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

[Andrew O'Neill]

Halation can be a good thing.

[Bill_4606]

Wayne,
Imagine three or four of those film hangers in the picture nested on top of each other laying in a tray. Pick them all up, shuffle order, put the stack back in the tray. You get all the agitation and sloshing action in the shuffle. The film is secure in each hanger with a separation between each sheet about the thickness of the hanger... I can try to put together a picture or two if it would help.
Bill

[gth]

Halation can be a good thing.
Explain halation to a dofus!

[SergeiR]

Explain halation to a dofus!


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/halation


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-halation_backing

[gth]

Beyond

ha·la·tion noun \hā-ˈlā-shən\

Definition of HALATION

1
: the spreading of light beyond its proper boundaries in a developed photographic image
2
: a bright ring that sometimes surrounds a bright object on a television screen
Origin of HALATION

halo + -ation
First Known Use: 1859

[gth]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/halation


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-halation_backing

Man you're quick on the draw!!

[SergeiR]

yup. Faster to paste link from corresponding search than to type explanation.

As addition i might say that actually anti-hallation backing was also made before invention of film, on glass plates. However it was quite expensive in comparition.

[gth]

yup. Faster to paste link from corresponding search than to type explanation.

As addition i might say that actually anti-hallation backing was also made before invention of film, on glass plates. However it was quite expensive in comparition.

No problem! Thanks!

I guess what I meant what does it really mean in terms of practical picture making.

[gth]

Halation can be a good thing.

From wikipedia.... A historical tid bit..


"The lack of an anti-halation layer in Kodak's High Speed Infrared film (HIE) is the cause of the ethereal "glowing" effect often associated with infrared photography,[1] rather than an artifact of IR itself."

[SergeiR]

No problem! Thanks!

I guess what I meant what does it really mean in terms of practical picture making.

Fuzzy edges or entire rings around very light objects. If you type "halation" in google images you will get some nice examples.

Apparent softness, basically, if you shooting landscapes. Thats why film with AH backing became very popular with landscape shooters very quickly - it was cheaper too.
Of course nowdays people shoot IR and getting it back :)

[photoevangelist]

This end of my project is near....

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7342/9038688145_a38ba6dba7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9038688145/)
Student Portraits Exhibit Poster (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9038688145/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

[SergeiR]

Congratz, Lee :) Well done.

[Tin Can]

Looks great Lee! A big project for sure! I know students you may be busy for a lifetime. Good job!

[photoevangelist]

Thanks guys. I haven't been posting here because I've been doing (I just counted 55) portraits. It's been a 30 hour a week part-time job for the past 4 months. Developing in trays was nuts. I finally took Jim's advice and got 3 tanks and 8 hangars. It works perfectly. 8 negatives (two batches of 4) is great for the 1 gallon of Rodinal 1:50. After that my images start to loose contrast. I should probably get another gallon tank or two for pre wash and rinse. Right now I'm using plastic kimchee tupperwares. It's perfect width but too long. It holds probably 3 gallons of water. But it works.

These are 15 of the better ones. 55 portraits! That was a hellofa project. I won't be doing this again in this magnitude. Perhaps only one class of 20-30 students vs. 50-60 students. I'll post some pictures of the gallery set up. 50 8x10 contact prints and 4 super sized 1 meter x 1.2 meter enlargements of the best of the best just to see how well these things enlarge with my digital work flow capabilities. I may do xray landscapes with 7x17 or 8x10 which will most likely be digital output.

[alanbutler57]

Thanks guys. I haven't been posting here because I've been doing (I just counted 55) portraits. It's been a 30 hour a week part-time job for the past 4 months. Developing in trays was nuts. I finally took Jim's advice and got 3 tanks and 8 hangars. It works perfectly. 8 negatives (two batches of 4) is great for the 1 gallon of Rodinal 1:50. After that my images start to loose contrast. I should probably get another gallon tank or two for pre wash and rinse. Right now I'm using plastic kimchee tupperwares. It's perfect width but too long. It holds probably 3 gallons of water. But it works.

These are 15 of the better ones. 55 portraits! That was a hellofa project. I won't be doing this again in this magnitude. Perhaps only one class of 20-30 students vs. 50-60 students. I'll post some pictures of the gallery set up. 50 8x10 contact prints and 4 super sized 1 meter x 1.2 meter enlargements of the best of the best just to see how well these things enlarge with my digital work flow capabilities. I may do xray landscapes with 7x17 or 8x10 which will most likely be digital output.

Great photos!
Green sensitive, or blue?

[Corran]

Congrats Lee.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Lee, Congratulations! Great project and I'm glad you got the tanks and made your life easier!I have not forgotten you. Just been very busy. Eventually you will have something to show your students.

[Tin Can]

I do think tanks may be the best.

Tonight I will try 8X10 tanks for the first time. Been practicing film hanger loading, I expect scratches...

My 4X5 tank set up is wonderful, but obviously 1/4 scale and so much easier in every way. Loading, and unloading zone...Fireside Theatre, for those that remember.

[Peter Lewin]

Lee: Great project, excellent poster, best of luck with the exhibit! While slightly off topic, the poster proves to me the truth in a trite stereotype: to most of us, the "other" looks very much alike. Because you have made each portrait similar in lighting, pose, and scale, my first response was "wow, at least three or four of your students look so similar that I would confuse them in real life."

[photoevangelist]

Alan, It's green sensitive xray.

Jim, awesome!!!

Randy, they're super easy with a safelight. I haven't gotten any scratches, but sometimes a little bit over developing in the areas that hold the film. Usually it's where the unexposed area is from the film holder, so it's no big deal. I can see it in some of my contact prints. I think it's part of the process that makes it so imperfect and more "truthful" than digital photography. I can't imagine doing tanks and hangars for panchromatic film though.

Peter, I have students that are watching me in the darkroom and say "oh it's me" or "it's xxxx" and I'm like, "no it's xxxx." Haha. Our TA, Changhwan, also said "Koreans are too similar". I used to think that way too, but after living here 12 years, I am able to see everyone is different. Black and white helps to really uniform the faces more and perhaps blend them.

I started this project to get my students interested in analog again, experimenting with other mediums (xray, Rodinal, Foma papers, homemade developers and toners), and large format. Many of my students buy an EOS 5 or other automatic film camera to use with their DSLR lenses so the look of the photography is similar. Many don't use prime lenses and only zooms. If I was doing photography like that, I'd get bored of analog and not see any advantages over digital. There is a wealth of history with analog cameras. My 100 year old Korona and 100 year old Dagor 12" give surprisingly great results to them. The students also only know Kodak films, D-76 and Dektol, and Ilford papers. Even some have asked, "does Ilford still make film?"

I came to this university hoping to teach digital and portrait photography, but those classes were already taken. When I was assigned to teach B&W and Editorial I was determined that I would make them my classes. I'm really glad they assigned me these classes! I've finally been able to find photography I enjoy again! That's really important to me. I don't want to be a zombie photographer.

So there's no hidden meaning to the photography. I'm just taking pictures. Others can evaluate it all they want.

[Tin Can]

Nice post Lee.

Yes, under safe light even I can load 8X10, but I am hoping to do 'real' film also. Kidding about 'real'.

I like your project!

Well done! We look forward to a digital gallery image.

[Mattk]

Six sheets or so into the Agfa SG
HC-110 Dil B around 7:30 @asa 200 or so.97104
Having some fun with a big ole Bausch and Lomb soft focus dialed full fuzz. 16" f/4.5 wide open.

[premortho]

Charming shot. And the model is quite a charmer too.
Six sheets or so into the Agfa SG
HC-110 Dil B around 7:30 @asa 200 or so.97104
Having some fun with a big ole Bausch and Lomb soft focus dialed full fuzz. 16" f/4.5 wide open.

[Holdenrichards]

http://u1.ipernity.com/7/98/79/15209879.02687005.800.jpg

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

Experimenting with light and filters with this single sided kodak film. This is with a green and a yellow filter.

[SergeiR]

that reminds me .. i need to order new supply of film soon, so it would arrive when i am back to Dallas ;)

[Tin Can]

What ISO speed are you rating this film?

I was unaware of this film.

Thanks!





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

Experimenting with light and filters with this single sided kodak film. This is with a green and a yellow filter.

[Holdenrichards]

What ISO speed are you rating this film?

I was unaware of this film.

Thanks!

Howdy! I've been rating this 100 outside and 50 inside with full strength developer and experimenting with more dilute developers and halving these asa's.

[Holdenrichards]

http://u1.ipernity.com/31/44/33/21884433.6c7e1ef1.800.jpg?r1

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

Experimenting with light and filters with this single sided kodak film. This is with a green and a yellow filter.

[Tin Can]

I found a couple sources, it is more than double the price of Kodak double side CSG.

I am going to get a box.

Single sided will be better, i am a bit rough with my film, scratches...

Thanks for the tip!



Howdy! I've been rating this 100 outside and 50 inside with full strength developer and experimenting with more dilute developers and halving these asa's.

[Holdenrichards]

Tricky stuff, but when it works it really works well.

[Tin Can]

I don't remember reading in this thread anyone else using this video film.

I have been using Kodak CSG.




Tricky stuff, but when it works it really works well.

[Tri Tran]

This portrait was taken with the regular 2x sided emulsion Xray film and developed with straight D76. Nothing fancy !
11x14 Giclee print, printed on Epson Hot press paper and toned to matched my Platinum print so I called Platinum Giclee print.
The 18 In Verito was used here , 2 stop down for exposure.
Hope you like it!

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6724/4e1n.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/9/4e1n.jpg/)

Sabrina , June 2013

[SergeiR]

This portrait was taken with the regular 2x sided emulsion Xray film and developed with straight D76. Nothing fancy !
11x14 Giclee print, printed on Epson Hot press paper and toned to matched my Platinum print so I called Platinum Giclee print.
The 18 In Verito was used here , 2 stop down for exposure.
Hope you like it!

Yup. I do :)

[Peter De Smidt]

So do I. Well done!

[Holdenrichards]

This portrait was taken with the regular 2x sided emulsion Xray film and developed with straight D76. Nothing fancy !
11x14 Giclee print, printed on Epson Hot press paper and toned to matched my Platinum print so I called Platinum Giclee print.
The 18 In Verito was used here , 2 stop down for exposure.
Hope you like it!
Sabrina , June 2013

nicely done!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Tri, wonderful as usual. KIIS is the way to go! Just do it people and don't over think things! Get some film and go shoot and the rest will work its self out.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Single sided will be better, i am a bit rough with my film, scratches...



Randy, come on now! Slow down and be careful. You can see in the red light. Don't drag the film over the flap when you load and unload and just be careful. Save the money! I hope you don't scratch regular traditional film?

[Tri Tran]

Thanks Gents, I'm glad that you liked it.
Jim, KIIS is the way to go. I wonder if people have ever noticed that 90% of my image posted here for all this time are Xray film using straight D76 as the developer.

[Tin Can]

Yes Jim!

And, you are correct the scratches come from the flap of the holder. Took me awhile to figure that out. :)

I don't scratch normal film.

My DIY 11X14 holder is very gentle, with it's acrylic slots and no flap. Studio only.

Jim, have you tried the high priced SS X-Ray? It even has a notch!





Single sided will be better, i am a bit rough with my film, scratches...



Randy, come on now! Slow down and be careful. You can see in the red light. Don't drag the film over the flap when you load and unload and just be careful. Save the money! I hope you don't scratch regular traditional film?

[Tin Can]

Mostly we notice your great images, but it is invaluable to know details.

Thanks for sharing!




Thanks Gents, I'm glad that you liked it.
Jim, KIIS is the way to go. I wonder if people have ever noticed that 90% of my image posted here for all this time are Xray film using straight D76 as the developer.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Randy, no I haven't tried the ss film yet. I have over 700 sheets of the double sided stuff to shoot in 3 different sizes! So much film and so little time. Oh, BTW the 700 sheets is just x-ray film!

[Tri Tran]

You are quite welcome Randy. I didn't know that you are also looking for some recipe too .

[Tin Can]

I have 300 sheets and I have only just begun...

Today I am going to buy a new chest freezer.

I see TT buys only enough for 2 years, so he does not need to preserve it.

But I am sure we all are worried about the demise of X-Ray film...



Randy, no I haven't tried the ss film yet. I have over 700 sheets of the double sided stuff to shoot in 3 different sizes! So much film and so little time. Oh, BTW the 700 sheets is just x-ray film!

[Thomas Cierzo]

Is anyone using 5x7 x-ray film? If you are does it fit your regular 5x7 holders?

I just received a box of 5x7 today and the film is just a tiny bit too large to fit properly in my holder (this is for a thus far infrequently used pinhole camera, so yes, I only have one holder!). The holder is a older Lisco one and I am wondering if this just happens to be an example with a tighter fit.

Does anyone have any experience to suggest I should just take a chance and purchase another 5x7 holder, or if I need a 13x18cm holder. My only local source has no holder of these sizes, otherwise I'd check it out firsthand. Thanks.

[Tin Can]

8x10 an 11X14 X RAY film is 1/16 shorter than nominal in both directions and fits regular holders.
.
Measure your film and see if it is 1/16 short, but I doubt it.

It's most likely not your holders, but the film.

Very carefully and gently cut it to fit. Under red light.

Good luck!





Is anyone using 5x7 x-ray film? If you are does it fit your regular 5x7 holders?

I just received a box of 5x7 today and the film is just a tiny bit too large to fit properly in my holder (this is for a thus far infrequently used pinhole camera, so yes, I only have one holder!). The holder is a older Lisco one and I am wondering if this just happens to be an example with a tighter fit.

Does anyone have any experience to suggest I should just take a chance and purchase another 5x7 holder, or if I need a 13x18cm holder. My only local source has no holder of these sizes, otherwise I'd check it out firsthand. Thanks.

[Thomas Cierzo]

I used some digital calipers and the film is dead on at 5x7.

I have used Fuji 8x10 and it fit fine in my 8x10 holders. The 5x7 is rebranded Agfa I believe.

I guess I can either trim it every time I load it or hunt for a 13x18 holder.
Since 5x7 inches is 12.7cm x 17.78, a 13x18 holder would work, right? Or are they slightly smaller too?

[Tin Can]

I don't know anything about the actual size of 13X18.



I used some digital calipers and the film is dead on at 5x7.

I have used Fuji 8x10 and it fit fine in my 8x10 holders. The 5x7 is rebranded Agfa I believe.

I guess I can either trim it every time I load it or hunt for a 13x18 holder.
Since 5x7 inches is 12.7cm x 17.78, a 13x18 holder would work, right? Or are they slightly smaller too?

[Ron Stowell]

I'm using 5x7 an it fits perfectly; only suggestion would be to purchase a newer holder.

[Petzval Paul]

I just got in some 8x10 blue-sensitive to cut down to 4x5 and whole plate. Can I just use scissors to cut it? I have a rotary- you're trimmer that I use to cut paper but I am scared that the pressure exerted by the trimmer to hold the film in place will scratch it. Also, any tools on losing threes film? Besides, of course, not dragging it along the flap :)

[Tin Can]

Could you please tell us which film you are using and the exact dimensions?

I would love to find X RAY 5X7 that fits regular holders.


I'm using 5x7 an it fits perfectly; only suggestion would be to purchase a newer holder.

[desertrat]

One thing on my to do list, but I haven't done yet, is to try loading a piece of ortho litho film part way into the holder, then load the x-ray film on top of that, then carefully remove the ortho litho fim. I'm hoping this will protect the x-ray film from the flap, and the .004" ortho litho film shouldn't take up too much room in the holder slots, which are pretty generous. These are old wood and metal holders.

[Tin Can]

Sergei, I think, recommended using an exposed film as a slide guide that you remove.



One thing on my to do list, but I haven't done yet, is to try loading a piece of ortho litho film part way into the holder, then load the x-ray film on top of that, then carefully remove the ortho litho fim. I'm hoping this will protect the x-ray film from the flap, and the .004" ortho litho film shouldn't take up too much room in the holder slots, which are pretty generous. These are old wood and metal holders.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

What I can't comprehend is how you can not load film when you can see??? Why the extra steps? I mean hold the flap down with a finger. I can load 14x17 in the dark and not drag it across the flap. I mean who does that? I'm sorry I do not mean to sound mean but to me it is common sense not to drag any film over the flap!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Jim, the flaps on my new holders are quite stiff. It is a good idea to use something such as an old sheet of film or paper to protect the xray film from scratching on the flap. If your flaps lay flat then no worries.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Andrew, I know that the flaps are stiff. We must take care in loading any film. I guess whatever works is best.

[Tri Tran]

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/7623/d7un.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/d7un.jpg/)

Natalie
8x10 Platinum Giclee print.

[ghostcount]

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/7623/d7un.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/d7un.jpg/)

Natalie
8x10 Platinum Giclee print.

Gorgeous!!!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Tri, nice lens, lighting, pose and model!

[Tri Tran]

Tri, nice lens, lighting, pose and model!

Thanks Randy and Jim. I'm glad you guys liked it . So Jim you dig the rembrandt lighting huh?

[Carl J]

Single-sided Kodak B/RA @ iso 50. Rodinal 1:100, 6 minutes in Unicolor tube. I often use a #12 yellow filter usually just held up in front of the lens. I think the first with the refrigerator truck is with a 210mm or 250mm Fujinon (can't remember which), the one of the field is with a 120mm SW Nikkor that just covers 8x10.

Carl

97508

[Carl J]

97509

[photoevangelist]

97509

Very nice! I love seeing skies with xray film. I've yet to really try anything outside. That's my summer project, but I figured I'd stay away from scenes with skies.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Thanks Randy and Jim. I'm glad you guys liked it . So Jim you dig the rembrandt lighting huh?

Absolutely! Dig the lens as well!

[Carl J]

Very nice! I love seeing skies with xray film. I've yet to really try anything outside. That's my summer project, but I figured I'd stay away from scenes with skies.

Thanks, Lee. The yellow filter makes all the difference for the skies. That being said, the HP5+ version has better (more dramatic) skies but I could live with this if it was the only shot I had.

No sky, but one more (Fujinon 250mm, f6.7):

97514

[Harley Goldman]

Thanks, Lee. The yellow filter makes all the difference for the skies. That being said, the HP5+ version has better (more dramatic) skies but I could live with this if it was the only shot I had.

No sky, but one more (Fujinon 250mm, f6.7):



Very well crafted composition, Carl. Interesting elements very well balanced. Nicely done.

[Tav Walraven]

Carl...

Nice work with the x-ray film and the tube development. ....."what scratches, I don't see no scratches"............It would be nice if they made the B/RA in larger sizes over 8x10. Oh well..........................


TW

[Ilford4ever]

So, Zz medical is offering free shipping now on all x-ray film. Is this the beginning of the end for x-ray film?

[Tin Can]

We are a tiny tiny percentage of X-Ray users, if it was the end prices would be rising. ZZ is now just slightly cheaper than http://www.cxsonline.com/ where I have been buying. They have been very reliable.





So, Zz medical is offering free shipping now on all x-ray film. Is this the beginning of the end for x-ray film?

[photoevangelist]

As I understand it the digital xray machinery is a very expensive conversion, which is why film is still used in smaller practices. If an end is near, I sure would like to be in the know. I'd like to stock up on a few boxes. I don't think my portrait series would be as interesting on pan film and it surely wouldn't have been possible on the scale I approached it with. I can't afford to do 55 portraits (x2 for insurance) with regular pan film.

BTW. I use double sided emulsion-not stripped. Scanned on Epson v750 with better scanning glass raised on 4 Korean pennies, using EpsonScan, levels, dust and scratches, and very little smart sharpening to achieve what I believe to be absolutely beautiful 40x50 inch tonal prints on our university's 10 year old Epson. My scans were larger than our printer's capability and I believe I could print 4 times the size of the 40x50 inch prints if I wanted. I am super pleased with my digital output workflow. Because of framing costs, I doubt I will ever, or rarely, go to 40x50 inch prints again - which is a shame because they look damn good on the gallery wall. Maybe I'll buy a few large frames for signature images of a show.

I'll have to upload samples of the 2400 dpi images later. But I can't say that I need to strip the negatives at 40x50 prints, though I have never tried enlarging traditional film or stripped xray or drum scans to this size.

The prints blew me away, all my students, and co-professors away. The "wow" factor was high during the exhibition opening and my pride level went through the roof.

That being said, I think 5x7 is a large enough format for nice digital 30x40 prints. 4x5 was stretching it a bit (of course my 4x5 test at 30x40 was Tri-X in Diafine) with our technology at the school. I'm going to play with 8x10 xray some more, but I think xray and huge contact prints like Jim, Tri, et al are where xray is at. 5x7 pan film is affordable enough for me to shoot with constant dependable results.

[Tin Can]

All very good information Lee.

Thanks for sharing!

[photoevangelist]

I put 10 sets of 5 groups of 8x10 contact prints on the gallery wall and they looked tiny. It was a good thing I made enlargements. Too bad we don't have an 8x10 enlarger!

[Tin Can]

I could ship you one...:)



I put 10 sets of 5 groups of 8x10 contact prints on the gallery wall and they looked tiny. It was a good think I made enlargements. Too bad we don't have an 8x10 enlarger!

[photoevangelist]

Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I really have to think about that.

[Tin Can]

Me too.





Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I really have to think about that.

[photoevangelist]

Me too.

Don't think too hard. I doubt I could afford the shipping. But Changhwan and I were just wondering if we could build an enlarger. We'd really like to do traditional enlargements. He wants to play with liquid light enlargements.

[Carl J]

Thanks. You've all been very helpful as I've followed this thread and tried to implement the suggestions that made sense to me -- namely, KISS.

I've been happy with the single-sided B/RA, Unicolor tubes, and results from scanning (for the price what's not to like) but for me it's still fairly unpredictable. Less so than when I first started but sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's been a great learning medium and I always go out armed with at least a couple of holders in addition to Ilford.

Agreed, it's a shame single-sided X-ray film seems to be practically non-existent beyond 8x10 (anyone know the reason for that?). Will be trying to contact print some of these hopefully soon as I recently got some old RC VC paper from Eddie to experiment with.

As mentioned, I've just started using Fuji double-sided HR-U 11x14 in a Beseler tube but got some uneven development in a couple of places (no scratches). Unstripped. I realized this weekend I had three 14x17 trays which I hope to try with at least one of the next two sheets I've exposed with my Century 11x14 field. Man, I'm excited by that camera! Still, I'll have to figure out how to contact print 11x14 in my small improvised darkroom setup, might even have to resort to using a tube for that, too!
Carl...

Nice work with the x-ray film and the tube development. ....."what scratches, I don't see no scratches"............It would be nice if they made the B/RA in larger sizes over 8x10. Oh well..........................


TW

[Carl J]

Again, nice work, Lee! Good info on your processing methods and results with large prints.

[Tin Can]

Lots of people build enlargers.

I saw a design made from wall shelf brackets that looked pretty good, used those long slotted ones for putting the brackets anywhere you want.

I do have these for sale without glass for 8x10 negative carriers. $100 each plus shipping...

They are aluminum with a simple lock mechanism.

I don't know what they fit originally, I have a few...

They use plain glass on the bottom and a 8X10 AN piece on top, in either of 2 orientations. They hold a neg gently but enough for even horizontal use.

975319753297533




Don't think too hard. I doubt I could afford the shipping. But Changhwan and I were just wondering if we could build an enlarger. We'd really like to do traditional enlargements. He wants to play with liquid light enlargements.

[Tri Tran]

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/989/53yr.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/526/53yr.jpg/)

Charlie's Angels
8x10 Format
Platinum toned Giclee Print

[Tin Can]

This seems to have better focus and wonderful composition.

You have made the Angels look great!




http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/989/53yr.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/526/53yr.jpg/)

Charlie's Angels
8x10 Format
Platinum toned Giclee Print

[photoevangelist]

8x10 Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive Xray) @ ISO 160, Rodinal 1:50, 4 min., Dagor 12"
developed individually in trays with glass on bottom, negative is not stripped
v750 w/EpsonScan Software + www.betterscanning.com glass on top of 4 Korean pennies
2400 dpi scan makes it a 64x80 inch print @ 300dpi, but our Epson Stylus Pro 9600 only prints up to 42 inches wide

100% view - dust & scratches, levels, smart sharpening 100% @ 2 pixels:
97583

Print size view:
97584

Printing in progress:
97589

Show opening:
97590

Looks fabulous as a 40x50 inch print, I have no need to go larger than this...

[Tin Can]

Really nice Lee!

Congratulations!

Now we all want Korean pennies...

[photoevangelist]

Really nice Lee!

Congratulations!

Now we all want Korean pennies...

Thanks, Randy. I tried to keep the tones and contrast on par with the contact prints. I eventually found that once I switched to the tank and hangar method my contrast was going up. I went from printing with an Ilford Multigrade #1 and 1.5 filter with tray processing to a #.5 and 1 with tank and hangars. I think from here on out, I'll reduce my developing times and even chill out on the agitation.

[photoevangelist]

Man, I'm starting to sound like a nerd.....



I LOVE IT!

[Tin Can]

We are all nerds.

If people's eyes glaze over when you tell them about your camera and x-ray film, they know you are a hopeless nerd.

These days it is actually a compliment.




Man, I'm starting to sound like a nerd.....



I LOVE IT!

[Carl J]

Lee,

Nice counterpoint with the larger prints and small contacts. My impression from the gallery installation shot is that worked quite well.

[SergeiR]

Really nice Lee!

Congratulations!

Now we all want Korean pennies...

I still might have some laying around.. Or you can ask Lee to send you some ;)

[photoevangelist]

I still might have some laying around.. Or you can ask Lee to send you some ;)

Sergei, I never knew you were here. Do you have the old ones? A few years ago they came out with all new coins and paper money. They're smaller now.

[SergeiR]

Sergei, I never knew you were here. Do you have the old ones? A few years ago they came out with all new coins and paper money. They're smaller now.
Well bugger.. i need to make new trip sometime. I had pocketfuls after visits 11 years ago. Seoul was nice landing point going between US and Russia - used to be great way to fly directly from DFW. Come in eve, spend night near Incheon, fly forward using Asiana and Korean Air. Then prices jumped up and connections kinda got iffy, so now i am normally taking other way around on Singapore Air, through Moscow.

My uncle collects coins, so i am always making point to bring him something from countries where i am going to and back then he wasnt in Korea ever . Nowdays of course is is going there about every year or even more often to teach at university in Seoul, almost feeling local :)

[photoevangelist]

Randy, I'm sorry I can't find the page with your 7x17 xray film sizes. I can measure my holders now and would like to know the exact size of xray film again. If anyone can do measurements in centimeters, that would help me a lot. I've cut down a paper and 18cm / 180mm is just a bit too large. 179mm would probably fit better. My converter says 7 inches is 177.8 mm which would be ideal. 180mm is 7.0866 inches.

[Tin Can]

I know the short side was exactly 7" USA, the long side I don't remember. I haven't used it since I went to 8X10 and 11X14.

7 x 2.54 = 17.78 mm



Randy, I'm sorry I can't find the page with your 7x17 xray film sizes. I can measure my holders now and would like to know the exact size of xray film again. If anyone can do measurements in centimeters, that would help me a lot. I've cut down a paper and 18cm / 180mm is just a bit too large. 179mm would probably fit better. My converter says 7 inches is 177.8 mm which would be ideal. 180mm is 7.0866 inches.

[Tin Can]

I can get most any coin here, in our Korean neighborhood or O'Hare.


I still might have some laying around.. Or you can ask Lee to send you some ;)

[SergeiR]

Inquiring mind ikes to know - did anyone found 20x24 yet, or 17x36 is only really large size out there? :)

[Tin Can]

seems 14 x36 is it


Inquiring mind ikes to know - did anyone found 20x24 yet, or 17x36 is only really large size out there? :)

[Tin Can]

I looked into Darren's big camera, and his shots all have lots of light leaks. Too much for me.

Lot's of stuff about it.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/30/the-great-big-camera-is-very-big-pretty-great/

[Tin Can]

I almost bid on this tonight, but decided it was just too much for me now.

Huge bellows.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/190858344264?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

[photoevangelist]

I almost bid on this tonight, but decided it was just too much for me now.

Huge bellows.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/190858344264?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

I was watching that. Glad I forgot about it, but for $100.... wow.... someone stole it from him.

[Tin Can]

I almost got into it, i was lined up, finger on the trigger and somehow i controlled myself.

My next stop is 14x17, i don't want to buy 20x24 real film, if Xray was available, we all would have bought it.




I was watching that. Glad I forgot about it, but for $100.... wow.... someone stole it from him.

[photoevangelist]

I looked into Darren's big camera, and his shots all have lots of light leaks. Too much for me.

Lot's of stuff about it.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/30/the-great-big-camera-is-very-big-pretty-great/

I'd do it, but the post processing would be a nightmare. I can only really get 20x24 paper here and don't know how I'd be able to contact print it. But you can bet I've been looking at Darren's camera and thinking hard about it.

[photoevangelist]

I know the short side was exactly 7" USA, the long side I don't remember. I haven't used it since I went to 8X10 and 11X14.

7 x 2.54 = 17.78 mm

I might have to bite the bullet and try a box. Wonder if they give samples... hmmmmm 17.78 cm should be okay for my holders.

[Tin Can]

Cut a piece of paper and try it.

I could send you a test sheet, but I don't have a film bag that size.

I could cut one in half and just mail it exposed...

You pay postage, I will send.

But it is simply 7" exactly.


I might have to bite the bullet and try a box. Wonder if they give samples... hmmmmm 17.78 cm should be okay for my holders.

[Tin Can]

Look at the light leaks here.

http://www.shootingfilm.net/2013/01/diy-giant-ultra-large-format-camera-by.html



I'd do it, but the post processing would be a nightmare. I can only really get 20x24 paper here and don't know how I'd be able to contact print it. But you can bet I've been looking at Darren's camera and thinking hard about it.

[photoevangelist]

I think that was some of his first works. I read through his blog and I think he solved that issue for the most part. It's all part of the process for me. On my 8x10 scans, I left the scanned tape marks from holding it to the AN glass - it's part of the process to remind the viewer... it's not digital. It used to be we tried to leave all of that stuff out to make our work perfect, now for me I don't mind leaving some of those imperfections in the final print. If I wanted super clean and perfect I might just be shooting digital still.

7 inches exactly... got it. I'll try to hunt down an inches ruler and try cutting it down soon - or just round the metric conversion to 178 mm. I'm anxious to shoot with the 7x17, but don't want to mess up my HP5+ just yet. I'm trying to stay away from cutting down 14x17 inch xray so I can KISS....

[SergeiR]

Look at the light leaks here.

development, imho.

[SergeiR]

It used to be we tried to leave all of that stuff out to make our work perfect, now for me I don't mind leaving some of those imperfections in the final print.

Avedon is credited to be first of commercial photographers to leave in sheet edges in final prints ;) Didnt stop people from loving them , in fact it was (is) replicated as part of "artistic touch" ;)

[Roger Thoms]

Actually Darren has solved a lot of his light leak problems and his prints are looking nice. Went to a show of his a couple of month ago and bought one of his prints. 14"x36" is an awesome format.

Roger


I looked into Darren's big camera, and his shots all have lots of light leaks. Too much for me.

Lot's of stuff about it.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/30/the-great-big-camera-is-very-big-pretty-great/

[Tin Can]

I'm not criticizing, but simply observing difficulties of scaling up.

His work, story and execution is fascinating.

Is he the only only person shooting that format?





development, imho.

[Tin Can]

I found these, bought 2, there are 4 left.

I have not yet used 14x17, but thought these may be good when I do.

While looking I found X-Ray hangers for 3.5X17" film, now that's pano! No I didn't see any film that size.



http://www.ebay.com/itm/290912996741?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

[photoevangelist]

Actually Darren has solved a lot of his light leak problems and his prints are looking nice. Went to a show of his a couple of month ago and bought one of his prints. 14"x36" is an awesome format.

Roger

Nice!

[Corran]

Thanks for the link to the "great big camera" - pretty neat!
I'm not enamored of the landscape here in the deep south...Clyde Butcher can have it (I'm not going wading in chest-deep water to get the shot, sorry!). But if I do move somewhere that I feel speaks to me...I think a 7x17 or 14x17 is in my future. I can just fit 14x17 onto my scanner bed (!).

[photoevangelist]

I think I might be in luck. My S&S holders seem to barely accommodate the 178mm size - assuming the Fuji HR-A film is also exactly 7 inches (177.8 mm).

[Tin Can]

If it's not exactly 7" I'll eat a sheet.

If you bring me to Korea to do it!



I think I might be in luck. My S&S holders seem to barely accommodate the 178mm size - assuming the Fuji HR-A film is also exactly 7 inches (177.8 mm).

[SergeiR]

If it's not exactly 7" I'll eat a sheet.

If you bring me to Korea to do it!

There is direct flight from O'Hare to Seoul, btw ;) Used to depart around midnight ;)

[Tin Can]

I know you have a big bed scanner, so what is the max size file you can produce with 14X17?





Thanks for the link to the "great big camera" - pretty neat!
I'm not enamored of the landscape here in the deep south...Clyde Butcher can have it (I'm not going wading in chest-deep water to get the shot, sorry!). But if I do move somewhere that I feel speaks to me...I think a 7x17 or 14x17 is in my future. I can just fit 14x17 onto my scanner bed (!).

[SergeiR]

I can just fit 14x17 onto my scanner bed (!).

Well... you know.. ;) We all hate ya.. ;)

[Tin Can]

I used to always fly at night, why ruin a day.




There is direct flight from O'Hare to Seoul, btw ;) Used to depart around midnight ;)

[Wayne]

We are a tiny tiny percentage of X-Ray users, if it was the end prices would be rising

Only if there was demand, and we the tiny percentage are not demand. But I think this is just a price cut, not the end.

[Corran]

Randy, I'm not sure, but an 8x10 scan that I did at 3200 DPI was "only" 250 megabytes after tweaking and saving as an 8-bit greyscale TIFF. I think as a 16-bit color image as, I originally scanned it at, it was 2 gigabytes or something obscene.
Sergei - sorry ;)

[SergeiR]

Corran, remind me name of it, please.. i keep forgetting to put it into constant search :(

From top of me head - 8x10 scanned at 4800 is 2.2G as 16 bit compressed TIFF. I gave up on scanning them at that b/c Photoshop cant really open them. It exceeds some internal counter and poor thing dies.

[photoevangelist]

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 was doing 4 sheets of 8x10 with 30 ml of Rodinal (each individually). 1:50 dilution 1500ml water + 30 ml chemistry. It wasn't until the 5th sheet that I started to see a loss in contrast. Since I shot an extra sheet for each portrait I was doing, I decided to develop two different portraits first, then develop the second copies next just in case there was any contrast loss.

Once I moved up to the tank and hangar method, my contrast went up. I tried 3.8 liters (1 gallon) with 75ml Rodinal, but reduced it to 70ml for 2 sets of 4 hangars (totaling 8 negatives with 70ml chemistry. I might try reducing the chemistry some more, because that's still 10ml more than I was using before in less water.

I don't know how scientific it is, but for all practical purposes it works for me.

[photoevangelist]

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

I haven't shot conventional 8x10 film for probably 15 years - and even then it was only a few sheets - most likely for a school project. I just started shooting 8x10 xray film in March and didn't scan anything until a few weeks ago. I made a 2400 px scan on Epson v750 with betterscanning AN glass and printed 40x50 inches with an Epson 9600 printer. I don't strip my negatives. I can't compare them with anything else at the moment (drum scan, stripping, conventional film), but I can tell you that I am really pleased with the print quality. No visitors to my exhibition, currently on exhibit now, are saying why are they soft, but quite the opposite. How did I get them to be so sharp and detailed? I don't know what I would do with film & lenses that are sharper than this. I was using a 12" Dagor and about 10 inches from the subjects face at f11, so depth of field was very shallow.

[Corran]

Screen Cezanne.

[davidrcarls]

Crappy iPhone pic of a recent 14x17 contact print hanging on the wall. The images are getting better all the time... happy, happy, joy, joy

97929

[SergeiR]

Screen Cezanne.
aha :) thanks!

[davidrcarls]

And another97978

[photoevangelist]

I started working last weekend on some photos detailing the area around the Withlacoochee River with my 8x10, with the goal being a large series of 8x10 contact prints both with silver gelatin and Van Dyke Browns. Here is a sample image. You can find about 10 more on my blog linked below in my signature. All are taken with Fuji Super HR-T:

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/0045ss.jpg

Bryan, this is gorgeous!!!!

[VPooler]

Ah, I tried to score some X-Ray film by calling to all the hospitals in 100 kilometer radius. Most of them had no idea if they had any left and were not willing to look, one hospital told that they just finished setting up the last digital x-ray machine and they threw out 3 cases of film about a week ago...it was a sad day.

[Corran]

Thanks Lee! Wow, was that really over a year ago? How time flies.

I should re-scan that negative. The foreground sand was too dense for my old scanner but my Cezanne should be able to get through it. There's also a lot of lines on the old scan, if you look hard (dust on the sensor, could never figure out how to open that Agfa and clean it).

[Carl J]

And another97978

David,

14x17 close-up portrait. What lens, lighting (strobe?), more info? :)

[davidrcarls]

30" artar, soft box strobes, magical subjects. Here is another crappy pic of a finished print. 98117

[Carl J]

30" artar, soft box strobes, magical subjects. Here is another crappy pic of a finished print. 98117

Nice one. Thanks for the shot info. Aside from Jim F., I think, there aren't many people posting 14x17 portraits so I was curious. Fascinating (and a zillion more questions). Will this be an ongoing project?

[Jim Fitzgerald]

David, very nice. How are you printing your 14x17?

[davidrcarls]

Thank you Jim. Ilford Multigrade IV Fiber. Here is another image98146

[davidrcarls]

Ongoing project, yes. Not sure where its going, but I like the path I am on.

[davidrcarls]

Whooops, looks like I posted the same image twice. Try this one...98147

[Tin Can]

Nice indeed!

I am slowly getting to a similar space, with similar materials.

I share your hatred of the terrible digital 'representations' we post.

Someday I would like to see these in person, just as I would like to Jim's and Sergei's in person.

Good thing it's a big world so we don't crowd each other!



30" artar, soft box strobes, magical subjects. Here is another crappy pic of a finished print. 98117

[Carl J]

Meant to say (along with Jim) Tri, Vaughn, and a couple of others have also posted ULF x-ray portraits. Inspiring, guys!

[Tin Can]

Yes, I omitted some great portraitists. My mistake.

My apologies to all.


Meant to say (along with Jim) Tri, Vaughn, and a couple of others have also posted ULF x-ray portraits. Inspiring, guys!

[davidrcarls]

Thanks Randy, its been quite a journey to get to this point. Here is another portrait98152

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I'm not satisfied with the print yet but I'll get there. This is on 14x17 green x-ray film. Carbon transfer print. Voigtlander Portrait Euryscope Series 6 III. Hope to have a better print to share in the future.

[premortho]

That is lovely, the pose, the lighting. And the subject (aka "the victim")
I'm not satisfied with the print yet but I'll get there. This is on 14x17 green x-ray film. Carbon transfer print. Voigtlander Portrait Euryscope Series 6 III. Hope to have a better print to share in the future.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

That is lovely, the pose, the lighting. And the subject (aka "the victim")

Thank you very much.

[Jeffrey Arthur]

Jim I think you have it once again. Marvelous.

[photoevangelist]

30" artar, soft box strobes, magical subjects. Here is another crappy pic of a finished print. 98117

I'm getting jealous. These are great portraits!

[photoevangelist]

Thanks Randy, its been quite a journey to get to this point. Here is another portrait98152

Wow! Very interesting portrait.

[photoevangelist]

Someone please send me a 14x17 camera.... I'm dying here.....

[davidrcarls]

I built my own camera and its the size of a room (its my darkroom actually, so it pulls double duty). I stand inside and subject sits outside when I take these portraits. Its been quite a journey to get to this point, but its finally paying off. Although my portraits are starting to look a bit fomulaic, its for a purpose. I am putting together a typology of the human face, and hope to interest a gallery in showing these images someday. For now, I keep whacking away at it. If I fall down anywhere its in the printing. Although I am getting better at printing all the time, good printing is tough 982429824398244work. Here are some of the images I made in a 12 hour printing session, yesterday.

[Tin Can]

Very interesting. I am curious about the negative borders being skewed. Could you explain why that is? Not a complaint or criticism, just an observation. Perhaps you are doing extreme rear movements?



I built my own camera and its the size of a room (its my darkroom actually, so it pulls double duty). I stand inside and subject sits outside when I take these portraits. Its been quite a journey to get to this point, but its finally paying off. Although my portraits are starting to look a bit fomulaic, its for a purpose. I am putting together a typology of the human face, and hope to interest a gallery in showing these images someday. For now, I keep whacking away at it. If I fall down anywhere its in the printing. Although I am getting better at printing all the time, good printing is tough 982429824398244work. Here are some of the images I made in a 12 hour printing session, yesterday.

[davidrcarls]

That is an easy one to explain. These are raw prints from yesterday that have not been dry mounted (or even flattened). I just tacked them on the wall with some blue tape at the top. They are wicked curly!
Very interesting. I am curious about the negative borders being skewed. Could you explain why that is? Not a complaint or criticism, just an observation. Perhaps you are doing extreme rear movements?

[Tin Can]

Thanks! It was a mystery to me.


That is an easy one to explain. These are raw prints from yesterday that have not been dry mounted (or even flattened). I just tacked them on the wall with some blue tape at the top. They are wicked curly!

[Tri Tran]

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5038/vrme.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/vrme.jpg/)

Amber
11x14 with 480mm Nicola Perscheid
1/2 stop closed from wide open.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

beautiful Tri! X-ray film and great lenses and beautiful models rock!

[Curt]

I think you nail it! I was going to suggest 1/2 stop but thought it was getting too picky. It sure did work didn't it. That's was the garden scene, I thought a portrait would be just a slight depth and it's very nice for the model.

[Tri Tran]

Thanks Curt and Jim. The garden shots was the test shots in order to know the lens DOF characteristic . I hope it will pleased your eyes at 1/2 stop down.

[Tri Tran]

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6707/gk58.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/gk58.jpg/)

Amber
11x14 with Nicola Perscheid.

[Tri Tran]

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4022/jzeh.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/560/jzeh.jpg/)

This one for my friend Jim !

Natalie
11x14 with 18 Hemagis Eidoscope #1

[SergeiR]

8x10 Kodak CSG, hacked 18" Vitax

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5506/9231542773_f493288640_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9231542773/)
Scan-130707-0001www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9231542773/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Jim Fitzgerald]

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4022/jzeh.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/560/jzeh.jpg/)

This one for my friend Jim !

Natalie
11x14 with 18 Hemagis Eidoscope #1

Tri, Thanks! It looks like I imagined it would! Love it! Can't wait!

[ndg]

Resting Places....

http://www.nanadadzie.com/darkroom/pics/img700a.jpg

Cut green 8x10 Kodak Xray film into 4x10 pieces, Fuji 360mm f10 lens at f45, developed in Eco pro (Tektol) developer at 1:20 dilution

[photoevangelist]

So much great news to report!

I'll list it in the sequential order that it happened today.

#1. I was approved to start doing a documentary of the Daegu Monorail construction.
#2. I stopped by to buy some 7x17 x-ray today. I was a little bit worried about buying film that might just go to waist. I asked the lady the cost, and she said it would be more expensive than the 8x10 I bought last time. I was quoted $60 for a box of 100 sheets. I kept my smile inside, knowing that 100 sheets of Ilford in 7x17 could cost me near $1000. I began to ask the lady if she knew the exact size of the film, because I was worried it would work in my holder. So she started talking about expired film - that the hospitals will not use. I asked if I could buy it and she said it's not usually for sale, even though it should function as normal. So I said, I'd like it buy it if I could. She wasn't sure if she could sell it to me so she called her boss. The boss said, just give it to him. My jaw dropped to the bottom of the floor, but I tried to keep the excitement in. I then asked about any other expired film and got a box of 8x10 as well. Whoot! Two boxes of free xray film! To sweeten the deal this is Fuji HR-U film vs. Fuji HR-A that I usually use. HR-U film, I guess is the same film but has more silver in it making it more expensive. I don't guess anyone has used HR-U film?
#3. Come back and cross my fingers that this film is going to work in my new S&S holders. Yes!!! It's a tight fit, but just slides in perfectly.
#4. Haven't decided which lenses to use on 7x17. I've got 4 that have potential. 12" Dagor in shutter, 14" Commercial Ektar in shutter, 260mm Konica Hexanon GRII (barrel), and an 8x10 B&L Protar V (163mm in barrel). Picked up some black foam board and made a makeshift lensboard for the 260mm Konica Hexanon GRII. Looks like it will cover infinity at F9! Going to start doing some texts tomorrow to make sure my ISO is 160 like the HR-A was and developing times are sufficant in Rodinal 1:50 for around 3-4 min.

I haven't decided wether I'll use x-ray 8x10 and 7x17 or 5x7 FP4+ for the Monorail project. Maybe I'll mix it up. The monorail opens Dec. 2014, I'm thinking about an exhibition opening that would coinside with the Monorail opening.

[photoevangelist]

It's going to be great shooting with small apertures at infitity again!

[jb7]

Great pictures again, I love this thread-

I see Dektol mentioned a lot, at various dilutions, short times- however, I see some have moved on to other developers, notably Rodinal. I don't think I can get that easily in Maine; I'm not far from Hunt's, and they have D76 and Dektol, so I'll be testing those...

Is there any benefit to a hardening fixer? I have yet to develop, but it seems that just getting the emulsion wet is enough to strip it off. Damage might be done before ever getting to the fix, and the film seems relatively robust when dry. Will be covering the bottom of the trays with something flat, I think...

[SergeiR]

It's going to be great shooting with small apertures at infitity again!

gratz, man :) I wish i could afford 14x17 right now.. i got some spare wooden planks though.. might get around to build one at long last :)

[rdelung]

Great pictures again, I love this thread-

I see Dektol mentioned a lot, at various dilutions, short times- however, I see some have moved on to other developers, notably Rodinal. I don't think I can get that easily in Maine; I'm not far from Hunt's, and they have D76 and Dektol, so I'll be testing those...

Is there any benefit to a hardening fixer? I have yet to develop, but it seems that just getting the emulsion wet is enough to strip it off. Damage might be done before ever getting to the fix, and the film seems relatively robust when dry. Will be covering the bottom of the trays with something flat, I think...

Just a thought, but how about having some glass cut to size, and sanding the edges so as to reduce any chance of a cut. If I were to have a problem with my trays, I was going to consider this. Has anyone tried this already? Rde the Seattle guy ( the other Randy )

[Ralph Weimer]

I tray process my 8x10 xray film with a glass plate covering the ribbed bottom of the trays. Works fine. No scratches. I don't strip the film, either. Plenty sharp for me.
Ralph

[photoevangelist]

My first 7x17 negative ever!

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3729/9252062027_1c06c3f199_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9252062027/)
Adams Building (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9252062027/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
7x17 F&S, Konica Hexanon GRII 260mm, Fuji HR-U (green sensitive xray), Rodinal 1:50, Epson v750 double scan and stitched

Not very happy with my results here - but it's fun that it's my first 7x17!

[photoevangelist]

Here's another one. The processing errors are quite evident here. Any advice would be much appreciated!

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5500/9252202731_65a42dabae_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9252202731/)
Courtyard (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9252202731/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
7x17 F&S, Konica Hexanon GRII 260mm, Fuji HR-U (green sensitive xray), Rodinal 1:50, Epson v750 double scan and stitched

[SergeiR]

Lee - there is bugger all you can do till you get processing streamlined..

I believe in rotary processing , specially when it comes to ULF. Imho - thats where you might consider stripping just because it seems like easier and more solid approach.
At least once i am migrated to larger sizes - i plan on this ;)

and PMing rest..

[Tri Tran]

Lee,
You have quite a few issues here. Check your camera or holder for light leak, especially the holder. Uneven developed caused by the mechanical work flow. You need at least a gallon developer for this size . Flip and shack it every 30 sec and filter your developer if silver particles presents excessively . No fancy developing tool needed. Hope this helps. TT

[Tin Can]

Great start Lee!

It's now refinement, wonderful formal locations!

The big advantage is V750 double scanning those negs, that is very handy.

Seems I am progressing on my economy ULF, last night I scored one, that's right, one 14x17 holder in very good condition. Now I need to build an extension back. My camera is getting bigger...

[photoevangelist]

Lee - there is bugger all you can do till you get processing streamlined..

I believe in rotary processing , specially when it comes to ULF. Imho - thats where you might consider stripping just because it seems like easier and more solid approach.
At least once i am migrated to larger sizes - i plan on this ;)

and PMing rest..

I might try this method as I'm shooting ISO 160 F45 at 1 sec with a barrel lens. The Hexanons only stop down to F45. I can afford to lose speed, but I fear damaging the negative by stripping. Ironically I don't see any scratches on my negative. When I first started with 8x10 tray processing I had scratches everywhere.

[photoevangelist]

Lee,
You have quite a few issues here. Check your camera or holder for light leak, especially the holder. Uneven developed caused by the mechanical work flow. You need at least a gallon developer for this size . Flip and shack it every 30 sec and filter your developer if silver particles presents excessively . No fancy developing tool needed. Hope this helps. TT

Tri, I really hope there are no light leaks! These are new S&S holders and I just got the camera back modified and fitted especially for my holders by RR. I'm hoping its error on my part, not theirs. I'm using a handmade lens cap for the shutter and my lens board is made of foam board. It's temporary because I wasn't sure if this lens would cover the format. I can deal with the edge clipping a bit. It's not even visible in images 3 and 4. I need to take closer notes on what movements / focus is working to get perfect edge to edge images.

Now the 1 gallon of chemistry could be my downfall. I was using 3000ml (<1gl) and 60ml of chemistry for 4 negatives. My logic behind this was that I was able to process 8 8x10s in this amount of chemistry. 8 8x10s would be more film per square inch than 4 7x17s, so I thought I was doing okay.

If I need to use 1 gallon of developer per negative, that's going to create a lot of waste when I'm doing 10 sheets! I hope I can do more negatives in that much developer. I might switch to Holden's Dektol 1:10 method if so. Rodinal is about $45 for 500ml since its imported by a private citizen. Most Koreans could care less about Rodinal. A lot of professionals I've talked with don' even know what it is!

[Tin Can]

Yes, even old fumble fingers is now getting scratch free X-Ray negs, I was just checking my last 6, done with hangers.

I found 2 14x17 hangers I plan to use when I get all the other system parts ready.

Now when is Viola showing up? She's my hair model mannequin head, I will use until I find a live one...


I might try this method as I'm shooting ISO 160 F45 at 1 sec with a barrel lens. The Hexanons only stop down to F45. I can afford to lose speed, but I fear damaging the negative by stripping. Ironically I don't see any scratches on my negative. When I first started with 8x10 tray processing I had scratches everywhere.

[SergeiR]

stripping is easier than it sounds, if you got decent piece of plastic or glass to tape negative to. You can actually use one that you later will scan with, if you feel like it. might be a bit of issue with edges, but oh well - you got quite a bit of real estate to work with and plus you can always claim edges as "artistic touch" ;)

[photoevangelist]

Great start Lee!

It's now refinement, wonderful formal locations!

The big advantage is V750 double scanning those negs, that is very handy.

Seems I am progressing on my economy ULF, last night I scored one, that's right, one 14x17 holder in very good condition. Now I need to build an extension back. My camera is getting bigger...

Congrats! Looking forward to seeing it complete!

I sometimes wish I had waited around for a 14x17 or made one myself. Oddly though, I purchased the 7x17 before the 5x7 and 8x10 cameras. (Thats how long I've been working on getting this set up!) My end game is to exhibit work and both 8x10 and 7x17 are large cameras but still kind of small to be hanging on a gallery wall as a contact print. I'm happy with my digital work flow for the 8x10, but don't know how well this will be with stitching a 7x17 negative for gallery prints. I might need to find myself a cezanne, or mail my negs off to be drum scanned. 14x17 would be just the right size for alternative process contact prints. But my goodness, hauling this 7x17 around campus is a task. Every time I go larger, 4x5 -> 5x7, 5x7 -> 8x10, 8x10 -> 7x17, the previous format seems so much easier to carry, though it wasn't that way in the beginning!

[SergeiR]

now rodinal for 45$ is about 3 times overpay, which kinda suck. I have to bring my bottles to russia when travel - no chance finding it there either :( But still.. you can do 1+200 ;) Of course being one shot it doesnt work super well with dunking .. but for rotary it should be fairly economical


PS: you guys suck.. i am now seriously contemplating to get 20x24 going.. :( of course there is no xray of that size.. but..

[Tin Can]

Last night I was talking to Keith Canham and he said he is sending a lot of 20x24 film to China.

20X24 is kinda small :) look on the Canham site and he says, "K. B. Canham Cameras, Inc. is excited that we have an agreement with Kodak™ to sell special order sheet film. We can order any emulsion that Kodak™ currently produces in any sheet film size you desire, so long as one dimension is 40" (1016mm) or smaller. Orders can be completed either by a single purchase of an entire run, or via a Co-Op.

Film orders will require 100% pre-payment (shipping not included). Once pre-payment is received you will be placed on a list along with everyone else that has ordered the same size and emulsion of Kodak™ film (this will be referred to as a Co-Op). Once enough orders are placed to reach the minimum number of boxes needed we will contact Kodak™ and should receive the film in approximately 6 weeks."

I just ordered 1500 ml of R09 for $24 from Freestyle.


now rodinal for 45$ is about 3 times overpay, which kinda suck. I have to bring my bottles to russia when travel - no chance finding it there either :( But still.. you can do 1+200 ;) Of course being one shot it doesnt work super well with dunking .. but for rotary it should be fairly economical


PS: you guys suck.. i am now seriously contemplating to get 20x24 going.. :( of course there is no xray of that size.. but..

[photoevangelist]

now rodinal for 45$ is about 3 times overpay, which kinda suck. I have to bring my bottles to russia when travel - no chance finding it there either :( But still.. you can do 1+200 ;) Of course being one shot it doesnt work super well with dunking .. but for rotary it should be fairly economical


PS: you guys suck.. i am now seriously contemplating to get 20x24 going.. :( of course there is no xray of that size.. but..

I can tell you from experience, if you're doing a digital work flow, 8x10 is plenty good for 40x50 inch prints on our 10 year old Epson 9600 scanned on an Epson v750 with betterscanning AN glass. If my hunch is correct, even 5x7 can do well at this size. 4x10 would also be a great panoramic format for digital work flow (I saw you are playing with this format). 7x17 might be overkill for a digital workflow, yet too small for wet prints in gallery space. I still plan on shooting 7x17 for at least a year before I decide to keep it or not. If I can't get this xray 7x17 to work for me, I've got 75 sheets of Ilford (and a jobo ULF tube) to play with. I got my times settled with 5x7 already, so I should be good to go with conventional films - knock on wood.

[photoevangelist]

I just ordered 1500 ml of R09 for $24 from Freestyle.

Man, I wish! I did order some adox chemistry from a guy in Germany once. I think he would have shipped the Rodinal too. I should have purchased some back then. No one else will ship it here. I'd drink Rodinal if I could get three bottles for $24!

[SergeiR]

I can tell you from experience, if you're doing a digital work flow, 8x10 is plenty good for 40x50 inch prints on our 10 year old Epson 9600 scanned on an Epson v750 with betterscanning AN glass. If my hunch is correct, even 5x7 can do well at this size. 4x10 would also be a great panoramic format for digital work flow (I saw you are playing with this format). 7x17 might be overkill for a digital workflow, yet too small for wet prints in gallery space. I still plan on shooting 7x17 for at least a year before I decide to keep it or not. If I can't get this xray 7x17 to work for me, I've got 75 sheets of Ilford (and a jobo ULF tube) to play with. I got my times settled with 5x7 already, so I should be good to go with conventional films - knock on wood.

Yeah, but i am keep thinking about doing contact prints ;) I actually do them from time to time, of course people would kill me here, if i tell them that easiest way to make contact print isnt with weird lamps and stuff.. you just rebounce your typical portable flash off the ceiling and you got nice and even illumination of desired intensity.. and repeatable too ;) Cant do much about D&B of course, but oh well..

So its not all completely digital for me too... I just like feeling of working with large negatives. Its different world. Overwise i'd keep hanging around with MF or 4x5 (still do, of course, but far less).

If i were handy with instruments i'd be shooting 20x24 already, or at least 14x17.. But my attention span sucks, and i dont really have much exp or in area of instruments required for something like that.

[SergeiR]

I just ordered 1500 ml of R09 for $24 from Freestyle.

hmm... best i can see there all the time is 13$ for 500ml... :( I just ordered some from other folks for 9$... we shall see how that one holds up.

[Tin Can]

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/12055-Adox-Adolux-APH-09-500ml

I must have bought the last 3 bottles.


hmm... best i can see there all the time is 13$ for 500ml... :( I just ordered some from other folks for 9$... we shall see how that one holds up.

[Corran]

I use the "Adonal" stuff, rather than the R09 one-shot. Not sure what the difference is. I use mine one-shot anyway.

Any idea if they are much different Randy?

[Tin Can]

Everybody says it's all the same and only good for one shot, But Lee and I have done 8 sheets in hangers with 75ml diluted into 4000 ml. I copied him.


I use the "Adonal" stuff, rather than the R09 one-shot. Not sure what the difference is. I use mine one-shot anyway.

Any idea if they are much different Randy?

[Corran]

Interesting, because the Adonal stuff is twice as much.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/12054-Adox-Adonal-Agfa-Rodinal-Formula-Film-Developer-500ml

There is a huge thread on APUG with a million different opinions. Sadly I'm using the more expensive stuff and I've calibrated my developing with it for almost all my film, so I guess I'll just keep going with it. $15 for months worth of developer is nothing anyway!

[Tin Can]

My current bottle says One Shot R09 made in Germany from Freestyle.


Interesting, because the Adonal stuff is twice as much.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/12054-Adox-Adonal-Agfa-Rodinal-Formula-Film-Developer-500ml

[Tin Can]

That's why i bought the cheaper one, they seem the same.

I also keep upping the order until shipping changes and only buy when shipping is best.

[photoevangelist]

Everybody says it's all the same and only good for one shot, But Lee and I have done 8 sheets in hangers with 75ml diluted into 4000 ml. I copied him.

I was doing 4 sheets (one at a time) in 8x10 trays (with glass on the bottom) in 1500 ml + 30ml of chemistry. (Actually I started with three, but then pushed it to 5 sheets, because I was going through Rodinal too quickly). I have no densitometer, unfortunately, but I started to visually notice contrast fall off at 5 sheets. So, I usually just developed 4 sheets in 1500 developer. I would usually double up exposures, so I'd do one negative from two holders, then since I had copy exposures for insurance, I'd develop them as the 3rd and 4th sheet.

When I switched to tanks and hangars, I just doubled this logic since my tanks are 1 gallon each. 1500 x 2 is only 3000 ml (800ml short of the 3.8 liter = 1 gallon), so I just added an extra 15ml. My processing must have been more vigorous in the tanks and hangars because the contrast went up. I went from contact printing with a 1 and 1.5 filter (tray development) to a 0, 0.5, and sometimes 1 filter.

No science to justify it, just trial and error.

I think I actually did up to 10 sheets once in 3.8 chemistry.

I only have 8 hangars, so I have to dry the hangars to reuse them. That's why I ended up just doing multiples of 8.

[Tin Can]

So you are saying 75ml to 3800 ml?



I was doing 4 sheets (one at a time) in 8x10 trays (with glass on the bottom) in 1500 ml + 30ml of chemistry. (Actually I started with three, but then pushed it to 5 sheets, because I was going through Rodinal too quickly). I have no densitometer, unfortunately, but I started to visually notice contrast fall off at 5 sheets. So, I usually just developed 4 sheets in 1500 developer. I would usually double up exposures, so I'd do one negative from two holders, then since I had copy exposures for insurance, I'd develop them as the 3rd and 4th sheet.

When I switched to tanks and hangars, I just doubled this logic since my tanks are 1 gallon each. 1500 x 2 is only 3000 ml (800ml short of the 3.8 liter = 1 gallon), so I just added an extra 15ml. My processing must have been more vigorous in the tanks and hangars because the contrast went up. I went from contact printing with a 1 and 1.5 filter (tray development) to a 0, 0.5, and sometimes 1 filter.

No science to justify it, just trial and error.

I think I actually did up to 10 sheets once in 3.8 chemistry.

I only have 8 hangars, so I have to dry the hangars to reuse them. That's why I ended up just doing multiples of 8.

[photoevangelist]

So you are saying 75ml to 3800 ml?

Yeah. Isn't 76ml 1:50 for 3.8 liters?

[Tin Can]

Of course, but I lost track in your explanation.

Not a criticism, just a restatement.



Yeah. Isn't 76ml 1:50 for 3.8 liters?

[photoevangelist]

It's hard to explain things from my phone. Haha.

If it was criticism that's okay! I kinda miss it. I thrived off of it in grad school.

[Tin Can]

We are done with Grad school...

I was told, that one is ready to graduate when you physically throw your advisors out of your studio.

While it was not that physical, I was definitely done with them.

No regrets!




It's hard to explain things from my phone. Haha.

If it was criticism that's okay! I kinda miss it. I thrived off of it in grad school.

[photoevangelist]

More from yesterday's developing session: #3 and #4.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3688/9257301383_8135f1ebd4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9257301383/)
Adams Building #02 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9257301383/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2878/9257300373_d25d934b91_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9257300373/)
Near Front Gate (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9257300373/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

Both with 7x17 F&S, 260mm Konica Hexanon GRII, Fuji HR-U (Green Sensitive Xray) @160, in Rodinal 1:50 - developed in trays (3000 ml + 60 ml chemistry), non-stripped, Epson v750 double scanned and stitched.

Observations:
• The 260mm Hexanon can cover 7x17 (depending on movements?, or lack there of), but when it misses, it's just by a tiny bit which can be cropped from a scan. It's possible that a professionally made lens board might correct the lens being more centered on the lens board.
• I may in fact have light leaks in my holders - drats!
• Love my Rodinal 1:50 dilutions, but I may have to reevaluate the 1:50 for such a large negative. My developing times are around 3min. Trying dilutions of 1:100 or 1:200 should give me the longer times I want to have more consistent development, but at the loss of contrast?
• May just convert to jobo development and become a stripper myself (look out world!) if the above solution doesn't pan out.

[Corran]

Why is the second one so messed up? The first looks almost perfect.
Bummer about the light leaks...but they are new? Sounds like something they should be fixing...

[photoevangelist]

Any advice for using PMK with large sheet xray film? (I have Gordon Hutching's book - but haven't read it and it got taken into storage for the summer). I've got enough PMK to play with if it's better than Rodinal. I prefer methods where I won't have to agitate too much.

I tried it once with HP5+ and wasn't successful:

98571
HP5+ Pyro PMK 1:2:100

[photoevangelist]

Why is the second one so messed up? The first looks almost perfect.
Bummer about the light leaks...but they are new? Sounds like something they should be fixing...

For the second one I didn't agitate and I pulled it out of the chemistry at 2 min instead of 3 min. I accidentally exposed the negative at F9 instead of F45. I was trying to develop accordingly... Interestingly we can see that the image circle is most likely the same at F9 and F45.

Bryan, look at the sky on the far right in the first one. Does that look right? Looks a bit strange to me. I'm not using any lens filters yet.

Yes, the S&S holders are new.... I would have hoped that they would have been light tight before coming across the Pacific...

[Corran]

I looked at the bigger image on Flickr, and that sky on the right side looks okay to me. It's definitely just blown out a bit as this film commonly does in bright areas. You can burn it in when you wet print but scans get crazy grainy if you try to pull it down. Of course at this size, maybe not!

You'd be kicking yourself if that was a sheet of Tri-X and you forgot to stop the lens down! Ha!

[photoevangelist]

I looked at the bigger image on Flickr, and that sky on the right side looks okay to me. It's definitely just blown out a bit as this film commonly does in bright areas. You can burn it in when you wet print but scans get crazy grainy if you try to pull it down. Of course at this size, maybe not!

You'd be kicking yourself if that was a sheet of Tri-X and you forgot to stop the lens down! Ha!

Thanks for looking, Bryan. How much do you charge for scans? :) I'm not looking to scan yet, but within a year or so I'm probably going to need to find a better way to get good scans from my Epson v750 via stitching or send it off for drum scans.

You're absolutely right. I would be drowning myself down with Korean rice wine if it was Kodak film. This box of x-ray was part of two boxes that I scored for free because it expired in 2012. I was kicking myself for not loading more holders. :)

[Corran]

Yeah...I'm jealous! I'll PM you in a minute RE: scans.

[photoevangelist]

Yeah...I'm jealous! I'll PM you in a minute RE: scans.

The grass is always greener on the other side! You've got the ultimate digital workflow! I'm jealous!

[photoevangelist]

I just took 10 exact same exposures with 7x17 xray. The purpose? To get my processing down packed with this ULF film. The scene has a sky which seems to be the biggest challenge.

I figure I'll try:
1. Pyro PMK x 2 (any suggestions, recommendations?)
2. X-TOL x2 (any suggestions on dilutions with x-ray film?) ... just hope the chemicals are good. I mixed it in March or April. I've heard it can unexpectedly die. Was in a near full sealed bottle.
3. D-76 or Dektol x2, if there is any left from the end of the semester. (Suggestions on dilutions with xray?)
4. Rodinal 1:100 x4 might try one in trays and one in rotary processor. Going for longer times for more even development.

As always any recommendations are welcome!

Has anyone determined if any lens filters are helpful with green sensitive x-ray?

Really hope to be out shooting the monorail next week!

[Jim Noel]

Your light leaks are most likely on the flap end. If they are not black inside, blacken them with a felt pen. Keeping your dark cloth over the camera while making exposures goes a long way toward preventing light leaks.

[davidrcarls]

Here is a happy subject posing next to his portrait. The subject to print ratio is almost 1:2. This is actually starting to work out for me. I now have a gallery interested in showing the work. Who needs traditional landscape when the landscape of the human face is so close at hand. Voyeurs unite!98591

[photoevangelist]

Your light leaks are most likely on the flap end. If they are not black inside, blacken them with a felt pen. Keeping your dark cloth over the camera while making exposures goes a long way toward preventing light leaks.

Thanks Jim! I remember your tips on my 7x17 set up back in January. I'm very grateful for your advice as an experienced 7x17 shooter. I went to the local market and found a cloth vendor that had some perfect cloth. Waterproof vinyl-type material: black on one side and white on the other. I was about to get 2 yards and remembered you said about 7 feet, so I went 2.5 yards. The cloth cost me less than $7 USD, I took it to seamstress and they sewed Velcro on four ends for less than $6 bucks. I got a massive light proof dark cloth for less than $15! It works really well and is actually kind of cool in this summer heat with white on one side. I wanted waterproof because back in January I was doing 4x5 in a heavy snow. I was very grateful I was able to use the dark cloth to protect the camera and take exposures with it as a shield from the snow.

[Jim Noel]

Glad to help.

[photoevangelist]

Here is a happy subject posing next to his portrait. The subject to print ratio is almost 1:2. This is actually starting to work out for me. I now have a gallery interested in showing the work. Who needs traditional landscape when the landscape of the human face is so close at hand. Voyeurs unite!98591

I'm with you all the way! People are much more interesting! Portraits of other people don't sell very well. I'm going to try a few landscape shows, if work doesn't sell from them I'll probably go back to doing people. Maybe by then I can figure a way out to do 14x17 myself.

That is an awesome portrait. While I was showing my student portrait work, the students stood next to their portrait on the wall. If I ever do that work again, I might consider rephotographing them next to their enlarged portrait in the gallery (2 shows from one idea!). As the show was going on, I also imagined having camera, background, and lighting set up so I could photograph any spectators that were interested. Since I'm an educator and think the process is important, I think that could be a wonderful addition to a show or portraits. And then you get more work for another exhibition! How cool is that?!! My only worry is that my 10 holders wouldn't be enough. If I was in the states, I could ask others to let me borrow holders for the duration of the show. I doubt I could set up a darkroom in the gallery space too, but that would be so cool if I could! Hmmm, thinking out loud. Maybe I need to find a gallery that will allow me to do this. Show of portraits + studio space + mini darkroom to show people their images processing. As a teacher that loves showing these things off, this would be a major photogasm for me!

[Tin Can]

All good ideas. You are moving into Live Art territory.

Great!


I'm with you all the way! People are much more interesting! Portraits of other people don't sell very well. I'm going to try a few landscape shows, if work doesn't sell from them I'll probably go back to doing people. Maybe by then I can figure a way out to do 14x17 myself.

That is an awesome portrait. While I was showing my student portrait work, the students stood next to their portrait on the wall. If I ever do that work again, I might consider rephotographing them next to their enlarged portrait in the gallery (2 shows from one idea!). As the show was going on, I also imagined having camera, background, and lighting set up so I could photograph any spectators that were interested. Since I'm an educator and think the process is important, I think that could be a wonderful addition to a show or portraits. And then you get more work for another exhibition! How cool is that?!! My only worry is that my 10 holders wouldn't be enough. If I was in the states, I could ask others to let me borrow holders for the duration of the show. I doubt I could set up a darkroom in the gallery space too, but that would be so cool if I could! Hmmm, thinking out loud. Maybe I need to find a gallery that will allow me to do this. Show of portraits + studio space + mini darkroom to show people their images processing. As a teacher that loves showing these things off, this would be a major photogasm for me!

[rdelung]

Great start Lee!

It's now refinement, wonderful formal locations!

The big advantage is V750 double scanning those negs, that is very handy.

Seems I am progressing on my economy ULF, last night I scored one, that's right, one 14x17 holder in very good condition. Now I need to build an extension back. My camera is getting bigger...

Hi Randy, I've herd the about double scanning twice now. What exactly is this, and how does one go about it? Thanks, Rde.. the Seattle guy ( aka the other Randy )

[Tin Can]

They are simply scanning 1/2 at a time and then stitching in PS.

Since 7x17 is too long, you just let 1/2 stick out. Or you could even cut it in 1/2!


Hi Randy, I've herd the about double scanning twice now. What exactly is this, and how does one go about it? Thanks, Rde.. the Seattle guy ( aka the other Randy )

[SergeiR]

Yup. I used to do it even with 4x5s. Hell of all diseases it was.. but it worked for a while.

[photoevangelist]

Trying different developers out today:

I started out with PMK 1:2:200. Looks better, but not perfect. Look at the skies. I had a few bad scratches too.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5450/9268108332_a4e6e5444f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9268108332/)
HR-U Developer Test #01 - PMK 1:2:200 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9268108332/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

7x17 Folmer & Schwing, Konica Hexanon GRII 260mm, Fuji HR-U @ ISO 160, Pyro PMK 1:2:200 (20ml + 40ml + 4000 ml) 20 min

[photoevangelist]

Next:

Pyro PMK 1.5+3+200, 15 min
Looks great, except there are spots all over my sky and a few scratches on the far left.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2825/9268239348_2453734e0f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9268239348/)
HR-U Developer Test #02 - PMK 1.5:3:200 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9268239348/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr

7x17 Folmer & Schwing, Konica Hexanon GRII 260mm, Fuji HR-U @ ISO 160, Pyro PMK 1.5:3:200 (30ml + 60ml + 4000 ml) 15 min

[Corran]

I've never seen spots like that in the sky. Strange. Looking good though, nice tones.

[photoevangelist]

Tests #3 and #4 were with Holden's Dektol 1:10 dilutions for 3 min. #3 was with minor agitation and #4 was stand development for 3:30 min. I'll spare myself the embarrassment. I'm passing on Dektol.

[photoevangelist]

I've never seen spots like that in the sky. Strange. Looking good though, nice tones.

I'm wondering if it's because I added extra chemistry to the 1:2:200 mix to make 1.5:3:200 instead of making a fresh batch. It's time to process the next batch. Most likely Rodinal 1:100 and Rodinal 1:200 and I think I want to try XTOL. Perhaps I should dilute it to 1:3?

Pyro PMK is definitely looking promising, at least enough to make me want to try playing with it more. I only tried it a few times with conventional film and couldn't figure it out. Even the quick Epson scans look deadly sharp with this x-ray film!

[Corran]

Definitely interested in what Rodinal gives you. XTOL might be interesting. Gotta do my own tests with Pyrocat. Looking at some older 8x10 x-ray neg scans and I was reminded that 4x5 is great but not in the same league...

[photoevangelist]

I'm getting spots on all my negatives, no matter what the developer is...
Could it be the film itself?? The film expired in 2012 and wasn't kept in a cool place. It was actually kind of warm when I went there.

Wondering if the emulsions were sticking together and cause the spots...

[photoevangelist]

Definitely interested in what Rodinal gives you. XTOL might be interesting. Gotta do my own tests with Pyrocat. Looking at some older 8x10 x-ray neg scans and I was reminded that 4x5 is great but not in the same league...

Rodinal 1:200 with tray agitation for 11 min looks horrible too. I can post this on Monday if people are interested. Today has been one of those miserable days in the darkroom where I feel like I've gotten nothing done.

Pyro PMK looks promising for me. Dektol 1:10 and Rodinal 1:50 and 1:200 don't look good with my methods and ULF film in trays. How was I so fortunate with 8x10 and Rodinal 1:50?

I have 4 test negatives left to process. I'd really like to try one or two of those in the Jobo 28xx processing tube and just strip the back side. I'd need to get some glass though...

I'm not feeling optimistic about XTOL.... maybe Monday will bring more optimism!

[Tin Can]

Must be the film. It might be smart to run control runs of other film, even, GASP, "real" film just to confirm the problem.

I just compared Ilford FP4 and my Kodak CSG and I preferred the CSG, sorry not sharing more crap. Too critical an audience here for reality.

If you don't have other 7x17 just cut some 8x10 up and use that.



Rodinal 1:200 with tray agitation for 11 min looks horrible too. I can post this on Monday if people are interested. Today has been one of those miserable days in the darkroom where I feel like I've gotten nothing done.

Pyro PMK looks promising for me. Dektol 1:10 and Rodinal 1:50 and 1:200 don't look good with my methods and ULF film in trays. How was I so fortunate with 8x10 and Rodinal 1:50?

I have 4 test negatives left to process. I'd really like to try one or two of those in the Jobo 28xx processing tube and just strip the back side. I'd need to get some glass though...

I'm not feeling optimistic about XTOL.... maybe Monday will bring more optimism!

[photoevangelist]

How would one process 7x17 in trays? The school has these old flat metal 16x20 trays. And I mean old. There was a bunch on corrosion on them because no one cleaned them. I got a lot of it off, bit they aint perfect. Unfortunately this is my only option for now. I can't find any other alternative except ordering from Freestyle and having them ship it to me. That will most likely fix the scratches, but I need to resolve the unevenness in my processing.

I am:
Lifting the four corners one at a time. 40 times in the first minute, rest then lift the four corners one at a time at each minute interval, except for PMK I was doing it for every 30 seconds.

[SergeiR]

btw there are xray processors for 17 inch wide film apparently .. about 1K used, they can do automatic (?) processing.. Just saying...

[Jim Fitzgerald]

How would one process 7x17 in trays? The school has these old flat metal 16x20 trays. And I mean old. There was a bunch on corrosion on them because no one cleaned them. I got a lot of it off, bit they aint perfect. Unfortunately this is my only option for now. I can't find any other alternative except ordering from Freestyle and having them ship it to me. That will most likely fix the scratches, but I need to resolve the unevenness in my processing.

I am:
Lifting the four corners one at a time. 40 times in the first minute, rest then lift the four corners one at a time at each minute interval, except for PMK I was doing it for every 30 seconds.

Lee, you only need the flat bottom tray for the developer. Everything else can be the standard trays. Problem could be in the loading and unloading so check that. Some people put glass down. By all means do one time when you go big. This is the way I do it when I develop my 11x14 and 14x17 x-ray film.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I am:
Lifting the four corners one at a time. 40 times in the first minute, rest then lift the four corners one at a time at each minute interval, except for PMK I was doing it for every 30 seconds.

How much developer do you have in the tray? I try to have at least enough to go up to the first joint on my index finger. By lifting each corner may not allow ample agitation. The deeper the developer, the more vigorous agitation must be. I rock the tray west/east, north/south. If I don't hear the film make a clacking sound against the tray wall, I'm not agitating strong enough. Flat-bottomed trays no worries about scratches. No flat-bottomed trays? A sheet of glass or even 1/4inch plexi (which I use) will do.

[photoevangelist]

Lee, you only need the flat bottom tray for the developer. Everything else can be the standard trays. Problem could be in the loading and unloading so check that. Some people put glass down. By all means do one time when you go big. This is the way I do it when I develop my 11x14 and 14x17 x-ray film.

Really? Only one flat tray? Can't the negative get scratched in any of the wet phases? I thought all trays must be flat.

I am doing only processing 1 negative at a time.

I thought maybe the scratches could be from loading or unloading, but the scratches are not parallel with the film, they are like 45 degree angles. So it makes me think its the problems lies within the processing.

[photoevangelist]

How much developer do you have in the tray? I try to have at least enough to go up to the first joint on my index finger. By lifting each corner may not allow ample agitation. The deeper the developer, the more vigorous agitation must be. I rock the tray west/east, north/south. If I don't hear the film make a clacking sound against the tray wall, I'm not agitating strong enough. Flat-bottomed trays no worries about scratches. No flat-bottomed trays? A sheet of glass or even 1/4inch plexi (which I use) will do.

I went up to 4000ml. Tri suggested I use at least a gallon of chemistry. 4000ml is a more simple number for dilutions than 3.8 liters. I thought I wanted to keep the agitation at a minimum. Vigorous - okay, I'll try that.

Yes, they are flat metal trays but are old and some of the corrosion is present. There are three trays I can choose from if I take Jim's advice and only use 1 flat tray. Unfortunately all are iffy but I didn't get any scratches on the first 4 negatives I processed, so I did something right the first time. I'm considering taking an old frame apart to use in a tray. I just don't like the idea of a large glass hanging around a communal darkroom, or constantly transporting one back and forth.

Unfortunately, there are no private darkrooms at school and no plans for one either. Working with what I've got. Trying to keep it simple as possible.

[photoevangelist]

btw there are xray processors for 17 inch wide film apparently .. about 1K used, they can do automatic (?) processing.. Just saying...

How do they work? I wonder if I could get one for cheaper here.

[Tin Can]

I have been looking at them, but can find little out, except they are designed to process in 45 or 90 seconds, which will make them too fast for us. X-Ray chems are not cheap and I have no idea how long, or how many sheets they do, perhaps many.

Then there are RA4 machines, but I know they are worthless, as no one will pay for one! They were made for fast processing RA4 color prints and also travel quickly, 45 8X10' an hour! Mine is a geared nightmare, I have never even thought of trying to use it. The chem baths are tiny, I see no way it would work well for any negative.

I thought somebody made DIY acrylic dip tanks with hangers, I plan to get there some day.


How do they work? I wonder if I could get one for cheaper here.

[Harold_4074]

Lee:

Having made all of about seven exposures on x-ray film (Kodak CGS) I can offer two suggestions:

1) Rodinal 1:100 is much too "hot" for me to get acceptable contrast, and this is with a 1951 Ektar in a Speed Graphic; lumenized, but not in the contrast class of a modern lens. I tried 1:200 in order to have a manageable developing time in the 6--10 minute range, and got a pale ghost of a negative. Doubling the volume at 1:200 showed that it was not a problem of developer exhaustion, so I tried 1:150 (300 ml for a 4x5 in a 5x7 tray) and got a lovely negative. Reading your earlier post regarding the useful capacity when developing 8x10x versus comparable area at 7x17 made me think that there might be oxidation or oH change (via CO2 absorption) that is more severe in the higher dilution. (A possible complicating factor is that my well water is pH 8.4, so your mileage may vary a lot.)

2) As a kid, I couldn't afford 11x14 trays, so I used a cardboard box (later, a wooden frame) lined with polyethylene film. A bit messy and clumsy, but it works just fine and you can't beat the price. If the poly is new, it should also be essentially scratch-free.

Playing with this stuff reminds me of being a kid, playing with Army surplus film and paper of improbable character and unknown history :)

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I went up to 4000ml. Tri suggested I use at least a gallon of chemistry. 4000ml is a more simple number for dilutions than 3.8 liters. I thought I wanted to keep the agitation at a minimum. Vigorous - okay, I'll try that.

Yes, they are flat metal trays but are old and some of the corrosion is present. There are three trays I can choose from if I take Jim's advice and only use 1 flat tray. Unfortunately all are iffy but I didn't get any scratches on the first 4 negatives I processed, so I did something right the first time. I'm considering taking an old frame apart to use in a tray. I just don't like the idea of a large glass hanging around a communal darkroom, or constantly transporting one back and forth.

Unfortunately, there are no private darkrooms at school and no plans for one either. Working with what I've got. Trying to keep it simple as possible.

Lee, use what you have. I use 16x20 trays for my big sheets. I use plenty of pre soak water and stop water and fix. About a gallon of developer as well. I find that if I turn the negative a 180 a few times during development helps to keep it even. Of course YRMV.

[photoevangelist]

Lee:

Having made all of about seven exposures on x-ray film (Kodak CGS) I can offer two suggestions:

1) Rodinal 1:100 is much too "hot" for me to get acceptable contrast, and this is with a 1951 Ektar in a Speed Graphic; lumenized, but not in the contrast class of a modern lens. I tried 1:200 in order to have a manageable developing time in the 6--10 minute range, and got a pale ghost of a negative. Doubling the volume at 1:200 showed that it was not a problem of developer exhaustion, so I tried 1:150 (300 ml for a 4x5 in a 5x7 tray) and got a lovely negative. Reading your earlier post regarding the useful capacity when developing 8x10x versus comparable area at 7x17 made me think that there might be oxidation or oH change (via CO2 absorption) that is more severe in the higher dilution. (A possible complicating factor is that my well water is pH 8.4, so your mileage may vary a lot.)

2) As a kid, I couldn't afford 11x14 trays, so I used a cardboard box (later, a wooden frame) lined with polyethylene film. A bit messy and clumsy, but it works just fine and you can't beat the price. If the poly is new, it should also be essentially scratch-free.

Playing with this stuff reminds me of being a kid, playing with Army surplus film and paper of improbable character and unknown history :)

Thanks for your suggestions! Right now my biggest problem is uneven development. That's the first kink I need to work out.

Have you seen my 8x10 portraits? I was doing Rodinal 1:50 for 3-4 min. I scanned them on a v750 with AN glass and made digital prints to 40x50 inches. The tones were perfect for me. A weaker dilution would be great for cost effectiveness, but if I do more studio portraits with 8x10 xray, 1:50 is the way I'm going for sure. For landscapes I may want a weaker dilution. That's why I diluted the PMK more than usual, although I may be perfectly content with the normal 1:2:100 PMK dilutions.

[Tin Can]

Line those big old trays with plastic sheeting, show those students how to work with nothing.

Ask for a raise!

It's great how some people can leverage work, teaching and personal art into one location and skill set. Good for you!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes just use one tray. Keep processing solutions in containers. Saves lots of room too.

[rdelung]

They are simply scanning 1/2 at a time and then stitching in PS.

Since 7x17 is too long, you just let 1/2 stick out. Or you could even cut it in 1/2!

Thanks Randy, I'm sure I'll have more questions later on. Thanks, Rde..the Seattle guy

[rdelung]

How would one process 7x17 in trays? The school has these old flat metal 16x20 trays. And I mean old. There was a bunch on corrosion on them because no one cleaned them. I got a lot of it off, bit they aint perfect. Unfortunately this is my only option for now. I can't find any other alternative except ordering from Freestyle and having them ship it to me. That will most likely fix the scratches, but I need to resolve the unevenness in my processing.

I am:
Lifting the four corners one at a time. 40 times in the first minute, rest then lift the four corners one at a time at each minute interval, except for PMK I was doing it for every 30 seconds.

Just a thought about the corrosion factor. How about mixing up a batch of clear epoxy resin/poring it into your trays ( cleaned as good as possible ) Let the resin settle to flatten out until cured. I used this technique when I made my own darkroom sink out of wood. I repeated the same process, and put the sink on a 45 degree ang. letting the resin harden into all the corners one at a time. I finished the project with a layer of epoxy paint. It worked out well, I felt badly about removing it from my Dark room. At the time I went to the dark side....Digital. Since then I find myself going back, but only smaller this time. Good Luck...Rde the Seattle guy

[rdelung]

I have been looking at them, but can find little out, except they are designed to process in 45 or 90 seconds, which will make them too fast for us. X-Ray chems are not cheap and I have no idea how long, or how many sheets they do, perhaps many.

Then there are RA4 machines, but I know they are worthless, as no one will pay for one! They were made for fast processing RA4 color prints and also travel quickly, 45 8X10' an hour! Mine is a geared nightmare, I have never even thought of trying to use it. The chem baths are tiny, I see no way it would work well for any negative.

I thought somebody made DIY acrylic dip tanks with hangers, I plan to get there some day.
Hi Randy. In my passed as a X-Ray tech. I have noticed developing systems small enough to run a 14x17 sheet of film through one after the other. The only downsides would be finding the machine, storage tanks, lines to run the chemicals, and of corse the money in which to buy it all. Possibly companies that sell film, and chemistry might have or know of where these portable machines might be found. I've used them, and they work quite well. If anyone is interested, I can look in my area for possibilities.
Thanks,Rde....the Seattle guy

[Tin Can]

Please see what's what. A least a few are interested. I see used machines often on E-Bay and elsewhere. The are tabletop models that do up to 14x17.


Hi Randy. In my passed as a X-Ray tech. I have noticed developing systems small enough to run a 14x17 sheet of film through one after the other. The only downsides would be finding the machine, storage tanks, lines to run the chemicals, and of corse the money in which to buy it all. Possibly companies that sell film, and chemistry might have or know of where these portable machines might be found. I've used them, and they work quite well. If anyone is interested, I can look in my area for possibilities.
Thanks,Rde....the Seattle guy

[Jim Noel]

Trays for 7x17 are far cheaper than are those for 16x20 paper. Buy the green seed starting trays from Park Seed, be sure you get the ones without holes.. Three will cost you around $10-15, if I remember correctly. These are 10x20" trays.

[jb7]

Just developed my first sheet of x-ray film, was remarkably successful, thanks to all the information generously provided by contributors to this thread.

Not only was it a test of a process, but the camera was also on trial- first developed exposure from a packet loading 11x17. No light leaks from the camera and film holder, so proof of concept is just as valuable to me.

Exposure was problematic, indicated 3 seconds in the Maine fog, bellows compensation also bordering on significant- but I got a usable neg, albeit thin- could have done with a little bit more exposure, ( I gave it six seconds) and a little bit more development. Using an ipad as a safelight in a makeshift darkroom, don't quite trust it, so the brightness is way down, but just enough to inspect by- though I've never done that before, so I have no experience of what density to look out for.

The film had also been scanned in carry on through four airports, but there doesn't seem to have been any ill effects. None that I notice so far...

Thanks again for everyone's help here-

Oh, Kodak CSG metered @ 80, D76, 1+3 , 10 mins. Will give the next one a little longer-

[Tin Can]

Great news!

What is 'packet loading'?


Just developed my first sheet of x-ray film, was remarkably successful, thanks to all the information generously provided by contributors to this thread.

Not only was it a test of a process, but the camera was also on trial- first developed exposure from a packet loading 11x17. No light leaks from the camera and film holder, so proof of concept is just as valuable to me.

Exposure was problematic, indicated 3 seconds in the Maine fog, bellows compensation also bordering on significant- but I got a usable neg, albeit thin- could have done with a little bit more exposure, ( I gave it six seconds) and a little bit more development. Using an ipad as a safelight in a makeshift darkroom, don't quite trust it, so the brightness is way down, but just enough to inspect by- though I've never done that before, so I have no experience of what density to look out for.

The film had also been scanned in carry on through four airports, but there doesn't seem to have been any ill effects. None that I notice so far...

Thanks again for everyone's help here-

Oh, Kodak CSG metered @ 80, D76, 1+3 , 10 mins. Will give the next one a little longer-

[jb7]

Great news!

What is 'packet loading'?

It's a new design- like a quick load, but for ULF- I posted a pic in the 'show off your camera' thread...

Rushing out the door now, but will report more tomorrow-
Developed a few more...

[SergeiR]

I think its time for adding pictures..

8x10 Kodak CSG, 300mm Symmar (old) , Rodinal 1+100, 15:00, rotary.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2867/9280323754_8797b54588_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9280323754/)
Desperation (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9280323754/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[rdelung]

Please see what's what. A least a few are interested. I see used machines often on E-Bay and elsewhere. The are tabletop models that do up to 14x17. There was a time when I had to work from time to time in a small clinic. A table top type auto developer was all that they could afford. My main job was to take Chest X-Rays on 14x17 film. As I remember, the smaller machines worked fine. But you do have to know a little about the workings to clear jams, and for periodic cleaning. If anything comes up in my area, I'll pass it along.
The Seattle guy...Rde

[rdelung]

Just to make things clear. If its a 7x17, you run it through long wise ( the 7in. in first ) if its a 14x17, it doesn't matter which way you run it through an automatic proc. The idea is so that the maximum amount of roller contact is made, so as to help reduce jams. from...the Seattle guy.

[rdelung]

Randy, Just an off the wall question. Has anyone ever tried any night exposures? I have a project I would like to duplicate. I took a photo. class some years ago, and we had to take a night skyline exposure of the city of Seattle. I found the same area, besides an increase in tree growth--it all seems the same. I'll be using 8x10 green sensitive film through a F:4.5 Betax No. 5 lense. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, From Randy ( the other one )...The Seattle guy...Rde

[Tin Can]

Not by me, I am mainly a studio guy. I suppose you bracket.

But the real question is reciprocity, I believe.


Randy, Just an off the wall question. Has anyone ever tried any night exposures? I have a project I would like to duplicate. I took a photo. class some years ago, and we had to take a night skyline exposure of the city of Seattle. I found the same area, besides an increase in tree growth--it all seems the same. I'll be using 8x10 green sensitive film through a F:4.5 Betax No. 5 lense. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, From Randy ( the other one )...The Seattle guy...Rde

[Corran]

I've found the Fuji HR-T film very good with reciprocity, with 30 second exposures giving me no problem whatsoever. Should be good for skylines.

[jb7]

From the first batch of 4 negs-

Makeshift darkroom, no scanner. This one a little scratched, but the others seem ok so far-

CSG Kodak, rated 80, or rather 40 with a yellow filter. D76 1+3 10 minutes, 76F.

No scanner, white shirt will have to do for now...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7282/9282556073_4d57044b5c_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseph-jb7/9282556073/)
First Negative, C11.17 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseph-jb7/9282556073/) by joseph - jb7 (http://www.flickr.com/people/joseph-jb7/), on Flickr

[Curt]

From the first batch of 4 negs-

Makeshift darkroom, no scanner. This one a little scratched, but the others seem ok so far-

CSG Kodak, rated 80, or rather 40 with a yellow filter. D76 1+3 10 minutes, 76F.

No scanner, white shirt will have to do for now...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7282/9282556073_4d57044b5c_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseph-jb7/9282556073/)
First Negative, C11.17 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseph-jb7/9282556073/) by joseph - jb7 (http://www.flickr.com/people/joseph-jb7/), on Flickr

Is this the packet load you spoke of?

[jb7]

Yes it is- and it works...
Needs some finessing now, but all four negs tend to prove the concept.