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

[jon.oman]

I would like to thank all you folks, who posted here and nudged me to finally try it.. While it seems to be a bit easy to scratch Xray film turns out to be rather fun and easy(and cheap) way to expriment.. i am going to order me some blue one now (tried green) to see if i can get "old look" out of it ;)

8x10 green kodak (full one). 1+50 Rodinal, shot as iso 100, developed for 17 minutes with constant agitation in unidrum.
No stripping, pretty much straight scan.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8240/8532442143_2603c0778d_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8532442143/)
Joseph (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8532442143/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr


Wonderful image! Nice and sharp.

[jon.oman]

Few days ago i bought pack of Kodak green sensitive x-ray film to try LF ;)
This is my second LF shot.
Made with cartoon box camera and lens made with old large binocular objective.
120s@f/18. Developed in D76.
http://grzyboo.com/images/LF/_1040333_web.jpg

Great shot! Not bad for your second LF image!

[SergeiR]

Right.. tried suggested 7 minutes.. in 1+50..

(8x10 kodak full speed green xray, gundlach radar, studio lights and orange filter)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8517/8542158816_359656f9e6_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8542158816/)
Que in exit.. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8542158816/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[stradibarrius]

Sergei, you are getting excellent results with the x-ray film! Much better than some of the other examples I have seen. I may have to try it myself. Thanks for showing your work!!!

[jon.oman]

I cut four sheets of 4x5 inch film from one sheet of 8x10 inch x-ray film. I needed to see if I would get any scratches in the cut film. Well, I am happy to say that I did not! I wanted to use the cut down film with my Shen-Hao 4x5 field camera. Anyway, here are the test images:

#1
http://www.gophotog.org/allphotos/film/medium_photos/OakTree01.jpg
#2
http://www.gophotog.org/allphotos/film/medium_photos/OakTree02.jpg
#3
http://www.gophotog.org/allphotos/film/medium_photos/LongBridge.jpg
#4
http://www.gophotog.org/allphotos/film/medium_photos/ShortBridge.jpg

The exposures were about 1/15th of a second at f16. I used my 135mm Nikkor lens.
These were processed in full strength D76, for 7 minutes and 15 seconds at 64 degrees F.

[SergeiR]

Love first one, Jon. Very nice.

[jon.oman]

Love first one, Jon. Very nice.

Thanks!

[Tav Walraven]

jon..

Which x-ray film were you using for the 4 shots?

[jon.oman]

jon..

Which x-ray film were you using for the 4 shots?

I used: CXS Green Latitude Film by Agfa
Found here: http://www.cxsonline.com/text/detailpage.tmpl?command=showpage&sn=15468&sku=CXSGL316GF&cart=13575019591844774&location=10011003

Problem is, it is only in 14x17 inch size now, no 8x10.

They do have a 'green ortho' film in 8x10, but I have not tried it.

[Peter De Smidt]

Sergei, that's really first rate work!

I have some Fuji Green, and I'll have to get off of my duff and give it a try.

[SergeiR]

8x10 Xray film, gundlach radar

This was actual project for which i got this film to exeriment with . Had to play with scanning a bit to get it just right.


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8104/8547491424_2a3069d13f_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8547491424/)
Scan-130310-0005www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8547491424/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

5 minutes in 1+50 roldinal, constant agitation by unidrum. More i work with that film in studio - more impressed i am with possibilities.. Specially considering that single frame cost just as much as single frame on 6x6 rolleiflex :)

here is more "normal" one. Straight scan.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8249/8546394551_cb02f2e2c7_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8546394551/)
Scan-130310-0004www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8546394551/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[photoevangelist]

That first image looks weird. Is that something I should expect from this x-ray film? or scans of this film? The second image is very beautiful, however.

[SergeiR]

That first image looks weird. Is that something I should expect from this x-ray film? or scans of this film? The second image is very beautiful, however.

First image is specific to style of personal project that i am working on. It is not intended to sell you on shooting xray film, i assure you :)

[photoevangelist]

Well, I got my holders in the mail the other day. I had some time to try xray film. I'm using Fuji HR-A, which I can only find information on in Korean. Anyways, I tried the ISO 25, 50, 100, and 200 developed for 7 min at 20 degrees C. I tried Xtonol (XTOL + Rodinal), a combo I've been itching to try. Constant agitation in a tray for first minute and two lifts on one corner every 15 seconds and changing corners. I then contact printed on Ilford multigrade RC paper, no filter. It's really contrasty, but ISO 200 looks the best. Maybe I should do a more dilute developer (e.g. Rodinal 1:200), reduce my times, or try printing with #0 filter. I mixed XTOL 1:2 total 1500ml + 15ml Rodinal. I'll try to do scans tomorrow, but I'd really like to do good contact prints since that's my end game for a proposed project.

Oh yeah, I'm trying Jim's KISS advice by not stripping the back.

[photoevangelist]

As to Jim's request, a darkroom print:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8510/8552510775_9a10ed6d92_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8552510775/)
Fuji HT-A Test with Xtonal (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8552510775/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

8x10 Korona, 210 Schneider Symmar-S
Fuji HT-A @ ISO 200

Pre-wash 4 min
Developed in Xtonal (XTOL 1:2 + Rodinal 1:100), 7 min (tray developed), 20 degrees C
Kodak Stop Bath 1:30 min
Ilford Hypam 1:4, 4 min
Water Wash 30 min.
Photoflo

Contact Printed on Ilford Multigrade RC with no filter, scanned with no sharpening or adjustments in Photoshop.

[Randy]

Lee, did you have any problem with scratches? I am plagued with them in my processing and am probably going to have to resort to processing one sheet at a time with tray processing. I had not heard of the agitation method you mentioned - raising and alternating corners. I usually process 4-6 sheets at a time pulling the bottom sheet out and laying it on top. Scratch city! BTW, I have gotten very good sharpness from my scans and have not striped the back side of any negs.

[photozz]

Hi gang, I'm just getting back into film and picked up a quarter plate Graflex and a generic 4x5 rail. I want to start with xray film just to get used to the gear again.

For anyone that is cutting your film down, are there any tips for getting good cuts without scratching? Are you just using a scissors, or a blade cutter of some kind?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Randy, flat-bottomed trays work well. I've even developed 14x17 sheets in them with no scratches. I agitate by alternately lifting the 4 sides of the tray, every minute.
photozz, I've used scissors with no problem. I quarter up the sheet with a fine-tipped marker first.

[ShawnHoke]

Lee, did you have any problem with scratches? I am plagued with them in my processing and am probably going to have to resort to processing one sheet at a time with tray processing. I had not heard of the agitation method you mentioned - raising and alternating corners. I usually process 4-6 sheets at a time pulling the bottom sheet out and laying it on top. Scratch city! BTW, I have gotten very good sharpness from my scans and have not striped the back side of any negs.

Randy, processing more than one sheet at a time is indeed Scratch City. Even when you think you are being careful! One at a time in flat-bottomed tray with the rocking the four corners of the tray method works really well.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Remember, when dealing with film, any film you have to be careful. Now with x-ray film you have emulsion on both sides so you have to be even more careful. It is interesting that some of you have cut down the film to other sizes so congratson that. Once you learn this stuff it makes it one more tool to use. Pleaselet me remind everyone to show as many "prints" as you can because in my mind at least it is the final presentation that counts. Thanks all.

[photoevangelist]

Lee, did you have any problem with scratches? I am plagued with them in my processing and am probably going to have to resort to processing one sheet at a time with tray processing. I had not heard of the agitation method you mentioned - raising and alternating corners. I usually process 4-6 sheets at a time pulling the bottom sheet out and laying it on top. Scratch city! BTW, I have gotten very good sharpness from my scans and have not striped the back side of any negs.

Jim suggests two approaches. 8x10 stainless steel tank/hanger method or single image in a flat bottomed tray. I don't have a flat tray. Cesco makes them. But the remaining photo supply stores in South Korea only seem to offer trays with bumps in the bottom. I'm looking into alternatives, but most plastic tupperwares have a single 1 cm round bump in the middle. A TA recommended stainless steel cooking trays, but they're about $17-20 for an 8x10ish tray. I might just pay the shipping and order a few trays from freestyle photo with some other goods. In the meantime, I'm using 8x10 contact glass in the bottom if the trays. I'm waisting chemistry though. For one sheet, I have to use 1500 ml. So I cheated and processed two negatives (one at a time) in the chemistry before remixing.

The agitation method: not sure where I got it from perhaps a mix of sources. I wanted to make sure it was even development. Perhaps doing all four corners at the 1 min mark would be sufficient. I may have taken the PMK pyro advice and done one corner per 15 seconds. I've seen to have heard it say that it's not so much the process or agitation but the consistency that matters. It's the nature of the film, but the negatives are a bit contrasty for my tastes. I might try a test with shorter times and let the 7min developing time be my N+ development.

[Andrew O'Neill]

When using hangers, try not to pull the frame all the way out of the developer, otherwise you will end up with surge marks. I gave up on hangers for this reason and for the excessive amount of developing solutions required.
If you don't have flat-bottomed trays, place a sheet of plexi-glass in the bottom of the tray. I've done that for 14x17 before I found flat-bottomed trays.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I've used Pyrocat HD for all of my work. 1:1:100 dilution. 8x10's in tanks, 1 gallon four at at time and have never had surge marks. I presoak develop and stop and fix as I do for my regular film. I don't yank the holders up but a nice steady up, tilt down movement. As others have said for ULF one at a time in a tray. With a gallon of developer that I mix from scratch I find that I can develop 12 sheets of 8x10 per run. X-ray film develops in most anything and find the best that works for your method and stick with it.

[photoevangelist]

I've used Pyrocat HD for all of my work. 1:1:100 dilution. 8x10's in tanks, 1 gallon four at at time and have never had surge marks. I presoak develop and stop and fix as I do for my regular film. I don't yank the holders up but a nice steady up, tilt down movement. As others have said for ULF one at a time in a tray. With a gallon of developer that I mix from scratch I find that I can develop 12 sheets of 8x10 per run. X-ray film develops in most anything and find the best that works for your method and stick with it.

That's good information. I figured for my EI test, I might be able to develop all 4 of my negatives in the same mixed developer but wasn't sure so only did 2 - being a test and all. I figured after I figured my EI and times I could try developing more negatives in the solution to find my limitations.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I guess I just have more patience than most...or no social life :)

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I guess I just have more patience than most...or no social life :)

Andrew, I agree! With my better half teaching English in Timor Leste till the end of the year I have time to build cameras and add comments when I can. Patience is one of those things that carbon printers and camera builders must have or it does not work at all.
When I develop ULF sheets what is the rush. One at a time and you are done at some point. It is always the end result that counts.

[Randy]

As for processing one sheet at a time in flat bottom trays - Do you place the film in the tray with the exposure side facing up, or does it really matter?

Since most X-ray films (all that I have used) have emulsion on both sides, with this method I am guessing both sides develop evenly as long as sufficient agitation is employed. With that assumption, since one side of the film is against (slightly coming in contact with) the flat bottom of the tray, and yet it develops as evenly as the top side of the film, could you not develop more than one sheet at a time by using the same method of agitation? Could you not develop 3-4 sheets at a time?

Randy, why do you ask? Because processing one sheet at a time goes against every fiber of my being. I have the patience of a 2 year old.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Randy, when I do my ULF sheets one at a timeI make sure that I have a gallon of developer in my 16x20 tray. Now I'm doing 11x14, 8x20 or 14x17 so it is a good idea to use enough developer. If you are shooting ULF you HAVE to have patience. If you are shooting 8x10, trust me when I tell you that tanks are the way to go. Gallon tanks and four sheets at a time and you are done very quickly. I did twelve sheets last night. Remember 6 minute develop times. With the red light on you judge the development.Piece of cake. So tanks are for those with little patience. I have patience..... but I'm no doctor. Sorry could not resist!

[SergeiR]

but I'm no doctor

"you patient be patient..
no doctor - keep warm, call ambulance.." (c)

btw, i tried 5 minutes for Rodinal 1+50.. seems to work quite well @ iso 100 or so (constant agitation)

[Andrew O'Neill]

Randy, I place the sheet in the tray with the exposure side (the side that was facing the lens) facing up.

Anybody want some 8x10 hangers?

[SergeiR]

Anybody want some 8x10 hangers?
i could use some :)

[C. D. Keth]

Anybody want some 8x10 hangers?

Yes, actually. I've been keeping my eye out for some.

[photoevangelist]

Randy, I place the sheet in the tray with the exposure side (the side that was facing the lens) facing up.

Anybody want some 8x10 hangers?

Yes! I have a WTB thread on the For Sale area.

[Jody_S]

91292
Again on Fuji HR-T rated 160, but I've switched to Ilfotec DD at 1:31 in drum, constant agitation for 3-1/2 mins. Taken with 9-1/2" Dagor @f22.

Here's a detail scanned at 2400dpi, actual pixels (I need a new scanner!):
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a8/Kingsmeg/scan0008_zps1b20067c.jpg

[photoevangelist]

91292
Again on Fuji HR-T rated 160, but I've switched to Ilfotec DD at 1:31 in drum, constant agitation for 3-1/2 mins. Taken with 9-1/2" Dagor @f22.

Here's a detail scanned at 2400dpi, actual pixels (I need a new scanner!):
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a8/Kingsmeg/scan0008_zps1b20067c.jpg

Nice are you stripping the negatives? Wondering how you'd do this without any scratches.

[Corran]

Here's an old image, re-scanned properly since I didn't have a working scanner at the time and just did a contact print and posted that. Thinking about printing this one pretty big (40x32) for a competition/gallery show coming up.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sXKcIeeleqo/UUKgeGdARhI/AAAAAAAADGQ/dTA2_EPelXU/s1600/1test-0050_stitch-20x24.jpg

Fuji HR-T, ISO 50, Rodinal 1:100, stripped.

[photoevangelist]

Here's an old image, re-scanned properly since I didn't have a working scanner at the time and just did a contact print and posted that. Thinking about printing this one pretty big (40x32) for a competition/gallery show coming up.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sXKcIeeleqo/UUKgeGdARhI/AAAAAAAADGQ/dTA2_EPelXU/s1600/1test-0050_stitch-20x24.jpg

Fuji HR-T, ISO 50, Rodinal 1:100, stripped.

Hot damn! (Pardon my French) That's gorgeous! I'd love to see the enlargement!

[photoevangelist]

I've got to get out of my office chair and go process some xray film that I took yesterday evening. More tests, but some students saw me and I offered to take a quick "snapshot" of them with the camera. I'll post it, if it looks decent.

Going to just try Rodinal 1:100 today at 6 min.

[Jody_S]

Nice are you stripping the negatives? Wondering how you'd do this without any scratches.

Yes, I'm stripping. Not particularly well, as you can see from the dark spots on the bottom of the photo. I place the neg good side-down on clean dry glass, and rub the rear with a kitchen sponge with pure bleach. The dark spots are because if the glass isn't 100% dry (say, because I've just stripped another neg and haven't dried it completely), some of the bleach gets sucked onto the emulsion of the good side by capillary action. I'm experimenting with different ways of fixing the film while I strip, as any motion at all greatly accelerates the leaching onto the good side. So far my best method involves putting a few drops of water in the center of the glass before laying the film on top. Tape is time-consuming and doesn't allow a quick wash if the bleach goes somewhere it's not supposed to. I keep the faucet running just in case.

This does mean washing and hanging to dry twice, once after dev. and once after stripping. I'm getting better with scratches, the good side is protected in the drum and the scratches to the back side come off with the emulsion. Same for trays, if I develop good side-up, any scratches to the bottom from rubbing the tray (!) come off when I strip.

[andreios]

Here's an old image, re-scanned properly since I didn't have a working scanner at the time and just did a contact print and posted that. Thinking about printing this one pretty big (40x32) for a competition/gallery show coming up.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sXKcIeeleqo/UUKgeGdARhI/AAAAAAAADGQ/dTA2_EPelXU/s1600/1test-0050_stitch-20x24.jpg

Fuji HR-T, ISO 50, Rodinal 1:100, stripped.

Corran, this looks almost like IR film to my eye. What colour is this film sensitive to? Did you use any filtration?
Magnificent image to my eye - good luck with the competition!

Thanks!

[photoevangelist]

Well, I've controlled my contrast, perhaps a little too much?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8110/8559656678_f6898776fd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8559656678/)
2013 Photography Major Freshmen (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8559656678/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8391/8558548087_efe887ec9e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8558548087/)
Photographers Photographing Photographer (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8558548087/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Korona 8x10, Schneider Symmar-S 210
Fuji HT-A (High Speed Green Sensitive X-Ray) @ ISO 200 (negative not stripped)
Rodinal 1:100, 6 min 20 C (Tray Developed)
Ilford Multigrade RC Contact Print, no filter

[SergeiR]

Here's an old image, re-scanned properly since I didn't have a working scanner at the time and just did a contact print and posted that. Thinking about printing this one pretty big (40x32) for a competition/gallery show coming up.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sXKcIeeleqo/UUKgeGdARhI/AAAAAAAADGQ/dTA2_EPelXU/s1600/1test-0050_stitch-20x24.jpg

Fuji HR-T, ISO 50, Rodinal 1:100, stripped.

Love it. Very nicely done both compositionally and technically

[Randy]

This does mean washing and hanging to dry twice, once after dev. and once after stripping.Jody, any particular reason for not stripping at some point just after fixing? I haven't done any stripping yet myself...well...I have stripped myself...before...just not any X-ray film...I mean, I'm not against stripping...just not while stripping...stripping after stripping is OK, but not before stripping...but you guys do what ever you want in the privacy of your darkroom...

[Corran]

Thank you Lee, andreios, and Sergei! The light-colored foliage is due to the green sensitivity.

I am re-evaluating my old negs with my new scanner. I have been underexposing the film I think.

[Corran]

And Lee, those shots look good!

[Peter Lewin]

Evangeslist: I like that pair of photographs, a great example where the idea, and the two pictures, are stronger than either individual image. Personally, the contrast looks fine on my (uncalibrated) monitor, but then at least two of the people who taught me how to print leaned towards the low-contrast edge of things.

[photoevangelist]

Thank you Lee, andreios, and Sergei! The light-colored foliage is due to the green sensitivity.

I am re-evaluating my old negs with my new scanner. I have been underexposing the film I think.

My foliage doesn't look like that at all with the high speed green sensitive HR-A film. They're evergreens so maybe when it warms up I can get this look with the other trees. I think the ISO of my film is around 160. I might start shooting at 160 and play with different developing times now.

[ShawnHoke]

Thank you Lee, andreios, and Sergei! The light-colored foliage is due to the green sensitivity.

I am re-evaluating my old negs with my new scanner. I have been underexposing the film I think.

Man, Corran that is gorgeous. Can't wait to try mine out in the park this Spring.

[photoevangelist]

Evangeslist: I like that pair of photographs, a great example where the idea, and the two pictures, are stronger than either individual image. Personally, the contrast looks fine on my (uncalibrated) monitor, but then at least two of the people who taught me how to print leaned towards the low-contrast edge of things.

Thanks Peter. These weren't planned. They were more like snap shots. I was shooting something else because the light was gorgeous. It went away before I could shoot it. The students saw me and I offered to get their portrait. The movements were all messed up because the lensboard tilt is broken. I was really happy when this image developed. 8x10 is awesome! And just saying I shoot xray film is fun too. I feel like I'm doing 8x10 Lomo or something.

[Corran]

Well down here all of the pines and cypress must be right in the area of greatest spectral sensitivity as they are always bright white like that. I am going to try one of these days shooting at ISO 25 and developing in Rodinal 1:200. This was something I think Holden talked about, to compress the tonal range so much that the high values from the green trees became more normal, or something like that. I like the look sometimes but other times it's a bit much.

Also, dense areas on the negative were really grainy with my old scanner with this film. Not so with my new scanner so I feel more comfortable giving it more exposure.

Thanks Shawn. I'm still learning this film though. Luckily I have 3 boxes in reserve! I need to get back into it, I haven't shot 8x10 in months.

[photoevangelist]

If I can't get that look with the HR-A film available here, I'll put an order for 3 boxes of the HR-T.

[Corran]

Maybe we can trade! I like the look you got, and a 200 speed film to boot!!

[photoevangelist]

Maybe we can trade! I like the look you got, and a 200 speed film to boot!!

Good idear! I have to admit, I've been really proud of myself for finding my own developing times and the correct speed of this emulsion. It's a lot of work doing one negative at a time in a tray. Six negatives took about 5 hours. Our water heater is broken and the tap water is around 12 degrees Celsius. I have to do 10 water washes with water from our drinking water filter that has hot and cold filtered water. I use all the water up and have to wait for the filter to make more hot water. Haha.

[Jody_S]

Jody, any particular reason for not stripping at some point just after fixing? I haven't done any stripping yet myself...well...I have stripped myself...before...just not any X-ray film...I mean, I'm not against stripping...just not while stripping...stripping after stripping is OK, but not before stripping...but you guys do what ever you want in the privacy of your darkroom...

Yes. If the film is wet, by capillary action it sucks the bleach onto the good surface. I don't know, perhaps if I had a waterproof tape I could do this while it's still wet, but so far just a hint of humidity is enough to get large incursions of bleach onto the good side, ruining my borders. I should try it some day, if the film is soaking wet perhaps there will be an equilibrium between the liquids and I won't get so much migration. Or perhaps I'm deluding myself thinking that might work.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Strip film when it is dry. Too risky when wet.

[Corran]

I strip while still wet. But I dilute my bleach 1:1 with water. That really seemed to do the trick - I don't even bother taping the film down any more. I do rinse the film several times while stripping it to wash off the bleach and emulsion that has dissolved.

[rdelung]

Hay Bryan, I was just wondering. What is your new scanner? I have a new un-opened box of Green X-Ray film, and I would like to scan the finished product. I can only scan 4x5's at this time. So I'm in the market for something that will work well with the 8x10. Thanks, R.Delung Seattle Wa.

[Peter De Smidt]

He has a Screen Cezanne.

[Corran]

Yep, that's correct. There aren't a whole lotta choices for scanning 8x10 without a lot of hassle - might want to check out the Epson V700 or Microtek M1 to start with. I've used both, they can both make decent scans, but the Cezanne is in a whole other league.

[SergeiR]

8x10 CSG (kodak full speed green). 12 minutes in 1+60 Rodinal (yes, i know.. not standard dillution, big whoop ;)).
Orange filter on Gundlach Radar 8x10. f8, i believe ( i shot for couple hours, and i have nasty habit of not recording things for real.. but most of session was metered around 11-16, and filter eats out about 2).

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8392/8563096315_39946bbef3_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8563096315/)
Liliya (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8563096315/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Raffay]

Is it possible to use X-ray film in 4x5. I have not seen it in 4x5 size. Also, I have seen people talking about green film, are there any particular types and also what does it mean when you say strip film?

Cheers
Raffay

[Petzval Paul]

Beautiful, Sergei! My favorite so far on this thread.

[SergeiR]

Beautiful, Sergei! My favorite so far on this thread.
thank you :)

[joselsgil]

Is it possible to use X-ray film in 4x5. I have not seen it in 4x5 size. Also, I have seen people talking about green film, are there any particular types and also what does it mean when you say strip film?

Cheers
Raffay

Raffay,

You can cut an 8X10" sheet of film into 4-4x5 sheets of film. Or buy some 5x7" film and cut it down to 4X5". Since you can work under a RED-safety light, at least you can see what you are doing.
You just have to be careful not to scratch the film.

There are several types of X-ray film. Green or Blue sensitive film and some are full speed or half speed. You will just need to play with the film and developers. There is a thread on this subject, on the forum that will give you hours of reading and viewing information :)

I have used Agfa half speed green sensitive film with mixed results. I rated the film at ISO 80 and tray developed in Pyro PMK. Unfortunately, I developed the film under very cold conditions and that may have contributed to the mixed results :(

Since X-ray film has emulsion on both side. One technique is to bleach one side of the developed sheet of film, after it has been developed and fixed. Like I said, you will need to play with this film. One good thing about the film, is that it is still inexpensive compared to panchromatic film.

Try and see if you can purchase film in Islamabad, from the same source as the local hospitals. You don't want to purchase film abroad and have it x-ray scanned by customs when it enters Pakistan as some scanners are very powerful and will expose the film for you.

Good luck,

Jose

[Jody_S]

Raffay,

You can cut an 8X10" sheet of film into 4-4x5 sheets of film. Or buy some 5x7" film and cut it down to 4X5". Since you can work under a RED-safety light, at least you can see what you are doing.
You just have to be careful not to scratch the film.



I have done this a few times, scratches aren't such a problem. The film is relatively normal when dry, it's when the film is wet that even the slightest contact with something edged, like the borders of another sheet of film, will cause horrible scratching. Developing in a 4x5 tank was relatively easy (FR-style), because the film is loaded dry, and can be washed in the same holders. So it is only removed to hang, and you have to be a bit of a screw-up to scratch the film while hanging it up to dry. I've done it, but only because I was screwing up.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I put these in the flower thread but felt I should show them here as well. Both are shot on Blue x-ray @ 50, half speed BTW, developed in Pyrocat-HD 1;1:100 for 6 minutes and printed in carbon. Scans of the prints and not the negatives.

[jon.oman]

Lovely images Jim!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Very nice, Jim. Nice colour, too.

[rdelung]

Great shot. With the Rodinal at 1:60 for 12 min. What was your developer temp? I'm a x-ray film newbie, just gathering notes.
Thanks, RWDelung

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Thanks everyone. Andrew my own blend of pigments.

[photoevangelist]

8x10 CSG (kodak full speed green). 12 minutes in 1+60 Rodinal (yes, i know.. not standard dillution, big whoop ;)).
Orange filter on Gundlach Radar 8x10. f8, i believe ( i shot for couple hours, and i have nasty habit of not recording things for real.. but most of session was metered around 11-16, and filter eats out about 2).

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8392/8563096315_39946bbef3_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8563096315/)
Liliya (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8563096315/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

Breathtaking! I'm speechless.

Speaking of non-standard dilutions for Rodinal. I came across some notes from when I was a photography student that are over 15 years old. My professor taught us that Rodinal 1:100 was multi-purpose, and 1:31 was high-acutance. Curious where he got the dilution 1:31. 1:25, 1:50, and 1:100, I've noticed, are the most popular. (Not meaning to get off topic too much here).

[photoevangelist]

I put these in the flower thread but felt I should show them here as well. Both are shot on Blue x-ray @ 50, half speed BTW, developed in Pyrocat-HD 1;1:100 for 6 minutes and printed in carbon. Scans of the prints and not the negatives.

These are really nice, Jim! People should note, you don't strip your negatives.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Lee this is correct. No stripping here. I print through it with the 1,000watt NuArc.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Neither do I. As I've said before, you cannot maintain a sufficient density range to print in carbon transfer or kallitype, for that matter. Stripping literally cuts the negatives DR in half. Even if you greatly extend the development (and there is a limit to this), it is still not enough. Of course, stripping is perfectly fine for silver printing.

[SergeiR]

I tried to strip couple for scanning... and quite honestly - didnt do much for me, apart from time wasted.. so meh.. I am sticking with fully clothed version too.

[Leszek Vogt]

Sergei, excellente work. You got the development down alright..not to mention light, etc.

Les

[SergeiR]

Sergei, excellente work. You got the development down alright..not to mention light, etc.

Les

Thanks. However i need to get it better, i think.

I feel like i always underexpose it while shooting and then missing certain something, b/c when i scan - i see that i need to pull brightness a bit.
Underexposing helps caucasian skin tones, but i need to do some outdoors experimenting to see how it behaves without flashes & etc - i actually have few sheets done on Sunday, just didnt get to them yet..
And i still want to get back to 1+100 or even 1+200 rodinal to full exhaustion.. Gonna experiment more :)

[photoevangelist]

FYI: I just received a copy of Ansel Adams' The Negative today. I started reading and he goes into some detail about blue sensitive films and orthochromatic (green and blue) film. Pages 21-25. I thought it was cool. I couldn't help but think about the xray films we're using today.

[photoevangelist]

Sergei, how does the orange filter benefit your xray images? If green sensitive xray is orthochromatic (green and blue sensitive), according to Ansel Adams (The Negative, pg 112) red and orange filters are not useful with this base.

He says however, yellow, green, and blue filters can be used for contrast effects.

[SergeiR]

Sergei, how does the orange filter benefit your xray images? If green sensitive xray is orthochromatic (green and blue sensitive), according to Ansel Adams (The Negative, pg 112) red and orange filters are not useful with this base.

He says however, yellow, green, and blue filters can be used for contrast effects.

Honestly saying.. i just was too lazy, b/c i had some other b&w film in other holders and taping and untaping filter (its prewar lens, bent front, so i cant screw them on) was just a bit too irritating.
However, one would think that it still should help a bit with evening tones out. Green is another thing to do, got that one too - gonna try it this week both ways, to see which one i like better.

[ShawnHoke]

Honestly saying.. i just was too lazy, b/c i had some other b&w film in other holders and taping and untaping filter (its prewar lens, bent front, so i cant screw them on) was just a bit too irritating.
However, one would think that it still should help a bit with evening tones out. Green is another thing to do, got that one too - gonna try it this week both ways, to see which one i like better.

Am glad someone asked this. I have a dark orange filter that I want to use for outdoor shots with sky, but was wondering how it would look with green-sensitive X-ray film. I'll find out once Spring finally hits.

[ShawnHoke]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8093/8571078113_6a14b7a3e8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/shawnhoke/8571078113/)
Ranunculus Flowers, 8x10 X-Ray Film (http://www.flickr.com/photos/shawnhoke/8571078113/) by Shawn Hoke (http://www.flickr.com/people/shawnhoke/), on Flickr

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's beautiful, Shawn.

I did some testing with filters on green xray film somewhere on the original xray thread (could this thread not be combined with that one... Moderators? just a thought).

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-X-ray-Film-example-and-comparison/page40&highlight=xray

I tested with a #8, 12, and 15 yellow (wratten), #11, All worked well. My favourites were the yellows and light greens. I tried a #25 for the hell of it and got exactly what I expected... blank film. Never tried light orange filters... It is possible to get cloud and sky separation with a yellow filter, but you will never get the same results as you can with good old pan films.

I believe I posted this in one of the xray threads. I exposed the film with a yellow filter, but can't remember which one...

[SergeiR]

That's beautiful, Shawn.

I did some testing with filters on green xray film somewhere on the original xray thread (could this thread not be combined with that one... Moderators? just a thought).

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-X-ray-Film-example-and-comparison/page40&highlight=xray

I tested with a #8, 12, and 15 yellow (wratten), #11, All worked well. My favourites were the yellows and light greens. I tried a #25 for the hell of it and got exactly what I expected... blank film. Never tried light orange filters... It is possible to get cloud and sky separation with a yellow filter, but you will never get the same results as you can with good old pan films.

I believe I posted this in one of the xray threads. I exposed the film with a yellow filter, but can't remember which one...


Aha! Thank you for the info! :) (nice shot btw)

[ShawnHoke]

That's beautiful, Shawn.

I did some testing with filters on green xray film somewhere on the original xray thread (could this thread not be combined with that one... Moderators? just a thought).

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-X-ray-Film-example-and-comparison/page40&highlight=xray

I tested with a #8, 12, and 15 yellow (wratten), #11, All worked well. My favourites were the yellows and light greens. I tried a #25 for the hell of it and got exactly what I expected... blank film. Never tried light orange filters... It is possible to get cloud and sky separation with a yellow filter, but you will never get the same results as you can with good old pan films.

I believe I posted this in one of the xray threads. I exposed the film with a yellow filter, but can't remember which one...

Thanks! That looks great and still has the light colored leaves. Might have to pick up a yellow filter. Mine is a dark orange #21, so am worried that it might give me nada like the #25.

[photoevangelist]

Thanks! That looks great and still has the light colored leaves. Might have to pick up a yellow filter. Mine is a dark orange #21, so am worried that it might give me nada like the #25.

Depends on what it transmits. According to Ansel, none of the colored filters affects the image on blue sensitive films, similar to orange (according to Ansel) on the orthochromatic films at the time. The dark orange might still allow other colors to come through.

[photoevangelist]

I tried a yellow filter (tiffen 12) on my green xray film and it really killed the contrast and didn't do much for the sky as Andrew points out. I imagined darker clouds like with regular panchromatic films. Since I'm new to the xray film thing, I think I'm going to shoot with no filters (K.I.S.S) and get familiar with the film before trying other experiments. After I figure this out a bit, I might try experimenting again. I've been doing film/developer tests for a year with various emulsions and developers. Time to simplify with the variables I enjoy and get to know them better. :cool:

[ShawnHoke]

Yeah, this Spring I'll goof around in the park with some good greenery and a blue sky. Of course we just got more snow and ice yesterday. :)

[SergeiR]

Right. Back to images, gents ;)))

Symmar 300mm @f11, Kodak CSG 8x10, cropped (well it was "almost full figure" shot... ;) i need to get out of stupid habit of filling frame in to max.. )....
No filters. Exposed at iso 50 or 80 (kinda was fluid, hard to tell)

1+50 Rodinal, 7m

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8506/8577991491_024324c8e4_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8577991491/)
Voom! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8577991491/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Peter Mounier]

What a great fun shot!

[SergeiR]

What a great fun shot!

yup.. brilliant part about shooting X-ray - i can experiment more, b/c cost is far less :)

[photoevangelist]

Got some treats:
I did some camera tests in the studio. With the 12" Dagor (~300mm) used as a close up portrait lens, I have to have the bellows on the 8x10 Korona racked to almost full extension. I made 4 images. IMR, IMR +1, IMR +2, IMR +3, then souped IMR +3 and IMR +2 in Rodinal 1:100, for 6 min. IMR +3 has great exposure detail, but prefer the IMR +2 when contact printed with a #5 filter.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8236/8581120789_6dca9e7f86_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8581120789/)
Xray Portrait Test #08 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8581120789/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
8x10 Korona, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (high speed green sensitive xray) @160 (+2 stops for bellows extension), Rodinal 1:100, 6 min.

Ilford Multigrade RC, Dektol 1:2, #5 filter

[photoevangelist]

After I developed the IMR +3 and IMR +2, and found the exposure I liked I still had IMR +1 and IMR that I knew were underexposed. For the heck of it, I threw them in Dektol 1:2 (which I was preparing for my contact prints), to see if I could get any results - and boy did I!


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8252/8581121081_50efb0e894_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8581121081/)
Xray Portrait Test #06 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8581121081/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
8x10 Korona, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (high speed green sensitive xray) @160 (IMR), Dektol 1:2, 2 min (1 min agitation, pulled out at 2 min because with development by inspection, I could tell it was getting too dense).

Ilford Multigrade RC, Dektol 1:2, #4 filter

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8529/8582221664_899f20debe_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8582221664/)
Xray Portrait Test #01 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8582221664/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
8x10 Korona, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (high speed green sensitive xray) @160 (IMR), Dektol 1:2, 2 min (Stand Development).

Ilford Multigrade RC, Dektol 1:2, #4 filter

[photoevangelist]

I'm going to photograph all of my students (100+) with xray film to try to get them interested in: 1) film, 2) large format, and 3) darkroom work. I have an exhibition planned for the end of June and will be filling the gallery space with contact prints of the students printed on developer & toner mixes I make from scratch (Steve Anchell's The Darkroom Cookbook).

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Nice job, Lee. SeeI told you it was a good way to go. Some experimenting and you are there. Nice images and a good project. When I get back home I'll send you your gift.

[photoevangelist]

Jim, I'm still doing tray development in trays with ridges in them. I place an 8x10 sheet of glass on the bottom of my trays. I'd love to get the CESCO trays you recommended, but I'm going to try to get some stainless steel kitchen trays locally instead of ordering from the US. Any suggestions? I'd like to get the tank and hangars, but trying to hold back on buying more stuff from overseas. It took me 10 hours to process 10 negatives and contact print them. It's taking more of my time, but I've spent a lot on large format recently and need to slow down. Plus I've just about got this tray development down packed, if I add tank and hangars, I'd have to do another test to make sure my agitations would be similar. Haha. No more tests. I'm ready to shoot and produce work. I really like the Images developed in Dektol. It's giving me the look of a portrait I did with Adox Ortho 25 in Rodinal. The detail is stunning! I'm having problems with some uneven development in the Dektol maybe I should try a 1:3, 1:4, or 1:5 dilution for longer times, but I'm afraid I'll lose this look. Also considering Rodinal 1:25 and 1:50. Darn it! I just said no more tests.

I'm excited about your gift!

[SergeiR]

8x10 CSG, 300mm Symmar (old convertible), no filters :) Overcast.

7m , 1+50 Rodinal

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8530/8583814517_8706d04f36_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8583814517/)
Scan-130323-0005www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8583814517/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[SergeiR]

and one more, same

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8099/8583835981_19a2aa8d8e_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8583835981/)
Scan-130323-0006www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8583835981/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Bush]

May I ask you about what type of the yellow filter for brass lenses with more than 10cm diametter?
Xray without filter is so too much contrast for woman portrait.

[Joe Forks]

May I ask you about what type of the yellow filter for brass lenses with more than 10cm diametter?
Xray without filter is so too much contrast for woman portrait.

Hitech 6x6 or 165mm x 165mm. roughly $130 or $140

[Mark MacKenzie]

Please don't take this as criticism. The last few portraits and the flowers seem to have no detail in the shadows on my monitor. Could be my monitor. Do you all have detail on the neg? For instance in Voom, which is a very creative shot, Sergei, there is no detail in the hair. Had you given a couple of stops more would you get detail? Would you blow highlights?

Sergei, I think you have gotten the best sharpness out of this xray film. You still find it not as sharp as photo emulsions?
Thanks and congrats on the good work, all.

Mark

[Corran]

You can't tell apparent detail/sharpness from these tiny forum images.

I did some experiments recently with unstripped x-ray film. It is clearly softer with both emulsions, if that matters to anyone. A scan of each showed a pretty apparent difference.

[SergeiR]

Please don't take this as criticism. The last few portraits and the flowers seem to have no detail in the shadows on my monitor. Could be my monitor. Do you all have detail on the neg? For instance in Voom, which is a very creative shot, Sergei, there is no detail in the hair. Had you given a couple of stops more would you get detail? Would you blow highlights?

Sergei, I think you have gotten the best sharpness out of this xray film. You still find it not as sharp as photo emulsions?
Thanks and congrats on the good work, all.

Mark


Mark, i do follow Mortensen's school on the shadows - there is no point in having details there, unless something is lit. However - there is enough details there, i just pull that leg on curve a bit, as i prepare it for web. Sharpness wise.. I dont know. Way how i see it - its about as sharp as Arista, at least on scans i am getting. If i close f to 16/22 i have no issues with seeing every hair or every eyelash and bits of blood vessels in eyes.. However it might be a problem for people who need really really sharp bits in shots , like for non-pictorial landscapes & etc.

I will try to show unprocessed crop :)

[SergeiR]

There you go.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8094/8585976649_c6002a5ae2_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8585976649/)
c1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8585976649/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

8x10 CDG, Symmar 300mm, no filter, 7m in Rodinal 1+50 (i NEED to try 1+100)

IMHO - fairly sharp, i dont think i ever got anything better with same lens on 8x10 with same scanner.

[SergeiR]

8x10 kodak cdg, yellow-green keno (xo) filter. Overcast. Gundlach radar 8x10. Straight scan.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8587156362_476d018ab0_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8587156362/)
Masha (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8587156362/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[photoevangelist]

Please don't take this as criticism. The last few portraits and the flowers seem to have no detail in the shadows on my monitor. Could be my monitor. Do you all have detail on the neg? For instance in Voom, which is a very creative shot, Sergei, there is no detail in the hair. Had you given a couple of stops more would you get detail? Would you blow highlights?

Sergei, I think you have gotten the best sharpness out of this xray film. You still find it not as sharp as photo emulsions?
Thanks and congrats on the good work, all.

Mark

Mark, if you're referring to my portraits, I was going for a high contrast, single light source portrait- look. I'm a fan of the "Meet the Beatles" album cover look, though they are 1/2 moon type look and mine are more of a 3/4 moon look.

I also mentioned that these were test exposures. IMR, IMR +1, IMR +2, and IMR +3 (trying to figure out how much bellows extension I have to factor into exposure.

IMR +3 had crazy detail. I could see detailed reflection in the eyes, which is not very natural when looking into dark Asian eyes. Because of the extra exposure, the lighting becomes very flat and looses the mood I'm looking for in my contact prints. I didn't upload IMR +3.

IMR +2 renders more naturally what I saw with my eyes in the studio. There's enough detail in the shadows and hair. The image is so flat from using Rodinal 1:100, that I had to use a #5 filter to bring any contrast into the image. I uploaded this image here.

IMR +1 got messed up in the developer. I was trying to figure Dektol out. Since I determined that IMR +2 was the best exposure IMR +1 and IMR were already as good as trash to me. I just though "what the heck, let's put in Dektol and see what we get".

IMR gives incredible sharpness in Dektol. It makes the Rodinal look soft. Yes they are 3 stops underexposed, so ther is no detail in the shadows. But I love the looks I get with Dektol 1:2. The times are just so short it's scary. 1-2 min.

I've decided that since I'm going to be making around 100 of these type portraits, I'm going to continue with developer tests. I'll probably ask male and female students today.

Rodinal 1:100 is too flat for this work so I'm going to try Rodinal 1:25 and 1:50.
I've got some XTOL, might as well soup it up too. Might as well try Xtodinal again too.
I can also try Dektol 1:3, 1:4, and 1:5.
And I haven't tried Diafine yet.

That's 8 tests. But we'll worth it to figure out which look I want. Plus now I know, IMR + 3 is too extreme and IMR lacks the shadow detail. I'll just do IMR +2.

By the way, critiques and heavy criticism are welcome! If I didn't want criticism I wouldn't upload my tests here.

Lee

[photoevangelist]

8x10 kodak cdg, yellow-green keno (xo) filter. Overcast. Gundlach radar 8x10. Straight scan.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8587156362_476d018ab0_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8587156362/)
Masha (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8587156362/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

Someone should upload a test with different filters. I'm curious how they each see. Beautiful portrait again!

[Mark MacKenzie]

Hi Lee and Sergei,
Not trying to be critical; I am wondering about the response of the film. I do like the Meet the Beatles look, good work. Hats off to you both and Corran and all you guys. I have a box of the Fuji HR-T but only developed two sheets so far. I am wondering about Diafine with this film but it has been so grey in Tennessee that the sun hardly comes out. Both of your portraits show great detail. Anyway, thanks to all sharing their findings.

That portrait of Marsha is cool. Love the tree limbs' focus at the top. I assume this is Rodinal also?

Thanks,
Mark

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Mark, with any film and with x-ray film I can get the detail I need if I expose and develop it properly. If you are asking can you get all the detail in the print especially in the shadows then I can say speaking only for myself, yes. I have detail in the shadows that you can not see on anything I post on the web. YOu must see the carbon print and hold it in the light and you will understand that with x-ray film one can achieve similar results to traditional film. Now I don't worry about working for a scan because I'm all about the final print.
This is why I like to see posts of the final presentation and not negative scans. However you post it here please complete the story and tell if it is a print please. Thanks.

[photoevangelist]

Hi Lee and Sergei,
Not trying to be critical; I am wondering about the response of the film. I do like the Meet the Beatles look, good work. Hats off to you both and Corran and all you guys. I have a box of the Fuji HR-T but only developed two sheets so far. I am wondering about Diafine with this film but it has been so grey in Tennessee that the sun hardly comes out. Both of your portraits show great detail. Anyway, thanks to all sharing their findings.

That portrait of Marsha is cool. Love the tree limbs' focus at the top. I assume this is Rodinal also?

Thanks,
Mark

Please do be critical! I can take a beating!

[SergeiR]

Someone should upload a test with different filters. I'm curious how they each see. Beautiful portrait again!

Thanks. I was to shoot folks at the event today and planned to use different filters to experiment, but being outdoors - whole thing was canned due people being scared of wee bit of chill.. meh.. :( But i remember about request and will try to do it at some point, at least for deep green/orange/light yellow-green and of course without.

(didnt get to experiment on this one, b/c getting my mother in front of camera is whole adventure and then i couldnt really tell her "oh , by the way, let me check it out how all those guys will work on you and post it on web" - she would kill me :))

[SergeiR]

Hi Lee and Sergei,
Not trying to be critical; I am wondering about the response of the film. I do like the Meet the Beatles look, good work. Hats off to you both and Corran and all you guys. I have a box of the Fuji HR-T but only developed two sheets so far. I am wondering about Diafine with this film but it has been so grey in Tennessee that the sun hardly comes out. Both of your portraits show great detail. Anyway, thanks to all sharing their findings.

That portrait of Marsha is cool. Love the tree limbs' focus at the top. I assume this is Rodinal also?

Thanks,
Mark

Yep... I am simple man and sticking to single developer - Rodinal formula at different dillutions :) Tried to wade away with other ones, but kinda didnt like results all that much with ID11 and others, on other films.. So i am just sticking to one.. (that said i still got unopened pack of HC110 :)).

Oh I dont get all bitchy about critique either, Mark, no worries.. I am always trying to learn things from people, and this forum is great wealth of information . I never been truly trained on whole dark room part of photography - back in days i didnt have much choice for film and developers nor money to experiment. Now that i am coming back after years of shooting and processing in lab or just shooting digital - i do discover new chemicals and whole bunch of tricks that people use, and i am just in awe of people who can actually figure this stuff out :)

This was actually shot on overcast day, so sky here were gray as it gets at 11am-12pm on typical rainy day in texas. So it might be point of reference, kinda.

Btw, what makes me curious is if there is different response in Fuji and Kodak films..

[Don Dudenbostel]

92097

Kodal Mammography film in a mammography cassette

135KV / 3ma 4 seconds ;)

[Randy]

Impatient man that I am (The thought of processing one sheet at a time in order to minimize scratching makes me cringe) I made some spacers out of a thin plastic mesh material to lay in between 4 sheets of 8X10 Xray film processed in a 10X12" tray. I normally process 4 to 6 sheets at a time using the shuffle method of agitation. This time I just rocked the tray, alternating from each side.
Anyway...it didn't work. I did minimize the scratching, but the trade off was some nasty uneven development in the areas where the film contacted the spacers :(

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52893762/test1.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52893762/test2.jpg

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Randy, tanks and four at a time. It is a wonderful thing.

[Randy]

I bet. Just trying to work with what I have at the moment. Just don't want to (read - can't afford to) spend the money on tanks and hangers. Guess I could make a tank...?

I did try processing in a Unicolor drum recently - 2 8X10 sheets at a time. Used very little chems (150ml) and minimal scratching. That is an option.

[andreios]

Randy, what happened to the emulsion on the other side when developing in a tank?

[SergeiR]

Randy, what happened to the emulsion on the other side when developing in a tank?
depends on tank, afaik

In jobo print ones it goes dead. In unidrum ribs are present that do lift film a bit from walls , so both side on negative do develop in full.

[Randy]

Andreios, you mean drum? I have not processed in a dip & dunk tank, just tray and rottery drum, and as Sergie said, my drums have ribs but they had very little if any effect on the image processing. The film seems to process evenly on both sides.

[dimento]

Great idea, as one who has baulked at the price of 8x10 B+W, I may well give it a go, Some of the above don't look different to results I'm getting with Fomapan 100 in 8x10

[andreios]

Yes, Randy, i did mean drums, not tanks... I wrote hastily and was tired. I use jobo paper drums for LF film, but I see I'll have to look round for Unicolor.. Thanks for the tip!

[Randy]

Yes, Randy, i did mean drums, not tanks... I wrote hastily and was tired. I use jobo paper drums for LF film, but I see I'll have to look round for Unicolor.. Thanks for the tip!
Andreois, I keep making the same mistake when referring to my rottery drums. Mine are Colourtronic, not Unicolor. I have had mine for many years. Don't know of their availability. Mine are lined with very thin ribs that keep the film/paper from laying against the drum wall. Good luck.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Just to let everyone know I developed some x-ray film dated February 2002 and the negatives are beautiful. B/F is about .19! So this stuff keeps pretty well I'd say. I got it off of e-bay and have stored it in my cabinet in the kitchen. It has not been cold stored since I got it. Just an FYI!

[Randy]

Haven't shown this to my Lady yet. Probably won't ('cause I want to keep using my 115mm lens).

CSX Green 8X10
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52893762/img142a.jpg

[photoevangelist]

Did some developer tests. I process 1 8x10 sheet at a time in a tray with glass on the bottom. Rodinal 1:50 5 min. XTOL 1:1 7 min, Xtodinal (XTOL 1:2 + Rodinal 1:100) 7 min, and Dektol 1:5 1.5 min.

XTOL and Xtodinal are nice, but I prefer the contrast of a Rodinal 1:50 and Dektol 1:5 on a #2 - #3 Filter, so I have plenty of room to add or subtract contrast later. I'm sticking with Rodinal 1:50 at about 5 min, because the XTOL short developing times make me nervous. My next tests will be with a Tiffen #11 green, Tiffen #12 yellow, and Chinese blue filter vs. no filter. I'm also going to try adding a small fill card to reflect the light a tiny bit on the right, just enough to bring some detail on the right side. Hope to do these before the weekend and start rolling out a bunch of shots next week. And since I've just about run out of RC paper, I'm going to start doing my final fiber prints with toning with homemade brews.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8382/8596996948_f66ac3f0b6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8596996948/)
Ahn, Young Jae (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8596996948/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
8x10 Korona, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (High Speed Green Sensitive X-Ray), Rodinal 1:50, 5min
Ilford Multigrade RC, Dektol 1:2, #2 Filter

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8233/8595894579_150b45713a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8595894579/)
Sohn, Hyang Ah (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8595894579/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
8x10 Korona, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (High Speed Green Sensitive X-Ray), Rodinal 1:50, 5min
Ilford Multigrade RC, Dektol 1:2, #2.5 Filter

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Lee, looking good!!

[photoevangelist]

Lee, looking good!!

Thanks, Jim! Our TA (and grad student) has been interested in getting a 4x5 field camera, but since I've been doing 8x10 (x-ray), he's now considering getting an 8x10 camera instead. The detail is.... breathtaking. I'm still in the market to make a 14x17 camera like your recent 8x10. Holders are holding me back. My 7x17 is still in the shop getting fix. I'll do 7x17 x-ray next. Keeping my fingers crossed the size of the film and holders will be correct.

[SergeiR]

Just to let everyone know I developed some x-ray film dated February 2002 and the negatives are beautiful. B/F is about .19! So this stuff keeps pretty well I'd say. I got it off of e-bay and have stored it in my cabinet in the kitchen. It has not been cold stored since I got it. Just an FYI!

interesting. Good to know, as my fridge is.. umm.. well.. i got to leave some space for food.. 8))

[Jim Fitzgerald]

interesting. Good to know, as my fridge is.. umm.. well.. i got to leave some space for food.. 8))

Boy, I remember those days. I now have a 5 Cubic Foot freezer in my apartment. it is getting really full!

[SergeiR]

Boy, I remember those days. I now have a 5 Cubic Foot freezer in my apartment. it is getting really full!
well.. oddly enough i got one like that in russia, but not here.. :) might go there if i will find 14x17 back so i can convert one of my "donor" 4x5/8x10s fronts to it and start shooting with sole purpose of contact printing..

[Tri Tran]

Xray film work here is looking good, keep it up ! Check the back side of the film for the density if you develop by inspection.

[photoevangelist]

Xray film work here is looking good, keep it up ! Check the back side of the film for the density if you develop by inspection.

Interesting comment. I'll try this tomorrow. Thanks!

I did portraits tests again today with no filter, yellow filter, green filter, and blue filter - male and female. 8 shots. I'll be in the darkroom again all day tomorrow. Will be ready to start taking pictures for the project on Monday.

[Corran]

Looking forward to your tests Lee! Great project idea also.

So I mentioned printing that shot a few pages back for a competition/show...well here it is! With me poking out my head for a bit of scale! It's a huge print - 34x27 inches, on metallic paper, matted to a full 40x32 size. Very happy with it. Sorry about the tint on the right, it's my wall reflecting off the plexi:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VeVyKYeGv74/UVT5kdTAOZI/AAAAAAAADKM/VKtOxYsMo5Q/s1600/DSC_2393.JPG

[photoevangelist]

Looking forward to your tests Lee! Great project idea also.

So I mentioned printing that shot a few pages back for a competition/show...well here it is! With me poking out my head for a bit of scale! It's a huge print - 34x27 inches, on metallic paper, matted to a full 40x32 size. Very happy with it. Sorry about the tint on the right, it's my wall reflecting off the plexi:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VeVyKYeGv74/UVT5kdTAOZI/AAAAAAAADKM/VKtOxYsMo5Q/s1600/DSC_2393.JPG

Gasp!! Is this a darkroom print or printed from a scan? This is gorgeous either way!!!!!! Thanks for sharing this. I really hope you win!

[Corran]

Thank you! Nope, it's an ink print from a scan. I don't have an 8x10 enlarger, nor do I have paper this big. But I am impressed with how good it came out in tonality and detail!

[Randy]

Looking forward to your tests Lee! Great project idea also.

So I mentioned printing that shot a few pages back for a competition/show...well here it is! With me poking out my head for a bit of scale! It's a huge print - 34x27 inches, on metallic paper, matted to a full 40x32 size. Very happy with it. Sorry about the tint on the right, it's my wall reflecting off the plexi:

Bryan, who did the printing?

[Michael Graves]

Can somebody offer a little help to the old and feeble? I've been through this thread and seen several comments about, yes you do strip the back emulsion, no you don't strip the back emulsion...but I don't get it.

What is the advantage of stripping the emulsion, and how do you strip just the back emulsion without stripping it all? Forgive me if this was answered somewhere in here, but I went through the whole thread and didn't find it.

[Corran]

Bryan, who did the printing?

Local guy here in Valdosta. He only just acquired a big Epson 9600 printer from a business that closed its doors. I did kinda help him along with the computer operation to make sure things went smoothly. This worked out better than sending it out due to the size. He also mounted it directly to a mat board so it was ready to go.


Can somebody offer a little help to the old and feeble? I've been through this thread and seen several comments about, yes you do strip the back emulsion, no you don't strip the back emulsion...but I don't get it.

What is the advantage of stripping the emulsion, and how do you strip just the back emulsion without stripping it all? Forgive me if this was answered somewhere in here, but I went through the whole thread and didn't find it.

You can or can't, it doesn't matter, but regardless you need to shoot and develop with your process in mind - stripped negatives lose half their density so keep that in mind. I strip mine and fine it sharper that way. And according to our alt. process folks, you can't strip do to density range issues with those processes.

Tape the negative down and be careful with the bleach and you won't get seepage to the other side. Use a brush of some sort. I use bleach diluted 1:1, that seems to work much easier.

[Michael Graves]

Thanks, Bryan. I intend to order a box of film just to play with. I'll probably stick to HP5 for my regular shooting--at least until I master the X-ray. But I'm dying to try this.

[photoevangelist]

Did my color filter tests today, but the majority of them are drying on racks for the weekend (school darkroom is closed on weekends).

Here are a few new ones:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8244/8599621907_4ed38af483_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8599621907/)
Jang, Ha Ryeon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8599621907/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
8x10 Korona, 12" Dagor (no filter)
Fuji HR-A (High Speed Green Sensitive Xray), Rodinal 1:50, 4 min.
Fomabrom Variant 111, Dektol 1:2, #1.5 filter

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8371/8600721954_f9d595025c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8600721954/)
Park, Hong Chul (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/8600721954/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
8x10 Korona, 12" Dagor (no filter)
Fuji HR-A (High Speed Green Sensitive Xray), Rodinal 1:50, 4 min.
Fomabrom Variant 111, Dektol 1:2, #1.5 filter

[Carl J]

Nice work, Lee!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Can somebody offer a little help to the old and feeble? I've been through this thread and seen several comments about, yes you do strip the back emulsion, no you don't strip the back emulsion...but I don't get it.

What is the advantage of stripping the emulsion, and how do you strip just the back emulsion without stripping it all? Forgive me if this was answered somewhere in here, but I went through the whole thread and didn't find it.

As I have stated several times, if you are alt printing, do not strip. If you are scanning or printing on silver gel papers, then go ahead and strip. A stripped emulsion is slightly sharper, but you really cannot tell in a contact print unless you put prints side-by-side and look very carefully.
There is plenty of information in the original xray film thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-X-ray-Film-example-and-comparison&highlight=xrayabout stripping. Another reason why this thread should be merged with that one...

andrew

[SergeiR]

Yep, thats the thread i did read before starting.

on stripping for scanning. i dunno. I dont feel like unstripped (way how i do it) scans are really soft. At least not with betterscanning ANR glass , and 8 pennies on my V700 @2400dpi.

[Corran]

It's not your scanner. They were soft on my Screen Cezanne too, pretty obviously.

[SergeiR]

It's not your scanner. They were soft on my Screen Cezanne too, pretty obviously.

Thats the thing they arent soft at all for me. Pretty bleedin' sharp.

[Corran]

Sorry, misread that. Well there is certainly no way any 8x10 is soft generally speaking, but anyway, it was obvious enough to me.

[Randy]

I posted a pretty extreme crop back on page 42 of this thread, of some small mushrooms. For my size of printing (from 8X10) stripping would be unnecessary.

[Corran]

Yes, I'm sure for most uses it wouldn't be any problem, but for instance, that big print I did probably was a bit sharper generally speaking since I stripped it.

[photoevangelist]

I'm not stripping my negatives, but I also haven't determined what I'll be doing after I finish the contact print project. The negatives seem really sharp to me. I can't imagine them any sharper. Maybe I'll do some testing with stripping the negatives once this project is complete. Sure wish I could enlarge 8x10, that would be incredible! I made some 30 x 40 prints of Tri-X 4x5 at ISO 1250 in Diafine from my Epson v750 scans and was pleased. I'm sure an 8x10 xray scan will be better around the same size.

[photoevangelist]

I posted a pretty extreme crop back on page 42 of this thread, of some small mushrooms. For my size of printing (from 8X10) stripping would be unnecessary.

What scanner are you using, Randy? Those mushrooms looks nice from here.

[Randy]

what scanner are you using, randy? Those mushrooms looks nice from here.
v750.

[A9tm]

I'm googling around but can somebody tell me where I can buy some mammo film please? I see on zzmedical who sell Sony Blue Thermal mammography film, but I'm wondering is it laser print film or conventional film? Sony's webpage didn't help much, they didn't supply any detail. I highly appreciate your advises.

[Andrew O'Neill]

http://www.spectrumxray.com/film_mammography.html

andrew

[A9tm]

Thanks Andrew.

I only found 24x30 cm mammo films, seems I have to cut it down to 8x10".

[Raffay]

@Corran What a beautiful picture, I wish I could snap something like that.

[gbogatko]

Abandoned church, Long Pond Ironworks, NJ
Plain green Xray film -- one side stripped.

92367

[gbogatko]

Boring out a steam valve.
ALCO #60, RIngos NJ
Plain green xray - one side stripped. Schneider 165/8.

92368

[gbogatko]

Can somebody offer a little help to the old and feeble? I've been through this thread and seen several comments about, yes you do strip the back emulsion, no you don't strip the back emulsion...but I don't get it.

What is the advantage of stripping the emulsion, and how do you strip just the back emulsion without stripping it all? Forgive me if this was answered somewhere in here, but I went through the whole thread and didn't find it.

Stripping cuts down contrast. Makes scanning and silver printing a lot more controllable.

[gbogatko]

Plain green 8x10 xray, not stripped, scanned.
Heliar 300 wide open

92372

[gbogatko]

Plain green 8x10 xray, not stripped, scanned.
Verito 14" at f/8.

92373

[Andrew O'Neill]

Stripping cuts down contrast.

It cuts the density range in half. Contrast remains pretty much the same.

[gbogatko]

It cuts the density range in half. Contrast remains pretty much the same.

I stand corrected.
Another way of putting it is that it's easier to realize shadow detail without everything beyond facial tones turning into solid paper white; without having to do insane fiddling with 'levels' or paper-grade filters and water-bath development. Unless you're printing with alternative methods, which is a different story.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Plain green 8x10 xray, not stripped, scanned.
Verito 14" at f/8.

92373

This is nice. Very well done. Is this a scan of the negative or a print? I know it says scanned but I want to be sure and if it is a scan how will you print it because I'd like to see it. Love the Verito.

[gbogatko]

This is nice. Very well done. Is this a scan of the negative or a print? I know it says scanned but I want to be sure and if it is a scan how will you print it because I'd like to see it. Love the Verito.

Sigh -- it is a scan of the negative. Finances prevent a real dark room that can achieve actual darkness during the day. That and a day job.....
I actually have a Gum kit from photo-forumulary, but have only had the chance to gaze at it longingly....
One day. one day...

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Hang in there. It is frustrating not having a darkroom. I make the best of my two bedroom apartment. That will make a nice print, I can tell. Congratulations.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

A carbon print from Blue X-ray film shot at ISO 50 on the new 8x10. D-76 for 7 minutes. Hermagis Edioscop at F-8.

[SergeiR]

8x10 kodak csg, gundlach radar

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8392/8607621478_0109926531_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8607621478/)
Scan-130328-0003www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8607621478/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Tin Can]

gotta get some x-ray film

i had no idea

why am i paying a lot for plain old film

great images!

[Andrew O'Neill]

It is frustrating not having a darkroom

Not for people who only print digitally, so nothing wrong with a scan.

[SergeiR]

8x10 csg, yellow-green XO filter (Kenko). Old Angulon 165mm.
Late evening (almost twilight)

@iso 50, developer in 1+100 Rodinal, 7.30m.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8259/8608211014_1333d50dd6_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8608211014/)
Scan-130331-0006www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8608211014/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Tin Can]

Sergei, you are driving me crazy! That is wonderful even on a computer, WOW!

and I just learned Novosibirsk is the third largest city in Russia. I learned something today!

Thanks and keep posting, your data is also appreciated.

[Peter De Smidt]

Sergei, you are driving me crazy! That is wonderful even on a computer, WOW!



I'm with Randy. Sergei, you do outstanding work!

[Tin Can]

OK, I just ordered Kodak Green Ortho 7x17 100 sheets for $61.29 delivered from http://www.cxsonline.com. Since I am currently shooting 5x7 Ilford DPP, I will cut this down to 5x7 and have plenty to make 7x11 for

This is getting interesting,

now back to shooting DPP with studio flash

[SergeiR]

Thanks, Peter and Randy.

I finally pushed myself today to do some of development in my usual rodinal 1+100, for stuff that was shot on different ratings (literally going from iso 5 to 100) , just for the hell of it. Wanted to see if i can use process lens with hand shutter, plus some other ideas. Then got brave enough to try studio shots i did yesterday, rating from usual meter around iso 50-60.

Lower ones went completely overexposed, no surprise there, even with 3 minutes development (still gave me some weird imagery though. can use it for textures and abstracts overlays with digital), but doing 7.30 with iso 50 in 1+100 turns out to be very very close to what i like to see in skin tones. Didnt even have to wiggle much those bars in vuescan. And right now about to see what print will look like ;)

[SergeiR]

8x10 kodak xray cgs, gundlach radar, rodinal 1+50, 5 minutes.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8249/8607806805_7aaca3a567_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8607806805/)
Scan-130330-0001www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8607806805/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Tin Can]

Very nice Sergei. I really like your artistic style, the very dark atmospheric condition is so expressive. Moody! Excellent. I have much to do. X-Ray may be precisely where I want to go.

Thank you.

[Jim Noel]

Beautiful!

[ghostcount]

8x10 kodak xray cgs, gundlach radar, rodinal 1+50, 5 minutes.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8249/8607806805_7aaca3a567_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8607806805/)
Scan-130330-0001www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8607806805/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

Two light setup? One above and one to the right? Strobes?

Wonderful light/shadow comp and control.

[SergeiR]

Thanks guys.

Randy - thats the oddest thing with Xray probably. People find it too contrasty or weak ranged.. But it works for my light/preferences in studio shooting just fine. I can get about any digital on market - from 35mm to dMF cry like a baby, with noise b/c of way how i light things.. That was another reason why i so wanted to go back to film - its just working (ok, having cameras quitting in middle of shoot did help decision a bit too :)). And i know what will happen next.. i will keep looking at Jim's work and then you will post yours too.. and i will start scraping for 14x17 back like maniac ;)

ghostcount - single light. But angles very carefully to desired poi Since i got my modeling lights working properly and track setup - my shooting pace increased dramatically and i also no longer have need for polaroid/digichimping tests, which is brilliant :)

[Tin Can]

Well, it will take me a while to get up to speed. I have been doing half digital, half wet, but my D800 so pissed me off I sold it at a huge loss. I want images, not electronic marvels that don't work. Too expensive playing digital one up-man-ship games that is just getting worse. Now we need 4K video cameras and next week 8K video.

I like your 'look'. To print like that with my Canon Pro 1 printer, I need a lot of black ink. I hope to finish my darkroom and move to all wet.

My shooting studio is small, but I have strobes and led's on wall booms. I'm kinda old and beat up to compete, but I will give it a try.

Big cameras here we come, since big film IS available and affordable.

Thanks for all the inspiration!


Thanks guys.

Randy - thats the oddest thing with Xray probably. People find it too contrasty or weak ranged.. But it works for my light/preferences in studio shooting just fine. I can get about any digital on market - from 35mm to dMF cry like a baby, with noise b/c of way how i light things.. That was another reason why i so wanted to go back to film - its just working (ok, having cameras quitting in middle of shoot did help decision a bit too :)). And i know what will happen next.. i will keep looking at Jim's work and then you will post yours too.. and i will start scraping for 14x17 back like maniac ;)

ghostcount - single light. But angles very carefully to desired poi Since i got my modeling lights working properly and track setup - my shooting pace increased dramatically and i also no longer have need for polaroid/digichimping tests, which is brilliant :)

[photoevangelist]

Well, it will take me a while to get up to speed. I have been doing half digital, half wet, but my D800 so pissed me off I sold it at a huge loss. I want images, not electronic marvels that don't work. Too expensive playing digital one up-man-ship games that is just getting worse. Now we need 4K video cameras and next week 8K video.

I like your 'look'. To print like that with my Canon Pro 1 printer, I need a lot of black ink. I hope to finish my darkroom and move to all wet.

My shooting studio is small, but I have strobes and led's on wall booms. I'm kinda old and beat up to compete, but I will give it a try.

Big cameras here we come, since big film IS available and affordable.

Thanks for all the inspiration!

I'm so close to selling my 5D M2. Already sold 3 Canon lenses. It just doesn't get used at all. I'll be taking a major loss too. This is why I want to get out of the digital rat race. These 100+ cameras and lenses are still good and beat the quality of my digital. Even when it surpasses its quality, it won't be nearly the fun of saying, "I shoot xray film." It causes so much interest. My students are loving the large reversed images on the ground glass. I got a call from a major Korean English TV channel yesterday. They want to do an interview on me (because I'm a foreign photographer). This will be my chance to evangelize large format, xray film, and darkroom work. If I was using a DSLR, I'd be just as interesting as all the other brother's mother's sister's cousin's friends with one. :cool:

Love all the new work here! It's exciting! Just did 5 more portraits yesterday, hoping to develop them all (one at a time) today. I've decided to go with a yellow filter. The green filter is my favorite, but it requires two extra stops, meaning I have to shoot at F8 (lens is F6.8). With the yellow, it's a similar effect, it reduces contrast, but I had to add a filter grade (1.5 to 2.5) to get the feeling I wanted (making it more contrasty than the no- lens filter image. But I do like the look. Green was really nice but my F32 strobe light +2 for bellows extension and +2 for filter at ISO 160 caused me to reconsider. The Yellow is ever so slightly more contrasty when printed with the same 2.5 filter, but only adding one extra stop for filter, so I can shoot at F11. I need to upload some examples - prints are being flattened.

[Tin Can]

Well, I am keeping my D7000 and P7000. I use that little Nikon P7000 more than any other camera for scouting, test shots, and of course pictures of cameras for sale...

Checked your links. Nice. Sounds like you enjoy Korea. A few years back I tried to teach in China, but was somehow refused. Very confusing, as I exceed all requirements. I might be too old.

You are right about the pleasure of saying, 'I am shooting X-Ray film.' Sounds so exotic, if only they knew.

The digital rat race is very appropriate, especially if your interest is portrait. We don't need insane resolution, high ISO's or super sharp new lenses. What we do need is desire, film and a few old things that most people see as junk.

Looking forward to your new prints!


I'm so close to selling my 5D M2. Already sold 3 Canon lenses. It just doesn't get used at all. I'll be taking a major loss too. This is why I want to get out of the digital rat race. These 100+ cameras and lenses are still good and beat the quality of my digital. Even when it surpasses its quality, it won't be nearly the fun of saying, "I shoot xray film." It causes so much interest. My students are loving the large reversed images on the ground glass. I got a call from a major Korean English TV channel yesterday. They want to do an interview on me (because I'm a foreign photographer). This will be my chance to evangelize large format, xray film, and darkroom work. If I was using a DSLR, I'd be just as interesting as all the other brother's mother's sister's cousin's friends with one. :cool:

Love all the new work here! It's exciting! Just did 5 more portraits yesterday, hoping to develop them all (one at a time) today. I've decided to go with a yellow filter. The green filter is my favorite, but it requires two extra stops, meaning I have to shoot at F8 (lens is F6.8). With the yellow, it's a similar effect, it reduces contrast, but I had to add a filter grade (1.5 to 2.5) to get the feeling I wanted (making it more contrasty than the no- lens filter image. But I do like the look. Green was really nice but my F32 strobe light +2 for bellows extension and +2 for filter at ISO 160 caused me to reconsider. The Yellow is ever so slightly more contrasty when printed with the same 2.5 filter, but only adding one extra stop for filter, so I can shoot at F11. I need to upload some examples - prints are being flattened.

[ghostcount]

ghostcount - single light. But angles very carefully to desired poi Since i got my modeling lights working properly and track setup - my shooting pace increased dramatically and i also no longer have need for polaroid/digichimping tests, which is brilliant :)

Those 'points of interests' are desirable indeed. Truly amazing work.

[SergeiR]

iso50 shot, processed 7:30m in 1+100 Rodinal, constant agitation.

old convertible symmar (300/500 one) gives different rendition of tones, and she was a bit too tanned in comparition to most of people i shoot (spray on). And of course - blonde hair.. Worst nightmare comes true right there - hell to light by itself and she wanted that backlit kind of shot..:)

getting a bit too much details in highlights actually (had to pull highlights up a tad in scan), and shadowed face was a bit on thinning side, not entirely happy how i overlooked hand.. but oh well :)

oh and no filter. Straight CSG film.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8524/8612742070_b7199a31b0_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8612742070/)
Scan-130331-0005www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8612742070/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Tin Can]

Shooting women to their order is very tough business.

Best thing about film, is that they can't chimp.

When digital, I now set up a monitor rotated to portrait right on the studio stand and give them a remote. They can chimp for hours. I even use it for self portraits. Guilty.

I also prefer pale and dark.

[photoevangelist]

iso50 shot, processed 7:30m in 1+100 Rodinal, constant agitation.

old convertible symmar (300/500 one) gives different rendition of tones, and she was a bit too tanned in comparition to most of people i shoot (spray on). And of course - blonde hair.. Worst nightmare comes true right there - hell to light by itself and she wanted that backlit kind of shot..:)

getting a bit too much details in highlights actually (had to pull highlights up a tad in scan), and shadowed face was a bit on thinning side, not entirely happy how i overlooked hand.. but oh well :)

oh and no filter. Straight CSG film.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8524/8612742070_b7199a31b0_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8612742070/)
Scan-130331-0005www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8612742070/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

Where do you get your models?? Every single woman is centerfold gorgeous!

[SergeiR]

Shooting women to their order is very tough business.

;) I am always sticking with advice Eli Reed gave me a few years back. If they hire/work with you - "they work with you for reason of getting your style, even though they might not realize it. So just do your thing or dont do it at all".

[SergeiR]

Where do you get your models?? Every single woman is centerfold gorgeous!
Well.. Not every, lets be honest there. Its like not every photo makes it out of dark room 8)

[Jim Noel]

So far I've read 364 of inches in this thread. The discussion goes back and forth between stripping and not stripping. My overall observation is that the more experienced workers like Jim Fitzgerald prefer not to strip. I agree with him. The only reason I can see for stripping is careless handling of the film.

Perhaps workers won't and began using large-format film the last 20 or 25 years never learned how to handle film without scratching it. Those of us who go back to the 1930s well remember how easy it was to scratch the film, and this film had no emulsion on the base side.

I presume that most scratches, or at least many of them, a curve while sliding the film into the holder. I was taught at a very young age to never do that. My method involves removing the dark slide completely then slipping as much of one long edge under a lip as possible, then by putting a slight bow into the film pop the other edge under the other lip. Then it is necessary to all slide the film a fraction of an inch in order to have it seated correctly. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand how people slide 8 x 10, 7 x 17, or other large film into the holder. I've never tried to do so.

I realize that some scratching occurs during processing, but also notice that the careful experienced workers don't have a problem.

Think about your film handling and how it might be improved.
I hope this helps.

Jim

[Jim Noel]

The tubes for the film in Expert drums are not cylinders, they are barrel shaped, thus allowing chemicals to flow on the back side of the film.

[Corran]

I don't know why the stripping thing is such a big deal.

I also think it's folly to just dismiss those of us who strip the film as "careless film handlers."

I process my film in an 8x10 BTZS tube. Yes, my first reason to strip the film is that it gets scratched all to hell in the tube, as people told me it would. But I also discovered ways to not have that issue, but I don't really care, as I find it beneficial.

Like I mentioned, I think people should test it for themselves.

[Jim Noel]

Can somebody offer a little help to the old and feeble? I've been through this thread and seen several comments about, yes you do strip the back emulsion, no you don't strip the back emulsion...but I don't get it.

What is the advantage of stripping the emulsion, and how do you strip just the back emulsion without stripping it all? Forgive me if this was answered somewhere in here, but I went through the whole thread and didn't find it.

Being slightly incapacitated at the moment I have read this entire thread as well as the other thread concerning x-ray film. When I read the comments by people who appear to have the greatest knowledge and most experience I come up with the conclusion that the only reason for stripping film is to eliminate scratches on the reverse side which are generally caused by poor film handling techniques.

I know some will argue with is that they have good techniques and still get scratches, but if I were able to watch them in action I have little doubt that I could point out their faults in film handling techniques. During my time as a teacher for over 60 years I have been able to make such observations for more than a few people.

[Jim Noel]

Sergei,
this is another of your beautiful images. Yes I can see where you might have a concern or two, most of the people these images have appeared on this thread would be more than happy to have this image as their own.

You are the one of the people to whom I was referring in my previous reply as being an experienced and careful worker. Your attention to detail in every aspect of your work lends to its technical excellence as well as its beauty. I have thoroughly enjoyed seeing your images and reading your comments.

Keep up the good work.
Jim

[Tin Can]

Good news, now if my hands will cooperate, I will be delicate, when I get my order...



Being slightly incapacitated at the moment I have read this entire thread as well as the other thread concerning x-ray film. When I read the comments by people who appear to have the greatest knowledge and most experience I come up with the conclusion that the only reason for stripping film is to eliminate scratches on the reverse side which are generally caused by poor film handling techniques.

I know some will argue with is that they have good techniques and still get scratches, but if I were able to watch them in action I have little doubt that I could point out their faults in film handling techniques. During my time as a teacher for over 60 years I have been able to make such observations for more than a few people.

[Tin Can]

I might add, I really appreciate the large images shared, far more inspirational than little ones...

Thanks Sergei, you are very generous indeed!


Sergei,
this is another of your beautiful images. Yes I can see


where you might have a concern or two, most of the people these images have appeared on this thread would be more than happy to have this image as their own.

You are the one of the people to whom I was referring in my previous reply as being an experienced and careful worker. Your attention to detail in every aspect of your work lends to its technical excellence as well as its beauty. I have thoroughly enjoyed seeing your images and reading your comments.

Keep up the good work.
Jim

[DannL]

So far I've read 364 of inches in this thread. The discussion goes back and forth between stripping and not stripping. My overall observation is that the more experienced workers like Jim Fitzgerald prefer not to strip. I agree with him. The only reason I can see for stripping is careless handling of the film.

Perhaps workers won't and began using large-format film the last 20 or 25 years never learned how to handle film without scratching it. Those of us who go back to the 1930s well remember how easy it was to scratch the film, and this film had no emulsion on the base side.

I presume that most scratches, or at least many of them, a curve while sliding the film into the holder. I was taught at a very young age to never do that. My method involves removing the dark slide completely then slipping as much of one long edge under a lip as possible, then by putting a slight bow into the film pop the other edge under the other lip. Then it is necessary to all slide the film a fraction of an inch in order to have it seated correctly. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand how people slide 8 x 10, 7 x 17, or other large film into the holder. I've never tried to do so.

I realize that some scratching occurs during processing, but also notice that the careful experienced workers don't have a problem.

Think about your film handling and how it might be improved.
I hope this helps.

Jim

Maybe a little history on stripping is in order . . .

Back in '09 I had noticed that there were quite a few discussions on the forum about scratches on the back-side emulsion of x-ray film. I made it a personal challenge, and in short I tested the first household chemical I thought would do the job. And there you have it. A simple, and relatively safe process to remove those unsightly scratches. That was easy. But, my reason for removing the back-side emulsion quickly evolved from disposing with the occasional scratch, to removing bromide drag marks caused by drum processing, to reducing the density of some negatives allowing for easy printing. When I originally brought it to the forum I never dictated that stripping was designed for a single purpose. And I definitely never intended stripping to be a point of contention, especially after 3 plus years. I just threw it out there expecting that it would be improved upon. Though on some level, I am glad to see it's still has a place.


Yeh, I'm still with the living.:cool: Cheers! Dann

[SergeiR]

Glad you like it folks. Forum helped (and helps still ) me a lot, in understanding mechanics of LF , as i never been educated on how to actually do whole thing - so i appreciate every bit of intel i can get here, and it just beacons me to share results and show what i got using what i learned here. E.g i wouldnt ever even thought about trying xray if it werent for it. Hell, i probably wouldnt ever have guts to try LF if it werent for it :)

[Jim Fitzgerald]

It is so nice to have a viable alternative to traditional film and everyone is trying to do their thing with it. If I was a sliver printer then maybe I'd try stripping and everything. But as a carbon printer with exposures on the NuArc around 15-20 minutes I love the dense negs I get with x-ray film..... and the images especially portraits. I may have to try to cut some down for the 8x20 soon just to see if I can do it without scratching and if I do scratch it then I'll strip it. What is not to like.

[DannL]

It is so nice to have a viable alternative to traditional film and everyone is trying to do their thing with it. If I was a sliver printer then maybe I'd try stripping and everything. But as a carbon printer with exposures on the NuArc around 15-20 minutes I love the dense negs I get with x-ray film..... and the images especially portraits. I may have to try to cut some down for the 8x20 soon just to see if I can do it without scratching and if I do scratch it then I'll strip it. What is not to like.

Jim, just out of curiosity . . . could you not achieve the same "density" with regular film?

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Yes I get even greater density with my now gone Efke 25. It is nice to have a film that has a different "look" than traditional film.

[Jim Noel]

http://www.provisionenterprises.com/ has both Green and Blue X-ray film in 5x7.

Jim

[Jim Noel]

http://www.provisionenterprises.com/ has film, both blue and green, in 5x7.

Jim

[Tin Can]

Jim, thanks for the source. I will try them in the future.

This morning I got a 100 sheet box of Kodak CSG 18x44 cm from CXS. I am just about to open it and cut some up. I need 7X11 anyway, so I will also have 5X7. I hope. New to me. Cutting down film. Using X-Ray, the whole game. I am going to shoot 5X7 for a while as I am all set up for that, a Sinar P 5X7 and an old Linhof folder 5X7.

It was $57 and $5 shipping. Very fast Fed-Ex. I think I ordered Sunday night. They billed my card yesterday and now I have it.

Why is USA made Kodak, or any brand so cheap?

Medical anything is usually higher priced.

My neighbors saw the box, clearly marked X-Ray film, I am sure they are wondering what I am doing in my cave!



http://www.provisionenterprises.com/ has both Green and Blue X-ray film in 5x7.

Jim

[Tin Can]

I am about to cut some 7x17, is it really that hard?

Any tips, besides set-up? I think I can set-up OK.


It is so nice to have a viable alternative to traditional film and everyone is trying to do their thing with it. If I was a sliver printer then maybe I'd try stripping and everything. But as a carbon printer with exposures on the NuArc around 15-20 minutes I love the dense negs I get with x-ray film..... and the images especially portraits. I may have to try to cut some down for the 8x20 soon just to see if I can do it without scratching and if I do scratch it then I'll strip it. What is not to like.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

never cut up anything big. I do have some 14x36 though!

[Tin Can]

if i want 7x11, I need to cut something

I will make a Ilford special order when it happens.



never cut up anything big. I do have some 14x36 though!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I think the order date will be coming up soon.

[photoevangelist]

This morning I got a 100 sheet box of Kodak CSG 18x44 cm from CXS. I am just about to open it and cut some up. I need 7X11 anyway, so I will also have 5X7. I hope. New to me. Cutting down film. Using X-Ray, the whole game. I am going to shoot 5X7 for a while as I am all set up for that, a Sinar P 5X7 and an old Linhof folder 5X7.


Randy,
When you process one of these sheets can you tell me exactly what size they are (in centimeters would be best)? I'm dying to know if this will fit in my 7x17 film holders or if it's a bit larger.

[Tin Can]

OK,

I wasted a sheet, to see what we got. Packing is the usual black plastic, but it hard to put it back in safely from light, tight box, that just the end opens, no box in box. Used my usual LED red lights.

Round corners, actual dimensions are exactly 7" X 16-29/32". X-RAY film 0.007" and my 5X7 sheet is 0.008" The 5X7 sheet is 4-15/16 X 6-15/16 Sorry I only use metric when forced. Both X-RAY sides look the same, can't tell one side from the other. Slightly translucent, very blue/purple. Emulsion seem tough, dry. I was not careful with it and no visible scratches yet. I will beat on t more tonight.

The pics are the film laying on a Kodak 7x11 holder and an Ansco 5X7. Notice the 5X7 film fits right into the 7X11 holder sideways. The exactly 7' wide X-RAY film will not slide into the 7X11 holder.

I am going to next cut that piece up. It is going to need at least 4 cuts to make 7x11 and 5x7 pieces.

This is the kind of info we need in a WIKI, nowhere is this posted on the web, that I can find.

Luckily, I am only trying to make 7X11, and cutting to that will not be as hard as shaving 1/16" off the entire 17"

More later.

9262992630



Randy,
When you process one of these sheets can you tell me exactly what size they are (in centimeters would be best)? I'm dying to know if this will fit in my 7x17 film holders or if it's a bit larger.

[Jim Noel]

"Provision Enterprises"
I tried to order from them. I canceled because they wanted $27 shipping (by freight) for one $29 box of 5x7.
Jim

[Jim Noel]

See my later note about the outlandish shipping charges. I'm sorry I got peoples hopes up.

Jim

[Tin Can]

Try http://www.cxsonline.com/ They don't seem to have 5x7 and I bet X-RAY 5X7 is actuall 5x7 sized. Cutting down the 7X17 is not a problem. I think I showed pricing and delivery above. Fast delivery.

Unless somebody chimes in, I think X-RAY is sized actual. So you would be cutting anything you got.



"Provision Enterprises"
I tried to order from them. I canceled because they wanted $27 shipping (by freight) for one $29 box of 5x7.
Jim

[Jim Noel]

I realize CSX has 7x17, and other sizes. I hoped I had found a dealer with 5x7 so people would not have to cut down. There are more than a few people on this site who seem to have a lot of trouble with scraches and I felt this would eliminate one source of the problem for 5x7 users.

[Tin Can]

but I think even 5x7 will need 1/64" trimmed.



I realize CSX has 7x17, and other sizes. I hoped I had found a dealer with 5x7 so people would not have to cut down. There are more than a few people on this site who seem to have a lot of trouble with scraches and I felt this would eliminate one source of the problem for 5x7 users.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

8x10, 11x14 and 14x17 slide right in. Bigger cameras guys!!!:D

[Tin Can]

ooh, now u got me...

but, that is good intel

thanks!



8x10, 11x14 and 14x17 slide right in. Bigger cameras guys!!!:D

[SergeiR]

ops :(

[Tin Can]

Wonderful model.

It all has a beautiful stillness, yet her eyes shine.

You know i like this.

I need to return to my bar haunts, and find a new muse...

[Tin Can]

what happened?

[SergeiR]

what happened?

Goofed on post - noticed some uncleaned lint :) Going to clean / reprint /repost..

Btw i found that at least my X-ray works awesome with original Epson drivers on 1430 + EB-6 ink + RR satin paper ;) Love tones.

[photoevangelist]

Wow, this single sheet 8x10 tray development is for the birds. I was in the darkroom from 1pm-11pm, 10 hours, developing 18 sheets (roughly 2 sheets an hour) of film. I'd love to get an 8x10 tank, but I've really stretched my budget for large format lately.

Thanks for the information on the 7x17 sizes, Randy! Looks like I might not do 7x17 x-ray film, I'll just shoot Ilford films. I don't know if I can trim that slight bit off 17 inches without a good cutter.

[SergeiR]

Wow, this single sheet 8x10 tray development is for the birds. I was in the darkroom from 1pm-11pm, 10 hours, developing 18 sheets (roughly 2 sheets an hour) of film. I'd love to get an 8x10 tank, but I've really stretched my budget for large format lately.

Thanks for the information on the 7x17 sizes, Randy! Looks like I might not do 7x17 x-ray film, I'll just shoot Ilford films. I don't know if I can trim that slight bit off 17 inches without a good cutter.


Motorize it :) 10 hours i just a bit too horrible..

[photoevangelist]

Motorize it :) 10 hours i just a bit too horrible..

How would I motorize it?

The fact that we don't have a good negative washer and warm water slows me down too. Tap water is around 12-13 degrees Celsius. I have to mix hot water from a drinking water filter with the cold tap water to get it to 20 degrees. I'm considering ordering single sided emulsion xray so I can do it in BTZS tubes or the Jobo CPP-2, but I was trying to work with what is available in Korea. No single emulsions are available that I can find.

[photoevangelist]

I've got something that works and since it involves so many of my students and have already started and put over 40 hours into this, I'm going to keep working this way. Once the project is complete, I might try some more tests in BTZSZ tubes and stripping the back. That way I could reduce my times by half if I'm doing two at a time. But I won't be doing any crazy portrait projects like this again. Any other day I could handle spending 10 hours processing film, but this is going to be a twice a week deal for me for the next few months.

I'm also getting some odd uneven development/exposure lines that sometimes are in the middle of the frame. This is why I do two identical portraits of the same person. There's usually a scratch or this sort of uneven development mark so far 1 out of two is usually imperfect. Still cheaper that regular film.

[Jim Noel]

My old 7x17 Korona holders have no problem with the film. They have slightly more width,and more depth under the side rails than my newer holders.

[Tin Can]

Don't we love that ULF has no standards...


My old 7x17 Korona holders have no problem with the film. They have slightly more width,and more depth under the side rails than my newer holders.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Don't we love that ULF has no standards...

That is why I built the 14x17. It is a standard size in the medical x-ray division. For once I was thinking. Great image size as well and very manageable.

[Tin Can]

Jim,

Might take me a couple years to get to anything bigger than 7X11, but I always work slow, i'm retired!

[SergeiR]

That is why I built the 14x17. It is a standard size in the medical x-ray division. For once I was thinking. Great image size as well and very manageable.

Jim, where you got bellows for it? If its not a secret

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Jim, where you got bellows for it? If its not a secret

Sergi, no secret. I had Custom Bellows in England build the 36" bellows for me. Shipped to California it was right around $500.00 USD. I printed a 14x17 carbon portrait I did of my girlfriend a while ago. Shot it with the Voigtlander Portrait Euryscop III #6. The lens is about 8 1/2 lbs with the Packard built on the back. Love the print but no way to scan something that big.

[SergeiR]

Cool, thanks. I sent them request for a quote a bit ago, but havent heard anything. Keep thinking about build up camera for dryplate-ing ;)

[Jim Fitzgerald]

The one thing about Custom Bellows that was not to my liking was the lack of communication. Work was excellent, though.

[Tin Can]

That sounds like a very reasonable price, considering what is offered on eBay.

Thanks for the info, I will consider old English craftsmanship.

I always liked their hand built motorcycles.



Sergi, no secret. I had Custom Bellows in England build the 36" bellows for me. Shipped to California it was right around $500.00 USD. I printed a 14x17 carbon portrait I did of my girlfriend a while ago. Shot it with the Voigtlander Portrait Euryscop III #6. The lens is about 8 1/2 lbs with the Packard built on the back. Love the print but no way to scan something that big.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I made a bellows for my 14x17. That way I saved a ton of money for film.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I made a bellows for my 14x17. That way I saved a ton of money for film.

Andrew I wish I had that ability and the space to do it! I know my limits. You are right though, you have extra $$$ for film which is not cheap. I got lucky and managed 90 sheets of Bergger 200 and 500 sheets of x-ray film. I think I'm set for life in that format!!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Luckily I have a lot of space at the school I teach at. I wouldn't recommend it for the short-tempered or impatient sole. If I had a lot of money, I would have paid to get it made. The secret is to practice a lot with paper models. Even after that, my bellows is pretty ugly, but does the job.

[Tin Can]

Since I am often limited to studio, for a variety of reasons, I may build a camera that is mostly a large cone, with an existing bellows added for focus. I used to build sculpture and geodesic boats, a camera will not be that different.

Soon I will need advice on which lens to focus on. (pun intended) I have a few that may work with ULF format.

[Andrew O'Neill]

What format?

[Jim Fitzgerald]

What format?

and how close?

[Tin Can]

I will list my lenses later and see what is good.

I just got an email about a new Chicago co-op which claims scanning to 16X20, so maybe that is what Ii want. I also just scored plenty of 16X20 dry mount tissue.

http://latitudechicago.org/

[Tin Can]

and how close?

close, like 1 to 1 people

[Tin Can]

here are my longer lenses, any advice on how big i can go, with format size and lens?

300 5.6 Schneider Symmar S MC 411 06/04/13 280 1705 2 RM
305 4.8 Kodak Portrait RM no flange ILEX 5 OK
355 6.3 Kodak Commercial Ektar 444 450 1 RM no flange ILEX 5 OK
360 5.6 Schneider Symmar 500 1671 1 RM Flange xxx
360 6.8 Rodenstock Sironar N 435 06/04/13 1849 3 RM Flange Copal 3
380 15 5.6 Wollensak Tele RM Flange No shutter Speed Graflex board
412 16 ¼ 6 Gundlach APO Meniscus Portrait RM Flange no shutter
420 16 ½ 9.5 Goertz Artar RM Flange fits copol 3 board
480 19 9 Rodenstock Apo Ronar 396 04/04/13 1629 3 RM no flange ILEX 5 shutter good
635 25 10 Cook APO Taylor Hobsen series IX RM Flange
760 30 12.5 Goertz Artar RM Flange no shutter

[SergeiR]

I made a bellows for my 14x17. That way I saved a ton of money for film.

Welll... i am not THAT handy.. i probably will end up with just handmade bag bellows on strings/rods for a while ;)

PS:
right after i posted this i got mail that i won auction for 16+x22+ base bellows ;) Yuppie.. At least i got that part..

[SergeiR]

...
Oy.. i think with 635+ , specially on portrait distances you can go as far as 20x24 ;)))

[Tin Can]

Not in a hurry to get that big. I like 16X20 prints.

but first i am going to play with 2x3 and 5x7, just to get my techniques down. I have this metal holder for 2x3 that can do 12 sheets in a film can.

I am going for simple, at first. Read all of Ken Lee's website last night.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/index.php

Lot's of very good advice.

Thanks Lee!



Oy.. i think with 635+ , specially on portrait distances you can go as far as 20x24 ;)))

[Tin Can]

OK, start laughing. Here is my first attempt at Kodak CSG. I cut up a big sheet, Jim, and got a lot of 2x3. I shot 4 exposures of the morning coffee grounds. One was all black and blue and 3 were progressively better? This is the best, as scanned and tweaked. Shot with baby Crown Graphic Ektar 101mm. Shutter sounds fast at 1 second, which is what I shot at. f32 to f8. Developed in what I have, Ilfolsol 3, 1/14 for 9 minutes. Wrong developer for too long, I guess. Scanned Epson 4490, Vue-Scan, generic color neg, Mr Ken Lee. Flat on glass, lazy me. Blue tint edges.

The good is no scratches...

5 cents of film.

The bad is everywhere!

9274292743

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I like the contrast in the second one and no scratches? Great. keep it up.

[Tin Can]

Jim, the second is photoshopped...

I will be shooting again today, hopefully, not coffee.



I like the contrast in the second one and no scratches? Great. keep it up.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Randy, if you are just starting out testing this film, photograph a better test subject. One that has a range of tones. Shooting a setup indoors is smart as you do eliminate many variables. Good luck and keep trying!

[Tin Can]

Yes sir, I will check and report!

seriously, thanks!

It's 65 degrees here, I have to go outside...





Randy, if you are just starting out testing this film, photograph a better test subject. One that has a range of tones. Shooting a setup indoors is smart as you do eliminate many variables. Good luck and keep trying!