Use of X-ray film: technical discussion with example images [Archive] - Page 7

Holdenrichards

7-May-2013, 20:21

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7311/8719627200_15d1af01e9_c.jpg

A quick outing on a sunny afternoon to see the tolerances of this development technique with sunny day images. Dektol handles the light very nicely. I think I will adjust the exposure some in the sun, but I should be able to make photographs in more conditions now.

1903 Eastman View No. 1 - Schneider Symmar S 240mm - f/45 - Kodak B/RA X-Ray Film - 8x10 Film - Dektol 1+10 - Unaltered Negative Scan

Tin Can

7-May-2013, 20:24

I have sympathy. been there, done that...

Prove to your family you can do it!

No Image at all, totally blank.

Raffay

7-May-2013, 22:31

This is the unfortunate negative, any thoughts on what could have gone so wrong.

94733

Cheers

Raffay

Barry Kirsten

8-May-2013, 00:48

Raffay, looks heavily fogged to me. Is this the first sheet you've used from the box? Try developing an unexposed sheet from the box - as Roger said, it should be completely clear. Did you handle this sheet under safelight? - a bad safelight could be the cause of fog.What about your film holders, are they light-tight (although a poor film holder usually doesn't result in total fog. It also looks as though your development may be uneven, and there are scratches evident that indicate rough handling. Hope you find this helpful. Don't lose heart, we all have these trials and hopefully come through them wiser.

Barry.

Woodturner-fran

8-May-2013, 02:10

Darkslide pulled before the shutter preview was closed?

Barry Kirsten

8-May-2013, 21:48

Darkslide pulled before the shutter preview was closed?

Wouldn't there be some sort of image?

Woodturner-fran

9-May-2013, 02:51

Ian Greenhalgh

9-May-2013, 03:19

Here's a thread with a bunch of work I shot on Kodak Industrex MX125:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?103091-Kodak-Industrex-MX125-x-ray-film

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1305030001WEB_5.jpg

Ian Greenhalgh

9-May-2013, 03:27

Apologies if this has been asked before but 87 pages is a lot to trawl through!

Has anyone played with coloured filters and the blue senstive film? I am interested in enhancing skies giving more contrast between the clouds and sky as I often get skies that are almost plain white when using blue sensitive Kodak Industrex MX125.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1304160001WEB_1.jpg

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 08:03

Yes, but I forget who or what. Look for the Wiki coming in 2015.

Barry Kirsten

9-May-2013, 14:38

I agree that fogging before the film got into the camera is the most likely bet. The shot posted by Raffay is dark grey, not black, indicating heavy fog as opposed to gross overexposure. Also there would be some hint of an image at this level of 'exposure' if this had happened in the camera.

Barry.

Well, the neg is black = exposure + development

Either the film is fogged before it ever got to the camera, or else it was exposed in camera. If enough light reaches the film, it will just go completely black?

I'm no expert on xray film (or anything!), so YMMV, but I would do two things:

1. handle and develop a new piece in the same way (without exposure). If it looks the same then the handling or film is suspect
2. take a second piece of the same film and take a shot and develop and see how it works.

I think the same OP had an issue with an iphone safelight, could be the film got fogged somewhere along the line?

Let us know how you get on!!

Fran

rdelung

9-May-2013, 15:53

This is the unfortunate negative, any thoughts on what could have gone so wrong.

94733

Cheers

Raffay

First I would check that the chemicals are all good! Second, If the developer temp. is to low--than the incomplete development process plus fixing can give you a gray film.
Just the thoughts of a X-Ray Tech. since 1975. Hope this helps. Thanks, R.Delung

Randy

9-May-2013, 17:22

Apologies if this has been asked before but 87 pages is a lot to trawl through!

Has anyone played with coloured filters and the blue sensitive film? I am interested in enhancing skies giving more contrast between the clouds and sky as I often get skies that are almost plain white when using blue sensitive Kodak Industrex MX125.
Ian, Sergei (sp) I believe has some images in this thread that were taken through, perhaps, a yellow/green filter...? I seem to remember one image of a building and cars with a nice dark sky above. I have yet to play with filters myself. I shoot almost exclusively green latitude film. I know for a fact that it is sensitive to red, but perhaps just not very sensitive.

Ian Greenhalgh

9-May-2013, 17:47

rdelung

10-May-2013, 16:11

Well, the neg is black = exposure + development

Either the film is fogged before it ever got to the camera, or else it was exposed in camera. If enough light reaches the film, it will just go completely black?

I'm no expert on xray film (or anything!), so YMMV, but I would do two things:

1. handle and develop a new piece in the same way (without exposure). If it looks the same then the handling or film is suspect
2. take a second piece of the same film and take a shot and develop and see how it works.

I think the same OP had an issue with an iphone safelight, could be the film got fogged somewhere along the line?

Let us know how you get on!!

Just as a thought, you could perform a safelight test. Just put out a new piece of film( make sure safelight is in the same place as before) cover the bottom one inch, move the card up one inch every 30 sec. until all is covered. Develop as normal, and inspect. It should go from clear to total dark in steps if the safelight is fogging the film. If safelight is ok, than most if not all of the film will be clear. Hope this helps. R.Delung

Fran

SergeiR

10-May-2013, 20:24

Cheers Randy, I'll try a yellow filter first and see what happens. I'll shoot the same scene with and without and post my results.

Anyone got any suggestion as to how much to compensate for a yellow filter with a blue sensitive film? I'm guessing 1 stop should be enough.

why wouldnt you use light meter and get reading?

Ian Greenhalgh

10-May-2013, 21:02

Because I use a handheld meter and to get a reading with the filter, that would need to be done with a TTL meter.

SergeiR

10-May-2013, 21:36

Because I use a handheld meter and to get a reading with the filter, that would need to be done with a TTL meter.

eh? Just stick filter on top of your sensor. For spot - on spot. See how far it now off from "clear" reading. You got yourself compensation.

SergeiR

11-May-2013, 05:45

8x10 kodak csg, @100, 1:100 Rodinal for 6.30 minutes

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7427/8728761542_d35f578f8c_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8728761542/)
Scan-130511-0003www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8728761542/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

md99

11-May-2013, 06:04

Randy

11-May-2013, 06:53

eh? Just stick filter on top of your sensor. For spot - on spot. See how far it now off from "clear" reading. You got yourself compensation.Exactly Ian, I routinely hold my filters over my handheld meter because I can never, ever remember how many stops to compensate for. Just take a reading without the filter, then meter the same subject with the filter held over the meter lens and take another reading. Works every single time for tired brains....or...do it once for every filter then make a list. I keep forgetting to do that.

Tin Can

11-May-2013, 09:08

[QUOTE=SergeiR;1025080]8x10 kodak csg, @100, 1:100 Rodinal for 6.30 minutes

Nice dof and proof anything can make an interesting image. I have been trying to find a still life I want to shoot, and here you show us chips!

With the junk I have, maybe I can find an interesting widgit.

Nice lesson!

rdelung

11-May-2013, 11:27

Tin Can

11-May-2013, 11:36

Ah, now 3 Randy's.

Thank goodness I chose to use my full name, and it's short, maybe I will change to R Moe, as many call me that. The nice ones at least...

(K2) Medium Yellow comp. would be 2 for regular B&W film. With double sided film I'm afraid you will have to go by trial and error. Hope this helps. Randy Delung ( the other Randy )

gdi

11-May-2013, 11:45

Finally able to digitize one of my first XRay shots:, and it is actually one of my first 8x10 shots.

Fuji HRT, Processed in Sprint -Std 1-9-_ in a Beseler Drum. I had to strip the back side with bleach because huge spots didn't develop (think I'll stick to trays from now on). Scanned in 4 segments with an Epson 4870 - looking for an 8x10 scanner now!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7321/8729620996_e38f9ba8f7_o.jpg (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7321/8729620996_e38f9ba8f7_o.jpg)

premortho

11-May-2013, 12:05

From what I've seen of the spectrographs, blue x-ray film is mildly orthochromatic, green is fully orthochromatic. My old Ansco data guide says for Super Plenachrome and Plenachrome <similar to green x-ray film>, for sunlight use a 5X factor, for tungsten, use 3X, I would start with 3X and move on to 5X if necessary. 3X, for the younger set, means three times the normal exposure with a medium yellow filter

Tin Can

11-May-2013, 12:05

Wow! nice image, and I love how it looks like a miniature!

[QUOTE=gdi;1025240]Finally able to digitize one of my first XRay shots:, and it is actually one of my first 8x10 shots.

Fuji HRT, Processed in Sprint -Std 1-9-_ in a Beseler Drum. I had to strip the back side with bleach because huge spots didn't develop (think I'll stick to trays from now on). Scanned in 4 segments with an Epson 4870 - looking for an 8x10 scanner now!

SergeiR

11-May-2013, 13:01

You have the most interesting imagination. Thank you for posting your many images in this thread.
Mike

Nice dof and proof anything can make an interesting image. I have been trying to find a still life I want to shoot, and here you show us chips!

With the junk I have, maybe I can find an interesting widgit.

Nice lesson!

thanks, guys ;) To be honest - it was byproduct of me, trying hand with old C-22 stock, (1st attempt - major failure).. Shot this as just an idea, spurred of ye old Weston's peppers some time ago.

Ian Greenhalgh

11-May-2013, 17:40

Cheers Randys etc for the advice. It's an old Zeiss Ikon 40.5mm yellow so not sure what it is. I'll try to pit it over the cell on my weston but the filter is quite a lot smaller than the cell so might be problematic.

Tin Can

11-May-2013, 19:12

Ok, I am starting to get something. This is just a boring focus test, but it is so much more. This is 8X10 Kodak CSG shot taped inside a copy camera, it took me all day to adjust T distance for the GG and wacky huge holder. Shot with RD Artar 19" wide open. This camera can hold 11X14 and maybe a little bigger.

I am just happy to see focus this good. Also 1/100 RO9 10 min with little agit.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7396/8729506505_cf87c2bb20_c.jpg

BarryS

11-May-2013, 20:27

I've had a bit of time to return to my mammo film experiments. Mammo film is slow and very contrasty, and it builds density brutally fast. I've been studying low contrast developers and this is from my first attempts at getting the density in a manageable range for silver gelatin prints. I normally use Pyrocat HD in a Jobo at 1:1:100 and I lowered the developing agent and doubled the carbonate as per some advice in the Film Developing Cookbook. This is 18x24 Fuji AD-M film in 1:4:200 Pyrocat HD, rotary processed for 5 minutes at 70 F. The density is starting to get reasonable, but I may have lost film speed--looks like my EI is 3 or 6. I may be experiencing reciprocity, but in any case the EI is very low. My further experiments will try to up the film speed without increasing contrast.

I tried my brand new 210mm Graphic Kowa--this lens is super sharp, very small, and has a ton of extra coverage on 8x10.

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/3673/greatseneca1fujiadm.jpg
Great Seneca

Tin Can

11-May-2013, 20:48

Test 2 today. Almost everything the same, notice the tape mark at top, but I get all the film, no holder marks on the sides. f45 10 seconds, straight out of scanner. No adjustments or spotting.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7421/8729702603_f87f43a6c4_b.jpg

gdi

12-May-2013, 04:06

Wow! nice image, and I love how it looks like a miniature!

Thanks Randy, I am so glad I found this info on Xray film - 50 cents a sheet makes it a lot easier to practice and experiment than 4 dollars a sheet!

Also, seeing your self portrait makes me want to try it - but my darn lens require such a long release plunger that my bulb release won't trip it!!

SergeiR

12-May-2013, 13:48

8x10 , kodak, csg, rodinal 1+100 for 5:30

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7283/8732143641_78eb8d8bf0_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8732143641/)
Simple things: eggs and eggshells (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8732143641/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

that moment when f22 isnt enough.. :( 20s exposure

Tin Can

12-May-2013, 15:38

8X10 Kodak CSG strobes, something going on by right eye.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7320/8732470957_d355c95773_b.jpg

HT Finley

12-May-2013, 15:44

First time poster here, jumping into what appears to be a very long thread on the use of X-Ray film in 8x10. Having just acquired a Japanese made Horseman from maybe the 70's or 80's, I will be going out in the field and putting this beast on my Tiltall. Don't laugh, it actually holds it up, barely. But it's all I can afford. The only lens I have to put on it is my 210 Symmar-S I bought new in 1980. Hope it will cover it, and hate it being wide angle on 8x10, but it's all I've got.
Anyway I'm apparently jumping on the X-Ray film and Pyrocat wagon. Green sensitive, but don't know what film to buy. I want those cheap 50-cent negatives. It looks like all the X-Ray film out there is emulsion coated on both sides. I don't suppose there's any way around that?
I've done enough due diligence to avoid forcing you folks to re-cover old ground, but at the same time would like to avoid going through the 2000 pages of this long thread. Anybody care to bring me up to sped on what film to buy for reasonable speed for scenic-style work? Thank you.

Tin Can

12-May-2013, 15:51

WE are including most critical info right with the images. Save yourself a lot of headache and read this entire thread.

First time poster here, jumping into what appears to be a very long thread on the use of X-Ray film in 8x10. Having just acquired a Japanese made Horseman from maybe the 70's or 80's, I will be going out in the field and putting this beast on my Tiltall. Don't laugh, it actually holds it up, barely. But it's all I can afford. The only lens I have to put on it is my 210 Symmar-S I bought new in 1980. Hope it will cover it, and hate it being wide angle on 8x10, but it's all I've got.
Anyway I'm apparently jumping on the X-Ray film and Pyrocat wagon. Green sensitive, but don't know what film to buy. I want those cheap 50-cent negatives. It looks like all the X-Ray film out there is emulsion coated on both sides. I don't suppose there's any way around that?
I've done enough due diligence to avoid forcing you folks to re-cover old ground, but at the same time would like to avoid going through the 2000 pages of this long thread. Anybody care to bring me up to sped on what film to buy for reasonable speed for scenic-style work? Thank you.

HT Finley

12-May-2013, 17:23

Thanks--up to page 34 an am not gleaning a great deal so far. A lot -f back-and-forth one liners between guys who obviously know one another, but nothing definitive so far. Found a link for some Kodak one-sided at $80 a box. Learned mammography film is also one sided, but no indication as to speed. ASA 50 and faster would be nice. Like the idea of loading it in my unicolor/Beseler drums and turning on the rotator. Not at all wild about having to do a stripping procedure on 2-sided stuff.
Seems some of these brands are nearly panchromatic, but know not which.

Tin Can

12-May-2013, 17:40

I am using kodak CSG from CSXonline.com double sided at 80 asa, not stripping.

Thanks--up to page 34 an am not gleaning a great deal so far. A lot -f back-and-forth one liners between guys who obviously know one another, but nothing definitive so far. Found a link for some Kodak one-sided at $80 a box. Learned mammography film is also one sided, but no indication as to speed. ASA 50 and faster would be nice. Like the idea of loading it in my unicolor/Beseler drums and turning on the rotator. Not at all wild about having to do a stripping procedure on 2-sided stuff.
Seems some of these brands are nearly panchromatic, but know not which.

Tin Can

12-May-2013, 17:54

#2 of 2 scratch in image upper left is on my AN. Same everything. Something different is drying...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7281/8733944940_865ea9a161_b.jpg

HT Finley

12-May-2013, 20:15

Is Kodak 8X10 Film CSG1 Green X-Ray Film single or double sided. My mind is spinning from too much information, and cannot put my finger on this answer. Thank you.

PS-- and about corners--square or round?

Tin Can

12-May-2013, 20:33

to repeat,
I am using kodak CSG from CSXonline.com double sided at 80 asa, not stripping.

Is Kodak 8X10 Film CSG1 Green X-Ray Film single or double sided. My mind is spinning from too much information, and cannot put my finger on this answer. Thank you.

PS-- and about corners--square or round?

Tin Can

12-May-2013, 20:54

Almost done testing. This is really a test of my Levy copy camera film size potential. The image is made of two 8X10 X-Ray Kodak CSG taped inside the camera to make a 10X16" negative.

You notice the odd patterns top and bottom are camera internal edges. This mean I can easily shoot 11X14!

Now I need to buy more X-Ray...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7311/8734410904_d0e9b33c24_b.jpg

HT Finley

12-May-2013, 21:16

to repeat,
I am using kodak CSG from CSXonline.com double sided at 80 asa, not stripping.

Thank you. My first 6 hours on here and I'm to p85 of the thread.Helpful, but not definitive abundantly. Not sorry I read it though. I've named 8X10 Kodak Film CSG1 Green X-Ray Film, because of the fact I'll be doing either tray or color drum and rotating base, probably with pyro. And the price of 46.47$ is attractive at this site:
http://cheapxrayfilm.com/category/80-kodak-csg-1.aspx
Certainly not naming it as final choice, but still would prefer single sided, if at all possible. Randy Moe, your input is valued, as it shows up with some amouint of prominence, therefor credibility. I wounder how round that round corner are? Round corners can make your 8x10 neg into 7x9 prints pretty quick.
The process seems to yield results I could live with the rest of my life, I believe. fSomewhere the absurdity of 5 million dollars per shutter-click with pan film has to stop. I'm not a rich man.

Tin Can

12-May-2013, 21:22

You can see the round corners in most of my full image scans. You lose a tiny bit.

I am very new at this and by no means an expert in anything photographic.

http://www.cxsonline.com/ has it for $38.25 plus cheap shipping. I have bought from twice and it comes real quick.

Thank you. My first 6 hours on here and I'm to p85 of the thread.Helpful, but not definitive abundantly. Not sorry I read it though. I've named 8X10 Kodak Film CSG1 Green X-Ray Film, because of the fact I'll be doing either tray or color drum and rotating base, probably with pyro. And the price of 46.47$ is attractive at this site:
http://cheapxrayfilm.com/category/80-kodak-csg-1.aspx
Certainly not naming it as final choice, but still would prefer single sided, if at all possible. Randy Moe, your input is valued, as it shows up with some amouint of prominence, therefor credibility. I wounder how round that round corner are? Round corners can make your 8x10 neg into 7x9 prints pretty quick.
The process seems to yield results I could live with the rest of my life, I believe. fSomewhere the absurdity of 5 million dollars per shutter-click with pan film has to stop. I'm not a rich man.

HT Finley

12-May-2013, 21:37

Thanks. Having done nothing at all so far, I am leaning toward Kodak CSG 1, even though its 10 or 15 dollars higher. Single sided, if at all possible. Seems like something like that shot with the most yellow filter you can get your hands on, developed in pyro, would make you never miss pan film again. Full pan doesn't have to be EVERYTHING. I'm not Gates or Buffett over here.

photoevangelist

13-May-2013, 02:03

Ian Greenhalgh

13-May-2013, 03:15

Cheers for the tip, I'll try a polariser. It wasn't as misty as that to the naked eye, the blue sensitive film seems to make any haze look thicker.

premortho

13-May-2013, 06:14

Ian, if you will go back on this forum, you will find the spectrographs for bot the so-called blue film and the green film. If you check that, you will see that both of these films are orthochromatic, the blue less so than the green, but both are modifiable by filters. Now real "blue'film, like lithographic film, and copy film is only able to differentiate the uv and blue end of the spectrum. There is also an ortho-lith film that Freestyle, and others sell, that is mildly orthochromatic.

rdelung

13-May-2013, 08:44

Ah, now 3 Randy's.

Thank goodness I chose to use my full name, and it's short, maybe I will change to R Moe, as many call me that. The nice ones at least...

Hi Randy Moe, I have admired your work, and advice. I've been in the X-Ray profession since 1975. But sadly I've been out of the photo. side for about 20 years. Marrage house, and kids can put a dent in one's past time. I did manage to go from a 4x8 darkroom to 10x12 with a bessler MX45. I got out of the chemical side when digital started. I did have the smarts to keep the Bessler though. Sadly my darkroom is now a Man Cave, but it works. Anyhow I'm back in the game now, and purchased a box of green 8x10. I shoot 4x5 and 8x10. Any how Randy its nice to meet you and, I can use my work related initials Rde if that helps. After all you were here first. I can adapt. Thanks for your input. Hopefully I can contribute to the Forum if possible. Seattle member....Rde ( aka: Randy DeLung )

SergeiR

13-May-2013, 08:54

Cheers for the tip, I'll try a polariser. It wasn't as misty as that to the naked eye, the blue sensitive film seems to make any haze look thicker.

Why on earth would you want to destroy tonal perspective?! I know, i know.. Ansel Adams, & etc.. but seriously... Why?

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 09:02

Good to meet you Randy DeLung! I think I am Randy 2, it could be worse, I once knew a bar where we started numbering 'Chads'

As you can probably tell, Sergei is the one to learn from.

I am just a retired Tinker trying to have fun in my Laboratory, I am currently single and my entire loft is a darkroom man cave, even women love it!

We all look forward to your images and ideas.

Hi Randy Moe, I have admired your work, and advice. I've been in the X-Ray profession since 1975. But sadly I've been out of the photo. side for about 20 years. Marrage house, and kids can put a dent in one's past time. I did manage to go from a 4x8 darkroom to 10x12 with a bessler MX45. I got out of the chemical side when digital started. I did have the smarts to keep the Bessler though. Sadly my darkroom is now a Man Cave, but it works. Anyhow I'm back in the game now, and purchased a box of green 8x10. I shoot 4x5 and 8x10. Any how Randy its nice to meet you and, I can use my work related initials Rde if that helps. After all you were here first. I can adapt. Thanks for your input. Hopefully I can contribute to the Forum if possible. Seattle member....Rde ( aka: Randy DeLung )

rdelung

13-May-2013, 09:15

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 09:24

I'll jump in here just to get the discussion going. I am most likely doing it wrong, but I am using a V700, with VueScan and a piece of 8x10 AN glass laying on the platen. I simply lay my neg on that. It works but most likely not ideal. Right now it is fast, down and dirty way to quickly scan and examine 8X10's.

All the methods I see recommend adjusting the neg height over the platen, hence my AN glass layer.

Somebody also sells a V700 AN platen glass replacement...

Hi gdi, I'm venturing into uncharted waters with a newly purchase of a Epson V700 photo scanner. My scanning experience is very limited. Any advice you could pass along would be very helpful. I'm also new at useing x-ray
film in photography. Just getting my feet wet ( as they say ) I'm afraide that makeing an adapter back for my 4x5 field camera to use with a Nikon D3100 got me back into the game. So if you can help I would apprecieate it. Thanks, a Seattle member Rde

rdelung

13-May-2013, 09:25

Your right-----Sergi is the man, and his models are really something. Sergi if you are listening, I can use your advice also. Thanks to you both for your info. to the Forum. Rde

rdelung

13-May-2013, 09:38

Thanks Randy, 8x10's is where I want to go. Where can I get the AN glass? and the write up say that the double layer film will cause problems. Whats your openion? Also I copied articles from the forum on Bleaching so that you only have one immage side. That way it would be like regular photo. film. Any thoughts on that? Thanks----Rde.

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 09:44

I don't bleach or remove the back side, some think the front side is slightly sharper and make sure they scan or enlarge the front side.

http://www.fpointinc.com/glass.htm

Thanks Randy, 8x10's is where I want to go. Where can I get the AN glass? and the write up say that the double layer film will cause problems. Whats your openion? Also I copied articles from the forum on Bleaching so that you only have one immage side. That way it would be like regular photo. film. Any thoughts on that? Thanks----Rde.

SergeiR

13-May-2013, 09:45

As you can probably tell, Sergei is the one to learn from.

Thanks, but there are far better photographers to pick things from on this forum.
Specially if one is to follow pathway of f64 group :)

PS: one can also get 8x10 ANR from betterscanning :)

Randy

13-May-2013, 10:59

Another Randy here - as for scanning, I have been using CSX green latitude film - emulsion on both sides. I don't strip the back side. I use a V750, and because of the excessive "matte" finish to the emulsion, no ANR glass is necessary. I just lay the 8X10 neg on the scanner glass, with the film area guide, and scan. I have yet to get the first newton ring. When I was shooting Arista 8X10 film a couple years ago, I was plagues by rings. That film's emulsion side was almost like the base side - very shiny.

SergeiR

13-May-2013, 11:08

I have yet to get the first newton ring. When I was shooting Arista 8X10 film a couple years ago, I was plagues by rings.

you lucky.. i been getting them even with ANR glass.

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 11:12

ditto

you lucky.. i been getting them even with ANR glass.

BarryS

13-May-2013, 12:10

More work from this weekend shot at the Great Falls of the Potomac on 18x24 Fuji AD-M mammography film. I shot these at EI 3 (!) and developed for 4 minutes in 1:4:200 Pyrocat HD at 70 C in a Jobo rotary processor. It may be the very short developing time, but it looks like I'm seeing some uneven development on the last image. My last batch was developed for 5 minutes and I didn't see any issues, so that may be the limit for this concentration of Pyrocat. The negatives look good with nice tonality and density--I believe they'll print just fine on silver gelatin paper. I'll be moving on to some low contrast developers next--Pyrocat HD is workable, but I could use a little more speed and some longer developing times.

http://imageshack.us/a/img547/4657/greatfalls2fujiadm.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img442/4053/greatfalls1fujiadm.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img21/1473/greatfalls3fujiadm.jpg

rdelung

13-May-2013, 12:13

I don't bleach or remove the back side, some think the front side is slightly sharper and make sure they scan or enlarge the front side.

http://www.fpointinc.com/glass.htm
Got it, thanks-----Rde

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 12:22

I like these, but that film is way higher priced than CSG, unless you can point to a cheaper supplier.

I do like the fact it is SS, has anti-hal and a protective backside coating.

I'm just cheap.

I assume at that speed, you do not need ND filter to make long exposure.

[QUOTE=BarryS;1026003]More work from this weekend shot at the Great Falls of the Potomac on 18x24 Fuji AD-M mammography film. I shot these at EI 3 (!) and developed for 4 minutes in 1:4:200 Pyrocat HD at 70 C in a Jobo rotary processor. It may be the very short developing time, but it looks like I'm seeing some uneven development on the last image. My last batch was developed for 5 minutes and I didn't see any issues, so that may be the limit for this concentration of Pyrocat. The negatives look good with nice tonality and density--I believe they'll print just fine on silver gelatin paper. I'll be moving on to some low contrast developers next--Pyrocat HD is workable, but I could use a little more speed and some longer developing times.

BarryS

13-May-2013, 13:02

I bought a bunch on ebay for 10-25 cents/sheet. As the shift continues to digital x-ray systems, there's going to be plenty of cheap film--it just takes a little extra work to hunt it down. You don't need a ND filter--or a shutter for that matter, at my current speed. I think I can squeeze out a couple more stops with a different developer, but it'll still be slow. If you need extra density for any alt-process--salt printing, carbon, Pt/Pd, etc.--it's trivial to get up to any desired density. The base fog is low and it's very fine-grained. If it weren't for the sloooow speed, it would be as nice as real film.

I like these, but that film is way higher priced than CSG, unless you can point to a cheaper supplier.

I do like the fact it is SS, has anti-hal and a protective backside coating.

I'm just cheap.

I assume at that speed, you do not need ND filter to make long exposure.

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 13:12

Hard to escape eBay, i will look.

Is it fitting 8X10 holdrs or are you using 18X24?

I bought a bunch on ebay for 10-25 cents/sheet. As the shift continues to digital x-ray systems, there's going to be plenty of cheap film--it just takes a little extra work to hunt it down. You don't need a ND filter--or a shutter for that matter, at my current speed. I think I can squeeze out a couple more stops with a different developer, but it'll still be slow. If you need extra density for any alt-process--salt printing, carbon, Pt/Pd, etc.--it's trivial to get up to any desired density. The base fog is low and it's very fine-grained. If it weren't for the sloooow speed, it would be as nice as real film.

BarryS

13-May-2013, 13:42

I found some 18x24 holders that fit standard 8x10 cameras. You could also use some double-sided tape to fit to an 8x10 holder. If double-sided x-ray film is working for you, I'd hesitate before getting into mammo film.

Standard x-ray film

Pros
Cheap, easily available
Lots of standard sizes
Reasonable film speed
Use standard developer

Cons
Two-sided coating makes film easy to scratch during processing
No notch
No anti-halo backing

Mammo film

Pros
Inexpensive from secondary sources
Single-sided coating prevents processing damage
Notched
Anti-halo backing

Cons
Expensive from normal retail channels
Non-standard sizes prevalent (18x24, 24x30)
Very slow speed
Contrasty, needs low-contrast developer

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 13:49

Thanks Barry, all very good info.

I have been taping the standard doubled side into a big copy camera. Next up for me is taping 11x14 into it. It's a clunker but it is fine for 1 to 1 portraits.

If I find some cheap mammo, I will buy it.

I look forward to your further adventures!

I found some 18x24 holders that fit standard 8x10 cameras. You could also use some double-sided tape to fit to an 8x10 holder. If double-sided x-ray film is working for you, I'd hesitate before getting into mammo film.

Standard x-ray film

Pros
Cheap, easily available
Lots of standard sizes
Reasonable film speed
Use standard developer

Cons
Two-sided coating makes film easy to scratch during processing
No notch
No anti-halo backing

Mammo film

Pros
Inexpensive from secondary sources
Single-sided coating prevents processing damage
Notched
Anti-halo backing

Cons
Expensive from normal retail channels
Non-standard sizes prevalent (18x24, 24x30)
Very slow speed
Contrasty, needs low-contrast developer

HT Finley

13-May-2013, 14:22

The cheap 8x10 stuff fits in 8x10 film holders with no problem, not tape or anything, right?

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 14:25

yes

The cheap 8x10 stuff fits in 8x10 film holders with no problem, not tape or anything, right?

rdelung

13-May-2013, 15:21

Hay Randy ( this is odd, seems like I'm talking to myself ) The v700 comes with a 8x10 holder right! Does it not work? Why do you go for the AN glass? Mine is still unboxed. Thanks, Rde.

gdi

13-May-2013, 15:23

Hi gdi, I'm venturing into uncharted waters with a newly purchase of a Epson V700 photo scanner. My scanning experience is very limited. Any advice you could pass along would be very helpful. I'm also new at useing x-ray
film in photography. Just getting my feet wet ( as they say ) I'm afraide that makeing an adapter back for my 4x5 field camera to use with a Nikon D3100 got me back into the game. So if you can help I would apprecieate it. Thanks, a Seattle member Rde

RDE, I am now in the market for a V700/750 since scanning in sections stinks! I have been laying the neg straight on the scanner glass and masking it with a 5x7 mask. If I was shooting 5x7, I would be set with my 4870 and BetterScanning mounting tray. But I want 8x10! I am also using Silverfast 8 Studio, I find it much easier to use than VueScan.

gdi

13-May-2013, 15:27

More work from this weekend shot at the Great Falls of the Potomac on 18x24 Fuji AD-M mammography film. I shot these at EI 3 (!) and developed for 4 minutes in 1:4:200 Pyrocat HD at 70 C in a Jobo rotary processor. It may be the very short developing time, but it looks like I'm seeing some uneven development on the last image. My last batch was developed for 5 minutes and I didn't see any issues, so that may be the limit for this concentration of Pyrocat. The negatives look good with nice tonality and density--I believe they'll print just fine on silver gelatin paper. I'll be moving on to some low contrast developers next--Pyrocat HD is workable, but I could use a little more speed and some longer developing times.

Very nice, but are those Newtons rings on the last shot?

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 15:42

I know it's odd, I so seldom meet another Randy!

The V700 8x10 gizmo is not a holder, but a simple plastic outline guide to show where to place your film. It may even not be necessary. However, I understand the V700 does different things with different size neg scans, 2 lenses? I just don't know enough to explain.

I do know I made matte for 5X7 as a guide and the V700 did not like that. It scanned black all over! I tried it white side and black side, mystery remains. So, as with 8X10 I just lay a 5x7 on top of AN glass.

I only use the V700 for 5x7 and 8x10, I have a 4490 I use for MF and 35mm and it seems to work better at that than the V700.

Many here consider the V700 insufficient and use higher quality drum scans on machines I have never seen.

I need to spend more time following the advice on this website, http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php

Hay Randy ( this is odd, seems like I'm talking to myself ) The v700 comes with a 8x10 holder right! Does it not work? Why do you go for the AN glass? Mine is still unboxed. Thanks, Rde.

BarryS

13-May-2013, 17:48

Very nice, but are those Newtons rings on the last shot?

Thanks--yes, these are quick scans for the web and I occasionally get Newton's rings depending on the emulsion. I'm generally contact printing or doing alt-process with anything over 4x5, so it hasn't been a major issue. It's still irritating and I need to figure out how to wet mount on my scanner if I start selling digital prints from big negs. My Artixscan M1 has a glassless system for everything up to 4x5, and my darkroom is set up for 4x5, so 8x10 negs are a bit of an issue.

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 18:01

You state you were in the real X-Ray biz. A couple questions.

Are used X-ray holders safe, as I see they have a lead layer? Do they become 'hot' after extended use?

Do X-ray holders open up to light like a photo holder to admit visible light?

I look at the eBay images of used holders and they seem to be designed with spring pressure plates that push the film against what?

Clear glass would be nice, but maybe it is an opaque material?

Any other tips on real X-Ray holders would be great.

I would love to buy the cheap radiological holders up to 14X17 and make a camera back to fit.

I have a copy camera waiting for the big time...

The next obvious questions concern medical style developing chems and methods.

Thanks,

Hi Randy Moe, I have admired your work, and advice. I've been in the X-Ray profession since 1975. But sadly I've been out of the photo. side for about 20 years. Marrage house, and kids can put a dent in one's past time. I did manage to go from a 4x8 darkroom to 10x12 with a bessler MX45. I got out of the chemical side when digital started. I did have the smarts to keep the Bessler though. Sadly my darkroom is now a Man Cave, but it works. Anyhow I'm back in the game now, and purchased a box of green 8x10. I shoot 4x5 and 8x10. Any how Randy its nice to meet you and, I can use my work related initials Rde if that helps. After all you were here first. I can adapt. Thanks for your input. Hopefully I can contribute to the Forum if possible. Seattle member....Rde ( aka: Randy DeLung )

SergeiR

13-May-2013, 19:30

8x10 Kodak CSG, Heliar (14 inch), 4:30m in 1+100 Rodinal + 2m in 1+600 (trying something here)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7287/8736357421_6c692992f1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8736357421/)
Scan-130512-0001www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8736357421/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

HT Finley

13-May-2013, 19:41

The photo in post 944 above looks solarized or something.

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 19:44

I have noticed you keep reducing dev times.

Is it getting you where you want to go?

When I open to one of your images, it always makes me smile!

[QUOTE=SergeiR;1026159]8x10 Kodak CSG, Heliar (14 inch), 4:30m in 1+100 Rodinal + 2m in 1+600 (trying something here)

HT Finley

13-May-2013, 19:51

I'd like to hear a consensus on the use of pyro with the cheap 2-sided green stuff Randy Moe is using. I mean Pyrocat, or Pyrocat HD, or whatever it's called.

SergeiR

13-May-2013, 20:38

I have noticed you keep reducing dev times.

Is it getting you where you want to go?

When I open to one of your images, it always makes me smile!

Thanks, Randy :) as of times.. Well.. I am trying one theory here. Times will get longer very soon as i need to gather data from other end.

SergeiR

13-May-2013, 20:40

The photo in post 944 above looks solarized or something.

As i said - what i do will pretty much never fly with people who follow Ansel Adams school :) Sorry about that.

SergeiR

13-May-2013, 20:46

btw. not x-ray related, but on same note on "what I do" - I am going to be part of month long exhibition "Fantastic Realism" in Lumin Arte Gallery in Dallas (http://www.luminarte.com/home.html). Starting on 25th of May.

Mostly digital stuff there (ok, one LF image, i was lazy) from me but there are other folks - its mix of photography and paintings. If you will be around, feel free to drop by and check things out ;)

Tin Can

13-May-2013, 21:09

I wish I could stop by.

Congratulations!

Fantastic Realism Indeed!

btw. not x-ray related, but on same note on "what I do" - I am going to be part of month long exhibition "Fantastic Realism" in Lumin Arte Gallery in Dallas (http://www.luminarte.com/home.html). Starting on 25th of May.

Mostly digital stuff there (ok, one LF image, i was lazy) from me but there are other folks - its mix of photography and paintings. If you will be around, feel free to drop by and check things out ;)

Woodturner-fran

14-May-2013, 03:57

RE the v750 scanning - if its the same as the v500 there is a calibration area near the top centre of the glass that must be kept clear or the scanner won't image. If you have a look at your holders you will see some little pinholes across the top of the holder - see where they go? Well thats the spot to keep clear. If your mask is in that area it could be the reason why its not working.

Fran

SergeiR

14-May-2013, 05:55

Umm.. they are many things, but pinholes they arent. Its about 5-7mm opening that runs along the edge. If you block it - scanner is unable to calibrate for transparencies. Fine for reflectives, of course.

SergeiR

14-May-2013, 05:58

The V700 8x10 gizmo is not a holder, but a simple plastic outline guide to show where to place your film. It may even not be necessary.

it isnt, btw.. It is pretty much just a guide mask to show you where openings for calibration should be left. Theoretically it might also help you with some odd light spills, but i never saw it working that way.

rdelung

14-May-2013, 08:41

Hi Randy, your first question: are x-ray holders safe? By all means Yes. The x-ray particles pass through the holder and nothing remains. Second, do they admit visable light? NO The only way any form of light if emitted is when the particle hits one of the screens. They will emit a Blue, or Green color. Thats why film is Blue or Green sensitive.
Third, the springs push the screens together ( one on each side ) to sandwich the film in the middle. That's why medical x-ray film has emulsion on both sides. My question, what are you refering to as a opaque material? Could you have met the screens, or the film? Don't ask me about what they use now. Its all digital, I'm from the film age. I was talking with a x-ray student about making an immage with modern day equepment. I tll ya, it was like he was talking in a differunt language. Now for your last question about film holders. They are everywhere. With the age of filmless
technology, they are almost reduced to garbage. I was looking for some empty 8x10 box's, and it was extremely
difficult. I did only manage to get one mamo box ( which is not 8x10, they are smaller) and I got one empty 8x10. I felt lucky to get that. If I can be of any help, keep the questions coming. Seattle man...Rde

Tin Can

14-May-2013, 08:43

rdelung

14-May-2013, 08:49

Tin Can

14-May-2013, 08:53

Thanks!

That clears things up, as someone had posted in the dusty LFF past that they were using X-Ray holders, for imaging with visible light. I could not see how, without heavy modification of a X-Ray holder, and a custom camera.

It may have been done, but not obvious.

What about chemistry, I see the standard was 60 to 90 seconds dry to dry?

Hi Randy, your first question: are x-ray holders safe? By all means Yes. The x-ray particles pass through the holder and nothing remains. Second, do they admit visable light? NO The only way any form of light if emitted is when the particle hits one of the screens. They will emit a Blue, or Green color. Thats why film is Blue or Green sensitive.
Third, the springs push the screens together ( one on each side ) to sandwich the film in the middle. That's why medical x-ray film has emulsion on both sides. My question, what are you refering to as a opaque material? Could you have met the screens, or the film? Don't ask me about what they use now. Its all digital, I'm from the film age. I was talking with a x-ray student about making an immage with modern day equepment. I tll ya, it was like he was talking in a differunt language. Now for your last question about film holders. They are everywhere. With the age of filmless
technology, they are almost reduced to garbage. I was looking for some empty 8x10 box's, and it was extremely
difficult. I did only manage to get one mamo box ( which is not 8x10, they are smaller) and I got one empty 8x10. I felt lucky to get that. If I can be of any help, keep the questions coming. Seattle man...Rde

SergeiR

14-May-2013, 10:03

I checked the other masks that come with V700 and other sizes, less than 8X10 do have pinholes, in a variety of patterns. All have the hinge side 7mm gap, and then pinholes after the gap.

As I understand it, V700/750 has 2 lenses, one that is utilized for more resolution with smaller negs.

Perhaps we can hack the mask into giving better resolution with 8x10.

And why did they ignore 5x7

You can scan 8x10 any day using array that is normally goes for 4x5. Wont get full negative coverage. Will get it working fine for 5x7 btw.
But do you REALLY need any kind of higher resolution? Even at typical 2400 you get 400mp image. I assure you that on 13x19 print even from that you will see every single bit in moss on tree sides, if focus isnt goofed and you into getting details. You do loose more to scanning array not being able to focus.

I never noticed any pinholes, its kinda funny.. But i dont use any masks anymore.. Used for a while with 4x5 and just gave up.

However this is discussion for other section of forum, i believe :)

Tin Can

14-May-2013, 10:07

No I don't need more resolution, but the gearhead in me always wants to fiddle

Loading those crappy masks is a major problem for my crappy hands.

LOL

You can scan 8x10 any day using array that is normally goes for 4x5. Wont get full negative coverage. Will get it working fine for 5x7 btw.
But do you REALLY need any kind of higher resolution? Even at typical 2400 you get 400mp image. I assure you that on 13x19 print even from that you will see every single bit in moss on tree sides, if focus isnt goofed and you into getting details. You do loose more to scanning array not being able to focus.

I never noticed any pinholes, its kinda funny.. But i dont use any masks anymore.. Used for a while with 4x5 and just gave up.

However this is discussion for other section of forum, i believe :)

SergeiR

14-May-2013, 11:06

No I don't need more resolution, but the gearhead in me always wants to fiddle

Loading those crappy masks is a major problem for my crappy hands.

LOL

Dont then. I just tape film to ANR glass, stick glass on 8 pennies and scan :)

Tin Can

14-May-2013, 19:15

A practical plan, I will try that that.

Film under or over?

Dont then. I just tape film to ANR glass, stick glass on 8 pennies and scan :)

SergeiR

14-May-2013, 20:52

A practical plan, I will try that that.

Film under or over?

Under. No difference from scanning "real' 8x10 film.

Tin Can

14-May-2013, 21:03

Thanks!

Under. No difference from scanning "real' 8x10 film.

rdelung

15-May-2013, 08:13

Ian Greenhalgh

15-May-2013, 10:20

Kodak Industrex MX125 souped in Ornano ST20. Pullin Pulnar 2.8/100 on Century Graphic.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Scan1305150001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Scan1305150001WEB_1.jpg)

Holdenrichards

16-May-2013, 21:04

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7313/8746935124_5e4d1b7089_c.jpg

1903 Eastman View No. 1 - Agfa Repromaster 185mm - f/45 - Kodak Blue X-Ray - 8x10 Film - Unaltered Negative Scan

Ian Greenhalgh

16-May-2013, 21:43

That's really beautiful, tonality is very nice for a blue sensitive film. That repromaster looks very sharp, have you mounted it in a shutter or do you use it with a Packard or lens cap instead?

Holdenrichards

17-May-2013, 05:13

That's really beautiful, tonality is very nice for a blue sensitive film. That repromaster looks very sharp, have you mounted it in a shutter or do you use it with a Packard or lens cap instead?

Thanks! This is just a lenscap at f/64 with a filter the times are around a second or 1/2 second so its doable. the film is "CRT" film, like mammography film so a little different than standard blue.

premortho

17-May-2013, 06:27

Wow! That's just plain gorgeous! Great exposure. What filter did you use?
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7313/8746935124_5e4d1b7089_c.jpg

1903 Eastman View No. 1 - Agfa Repromaster 185mm - f/45 - Kodak Blue X-Ray - 8x10 Film - Unaltered Negative Scan

SergeiR

17-May-2013, 07:54

1903 Eastman View No. 1 - Agfa Repromaster 185mm - f/45 - Kodak Blue X-Ray - 8x10 Film - Unaltered Negative Scan

Interesting work

rdelung

17-May-2013, 08:30

Great looking image. Can you tell me what the development spec's. Developer and dilution, Developer temp. and total time in developer. I'm just getting into this, and before I open my new bottle of developer. I want to have a handle on as many of the spec's as possible. Thanks again, Seattle man....Rde

rdelung

17-May-2013, 10:48

Just one more question. Seeing how scanning is also a new thing for me. I have a v700 still in the box. How did you go about getting sutch a great looking view? I have an older 8x10 that I'm currently restoring, so 8x10 is where I would like to go. Thanks....Seattle man. Rde

jon.oman

17-May-2013, 11:32

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7313/8746935124_5e4d1b7089_c.jpg

1903 Eastman View No. 1 - Agfa Repromaster 185mm - f/45 - Kodak Blue X-Ray - 8x10 Film - Unaltered Negative Scan

Wonderful image! Everything just seems to fit......

Holdenrichards

17-May-2013, 13:09

SergeiR

17-May-2013, 20:28

8x10 Kodak CSG, 1+200 Rodinal, 1 hour

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8548/8748723263_039d7998fc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8748723263/)
Rose garden - 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8748723263/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

processed and shot according to Mortensen's teaching.

premortho

18-May-2013, 06:12

Just plain lovely. Amazing how much Mortenson knew, isn't it?
8x10 Kodak CSG, 1+200 Rodinal, 1 hour

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8548/8748723263_039d7998fc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8748723263/)
Rose garden - 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8748723263/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

processed and shot according to Mortensen's teaching.

premortho

18-May-2013, 06:16

Wonderful image! Everything just seems to fit...... Yes, you are right. This reminds us that the artist's eye for composition and lighting, and knowing what the film's characteristics are are most important.

Will Frostmill

18-May-2013, 11:44

Holdenrichards

18-May-2013, 11:54

Wow! That's just plain gorgeous! Great exposure. What filter did you use?

Thanks, A standard yellow 8 filter.

SergeiR

18-May-2013, 12:17

Well, that's fantastic, Sergei,
I'm really impressed by how 'clean' the background is. That's the Wollensak 12" f4.5 soft focus lens?
Will

Thank you, yes, thats the one. Got it off fleabay, cleaned, lubed.. still need to CLA shutter better, but even as it is - seem to be nice addition to me arsenal

Wayne

19-May-2013, 07:24

I can't believe I read the whhhoooooooolllllle thing....

Wayne

19-May-2013, 16:36

Tin Can

19-May-2013, 17:01

Nothing I do turns out like Sergei, but right now I am doing R09 1/100 10 min with easy agit 1 min and then 5 secs every min.

Gentle is the key, as it scratches very easily.

Oh my aching head....25 pages...of an image thread....on DIAL UP! Took me 3 days. There should be some sort of award for this. Hurray for me..<pats self on back>.

Sergei (and anyone else using Rodinal 1:100 or 1:200 with xray) what agitation are you using? I noticed developing times are all over the map, from 5 to 60 minutes. I presume/pray some of this is stand development? I have lots and lots of Rodinal. Now I need to get me some xray film.

Raffay

20-May-2013, 00:15

I am not sure what is going on, it's the same safelight but I don't know why these sheets seemed exposed before taking of the shot. I think it was a pretty good image ruined once again. Shot at f8 1sec speed 80. Developed in D23 1:4 for 19 mins at 22 deg.

95473

Cheers
Raffay

Barry Kirsten

20-May-2013, 00:24

Raffay, I've thought all along your problem is fogging, and your safelight is the prime suspect. Try loading film and doing development in total darkness. Once you are sure the safelight is not the cause of the fog, you then have to look at other possible causes.

Barry.

Ian Greenhalgh

20-May-2013, 00:26

Another one on Kodak Industrex MX125. Souped in Ornano ST20 diluted 1:10 until completion.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/4077_Market_SquareWEB_2.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20135/big_4077_Market_SquareWEB_2.jpg)

Raffay

20-May-2013, 02:30

Michael Cienfuegos

20-May-2013, 09:40

How can cut in the dark?

What are you using for a safelight??

Barry Kirsten

20-May-2013, 14:33

Look back through this thread where several people have described their methods for cutting film.

I don't cut film at the moment, but if I did, in the light of past experience I'd get myself a rotary trimmer and tape guides to the base in the right positions for exact cuts. You would have to do this twice, for length and width, and this would require the film to be boxed temporarily whilst you change the guide position. However you only have to do the cutting in the dark IF your safelight is not safe. First thing you have do is a safelight check. I think someone described how in this thread recently.

Barry.

How can cut in the dark?

Barry Kirsten

20-May-2013, 14:37

While I'm here, does anyone know where to source x-ray film in Australia? I believe eBay sources won't ship to AU, and suppliers in Australia that I've canvased seem only to supply professional/commercial accounts. Thanks.

Barry.

SergeiR

21-May-2013, 03:01

Oh my aching head....25 pages...of an image thread....on DIAL UP! Took me 3 days. There should be some sort of award for this. Hurray for me..<pats self on back>.

Sergei (and anyone else using Rodinal 1:100 or 1:200 with xray) what agitation are you using? I noticed developing times are all over the map, from 5 to 60 minutes. I presume/pray some of this is stand development? I have lots and lots of Rodinal. Now I need to get me some xray film.

Its unidrum motorized base for me. So i would imagine "continuous".. :) I just dont have careful enough fingers to do tray.

Reason why i wanted to go to 60 minutes it so i can prove a point that been made once by Mortensen, regarding "normal" developers.

"You could not overdevelop properly exposed negative by leaving it for 25-40 minutes more". It doesnt work with every single developer (i do apologize to people who are in search of silver bullet with HC110/Pyro/whatnot), of course, but Rodinal "until exhaustion" is working absolutely fine. In fact this was probably the least dense set yet, for fully and properly exposed shots that i had with xray in forever.
Unfortunately i will not be able to do any more experiments for about 6 weeks.. Got to stick with regular film while travelling due a TSA & etc scans.

jb7

21-May-2013, 04:13

Unfortunately i will not be able to do any more experiments for about 6 weeks.. Got to stick with regular film while travelling due a TSA & etc scans.

Great images Sergei, and great information, thanks to everyone posting their logs here-

I presume you suspect that your X-ray film will be fogged through scanning, even in carry on luggage? I'm about to start using X-ray film, and I was hoping it would survive hand baggage scans-
Anyone have any experience of this?

Thank you...

SergeiR

21-May-2013, 07:35

Great images Sergei, and great information, thanks to everyone posting their logs here-

I presume you suspect that your X-ray film will be fogged through scanning, even in carry on luggage? I'm about to start using X-ray film, and I was hoping it would survive hand baggage scans-
Anyone have any experience of this?

Thank you...

Well i didn't want to risk it. Ideally i should have done some experiment with few sheets for a future..

Tin Can

21-May-2013, 07:48

I cannot see why it would be different than any other film.

Perhaps you could carry a few small test samples in light proof bags...

Well i didn't want to risk it. Ideally i should have done some experiment with few sheets for a future..

ndrs

21-May-2013, 08:08

<snip>I'm about to start using X-ray film, and I was hoping it would survive hand baggage scans-
Anyone have any experience of this?</snip>

It should be affected no more than regular films. It's not X-ray sensitive per se, special film holders are used in hospitals that emit light in X-rays. The light from the holder exposes the film, not X-rays directly.

jb7

21-May-2013, 08:12

It should be affected no more than regular films. It's not X-ray sensitive per se, special film holders are used in hospitals that emit light in X-rays. The light from the holder exposes the film, not X-rays directly.

Thank you, yes that's what I would expect...

SergeiR

21-May-2013, 08:29

Well.. dammit.. i wish i knew it beforehand.. Might've swayed me completely into bringing 8x10.. but then even 4x5 ended up pushing limits of weight allowance ;( Of course it makes a good fun when you go through whole weight discussion and then do the usual "ok, then i shall take my camera out, since its not included in weight limits, as per your regulations"... Used to be more fun with Technika than with Chamonix but still.. eyes gouged, veins popping...

Tin Can

21-May-2013, 08:38

Lol

well.. Dammit.. I wish i knew it beforehand.. Might've swayed me completely into bringing 8x10.. But then even 4x5 ended up pushing limits of weight allowance ;( of course it makes a good fun when you go through whole weight discussion and then do the usual "ok, then i shall take my camera out, since its not included in weight limits, as per your regulations"... Used to be more fun with technika than with chamonix but still.. Eyes gouged, veins popping...

rdelung

21-May-2013, 15:09

From a old X-Ray Tech. Back in the day, we used cardborad holders. It gave you greate views, but at a cost of increased X-ray exposure. The film hasn't changed much, but when "green or Blue " emiting screens came along. The exposure came down, and the picture quolity stayed the same. So X-ray will effect the film, it just determined by how much. Seattle man...Rde

rdelung

21-May-2013, 15:24

To cut in the dark, try this. If you use 8x10 film, use a paper cutter set at 5 inches. Then cut at 4 inches. I would make it so you could feel the inch mark settings in the dark ( you might make a cardboard templet ). For other sizes, you might try making up a device that will pre-measure the un-cut film at a desired size. Just somethng to try. Seattle man..Rde

Tin Can

21-May-2013, 15:36

I have cut down 7X17 into 14-2x3 pieces for processing experiments. I bought the 7X17 for a 7X11 camera and will have 5x7 left over. I seem to prefer the more rectangular formats.

I use Rde's methods.

Now I am waiting on 11x14 X-Ray Woo-Hoo!

To cut in the dark, try this. If you use 8x10 film, use a paper cutter set at 5 inches. Then cut at 4 inches. I would make it so you could feel the inch mark settings in the dark ( you might make a cardboard templet ). For other sizes, you might try making up a device that will pre-measure the un-cut film at a desired size. Just somethng to try. Seattle man..Rde

SergeiR

21-May-2013, 15:39

Tin Can

22-May-2013, 14:34

Woo-Hoo. UPS just delivered Kodak CSG 11x14 $77.75, 100 sheets 3 days, order to door. They are quick.

Now I need to find my scotch tape and tape a couple sheets in my 2 converted Process camera holders.

1 to 1 head shots, coming up!

gdi

22-May-2013, 17:44

Is that Kodak CSG single sided, Randy?

I am trying to work out processing in the Beseler drum and base - but scratches are killing me! I can still strip the back, but it is yet another pain... Maybe I'll go back to trays.

Here is an overexposed Fuji HRT shot, processed in the Drum - AFTER I cloned some of the scratches...

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5322/8784776213_27f7f96348_o.jpg

And another:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3750/8795475428_1c129697ba_o.jpg

Tin Can

22-May-2013, 17:58

doubled sided, I don't strip and I will be doing 11X14 gently in trays.

I am setting up 8X10 tanks and hangers for normal film and X-ray, as soon as the tanks get here.

I only last week started using 4X5 tank and hanger, what a pleasure.

I have drums, but think they may be a bad choice. I have not tried them.

Did you know Garry Winogrand was known to just dunk 35mm into buckets, loose, and let the scratches happen...?

Is that Kodak CSG single sided, Randy?

I am trying to work out processing in the Beseler drum and base - but scratches are killing me! I can still strip the back, but it is yet another pain... Maybe I'll go back to trays.

Here is an overexposed Fuji HRT shot, processed in the Drum - AFTER I cloned some of the scratches...

Ron Stowell

22-May-2013, 19:23

I have been using a Unidrum for prints to develop my 5 X7 negs. So far no scratches on the negs. The unidrum for prints doesn't have internal ribs for the neg. to rub against.
Got this information from You Tube and then tryed it myself and it works.

Jim Fitzgerald

22-May-2013, 19:34

If you have tanks use them and if you have drums scratch and strip! Good luck!

Wayne

22-May-2013, 20:36

Has it been mentioned anywhere WHY x-ray film scratches so easily? If so I don't recall the reason after reading 50 pages about xray film this week.

Tin Can

22-May-2013, 20:45

2 sides of emulsion, nowhere to hide

Has it been mentioned anywhere WHY x-ray film scratches so easily? If so I don't recall the reason after reading 50 pages about xray film this week.

rdelung

22-May-2013, 21:34

rdelung

22-May-2013, 21:49

2 sides of emulsion, nowhere to hide
The emulsion is about 0.0005 inch thick. It's on both sides of a flexable transparent base, so it can be easily scratched. I hope this helps
from the Seattle man...Rde

SergeiR

22-May-2013, 22:22

If you have tanks use them and if you have drums scratch and strip! Good luck!
I use drum. Rarely scratching. Out of couple hundreds of shot film sheets (so far) i stripped like 4.. ;)
However - depends on drums. If i were to use jobo ones i'd be doomed (tried).

Tin Can

23-May-2013, 20:40

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5443/8809697172_48cae927e8_b.jpg

gth

24-May-2013, 05:35

I'm testing both Fuji AD-M and the Kodak MIN-R EV films. My first batch of Fuji is hanging up to dry and it's really contrasty stuff. I haven't seen negs like these since I used Kodalith. It's going to take some work to tame this stuff and bring the contrast and density down to manageable levels. I've shot with some Fuji green normal x-ray film and it seemed much easier to use. Exposure with the Fuji AD-M seems like it needs to be very precise. I'm developing in Pyrocat-HD, which is very forgiving and gives me nice negs with just about anything I throw in it.

I have a feeling the Kodak is going to be similar, because the customers expect x-ray products to be fairly similar across manufacturers. Gotta test it though. Probably bought too much of this without testing some samples first. It's mostly metric sizes, which is a pain. I got it so I could develop it in a Jobo Expert drum, but I seem to create three problems for every one I solve. :rolleyes:

Are you putting this Mammo film into your holder the right way? The emulsions on Min-R are not symmetrical. The top emulsion has "regular" sensitivity and response s curve, the bottom emulsion is very very slow, practically no response until you get up to the top of the front emulsion s response curve. At least that is how I interpret the film data. The bottom also has an anti halation layer, so you probably could not expose backward.... In any case, how does the exposure look on the back side? I would guess it's mainly clear on the negative?

I haven't gotten it together to use it myself.... Hence the ???

premortho

24-May-2013, 06:09

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5443/8809697172_48cae927e8_b.jpg

Unusual portrait, really good. Do their bodys stand out a little more from the background on a wet print? :p

BarryS

24-May-2013, 06:45

Are you putting this Mammo film into your holder the right way? The emulsions on Min-R are not symmetrical. The top emulsion has "regular" sensitivity and response s curve, the bottom emulsion is very very slow, practically no response until you get up to the top of the front emulsion s response curve. At least that is how I interpret the film data. The bottom also has an anti halation layer, so you probably could not expose backward.... In any case, how does the exposure look on the back side? I would guess it's mainly clear on the negative?

I haven't gotten it together to use it myself.... Hence the ???

MIN-R is double-coated on the same side of the sheet. Kodak has double coated a number of films the same way. The film is notched, just like normal pictorial film, so it loads the same way. It acts a lot like ortho litho film, very slow with a steep characteristic curve. I've been busy making prints for a client and shooting new work, so I haven't had time to start playing with low-contrast developers. Everything boils down to shooting at the correct EI (currently 3 for me with Fuji AD-M) and using a dilute or low activity developer that works evenly on the negative in a useable time.

jon.oman

24-May-2013, 07:17

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5443/8809697172_48cae927e8_b.jpg

I really like this R Moe!

rdelung

24-May-2013, 08:26

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5443/8809697172_48cae927e8_b.jpg
Hi Randy, did I hear correctly that you would be trying to scan your 8x10 x-ray negs. on your v700 with pennys, and AN glass? Did I miss any
reply from you as to weather it works, or not? I'm still gathering info. before I open my new box of film. Thanks, Seattle man...Rde

Tin Can

24-May-2013, 11:19

Sergei told us he scans with V700, 8 pennies and tapes film under AN glass.

I have not tried that yet.

I scan with AN glass and simply lay film on top of it.

I made a few contact prints and they are very similar to this scan.

Their shirts have discernable detail in the contact prints.

It is a look I will be using for a series.

I contact printed it front and backwards, and I think I see a very slight focus difference.

SergeiR

24-May-2013, 14:55

Well reproduced skin tones, Randy.

Tin Can

24-May-2013, 15:13

Thanks!

No lens filters or PS filters. I did push the curve, and spot.

My contact prints are very similar, once again with no filter adjustment. Just dust...

Well reproduced skin tones, Randy.

Tri Tran

24-May-2013, 19:26

Here's my 8x10 Platinum print . Unspoiled Xray film with straight D76
18 in Verito @ F6

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/7664/leave2w.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/694/leave2w.jpg/)

Tin Can

24-May-2013, 20:05

Very nice, simple and clean. What do you mean by 'unspoiled'?

Here's my 8x10 Platinum print . Unspoiled Xray film with straight D76
18 in Verito @ F6

Tri Tran

24-May-2013, 22:28

Very nice, simple and clean. What do you mean by 'unspoiled'?

No tricks , no strip. Shoot develop and print for whatever it is. Thanks

gth

25-May-2013, 14:18

MIN-R is double-coated on the same side of the sheet. Kodak has double coated a number of films the same way. The film is notched, just like normal pictorial film, so it loads the same way. It acts a lot like ortho litho film, very slow with a steep characteristic curve. I've been busy making prints for a client and shooting new work, so I haven't had time to start playing with low-contrast developers. Everything boils down to shooting at the correct EI (currently 3 for me with Fuji AD-M) and using a dilute or low activity developer that works evenly on the negative in a useable time.

Barry,

Here's a scan from the Min-R EV Film data brochure. The two emulsions seems to be on either side of the film substrate. One emulsion is the main and is up when notch is in regular corner as you mentioned.

So no problems with scratching using this film?

I wonder why it is so slow compared to others.....?

95772

davidrcarls

26-May-2013, 13:27

Unspoiled, except for the crappy digital rendering from my iPhone of a finished 14x17 print sloshing in the tray 95793

Tin Can

26-May-2013, 15:09

Here is my disaster. My first 11x14 X-Ray image. Looks like I had light leaks, I now think was caused by my electric tooth brush, in my bathroom darkroom. I always forget... Digital shot of neg on light table came out real good, better than some scans.

I did twist the neg in digital to give the sitter something. After all he is the one who sold me the camera and lens, very cheaply.

I can do better. I need to get rid of the white septum and black marker lines that show up in the neg.

That is the camera. It only has rise and tilting table. Seems enough for this type portrait.

GG is homemade, rather badly, needs a lot more sanding. GG is removed for each shot. I only have one holder. Film is taped in.

95799958009580195802

onnect17

26-May-2013, 17:36

I know there's no art or photographic value in this shot but sure I do remember and learned from it!
"Keep your friends close and you toes closer" ;-)

95809

bobwysiwyg

26-May-2013, 17:44

I know there's no art or photographic value in this shot but sure I do remember and learned from it!
"Keep your friends close and you toes closer" ;-)

95809

Would this be one of those digital images we hear so much about? :rolleyes:

Tin Can

26-May-2013, 18:25

What lens did you use? FL and f stop?

Unspoiled, except for the crappy digital rendering from my iPhone of a finished 14x17 print sloshing in the tray 95793

SergeiR

26-May-2013, 18:41

Unspoiled, except for the crappy digital rendering from my iPhone of a finished 14x17 print sloshing in the tray 95793

cool .. i want 14x17 :(((( (ok, i REALLY want 20x24, but...)

Tin Can

26-May-2013, 19:05

Me too, but I am finding it is better to step up and not leap, at least for me.

cool .. i want 14x17 :(((( (ok, i REALLY want 20x24, but...)

davidrcarls

26-May-2013, 19:21

30" Artar, f32

Tin Can

26-May-2013, 19:28

Thank you!

I do plan to move to 14x17 and do portraits such as yours. I have that lens, but my camera will be bitza, cobbled up.

First I need to work with smaller formats and get my technique improved, and setup the darkroom infrastructure I will need. No way is this happening in my bathroom/darkroom.

Cool image!

30" Artar, f32

Mattk

27-May-2013, 18:55

95877Insanely over exposed. Found about 1000 sheets of 8x10 Agfa Super Green. First crack at it just to see if it was ok. Film seems just fine-this was the oldest at 2008 expiration. I rated it at 100 and I think It needs to be way less. Then again it was the Packard and my one second may have been off.

SergeiR

27-May-2013, 20:43

I rated it at 100 and I think It needs to be way less.

by less - you mean more? Seeing as its overexposed. But i would suggest shooting few test strips with flash alone, b/c getting ratings by packard shutter is a bit .. dodgy.

Mattk

28-May-2013, 05:16

Sorry, yes- less light. Maybe rated at 400. I was just excited to see if it was good/not fogged. I also plan to cut it down to 4x5 so I can be a bit more efficient with the testing in a modern lens and shutter combination. This was developed in HC-110 dil B for 6 minutes or so. I'm inspired by your work here Sergei.

rdelung

28-May-2013, 07:48

I know there's no art or photographic value in this shot but sure I do remember and learned from it!
"Keep your friends close and you toes closer" ;-)
95809 Looks like is should of hurt! I bet you felt that one for some time. Seattle man....Rde

Tin Can

28-May-2013, 11:01

Brings back sorry memories for me.

In the 50's shoe stories had strong X-Ray machines, where you could see the feet and bones inside the shoe, live without film. My 5 year older brother thought it was so cool, he dragged my younger brother and I do it often. I was so young I don't remember, but all 3 of us are now crippled.

Now I want to know how all 3 of us have terrible eyesight despite both parents having perfect eyesight. We do look like our parents. I have photographic evidence for 3 generations...

Looks like is should of hurt! I bet you felt that one for some time. Seattle man....Rde

photoevangelist

28-May-2013, 18:11

Unspoiled, except for the crappy digital rendering from my iPhone of a finished 14x17 print sloshing in the tray 95793

Hot damn! (Can I say that on this forum?) I love that detail! I'd also love to move up to 14x17 (inspired by Jim's homemade camera). I think I'm a few years away though. I'm having a lot of fun with the 5x7, 8x10, and am waiting for my modified and repaired F&S 7x17 by RR. I've got a lot of work cut out for me. But 14x17 is definitely end game for me.

Tin Can

28-May-2013, 18:34

I agree looks great and is where I want to go also. I will never be hauling big cameras anywhere, due to health, but a big DIY studio 14X17 sounds great. Anything to keep me out of trouble...and bars...

With a new large Chicago park being built right outside my door, I may hang a shingle. The park will be above me on old railroad tracks like High Line in NYC and a main staircase to it will be 20 feet away. I could shot from inside, if it comes to that, which it will.

Gotta plan ahead!

Hot damn! (Can I say that on this forum?) I love that detail! I'd also love to move up to 14x17 (inspired by Jim's homemade camera). I think I'm a few years away though. I'm having a lot of fun with the 5x7, 8x10, and am waiting for my modified and repaired F&S 7x17 by RR. I've got a lot of work cut out for me. But 14x17 is definitely end game for me.

gdi

28-May-2013, 19:30

Wayne

28-May-2013, 19:34

How long you boys figure 14 by 17-or any X-ray film- is going to be around? I live in a pretty small town and even our local hospital has gone digital.

Tin Can

28-May-2013, 20:53

It seems fairly plentiful. How much do we need? I have almost 250 sheets of 3 sizes. At these prices, I could stock up easily.

It's not like 14x17 is shot and developed like 35mm.

It certainly is not us buying it all, there must be medical people buying it, that cannot afford to go digital.

How long you boys figure 14 by 17-or any X-ray film- is going to be around? I live in a pretty small town and even our local hospital has gone digital.

Wayne

28-May-2013, 21:18

It certainly is plentiful and cheap now, and I think stocking up would be a good idea if you plan to be doing 14x17 10 years from now. It may get even cheaper as they try to dump it all, but then it will get expensive. I just can't see it lasting more than a few years in the US, though the cost of converting to digital will probably keep some countries from upgrading for some additional years Just idle speculation on my part though; we probably have some medical professionals here who have a better idea.

gth

28-May-2013, 22:01

In finished developing my shots from last weekend. I did these in trays, and they were a bit better. I posted a different version of one of these last week and it was pretty ratty (Fair shot) this one is much better (still scratches, though).

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7419/8874147054_583b45a115_o.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5453/8874147560_6cc6453f1b_o.jpg

I really like the natural look of the water in the stream, instead of the tired look of the "foam" water you often see in LFP. On the other hand the stream side boulder shadows are a bit blocked up I guess.

It's a nice photograph!!

Tin Can

28-May-2013, 22:23

I'll convert to then obsolete digital,

Canon Digital CXDI-50:
CXDI-50 Series portable digital image capture system for a wide range of applications. 14x17" imaging area, 10.6 lbs., can upgrade your existing radiographic room or retrofit an upright stand or imaging table.

from,

http://www.xrayvisions.net/digitalEquipmentDigitalRadiography.html

It certainly is plentiful and cheap now, and I think stocking up would be a good idea if you plan to be doing 14x17 10 years from now. It may get even cheaper as they try to dump it all, but then it will get expensive. I just can't see it lasting more than a few years in the US, though the cost of converting to digital will probably keep some countries from upgrading for some additional years Just idle speculation on my part though; we probably have some medical professionals here who have a better idea.

Curt

29-May-2013, 01:27

I know there's no art or photographic value in this shot but sure I do remember and learned from it!
"Keep your friends close and you toes closer" ;-)

95809

That's a nasty spiral fracture of the proximal phalange of the left foot. Or possibly the right since no marker is shown.

gdi

29-May-2013, 03:03

I really like the natural look of the water in the stream, instead of the tired look of the "foam" water you often see in LFP. On the other hand the stream side boulder shadows are a bit blocked up I guess.

It's a nice photograph!!

Yes you are right about the shadows - I may try to reprocess that scan. There are more details there, but there was a lot of noise in the scan - I need a better scanning package!

gth

29-May-2013, 05:12

Yes you are right about the shadows - I may try to reprocess that scan. There are more details there, but there was a lot of noise in the scan - I need a better scanning package!
Of course that shadow block is highly dependant on the angle of my lap top screen!!!!

Jim Fitzgerald

29-May-2013, 06:40

Yes you are right about the shadows - I may try to reprocess that scan. There are more details there, but there was a lot of noise in the scan - I need a better scanning package!

Why not print it.

SergeiR

29-May-2013, 07:23

See.. thats where we differ hugely. I dont see point in having details there, while narrowing details where eye actually goes - in highlights and and upper mid tones. But thats just me.

gdi

29-May-2013, 18:23

See.. thats where we differ hugely. I dont see point in having details there, while narrowing details where eye actually goes - in highlights and and upper mid tones. But thats just me.

It is very subjective - I think I like the contrast as is, but I also know that I am usually most happy with lower contrast film shots that seem to give a somewhat nostalgic look. I appreciate all opinions and the time people take to provide critique. At this point with 8x10, x-ray, tray developing, etc. I am bumbling along and lucky to get anything recognizable as a photograph!

Thanks

premortho

30-May-2013, 05:44

It is very subjective - I think I like the contrast as is, but I also know that I am usually most happy with lower contrast film shots that seem to give a somewhat nostalgic look. I appreciate all opinions and the time people take to provide critique. At this point with 8x10, x-ray, tray developing, etc. I am bumbling along and lucky to get anything recognizable as a photograph!

Thanks

Just my opinion among the many here, but I think it's a great photograph. I like the shadow detail in this type of picture. I suspect it would be even better in a wet print. Now, if I was shooting blondes frolicking on the beach, then I would shoot it as a high-tone picture a-la Mortensen. I think you have an artistic eye for composition, and a nice sense of exposure. You are doing with this kind of work what orthochromatic film does best. Shadow detail in nature.

rdelung

30-May-2013, 08:35

gth: this is a fantastic view! I really like the composure, and the combination of colors. I'll keep this in mind when I try to set up a shot for myself. I'm an outdoor freak, so anything with water and trees always catches my eye. Again, a really nice, keep up the good work. Seattle man....Rde

fhovie

30-May-2013, 09:45

Vikings get cranky when they haven't looted, pillaged or slain a dragon recently. Despite my Norske and Min roots, I find living by the beach in California to be a superior choice.

U
Norwegians from Minnasota are not known for happiness. We are a grim lot. We left the frozen motherland for an even worse climate that has no sardines, only the miserable Bull Head fish to eat. Jamestown was better.

Tin Can

30-May-2013, 09:49

Ah California! I am now in Chicago, a stoic city. I had to make my own dragons to slay, poor bastards... I was sorry afterwards.

Vikings get cranky when they haven't looted, pillaged or slain a dragon recently. Despite my Norske and Min roots, I find living by the beach in California to be a superior choice.

gdi

31-May-2013, 18:21

Just my opinion among the many here, but I think it's a great photograph. I like the shadow detail in this type of picture. I suspect it would be even better in a wet print. Now, if I was shooting blondes frolicking on the beach, then I would shoot it as a high-tone picture a-la Mortensen. I think you have an artistic eye for composition, and a nice sense of exposure. You are doing with this kind of work what orthochromatic film does best. Shadow detail in nature.

Ha! I think that comment is for someone else's photo!

premortho

1-Jun-2013, 05:31

Ha! I think that comment is for someone else's photo!

I meant the top one of the stream and rocks, etc. And I stand by what I said.

gdi

1-Jun-2013, 06:23

I meant the top one of the stream and rocks, etc. And I stand by what I said.

Then thank you - that is encouraging feedback!

Peter De Smidt

1-Jun-2013, 13:12

I just did some testing with Fuji's Green Sensitive X-ray film. (I'll write in the exact name later. The box is at another location.)

I exposed a white card at Zone VIII using a Pentax Digital Meter. I rated the film at EI 50. The lens had a Hoya X1 filter on it, a light yellow green. I didnt' make any adjustments for the filter, as I always plan on using one for landscapes.

I exposed a black card on Zone I.

The films were developed in a Jobo CPP-2 using an Expert drum at 75F. The first minute the rotation speed was set to 4. After that, the speed was adjusted to the lowest possible setting.

The film was developed in 1 Liter of Pyrocat MC in glycol for 6 minutes and 30 seconds at the standard 1+1+100 ratios. (The film was drained with 30 seconds left to go.)

With both emulsions in place, the film base plus fog was .23 in both ortho and UV mode. The zone I card gave a density of .33 (ortho) and .38 (UV). The Zone VIII card gave densities of 1.88 (ortho) and 2.28 (UV).

After stripping the back emulsion, the readings were FB+F = .17, Zone I .28 (ortho) and .32 (UV). Th Zone VIII card gave 1.10 (ortho) and 1.31 (UV)

For scanning and silver printing, I prefer a Zone I density of about .15 above FB+F and a Zone VIII density of about 1.30 above FB+F. As a result, I'm going to try developing for 8 minutes.

Corran

1-Jun-2013, 17:43

Peter, thanks for posting your very detailed experiments and readings! I have shot a lot of the green stuff and developed in Rodinal, but I want to try it in Pyrocat instead, so I will use your starting point of 8 minutes when I get around to shooting some more 8x10 one of these days.

northcarolinajack

2-Jun-2013, 07:44

I have been working with X-ray film for only a month or so. I purchased 100 sheets of Fuji HR-U size 7 x 17 mainly since I just finished restoring my Kodak 7x11 camera and had not film. I felt it would be better to cut 5x7 to start. Here is an example of a trip to North Carolina Stone Mountain State Park. I still have work to do, but so far some shots are OK.

Camera – Kodak Full Plate with a 5x7 back I made
Lens – Schneider 210mm
Film – Fuji HR-U processed in HC-110 100/1 in Beseler
Drum on Motor Base
Jack

www.flickr.com/photos/56479130@N08

jharr

3-Jun-2013, 06:51

My first successful photo with x-ray film.
Speed Graphic
Optar 135mm f/4,5
f/8 x 1/125
Kodak ClinicSelect Green X-ray
rated ISO 50
Adonal 1+50 x 16.5 min
Both sides emulsion intact.
You can see two marks/scratches on the top and two on the bottom where the MOD54 was holding the film. Not sure how to prevent that. Easy enough to heal in Photoshop. Just too lazy last night.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2866/8932578637_dff12317f7_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/8932578637/)
Voigtlander Bessa (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/8932578637/) by James Harr Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/harrlequin/), on Flickr

rdelung

4-Jun-2013, 08:28

It seems fairly plentiful. How much do we need? I have almost 250 sheets of 3 sizes. At these prices, I could stock up easily.

It's not like 14x17 is shot and developed like 35mm.

It certainly is not us buying it all, there must be medical people buying it, that cannot afford to go digital. Hi Randy, from Rde
aka. the other Randy. Just a thought, how much are you paying for your film delivered? My biggist is 8x10 at this time. Your thoughts of stocking up got me thinking??? Thanks, West coast guy....Rde

Tin Can

4-Jun-2013, 08:42

My last box of 100 11X14 Kodak CSG from http://www.cxsonline.com/text/detailpage.tmpl?command=showpage&sn=78168&sku=6042014&cart=13703599481191033&location=10011002

was $78 delivered very quickly.

A case is five 100 box packs.

I know that because they shipped my one box in the case box.

Maybe I should be shooting this

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/51145-Arista-Ortho-Litho-Film-2.0-11x14-50-Sheets

or this

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1743225-Ilford-HP5+-400-iso-11x14-25-sheets

Hi Randy, from Rde
aka. the other Randy. Just a thought, how much are you paying for your film delivered? My biggist is 8x10 at this time. Your thoughts of stocking up got me thinking??? Thanks, West coast guy....Rde

Ian Greenhalgh

6-Jun-2013, 19:17

Seathwaite Force, Duddon Valley, Cumbria, UK. A series of small waterfalls/rapids on the river Duddon about 12 miles from my home.

Century Graphic 23, Xenar 3.5/105, ND4 filter. Kodak Industrex MX125 rated at 10 ISO. 4 mins at f22. Souped in Fomadon LQR 1:14 until completion.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20136/4077_Scan1306070001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20136/big_4077_Scan1306070001WEB_1.jpg)

premortho

7-Jun-2013, 06:15

Nice shot. Very good exposure. But your nice composition makes it a picture. I used to have a Century Graphic 23 that I used for color photography, as color sheet film was too pricey for me. Mine had an Ektar lens.
Seathwaite Force, Duddon Valley, Cumbria, UK. A series of small waterfalls/rapids on the river Duddon about 12 miles from my home.

Century Graphic 23, Xenar 3.5/105, ND4 filter. Kodak Industrex MX125 rated at 10 ISO. 4 mins at f22. Souped in Fomadon LQR 1:14 until completion.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20136/4077_Scan1306070001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20136/big_4077_Scan1306070001WEB_1.jpg)

Ian Greenhalgh

7-Jun-2013, 06:38

Cheers. There's only one flat bit of river bank to stand on so composition isn't something you have a lot of choice about unless you fancy trying to balance on the rocks. I chose to just stick to the flat bit, less risky. :)

rdelung

7-Jun-2013, 08:24

Randy, do freeze or just keep your film stock in a cool place? So far mine is double ziplock bagged, and in a freezer tell needed. Thanks, Seattleman...Rde

Tin Can

7-Jun-2013, 08:38

I keep my condo at 72 year round, and at the speed I am using X-Ray I see no need to keep in date film any colder.

While freezing everything is great theory, it is also a PITA.

I have a large amount of expired film that was not stored chilled and for my purposes it is fine. I keep film in my refrigerator and meat in my freezer.

I'm pretty sure all new film is simply stored and shipped ambient. Those front of store film refrigerators are a joke on us.

We have a lot of perfectionists here shooting silver bullets.

Randy, do freeze or just keep your film stock in a cool place? So far mine is double ziplock bagged, and in a freezer tell needed. Thanks, Seattleman...Rde

Wayne

7-Jun-2013, 19:41

How come:

1) most people posting here seem to prefer Kodak over Fuji (I thought some of the Fujis early in this thread were great)

2) nobody at all (that I recall) seems to be using Agfa?

Wayne

7-Jun-2013, 19:51

Hmm, well I just went back to look for something and at least one person DID use Agfa.

Tin Can

7-Jun-2013, 20:16

I have no good reason. I figured Kodak was OK and most likely there was little difference.

Then I bought 2 more boxes figuring at least it was all the same.

Ask Jim or Sergei.

How come:

1) most people posting here seem to prefer Kodak over Fuji (I thought some of the Fujis early in this thread were great)

2) nobody at all (that I recall) seems to be using Agfa?

Jim Fitzgerald

8-Jun-2013, 07:08

Tin Can

8-Jun-2013, 07:54

I second that scan vs print business. I know digital repair is very easy compared to an picture of reality, meaning print.

Perhaps we should be using digital cameras to shoot prints so at least we have exif data to somewhat prove provenance, but even that does not prevent digital magic.

I was surprised how nicely my D7000 captured something web worthy of an 11X14 Kodak X-Ray sitting on a light table.

I don't think the manufacturer you use makes much difference. I have used 3M, Fuji, Kodak, Minolta etc. Looks and acts the same for me.

Ian, scan or print? Nice image btw. It would be nice if we let people know if it is a scan or print. You can do a lot with a scan when posting, for that matter a print as well. Curious people wish to know.

Wayne

8-Jun-2013, 09:57

Ian Greenhalgh

8-Jun-2013, 10:40

I don't think the manufacturer you use makes much difference. I have used 3M, Fuji, Kodak, Minolta etc. Looks and acts the same for me.

Ian, scan or print? Nice image btw. It would be nice if we let people know if it is a scan or print. You can do a lot with a scan when posting, for that matter a print as well. Curious people wish to know.

Hi Jim

Sorry, forgot to mention that. it's a scan with my worn out old Epson Perfection 3200. I played with the curves a little and sharpened it. I wish I still had a darkroom to make 'proper' prints!

I made a mix-up with the negatives, the shot I posted is actually 12 secs with no filter. I also shot 1, 2 and 4 min exposures with an ND4 filter, as I don't know for sure the reprocity failure for his Kodak Industrex MX125. The 4 min exposure with the filter was the best, but the one without the filter is sharper as there is more motion blur on the foliage in the 4 min shot.

Ian Greenhalgh

8-Jun-2013, 15:04

Here's the 4 mins one, I think this is much better, particularly in shadow detail.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20136/4077_Scan13060800014minsND4WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20136/big_4077_Scan13060800014minsND4WEB_1.jpg)

photoevangelist

9-Jun-2013, 00:33

maybe someone could start a thread or write a brief post or article describing the various x-ray films and their qualities, relative speed, tonality, contrast, best use (obviously subjective but that's OK) top help out those thinking of trying it. I'm interested in trying x-ray but even at the low prices I can't afford one of each. Every time I think I've decided I see something that undecides me.

I really like the Fuji HR-A for my portraits.

I'm shooting 8x10 in the studio.
ISO 160
Green sensitive.
Yellow filter.
Developed Rodinal 1:50 for 4 min in tray or tank and hangars.

I'm contact printing the images on Fomabrom 111 with a #1 filter in Dektol.

Ive been preparing for a solo exhibition of around 60 student portraits that will open in two weeks. I'll be scanning more of the prints soon to make my invitation cards. I don't think regular film would have te same "edge" that these xray portraits have. I just got my 7x17 F&S with modifications from Richard Ritter so I might try the 7x17 xray film. That was the original plan before I fell in love with FP4+. Might do me some artsy flower pics with 7x17 xray.

Luke79

9-Jun-2013, 06:35

Fuji Xray Film on Kodak Eastman 2d and Dallmeyer Petzval

96697

jon.oman

9-Jun-2013, 07:34

Fuji Xray Film on Kodak Eastman 2d and Dallmeyer Petzval

96697

Wonderful image!

Wayne

9-Jun-2013, 09:18

Fuji Xray Film
96697

Which Fuji Xray film

Jim Fitzgerald

9-Jun-2013, 09:30

Which Fuji Xray film

Beautiful! Print or scan?

Wayne

9-Jun-2013, 11:26

Print or scan?

That too. But do you really want to know?

Tin Can

9-Jun-2013, 11:28

mmm

That too. But do you really want to know?

Jim Fitzgerald

9-Jun-2013, 12:39

I'm sorry but I see only prints not scans. Just me.

Luke79

9-Jun-2013, 14:14

thank you, its a scan of the negative, its fuji hru ,

best luke

Wayne

9-Jun-2013, 16:45

What are we talking about?

Tin Can

9-Jun-2013, 17:04

I think we want to differentiate between LF X-Ray scans that are heavily Photoshopped and neg to analog print reality.

Of course we also have a third reality of scanned LF neg, processed into a digital negative, then wet printed and contact printed or enlarged.

I am sure I missed one more variation.

What are we talking about?

Ian Greenhalgh

10-Jun-2013, 11:51

Century Graphic 23 with Pullin London Pulnar 2.8/100. Kodak Industrex MX125 stand developed in Fomadon LQR 1:14. 1 sec at f2.8.

No PP, just as it came out of my old Epson Perfection 3200.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20136/4077_Scan1306100001WEB_1.jpg (http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20136/big_4077_Scan1306100001WEB_1.jpg)

jb7

10-Jun-2013, 12:23

Tin Can

10-Jun-2013, 13:02

Just today, I was wondering if 14X17 X-Ray and Ilford 14 X 17 fit the Chamonix holders.

Nice tones, straight from the scan...

I don't know if this has been asked before-

Are the dimensions of the 14x17 film exact, does anyone know the actual dimensions of the film in millimeters? Does it vary much by manufacturer?

Vaughn

10-Jun-2013, 13:08

Nice tones, straight from the scan...

I don't know if this has been asked before-

Are the dimensions of the 14x17 film exact, does anyone know the actual dimensions of the film in millimeters? Does it vary much by manufacturer?

Agfa's 14x17 x-ray film is 1/16" shorter in both directions. Don't know about other manufactures...probably about the same.

Andrew O'Neill

10-Jun-2013, 13:23

Ghoulish old stump at Stave Lake, near the dam. X-ray green lat. Pyrocat-HD 10+10+100, tray. Carbon transfer print. Print is actually a bit sharper than piss poor scan. Apologies.

jb7

10-Jun-2013, 14:21

Thank you- yes I think the convention is to make the holder the nominal size, and the film a little smaller-

Tin Can

10-Jun-2013, 15:04

X-Ray films vary. I know from experience that 8X10 Kodak CSG does fit standard holders and is 1/16 smaller in both dimensions than nominal. 7x17 is exactly 7X17 and thus needs to be cut for my purposes to 7x11 and 5X7 to the 1/16th smaller dimension. I cannot answer whether 7X17 Kodak CSG fits any 7X17 holder.

My 11X14 Kodak CSG measures 1/16th smaller, but I don't have standard holders to try it. I use a DIY holder.

I assume all X-Ray films are similarly sized in comparative formats for competitive usage, making them interchangeable, but I do not have empirical proof.

Thank you- yes I think the convention is to make the holder the nominal size, and the film a little smaller-

Jim Fitzgerald

10-Jun-2013, 15:59

I have 8x10, 11x14 and 14x17 film from Kodak, Fuji, 3M, Minolta and all the x-ray film fits my holders. I think there are ANSI standards for the films I mention but I'm not sure.

jb7

10-Jun-2013, 16:07

Ok, thank you- I'm making my own holders, I think I have enough information here. I don't have the film yet, which is the problem...

jharr

10-Jun-2013, 19:32

A few still life photos from the weekend. Kodak CSG @ iso 50. Caffenol-CH x 15min. I think I will go back to Caffenol-CM stand to reduce grain.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3816/9012520924_bfb7a21354_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/9012520924/)
Guns-and-Knives (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/9012520924/) by James Harr Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/harrlequin/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7286/9011624721_9fedbc8425_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/9011624721/)
HiLo-Tech-CSG (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/9011624721/) by James Harr Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/harrlequin/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7293/9011625391_4661146e95_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/9011625391/)
Large Format Stuff (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrlequin/9011625391/) by James Harr Photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/harrlequin/), on Flickr

Andrew O'Neill

10-Jun-2013, 21:55

Another possible reason why xray film is not as sharp as conventional film could be due to its lack antihalation layer. Thoughts?

Andrew O'Neill

11-Jun-2013, 09:21

Early in the morning. Son's tree house that he built when he was a boy. Not much left of it.

Bill_4606

11-Jun-2013, 14:42

I wanted to figure out how much each 8x10 x-ray photo cost with chemistry added for processing. Here is my assessment… others may vary depending on actual film used and type of chemistry…

Fuji HR-T: 100 sheets $35
PMK: one hundred liters (One liter per sheet of 8x10) $60
TF-4: ten liters (One liter per ten sheets of 8x10) $107
TOTAL $202 for 100 sheets of film.

Notes:
All prices include shipping from supplier to my home.
I’m going on the assumption that one sheet of 8x10 Fuji is equivalent to two rolls of film (160 square inches for both sides). Using the TF-4 published capacity of 20 rolls per liter, it works out to ten sheets per liter.
I’m also tray processing the developer which needs at least a liter to slosh the film

So, it roughly costs $2 per shot.
I think I can reduce that a bit if I can figure out how to make my own fixer.
Bill

Tin Can

11-Jun-2013, 14:53

I'm at least 1/2 your cost with R09, DIY citric acid stop and DIY TF-3.

I use 10 ml R09 per sheet, either one sided FP4 of 2 sided kodak CSG.

Mix your own fix, it does save money.

I wanted to figure out how much each 8x10 x-ray photo cost with chemistry added for processing. Here is my assessment… others may vary depending on actual film used and type of chemistry…

Fuji HR-T: 100 sheets $35
PMK: one hundred liters (One liter per sheet of 8x10) $60
TF-4: ten liters (One liter per ten sheets of 8x10) $107
TOTAL $202 for 100 sheets of film.

Notes:
All prices include shipping from supplier to my home.
I’m going on the assumption that one sheet of 8x10 Fuji is equivalent to two rolls of film (160 square inches for both sides). Using the TF-4 published capacity of 20 rolls per liter, it works out to ten sheets per liter.
I’m also tray processing the developer which needs at least a liter to slosh the film

So, it roughly costs $2 per shot.
I think I can reduce that a bit if I can figure out how to make my own fixer.
Bill

Bill_4606

11-Jun-2013, 15:08

I agree with the fixer... I really hate paying for shipping that much liquid.
I'll look into the DIY TF-3. Thanks for the tip.
Bill

I'm at least 1/2 your cost with R09, DIY citric acid stop and DIY TF-3.

I use 10 ml R09 per sheet, either one sided FP4 of 2 sided kodak CSG.

Mix your own fix, it does save money.

Bill_4606

12-Jun-2013, 13:11

Peter De Smidt

12-Jun-2013, 15:01

Boat Launch, Amsterdam Beach

Camera: Kodak 2D 8x10, circa 1930,
Film: Fujifilm HRT Green Sensitive X-ray film,
Filter: Hoya X1 HMC (yellow/green),
Lens: Fuji 210w,

Developer: Pyrocat HD MC.
Method: Jobo CPP-2 with an Expert Drum

"Thank you!" to Nikhilesh Sekhar for giving me a few sheets of the x-ray film to test.

Wayne

12-Jun-2013, 16:01

Sweet. Your first try, huh?

Boat Launch, Amsterdam Beach

Camera: Kodak 2D 8x10, circa 1930,
Film: Fujifilm HRT Green Sensitive X-ray film,
Filter: Hoya X1 HMC (yellow/green),
Lens: Fuji 210w,

Developer: Pyrocat HD MC.
Method: Jobo CPP-2 with an Expert Drum

"Thank you!" to Nikhilesh Sekhar for giving me a few sheets of the x-ray film to test.

Peter De Smidt

12-Jun-2013, 16:35

Thank you. It's my first pictorial photograph with an 8x10 camera in over a decade. I did use two negatives prior to do film speed and development tests.

Tin Can

12-Jun-2013, 16:50

Well it is a fine image. How do you like X-Ray film?

I think a lot of us would like to know how an experienced shooter likes it, as I for one, am using it as a cheaper way to learn.

Thank you. It's my first pictorial photograph with an 8x10 camera in over a decade. I did use two negatives prior to do film speed and development tests.

Peter De Smidt

12-Jun-2013, 17:56

There's a lot of folks who've posted here who are much more experienced with 8x10 than I am.

My initial thoughts are that the film is a very good option for contact prints, especially for alt processes that need a lot of density. The film also lays flat, at least mine did, and the matte finish makes it easy to scan without Newton's rings.

Looking at a high res scan, the grain looks a little like Kodak's High Speed Infrared, although the spectral sensitivity is vastly different. There's also potential for some halation. I'll be interested to see how the image looks in a 3x enlargement.

Stripping the back emulation wasn't hard, thank's Bryan!, but it would be a little stress inducing if I had an important negative, which admittedly is unlikely.

Personally, I'm only interested in using it if it gives a quality advantage over 4x5 Acros for approximately 3x (for 8x10) enlargements, or if regular film gets quite a bit more expensive than it already is. I'll have to test 8x10 xray versus 4x5 Acros. I use such a small amount of 8x10 film, that I'll probably stick with regular film, either Acros 100 or Delta 100, but it's great to have this less expensive alternative.

Tin Can

12-Jun-2013, 18:01

Thanks Peter, I asked you since you seem to be taking a very considered approach.

Wayne

12-Jun-2013, 18:55

I usually tray process larger sheet film. But because of the delicate nature of this X-Ray film, wanted a little better solution. There are many good methods described in this thread.
I thought I would share how I solved this issue.
The photo pretty much tells it all. Simply bending the film holders, I can develop in my tray without fear of scratching and even shuffle 3 or 4 at the same time by just stacking them.
Bill

96911

Clue me, I'm stumped. How do you "shuffle and stack" steel film hangers without demolishing emulsions? I could see this working in a large tray where you don't have to stack them at all...but if it works, I'm all for it.