson is stiffer and holds the film sheet. I put a matching mask on the focusing glass.
In the case of 18x24-8x10 I keep couple holders with the insert on all time, because insertion must be done carefully slowly.

here it shows better. It's a 6x9 adapter for 4x5 holders. When I want for instance to test a developer or a lens with few shots only, and don't want to waste 4x5 sheets, I cut chunks of 120 roll in 6x9 and insert them in a 4x5:

https://i.imgur.com/Z0euEgc.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ngwRH1a.jpg



the trick is in the gluing, I'd have probably to provide shots to show how. Simple but have to be careful:. do it with a developed sheet of film in place, and a glue stick, not liquid glue. The point is that the glue must be linear all along without gaps nor overflood, Regular office glue stick will bind the paper but has bad adherence on plastic, so you pull carefully the sheet of film.

[Eugen Mezei]

I would make the underlying paper also black to avoid reflecting scattered light back into the film.
Will the L/U made of the thicker paper not put the film slightly out of focus? (By its thickness.)

9x12 and 13x18 cm holders are plenty and cheap in Europe. 18x24 are expensive but a bit cheaper than 8x10".
Still what you showed here gave me a good idea. It is how I will now, if you tell me it does not put the film out of the focus plane, use the panoramic dental film I have. (It comes in the European size 15x30 cm and the US size 5x7".) I intended to buid casettes for it, but making an insert as yours is the easier way.

[Tin Can]

Consider the stack up of allowable variation

It is more than you think

I will not post the plus/minus tolerances

it also varies by film size

holders bend

[landstrykere]

I would make the underlying paper also black to avoid reflecting scattered light back into the film.
Will the L/U made of the thicker paper not put the film slightly out of focus? (By its thickness.)


notice in the picture of the 18x24 insert that there is no underlayer, just the L-shaped insert itself. The reason for the underlying sheet shown for the 6x9 insert to 4x5 cassette, is twofold: easy to slide the insert in/out and I use these only for testings cuts of 120, and the norm for 120 roll film that I cut into 6x9 for theses is different: it's thinner than sheet film. If it was for permanent use, with small 2x3 sheets still produced by FOMA and ADOX, and not cuts of 120 roll I would not use the underlying paper. I have the norms somewhere but I think they are floating in the open web anyway.
First tries when I tough of these way I used regular white paper, then I made with black, but for illustration here I picked one with white.
That said, 120 or sheet, there may be a significant variation, ORWO sheets for instance were on the thick side of the norm's tolerance. But that's not the case of current film nor x-ray.
In case of aerial like Aviphot, it´s the other way around: an underlayer is required because very thin film. Actually I cut aerial to the adhoc size of the holder I will use, and I insert same sized cut of office paper under.



9x12 and 13x18 cm holders are plenty and cheap in Europe. 18x24 are expensive but a bit cheaper than 8x10".
Still what you showed here gave me a good idea. It is how I will now, if you tell me it does not put the film out of the focus plane, use the panoramic dental film I have. (It comes in the European size 15x30 cm and the US size 5x7".) I intended to buid casettes for it, but making an insert as yours is the easier way.

yes, until not very long ago 18x24 were cheap but it seems Central European and German cellars and lofts have become emptier and now it's very expensive, for my taste.
Canson-type paper works well in my hack. I tried with cuts of developed sheet film but gluing is a problem.
Happy tinkering!

[Eugen Mezei]

Canson-type paper works well in my hack. I tried with cuts of developed sheet film but gluing is a problem.
Happy tinkering!

Cement used by moviemakers to split (glue) together pieces of film after editing should work.

[glerin]

I would like to ask, is there any significant difference between Agfa HDR-C Plus and Fuji UM-MA HC?
They are both single-sided mammography films available to me in the 30x40 format, Fuji is a little more expensive.

Thanks.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

In the past 5 years, the Agfa prices for mammography films have increased incrementally, while the Fuji prices have almost tripled…

It used to be that the Fuji was the cheaper choice…

However, I just checked roentgenexpress.de and saw that the UM-MA went 55% up since the beginning of August (this August!)…

In any case, I have used both of them with the RO9 version of Rodinal (though I did use the older HDR version of the Agfa), and they are comparable, both in speed and in achievable gammas.

I did have some issues with pinholes with the HDR, but that was years ago, and it could have more to do with my processing (at the time) rather than the film, but I thought it's worth mentioning…

Also, the blue tint of the base comes out slightly duller/darker with the HDR, but that is not an issue, and it might have more to do with the specific developer…

By the way, I didn't know that it came in 30x40cm.
Would you consider sharing your source?

[glerin]

Thanks a lot for the info. Rodinal is my favorite developer, can I ask what speed you usually work with?
I noticed the increase in prices, I last searched before the summer, I should have ordered then.

ANd sorry, I was confused about the dimensions. I also looked at blue Agfa film in 30x40.

[Tin Can]

I usually cut large X-Ray down

to any size I want

I once cut a square sheet for Hasselblad

I had the special bits and a tiny Hasselblad film holder

Very sharp neg and print


of course

[James R. Kyle]

In the past 5 years, the Agfa prices for mammography films have increased incrementally, while the Fuji prices have almost tripled…

It used to be that the Fuji was the cheaper choice…

However, I just checked roentgenexpress.de and saw that the UM-MA went 55% up since the beginning of August (this August!)…

In any case, I have used both of them with the RO9 version of Rodinal (though I did use the older HDR version of the Agfa), and they are comparable, both in speed and in achievable gammas.

I did have some issues with pinholes with the HDR, but that was years ago, and it could have more to do with my processing (at the time) rather than the film, but I thought it's worth mentioning…

Also, the blue tint of the base comes out slightly duller/darker with the HDR, but that is not an issue, and it might have more to do with the specific developer…

By the way, I didn't know that it came in 30x40cm.
Would you consider sharing your source?

I buy from eBay...

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p3519243.m570.l1313&_nkw=Fuji+X-ray+film&_sacat=0

[James R. Kyle]

I usually cut large X-Ray down

to any size I want

I once cut a square sheet for Hasselblad

I had the special bits and a tiny Hasselblad film holder

Very sharp neg and print


of course

I have been "rolling" strips of X-ray film (Fuji ED-U) from the 14"X36" TRI-FOLD box of 25 sheets. I get 5 Spools of 120 and One 35mm strips from one sheet. I then roll these strips onto spools with Black Plastic "Leaders" taped to the ends. This works well in a medium format camera that has a Mechanical Counter,,,, However - NOT the older ones with a "little Red Window" on the back. For that, I have kept the Backing Papers from true films I have used / with the spools of course. Works well for me. Using ISO-50 to 100, Depending on the light given. (I use the 35mm "leftover" in a Kodak Bantum 828 camera. It will not work well in a SLR 35mm camera.)

[Tin Can]

I have an account long time

The are hiding it

They don't export

I don't export

I have enough for another life

Good Luck and Goodnight




14x36 in. Full Length Fuji X-Ray Film - Green HR-U
Be the first to review this product
$76.00
Ships in 24-48 Hours
SKU 14x36 Fuji Full Length
Disclaimer for Non-Returnable Options
Note that this film is Full Length and not Tri-Fold. This is a non-returnable item.
Qty
1
Add to Cart
Add to Quote
Add to Compare Share by email
14x36 Full Length Fuji Medical X-Ray film only available in Green Sensitive. 25 sheets per box.

Fuji Reference Number: 47410 13015

HR-U Medium Speed Green Film

Skip to the end of the images gallery
Skip to the beginning of the images gallery
We Recommend

[Andrew O'Neill]

14x17 double-sided, green latitude. Developed in XTol-R.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54123560022_1976bdf6e3_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2qsHoKY)Tree Canopy (https://flic.kr/p/2qsHoKY) by Andrew O'Neill (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62974341@N02/), on Flickr

[Philippe Grunchec]

14x17 double-sided, green latitude. Developed in XTol-R.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54123560022_1976bdf6e3_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2qsHoKY)Tree Canopy (https://flic.kr/p/2qsHoKY) by Andrew O'Neill (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62974341@N02/), on Flickr

14x17 negative?

[Andrew O'Neill]

14x17 negative?

Yes, it is.

[Ron McElroy]

14x17 double-sided, green latitude. Developed in XTol-R.

Andrew O'Neill[/url], on Flickr

Nice one Andrew

[Bernard_L]

On page #638, posting #6378, Tim Meisburger summarized a lot of information and wrote a "primer" for shooting with X-Ray film.

If you wish to stray beyond what he has summarized, then reading the entire thread and taking notes is about the best possible solution to see what others have done.

Useful info but... For the record. I found it, but Page 637 Post 6369

[Kino]

The page/post numbers have changed for unknown reasons (probably housekeeping issues) several times.

[Mike_E]

I rate it at 50, otherwise you don't get enough shadow detail, then I develop with gentle D23, sort of let the highlights take care of themselves, since I'm scanning, not printing. Know that since the film is not sensitive to red, i.e. warm colors, it won't "see" tungsten light as very strong at all. I don't know by how much. Adding two or even three stops might be a good idea.

This is my first xray shot. https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaeldarnton/14692136852/in/dateposted/ There's a complete explanation of what I did underneath. Eventually I switched to some very mild agitation about once a minute, that's the only change. I use hangers for development--you will find that the stuff has about the scratch-resistance of jello when it's wet. That particular photo was "scanned" by holding the hanger up to the sky and shooting the neg with my phone camera then running it through Photoshop.

Almost all of the photos in that particular Flickr group are shot on xray film.

Is that an Agfa-Ansco universal? I have one with the same shape brass front standard brace, you wouldn't by chance know the year range on yours?

Nice shots by the way.

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53806418713_95f2dbab6a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2pYFXGn)First Test of NPL 8x10 HRU 1000mm F32 18 pops Octobox (https://flic.kr/p/2pYFXGn) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

First test of Negative Lab Pro, a program which converts large format negatives (small ones too) into nice looking positives. This is 8x10 Fuji HRU XRAY Film, D23 replenished. Neg copied with Sony Nex-7 (36mp) with 50mm Zeiss F2.8 Touit, an AWESOME optic. Big learning curve ahead :)

[Andrew O'Neill]

Working with 14x17 and making a Salt print...


https://youtu.be/rYfTgfKzqPY

[Andrew O'Neill]

14x17 Carbon Transfer from XRAY...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54178157197_3ca3ff8aba_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2qxxdAz)St. Peter's, Monte Creek, BC (https://flic.kr/p/2qxxdAz) by Andrew O'Neill (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62974341@N02/), on Flickr

[Medvedev_Dop]

Too late, I now bought EV. But when I scratch together some money I will buy 2000 also.

I read about your research on MIN-R in this thread. thanks for the helpful information about the layers. I also use expired KODAk MIN-R s and Carestream Min-R s (as I understand it, it's the same thing +-). and I would like to know
how you develop this film?
at some point I realized that I had problems with the evenness of the development (I did tests with evenly exposured of the sheet / different methods of agitation / different developers / vertical development / stand) and still could not completely get rid of the unevenness of densitys.it looks like divorces/waves/turbulence. and changing the type of agitation - changes the "pattern" of unevenness. the film without test exposure is completely transparent after development.
my basic workflow: D-23 1:2 10m 20° flat-bottom tray, I lower the sheet with the primary emulsion up, for the first 30 seconds there is constant agitation, then clockwise N E S W at 5 seconds every 30 seconds.stop.fx.
...Maybe the sheet still needs to be turned over when developing, considering that there is an emulsion on the other side too..

[Andrew O'Neill]

Double-sided X-RAY does need to be flipped over in the developer when using flat-bottomed trays, in my experience.

[Eugen Mezei]

I also use D23 but diluted 1+3 and with less agitation (first half minute constant and than every 3 minutes a short shake).
You could try to use an oversized tray if you have turbulences. The thinking behind this is that in a narrow tray you have vawes reflecting from the walls of the tray.

[Medvedev_Dop]

I also use D23 but diluted 1+3 and with less agitation (first half minute constant and than every 3 minutes a short shake).
You could try to use an oversized tray if you have turbulences. The thinking behind this is that in a narrow tray you have vawes reflecting from the walls of the tray.

Do you pre-soak before developing? I do (in water), it washes off some kind of protective layer (anti-twisting?) with blue dye. If this is not done, the developer will take on a pink tint...

Upd.
ok, I took a 12x16 tray (my sheets 8x10)with glass (because there is no flat one of that size), pre-soaked sheet in water for 1 m, agitated in dev first 30 seconds and then gently once every 3 minutes. I moved a sheet that had slipped down the glass a couple of times (a horizontal stripe remained from the glass), 12 min in developer D-23 1+2. I slightly increased the contrast in PS. and yes, this is one of the best results, but the “crumpled pillow” effect is still there..
255646

[Eugen Mezei]

I do not presoak. Just slip it in 1+3 (one part developer diluted with 3 parts water) D23, gently but continuosly agitate the first 30 seconds. After that I rock the tray 2-3 times every 3 minutes and I develop very long but at very low temperatures. I also do not use a sheet of glass, just a plastic tray that has no ridges at the bottom. (It is a big white plastic tray, way oversized even for the biggest format I develop, the restaurant that is belov my apartment trow away. Has the advantage as being white and somewhat translucent I can shine red light from below.) I get even development but my intention is to change from tray to frames in a big tank. (I already bought the tank but being a women packed and shipped it, it get shattered in transport. I will try to glue it, will see if it will be usable. She also sent me the frames they did the developing of their X-ray films in their animal clinic but they pinch the film and I don't like that.)

Are you changing the direction of agitation?
Do you get this pattern also with other films?
How was the film stored? Can it be these are pressure marks?

[Medvedev_Dop]

Are you changing the direction of agitation?
Do you get this pattern also with other films?
How was the film stored? Can it be these are pressure marks?

in this session I did not change the direction because during my development, I swing the tray only 3 times (3m, 6m,9m) and swung it weakly by the lower right corner. the drawing changes every time and depends on the agitation, so (it seems to me ??) this is not related to storage...I have three boxes of X-ray films (kodak min-r s 2016exp, carestream min-r s 2022exp, SFM 2029). №3 is symmetrical double-sided film- I get even development in a flat tray, but №1 and №2 have absolutely identical results.I keep them in the refrigerator (not the freezer), how they were stored before me is not exactly known, but they were specialized sellers. and I would have given up this idea with an expired film a long time ago, but the fact that the drawing changes every time from agitation makes me hope that it is still possible to work with this film somehow...
I will attach below 3 photos from the last test

[Medvedev_Dop]

I will attach below 3 photos from the last test

1. flat-bottomed tray. the first 30 sec - agitation in different directions, every 3 minutes careful swaying by the lower right corner
2. flat-bottomed tray.everything is the same, but very weak agitation:the first 30 sec - agitation in different directions + turned the sheet over twice, every 3 minutes just shook the tray. I decided to do it, because it is written in the manual of Kodak min-r s that it is impossible to agitate during the development at all! and as I see it, as we approach to the stand-development, the clarity of this "crumpled pillow" increases and the density of the edge is leveled.
3.vertical tank.full stand-dev, only at the beginning shaking the hangers (as in the Kodak manual) in my DIY 3.5L vertical tank, and it is not coping at all.. it clearly lacks volume. ..

contrast increased in Ph.
D-23 1+2 12min 20°C
255662
255663

Okay, I'll try with an even bigger flat tray.... or even make an exhibition of prints with a "crumpled pillow", in general, it already looks interesting))):cool:;)

[landstrykere]

1. flat-bottomed tray. the first 30 sec - agitation in different directions, every 3 minutes

agitation must be much more frequent in order to refresh the developer on contact with emulsion as well as to avoid deposit in the emulsion of the byproducts of development.

[landstrykere]

there is one comment with POTA developed example in this long thread, in 2019:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-Use-of-X-ray-film-technical-discussion-with-example-images&p=1499931&viewfull=1#post1499931

last week on travel I bought two packs of Agfa CP-BU blue double-sided in 13x18cm/5x7". Had a flight before yesterday from Genève and there were very long lines, I didn't want to risk to miss the plane so went regular security gates, didn't bother to ask for separated inspection. Rays tunnels were of the small old kind anyway, typically doesn't affect regular film. Back home just to be sure I exposed a sheet. I mixed 300ml POTA with phenidone-A ie. the usual phenidone. As I had in the post phenidone-B (methyl-phenidone) bought in december, I mixed also 300ml POTA with this for another identical exposure. I took a quick shot of some bookshelf home, at iso 100, and developed in tray with a glass plate on bottom, under red light. Took out of POTA bath at 3'10", stop with water under the faucet and regular rapid fixer.

phenidone A and phenidone B:

256143

the book cover on the left is dark blue , on the right red:

256144


I didn't pay much caution to manipulation, yet tried to avoid scratchs.
These are 13x18 sheets but I shot in 12x16,5cm holder ie. 1/2-plate. So had to cut. I use a template for the 16,5cm cut then a roller cutter for the 12cm. Use regular office paper wrapped around the sheet as a protection. Seems to work. On the first photo let there's one defect, the other is good.

256145 256148 256149 256150256151

[Medvedev_Dop]

Yes, I always did this, until I discovered that I was getting uneven development directly related to the type and direction of agitation. I started trying different methods...
with active bi-directional agitation I got this:
256171

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've been using D-23 for a while now when developing X-RAY film. In a continuation from part 1, I compare D-23 stock, and various dilutions...



https://youtu.be/vQXWfuvPvo0

[James R. Kyle]

Do you pre-soak before developing? I do (in water), it washes off some kind of protective layer (anti-twisting?) with blue dye. If this is not done, the developer will take on a pink tint...

Upd.
ok, I took a 12x16 tray (my sheets 8x10)with glass (because there is no flat one of that size), pre-soaked sheet in water for 1 m, agitated in dev first 30 seconds and then gently once every 3 minutes. I moved a sheet that had slipped down the glass a couple of times (a horizontal stripe remained from the glass), 12 min in developer D-23 1+2. I slightly increased the contrast in PS. and yes, this is one of the best results, but the “crumpled pillow” effect is still there..
255646

I make my own developers - Here is one that I reformulated from the "ANSCO-30" developer for X-ray developing machines --- The original was way too strong. If you want a detailed PDF of my experiments with X-ray films - Please send a Private Message. (The PDF is free od any fees and charges.) Film used was Fuji HR-U @ 100 ISO... (I should have exposed these at 50 ISO.) Handheld R.B. Graflex 4X5.

=============

Here is the Ansco-30-JK reformulated “Tank Developer Stock Solution”

Water - at 120 Degrees F. -------------------750ml.
Metol --------------------------------------------------------- 3.0 Grams. (Reduced)
Sodium Sulfite ----------------------------------------- 70.0 G. (Increased)
Hydroquinone ------------------------------------------- 4.0 G. (Reduced)
Sodium Carbonate ------------------------------------ 20.0 G. (Reduced)
Potassium Bromide ------------------------------------- 5.5 G. (Increased)
Cold water to make a Full 1 liter of Solution. (STOCK solution.)

For a working solution --
Take One Part of this Stock to 24 Parts of Water. That is a 1:25 Ratio. (i.e.= 1 Oz. stock to 24 Oz. Water)
The times will vary with the temperature of the working solution, anywhere from four to seven minutes.
(20 Degrees C. = 6 minutes)

256188

[Corran]

Just opened up a box with two fresh bottles of Rodinal. It just works and I continue to suggest Rodinal for x-ray film, especially for new users. At 1:100 dilution it is as economical as can be.

[Medvedev_Dop]

I make my own developers ....

256188

Thank you so much for sharing your experience! I tried your recipe. Previously, I used developers without antifog agents (d-23, rodinal, x-tol). And I had a hope that it would help me... I did two tests for 6 minutes (agitation every 1min) and 12 minutes (adding 10 ml of 0.1% benzotriazole and reduced agitation every 2min). The unevenness of density is still there, but barely noticeable (slightly increased contrast in Ps). And yes, this is probably the best result for my film so far

256209

[Reinhold Schable]

...Judy on X-ray film
256645
An experiment to develop X-ray film using Dektol as an aggressive film developer~
~
the Film…Fujimedical green x-ray.
the Lighting… A diffused LED “shop light” off the left shoulder, ambient room light elsewhere.
the Lens & Camera…A 250mm f 2.3 Wollaston meniscus, on a 4x5 Tachihara.
the Metering… Incident light, ISO 320 (not the usual ISO 70 for Xray film).., f:11, @1/25 sec.
the Developer…A Dektol/glycin blend, @1+10 dilution, @ 3min, 65º,= extremely dense negative.
the Reducer… Kodak T-14a formula reduced the negative to totally ”clear” in 10 sec, (oops!).
~
…after rinsing the almost invisible negative I decided to continue on…
the Scanner…Epson V700…the Software: Affinity Photo 1.8.4… adjusted levels & contrast….
~
The strong grain pattern on the “soft focus” meniscus lens image is quite intriguing…
An ink-jet 8x10 test print shows promise despite my sloppy handling.
I’ll handle it more carefully next time…
~
Reinhold

https://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/reinventedphotoequip/Home.html

[Reinhold Schable]

...Judy on X-ray film 256645
An experiment to develop X-ray film using Dektol as an aggressive film developer~
~
the Film…Fujimedical green x-ray.
the Lighting… A diffused LED “shop light” off the left shoulder, ambient room light elsewhere.
the Lens & Camera…A 250mm f 2.3 Wollaston meniscus, on a 4x5 Tachihara.
the Metering… Incident light, ISO 320 (not the usual ISO 70 for Xray film).., f:11, @1/25 sec.
the Developer…A Dektol/glycin blend, @1+10 dilution, @ 3min, 65º,= an extremely dense negative.
the Reducer… Kodak T-14a formula reduced the negative to totally ”clear” in 10 sec, (oops!).
~
…after rinsing the almost invisible negative I decided to continue on…
the Scanner…Epson V700…the Software: Affinity Photo 1.8.4… adjusted levels & contrast….
~
The strong grain pattern on a “soft focus” meniscus lens image is quite intriguing…
An ink-jet 8x10 test print shows promise despite my sloppy handling.
I’ll handle it more carefully next time…
~
Reinhold

https://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/reinventedphotoequip/Home.html

[Andrew O'Neill]

8x10 (green HRU)
D-23 1+3


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54291853525_ee869c2869_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2qHzWy6)Pipe (https://flic.kr/p/2qHzWy6) by Andrew O'Neill (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62974341@N02/), on Flickr

[KevinAllan]

Is anybody using Carestream Industrex MX 125 industrial xray film? I believe it was originally a Kodak product.

If so, I'm interested to know what EI others are shooting at. I read somewhere that EI 100 was achievable but my limited experience has been that EI 25 is needed to get shadow detail.

I purchased the film with the intention of using it in an 8x10 pinhole camera, which has an aperture of f/375, as a faster alternative to paper negatives. However I'm finding that shooting paper negs at EI 6 (and no reciprocity failure adjustment) produces a shorter exposure time than shooting at EI 25 with a reciprocity adjustment based upon the Fomapan 100 reciprocity characteristics (which I adopted as a presumed worst case scenario).

Here's one of my better attempts.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54252774913_e9786b6e2c_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2qE8DQV)
St Annes Church, Battlefield, Newcastle (https://flic.kr/p/2qE8DQV) by Kevin Allan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/182246743@N07/), on Flickr

[Mdan]

Hi Randy,

Did you ever find a solution to this problem? I recently bought a case of 14x36 Fuji HR-U from ZZ and every photo I've gotten back has had this problem as well.

I'm using hc-110 dil h about 6 min moderate agitations

indicator stop bath

kodaks regular fixer - about 5 min

would love to know if you or anyone on this forum have any solutions258330

was shot on my Hasselblad 500cm


Thank you!

[BoatMan902]

Mdan, I used to get marks like that on HR-U when I developed with Rodinal. I switched to 510 Pyro and they went away.

[Corran]

Weird, I started with Rodinal and HR-U, and have never had those issues. Trying Pyrocat, I did have issues with various issues so abandoned that and went back to Rodinal, and have developed hundreds of sheets of HR-U with nothing like that ever. Not sure what other interactions could cause that - acidic / basic fixer? I've always used Ilford hypam.

The only developed I think I liked more was Acufine but it is too expensive to use with x-ray, for me.

[dave_whatever]

Is anybody using Carestream Industrex MX 125 industrial xray film? I believe it was originally a Kodak product.

If so, I'm interested to know what EI others are shooting at. I read somewhere that EI 100 was achievable but my limited experience has been that EI 25 is needed to get shadow detail.



Only just seen this post. I got hold of some Industrex DR50 last year, and shot a few test shots with it, developed in PQ Universal. I forget the outcome but it was slow, very slow. Glacial in fact. I may be misremembering but maybe like EI 1-3 sort of range. Maybe it would be better in a different developer, but it seemed like it was so slow as to be borderline unusable for me in practical terms, if it's slower than Multigrade paper negs there seemed to be little point in going to the bother of cutting it down. Based on this I'd be amazed if you can get EI 100 out of the MX125 stuff - I'd be trying that stuff at 6-12 sort of EI.

[bnxvs]

Hi Randy,

Did you ever find a solution to this problem? I recently bought a case of 14x36 Fuji HR-U from ZZ and every photo I've gotten back has had this problem as well.

I'm using hc-110 dil h about 6 min moderate agitations

indicator stop bath

kodaks regular fixer - about 5 min

would love to know if you or anyone on this forum have any solutions258330

was shot on my Hasselblad 500cm


Thank you!

If you are referring to the “black dots” all over the image field, these are the effects of using hydroquinone-phenidone aggressive developer. HR-U is particularly susceptible to this phenomenon, in my experience. I would suggest that you switch to methol developer (including methol-glycine).