View Full Version : Use of X-ray film: technical discussion with example images
Tri Tran
14-Jul-2013, 08:48
I need details for Carbon print in order to show the 3 D effects so I took the 14x17 out this morning .My favorite image just in case the succulents are out of control.
What a great 14x17 X-ray negative density perfect for the Carbon transfer. The shot was taken with the 24 in Artar lens
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/3940/hs6h.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/33/hs6h.jpg/)
Behind the scene
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/2374/2ckr.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/2ckr.jpg/)
rdelung
14-Jul-2013, 17:10
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. Thanks Corran, I'll put this down for a starting point. As per Randy, Bracketing will be in order also. Thanks again, Rde...The Seattle guy
SergeiR
14-Jul-2013, 18:53
8x10 Kodak CSG, 300mm Symmar
Rodinal 1+100, 15:00, rotary
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3711/9286349902_b419476643_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9286349902/)
Scan-130714-0001www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9286349902/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
photoevangelist
14-Jul-2013, 20:22
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.
Jim,
This is great information. Unfortunately, the online stores that sell these trays do not ship internationally.
photoevangelist
14-Jul-2013, 20:23
8x10 Kodak CSG, 300mm Symmar
Rodinal 1+100, 15:00, rotary
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3711/9286349902_b419476643_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9286349902/)
Scan-130714-0001www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9286349902/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Golly gee, that's nice!
photoevangelist
14-Jul-2013, 20:38
So... I'm feeling like giving up on this tray developing thing for my 7x17 negatives...
Friday: slight agitation for 1 min on each of the 4 corners, then repeat for each min interval 1 negative each in 16x20 flat metal trays
PMK 1:2:200 - 20 min. -- near success
PMK 1.5:3:200 - 15 min. -- little bit better
Dektol 1:10 - 3 min -- very poor (one stand, one agitation)
Rodinal 1:200 - 12 min -- very poor (one stand, one agitation)
Monday:
Rodinal 1:100 - vigorous agitation top to bottom X2, left to right x2 for the first minute then top to bottom x2, left to right x2 for each minute interval after that for 6 min (and second negative for 4 min.) Density is good, but again... uneven development.
Using trays with ribs (sticking up) except for the developer in a flat 16x20 tray.
I need details for Carbon print in order to show the 3 D effects so I took the 14x17 out this morning .My favorite image just in case the succulents are out of control.
What a great 14x17 X-ray negative density perfect for the Carbon transfer. The shot was taken with the 24 in Artar lens
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/3940/hs6h.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/33/hs6h.jpg/)
Behind the scene
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/2374/2ckr.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/2ckr.jpg/)
Tri, nice job, I have a 24" Artar also, I didn't know it covered 14x17! That'll be a terrific carbon print!
Tin Can
14-Jul-2013, 20:44
This must be the film.
Have you done control testing with other film?
So... I'm feeling like giving up on this tray developing thing for my 7x17 negatives...
Friday: slight agitation for 1 min on each of the 4 corners, then repeat for each min interval 1 negative each in 16x20 flat metal trays
PMK 1:2:200 - 20 min. -- near success
PMK 1.5:3:200 - 15 min. -- little bit better
Dektol 1:10 - 3 min -- very poor (one stand, one agitation)
Rodinal 1:200 - 12 min -- very poor (one stand, one agitation)
Monday:
Rodinal 1:100 - vigorous agitation top to bottom X2, left to right x2 for the first minute then top to bottom x2, left to right x2 for each minute interval after that for 6 min (and second negative for 4 min.) Density is good, but again... uneven development.
Using trays with ribs (sticking up) except for the developer in a flat 16x20 tray.
Is this the packet load you spoke of?
I hope you show it or add some additional information. The results look great!
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...
I just noticed this post, thanks.
photoevangelist
14-Jul-2013, 20:49
This must be the film.
Have you done control testing with other film?
I have not.
I'm still getting those odd spots all over the negatives, so I decided I'd make photogram negatives to see how deep into the package of film the spots are. I didn't have any of those spots in my first 5 exposures. but I've done 15 more exposures that have spots...
photoevangelist
14-Jul-2013, 20:52
Maybe I'll try the rotary method once. If those are all screwed up in the sky, then I will know for sure that it's the film that is messed up. I trust the rotary method. I haven't ever done a whole lot of tray processing.
Tin Can
14-Jul-2013, 20:53
Why not cut 8x10 into 7x 8.5 and put 2 pieces in the 7x17 holder and try developing that predictable film to see what happens.
I have not.
I'm still getting those odd spots all over the negatives, so I decided I'd make photogram negatives to see how deep into the package of film the spots are. I didn't have any of those spots in my first 5 exposures. but I've done 15 more exposures that have spots...
Tin Can
14-Jul-2013, 20:55
We don't want you frustrated!
Maybe I'll try the rotary method once. If those are all screwed up in the sky, then I will know for sure that it's the film that is messed up. I trust the rotary method. I haven't ever done a whole lot of tray processing.
photoevangelist
15-Jul-2013, 00:25
We don't want you frustrated!
Frustrated, yes.
I feel like I did when I bought some Konica color film from UltrafineOnline. It was the first rolls I ever put through a bulk 35mm loader. No matter what I did lines were on the film. After changing loaders and everything, I finally figured out the film was messed up. This 2012 expired 7x17 xray film is messed up too. The dots in the sky were all over the film. I processed an extra 12 sheets that I exposed as a photogram and it was all full of those dots. I pulled out an 8x10 xray sheet and processed it as well. My 8x10 film is okay. Comparing the 8x10 and the 7x17 the film looks a little fogged? At least this box was free - though I have no doubt they would replace the film if something was wrong with it. Time, energy, and enthusiasm was lost. Going to pick up a new box tomorrow. Perhaps I'll get things right before the end of the week...
photoevangelist
15-Jul-2013, 00:47
I had a bad experience with stripping my negatives too. Can anyone point me to a place that shows how to do the negative stripping?
rdelung
15-Jul-2013, 12:15
Check Youtube. Bleaching Fuji FP 100 c negative. Looks very simple...Rde the Steattle guy
I need to do a video of me bleaching a negative.
SergeiR
15-Jul-2013, 12:47
Tape negative on glass or plexi, grab a paper towel.
Spray some bleach on said towel.
Slowly wipe bits , pay attention to corners and running down chemistry.
If you feel artistic - you can do it with brush and add another interesting set of effects to your negative
I had a bad experience with stripping my negatives too. Can anyone point me to a place that shows how to do the negative stripping?
Lee, First attempt at stripping a few days ago and I messed mine up, too. Used a sponge brush but did a so-so (I later realized) taping job used blue painters tape. Problem was The plexi was barely big enough so couldn't tape the 11x14 negative down properly and some of the bleach got under the tape. Annoying but still not too bad. However, if that wasn't bad enough I wound up dropping the negative on the ground(!) -- and *that* scratched it up. ;) Live and learn. Used a Besseler tube, which I don't recommend unless you plan to strip. Despite a good soak there always seem to be a few places where the emulsion doesn't get any or enough developer. That was the only one (Fuji HR-U green) I've stripped so far but I'd still like to see what a contact print is like, density-wise, as I gave it my 'normal' 50 iso rating and 6 minute development time which I've used for Kodak B/RA. Otherwise, I was pleasantly surprised how easy it was to strip.
FWIW, Unicolor tube was better but still left ridge marks from the 'ribs' inside the tube (don't know if those will show up when printed, though, so leaving it be for now). Negative was also scratched along one edge but that might have been the holder. Gearing up to try trays with plexi on the bottom once I can properly affix my black-out material over the bathroom window (tape is a pain and unreliable, thinking of using a velcro system). Looks like even 1/8" plexi will work (stay submerged) for the bottom of the tray(s).
Repeating myself (yet again) but I do believe trays (KISS) will be better in the end but getting there is not as easy as I'd like it to be. ;) Liking your 7x17's even with surface defects and learning a lot from your experiences -- I'm sure you'll work out the kinks soon.
photoevangelist
15-Jul-2013, 18:48
Thanks Rde, Bryan, Sergei, and Carl! I'm going to stay away from stripping if I can. Tray processing would be keeping it as simple as possible for me, and I'm happy with the sharpness of the xray film.
It's a new day. Last night I did some night xray photography with the 8x10. I'd process it now, but I just got some fresh 7x17 xray film and it's a beautiful day. I'm going to load some up and shoot! I still don't have a bag or case for this monster. I've found two bags people were throughing away, one is perfect for the 8x10 Korona, but it will also hold my 5 7x17 holders. It's a monster but I can lug the camera on my tripod while I search for a shot.
Fingers are cross that last batch of 7x17 was bad and I'll get some winners starting today.
Peter De Smidt
15-Jul-2013, 18:49
I take the wet negative from the Jobo Expert drum, and place the keeper side of the negative on a glass plate. No tape is needed. (I have a 1/4" thick 2ft x 2ft piece of glass in my darkroom sink. The bottom rests in the sink, and the top rests against the wall. I normally use it for viewing wet prints.) I have a hose of tempered water running. Dip a cotton towel, brush ... in Clorox diluted 1:1. Dab on the negative in the middle of the negative and swirl a bit. Run a stream of water from the hose over the negative. Dip brush in some more bleach. Repeat, working out to the edges. It really isn't that hard. Practice on a spare negative. I only needed one after listening to Corran's advice.
Tin Can
15-Jul-2013, 19:04
That makes good sense, do it wet. Not sure if anyone has recommended that.
Makes sense to me.
I take the wet negative from the Jobo Expert drum, and place the keeper side of the negative on a glass plate. No tape is needed. (I have a 1/4" thick 2ft x 2ft piece of glass in my darkroom sink. The bottom rests in the sink, and the top rests against the wall. I normally use it for viewing wet prints.) I have a hose of tempered water running. Dip a cotton towel, brush ... in Clorox diluted 1:1. Dab on the negative in the middle of the negative and swirl a bit. Run a stream of water from the hose over the negative. Dip brush in some more bleach. Repeat, working out to the edges. It really isn't that hard. Practice on a spare negative. I only needed one after listening to Corran's advice.
Peter has it down pat. I'm not the best at explaining the technique I use in written form, but he's done it perfectly.
The 1:1 dilution of the bleach is the really important part, in my experience.
Randy, I think some have advocated doing it DRY, which I honestly have never tried. The method above after learning it works perfectly, and I don't even use tape to mask off the negative.
Tin Can
15-Jul-2013, 19:13
Tape would not work wet, sounds obvious NOW!
Peter has it down pat. I'm not the best at explaining the technique I use in written form, but he's done it perfectly.
The 1:1 dilution of the bleach is the really important part, in my experience.
Randy, I think some have advocated doing it DRY, which I honestly have never tried. The method above after learning it works perfectly, and I don't even use tape to mask off the negative.
photoevangelist
15-Jul-2013, 19:22
I was doing it wet, 1:1 dilution, no tape, with a foam sponge. Only tried one, however. If I can process in trays, I don't want to even bother with stripping the negative. Only reason I would strip my negatives would be because I can't master the tray technique and have to use a rotary method.
William Whitaker
15-Jul-2013, 20:29
Here's another one. The processing errors are quite evident here. Any advice would be much appreciated!
If possible, try to keep the ends of the film holders out of direct sun. At any rate, cover the ends of your film holders with your dark cloth when you pull the slide.
SergeiR
15-Jul-2013, 20:56
i did it dry :) still got few sheets hanging on mirror from April - just cant be bothered to scan them :)
but in all seriousness - only reason i see for stripping is if one of sides got seriously scratched or if its not developed right (aka done in rotary tank and outer layer didnt get done right)
SergeiR
15-Jul-2013, 21:01
8x10, Kodak CSG, traditional Rodinal 1+100, 15:00 , rotary.
300mm Symmar, wide open, with yellow-green filter
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5468/9295315013_cbb2967518_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9295315013/)
Scan-130715-0005www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9295315013/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Tin Can
15-Jul-2013, 21:06
Come on Sergei, she would good even if I took the picture!
Nice job, great model!
8x10, Kodak CSG, traditional Rodinal 1+100, 15:00 , rotary.
300mm Symmar, wide open, with yellow-green filter
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5468/9295315013_cbb2967518_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9295315013/)
Scan-130715-0005www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9295315013/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
SergeiR
15-Jul-2013, 21:46
Come on Sergei, she would good even if I took the picture!
Nice job, great model!
Well :) We may find one day, right? :)
Its from yesterday's workshop on lighting techniques. I been handed task of showing how to do lighting close enough to traditional Penn's fashion photos ;)
Got it about right, but just couldnt resist to get few portrait shots. (she is also a photographer, btw)
dsphotog
15-Jul-2013, 22:58
Sergei,
Outstanding light!!
Please describe the setup.
SergeiR
16-Jul-2013, 08:17
Thanks. Its nothing super special, actually. Single light on right, black subtraction panel on the right.
What really makes difference is understanding how light works when it comes to various projecting/diffusing things.
People dont really like to think about it nowdays, but there is certain optimal distances for various sources.
In this case its medium Deep Throat Octa and distance is roughly 2.5-3m (sorry - i got very good sense of distance, but cant tell actual distance).
Andrew O'Neill
16-Jul-2013, 08:47
Stripping/bleaching shouldn't be so difficult. Tape down a dry negative onto a piece of plate glass with the emulsion that was facing away from the lens when you made the exposure, facing up. Use good 'ol duct tape.
Place the tape along the rebate and press firmly. Run your finger nail along the edges of the negative, pushing the tape down firmly along this edge.
Brush on bleach. You don't need a lot. I use a foam brush. The emulsion will brown up and come off immediately. Wipe with a damp sponge. Hold up the plate glass and inspect the negative. Repeat if you missed some. If all is good, take tape off and place negative into a tray of water. Rinse/wash well. Done. Bob's your uncle.
Stripping also decreases the negative's density range by half. You may have to develop longer to maintain a respectable DR. If you contact print, there really is no point in stripping. I alt print and no matter how long I extended the development time, I was unable to reach an adequate DR after stripping, even with a staining developer such as pyrocat-hd.
SergeiR
16-Jul-2013, 09:20
Yep. What Andrew said :)
SergeiR
16-Jul-2013, 19:18
here are couple of 15 minutes exposures ;)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5445/9302697909_955bb7663a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9302697909/)
Chili pepper: #1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9302697909/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5490/9305479116_69814c47d4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9305479116/)
Chili pepper: #2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9305479116/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
(it was raining yesterday and i was bored)
photoevangelist
16-Jul-2013, 21:02
Some shots from the other night:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2811/9305776440_8de28e3dd8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9305776440/)
Teenie Weenie (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9305776440/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2868/9302996373_4d2be1cfc3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9302996373/)
Banila Co. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9302996373/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5500/9305777634_fa22e1dea8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9305777634/)
Eblin #01 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9305777634/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3805/9305778140_835a6c186f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9305778140/)
Eblin #02 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9305778140/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
All on 8x10 Korona, 12" Dagor, Fuji-HR-A, Rodinal 1:100 - 3 min, Tanks and Hangars, Not Stripped, Epson v750 negative scan
All were at, or around, 1 min @ F45 exposures on a very busy street. At least 50-100 people passed the lens on each exposure.
Tin Can
16-Jul-2013, 21:42
I now have a 14x17 film holder and will be making my 14x17 extension back. I am curious what lenses people are shooting 14x17 with.
Right now have a Rodenstock 360mm f6.8 Sironar-N which may cover for portrait and a RD Artar 19", both have flash sync which I want.
I also have Schneider Symmar 360 mm f5.6 which I gather has the biggest coverage of the lot, but is in Compound shutter without sync.
Actually my last choice is a Kodak 305mm f4.8 Portrait. But I am thinking I want sharp rather than soft.
I am aiming for studio 1 to 1 head shots. I need to make lens boards for whatever I chose and would prefer to try the better combination first.
I really don't want to buy more lenses, if possible.
Any advice?
photoevangelist
16-Jul-2013, 22:19
I now have a 14x17 film holder and will be making my 14x17 extension back. I am curious what lenses people are shooting 14x17 with.
Right now have a Rodenstock 360mm f6.8 Sironar-N which may cover for portrait and a RD Artar 19", both have flash sync which I want.
I also have Schneider Symmar 360 mm f5.6 which I gather has the biggest coverage of the lot, but is in Compound shutter without sync.
Actually my last choice is a Kodak 305mm f4.8 Portrait. But I am thinking I want sharp rather than soft.
I am aiming for studio 1 to 1 head shots. I need to make lens boards for whatever I chose and would prefer to try the better combination first.
I really don't want to buy more lenses, if possible.
Any advice?
Did you get the one from Keith Canham? I just saw that message on Facebook. :)
Wish I could do 14x17!
Tin Can
16-Jul-2013, 22:24
Guilty, it's a beauty.
Did you get the one from Keith Canham? I just saw that message on Facebook. :)
Wish I could do 14x17!
Jim Fitzgerald
16-Jul-2013, 22:43
I use a 24" Artar as a standard lens on my 14x17. Just got the Cooke APO Process lens that is 30". I have many soft lenses for portraits for this format as well. Sergei, sorry about getting the last bid in on the Cooke. Your work is wonderful!
Tin Can
16-Jul-2013, 23:04
I do have a 30" Artar in barrel, I really want a shutter with sync.
Without spending more money, my budget is beyond blown.
I use a 24" Artar as a standard lens on my 14x17. Just got the Cooke APO Process lens that is 30". I have many soft lenses for portraits for this format as well. Sergei, sorry about getting the last bid in on the Cooke. Your work is wonderful!
photoevangelist
16-Jul-2013, 23:08
my budget is beyond blown.
Same, that's why I passed on some of the great auctions that went today...
Tin Can
16-Jul-2013, 23:12
Ya there were some deals, I had to sit on my hands.
It's actually better when I'm camera poor, it stops the madness, for a little while...
Same, that's why I passed on some of the great auctions that went today...
SergeiR
17-Jul-2013, 04:47
I use a 24" Artar as a standard lens on my 14x17. Just got the Cooke APO Process lens that is 30". I have many soft lenses for portraits for this format as well. Sergei, sorry about getting the last bid in on the Cooke. Your work is wonderful!
:) no worries.. Funny enough - i got plenty of decent lenses that apparently would cover 14x17 format for head/shoulders portrait - well.. plenty being operative word. Found it while trying to figure out how much bellows i really would have to get :) Its a lovely task of "hold this mannequin head in hand, project image on white board, then measure distance".
Just like you - i am trying to get lens that would give me sharp look, without meniscus fuzziness - those are easy to get. I guess i might end up just building something from tubes and separate lenses. But we shall see.
For now i am just trying to be patient and wait for rest of my 20x24 to arrive here, so i can start figuring out focusing rails for this thing ;) got my Packard shutter to mount behind lens, so i am nearly set on front part :)
--
Randy - if you looking for cheapo solutions to add - you can find yourself 18" Beseler E.F lens.. wont have aperture, but it will give you 3.8 lens for like 20-70$. However i cant truly vouch for its sharpness - i never finished mounting it to check on film. You also can keep troddling net for packard shutters with sync. In all honesty, when i am shooting in studio i am very often using just flash and open/close counts (i.e i count, then open shutter, fire flash by hand, close shutter - be it Packard or Betax), and it never been a problem.
premortho
17-Jul-2013, 05:42
:) no worries.. Funny enough - i got plenty of decent lenses that apparently would cover 14x17 format for head/shoulders portrait - well.. plenty being operative word. Found it while trying to figure out how much bellows i really would have to get :) Its a lovely task of "hold this mannequin head in hand, project image on white board, then measure distance".
Just like you - i am trying to get lens that would give me sharp look, without meniscus fuzziness - those are easy to get. I guess i might end up just building something from tubes and separate lenses. But we shall see.
For now i am just trying to be patient and wait for rest of my 20x24 to arrive here, so i can start figuring out focusing rails for this thing ;) got my Packard shutter to mount behind lens, so i am nearly set on front part :)
--
Randy - if you looking for cheapo solutions to add - you can find yourself 18" Beseler E.F lens.. wont have aperture, but it will give you 3.8 lens for like 20-70$. However i cant truly vouch for its sharpness - i never finished mounting it to check on film. I was going to suggest this. I've used open flash for years with no problems, also had a Packard shutter with synch, and it worked well also. I normally use hot lights in a studio environment, but use flash for portraits - - - easier on the sitter. You also can keep troddling net for packard shutters with sync. In all honesty, when i am shooting in studio i am very often using just flash and open/close counts (i.e i count, then open shutter, fire flash by hand, close shutter - be it Packard or Betax), and it never been a problem.
premortho
17-Jul-2013, 05:46
Oops, should have been a "+" from me on that, especially the last six lines. My Packard with sync worked fine for me. I use flash bulbs mainly, as I don't care for the "frozen" look all that much.
Tin Can
17-Jul-2013, 08:54
Yes, definitely going sharp not soft. I am a contrarian.
None of my Packards have sync, and I have done lens cap and hand flash, really works well. My biggest Packard is buried inside my 8X10 Studio Ansco and it's staying there.
Today I'll make a lens board adaptor so I can use my modern lenses easier.
Still fumigating on the 14x17 back extension. most likely a swing away GG and ....?
With a lens board adapter I will be able to try all my lenses. And with the 8x10 reduction back, I can test easier.
Flash bulbs do sound good, and some more just showed up.
Thanks everyone.
:) no worries.. Funny enough - i got plenty of decent lenses that apparently would cover 14x17 format for head/shoulders portrait - well.. plenty being operative word. Found it while trying to figure out how much bellows i really would have to get :) Its a lovely task of "hold this mannequin head in hand, project image on white board, then measure distance".
Just like you - i am trying to get lens that would give me sharp look, without meniscus fuzziness - those are easy to get. I guess i might end up just building something from tubes and separate lenses. But we shall see.
For now i am just trying to be patient and wait for rest of my 20x24 to arrive here, so i can start figuring out focusing rails for this thing ;) got my Packard shutter to mount behind lens, so i am nearly set on front part :)
--
Randy - if you looking for cheapo solutions to add - you can find yourself 18" Beseler E.F lens.. wont have aperture, but it will give you 3.8 lens for like 20-70$. However i cant truly vouch for its sharpness - i never finished mounting it to check on film. You also can keep troddling net for packard shutters with sync. In all honesty, when i am shooting in studio i am very often using just flash and open/close counts (i.e i count, then open shutter, fire flash by hand, close shutter - be it Packard or Betax), and it never been a problem.
SergeiR
17-Jul-2013, 09:11
Randy - you can actually make sync yourself . All you need is wee tripper from radioshack that can be pressed by packard's piston at certain moment. Glue it on, run bit of wire and you got yourself synched shutter ;) I have similar contraption made on one of my packards by previous owner ;)
My main problems right now is how to get "fine focus" for rear standard - where to get rods and hardware. I dont like to rely on complete friction focusing - its just not super handy. Also i would love to find good material for one of shutter leafs on me ilexpo. Thin plastic i thought that would work - doesnt.. its like hair thicker so its getting stuck once shutter assembles back. Tried to spot on mac master, but its just so much stuff there that i am loosing will to live :)
Tin Can
17-Jul-2013, 09:24
Sergei, now I remember, I forget a lot, put a microswitch on it. Bingo!
My camera has rear rack and pinion, and front screw focus with a rear crank. It's a really nice 11x14 Process camera, simply gorgeous wood and huge square leather bellows. I got lucky, I saved t from becoming a coffee table!
I have pics in DIY.
Thanks! :)
Randy - you can actually make sync yourself . All you need is wee tripper from radioshack that can be pressed by packard's piston at certain moment. Glue it on, run bit of wire and you got yourself synched shutter ;) I have similar contraption made on one of my packards by previous owner ;)
My main problems right now is how to get "fine focus" for rear standard - where to get rods and hardware. I dont like to rely on complete friction focusing - its just not super handy. Also i would love to find good material for one of shutter leafs on me ilexpo. Thin plastic i thought that would work - doesnt.. its like hair thicker so its getting stuck once shutter assembles back. Tried to spot on mac master, but its just so much stuff there that i am loosing will to live :)
SergeiR
17-Jul-2013, 09:57
Sergei, now I remember, I forget a lot, put a microswitch on it. Bingo!
My camera has rear rack and pinion, and front screw focus with a rear crank. It's a really nice 11x14 Process camera, simply gorgeous wood and huge square leather bellows. I got lucky, I saved t from becoming a coffee table!
I have pics in DIY.
Thanks! :)
Ah, yes, i was following you there :) I just want to have camera i can take outside of home :) So huge rolling bed like that is not an option (plus i dont have bits for it). I have some spare things from old cameras though, so i might reuse certain parts, however all the knobs and focusing rails - will have to make those. I am thinking about following Chamonix(Hugo's) idea of just using central rod to do fine focusing and then use friction bit on main rail to do general focusing. Have old Linhof 45s cardan to sacrifice ;)
Tin Can
17-Jul-2013, 10:15
I have a spare 8x10 Linhof Color Kardan frame I will use for my lens board adaptor. it is big enough and strong enough to let me mount any lens to my studio camera, and I have adapters from that down to the small Linhof boards or Sinar.
Actually those old Linhof Color Kardans are HD enough to size up quite a bit, they make a Horseman 8x10 seem tinkertoy. I got some ideas there also.
Ah, yes, i was following you there :) I just want to have camera i can take outside of home :) So huge rolling bed like that is not an option (plus i dont have bits for it). I have some spare things from old cameras though, so i might reuse certain parts, however all the knobs and focusing rails - will have to make those. I am thinking about following Chamonix(Hugo's) idea of just using central rod to do fine focusing and then use friction bit on main rail to do general focusing. Have old Linhof 45s cardan to sacrifice ;)
photoevangelist
18-Jul-2013, 21:29
From yesterday's shoot and straight out of the darkroom today:
Still getting nasty scratches. Processing seems okay except for the top far right corner in Pyro PMK:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/9316767997_be7f1d8875_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9316767997/)
Dalsung Swamp #01 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9316767997/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
7x17 Folmer & Shwing, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray), Pyro PMK 1:2:200 - 15 min in trays
Double Stitched Epson v750 negative in Photoshop
SergeiR
18-Jul-2013, 21:35
certainly getting better :)
photoevangelist
18-Jul-2013, 23:57
certainly getting better :)
Actually not. Looks like it wasn't the film with problems (except for the spots I was getting - because I don't have those). The problem is me. I just cannot master this tray processing thing! The Rodinal 1:100 images I processed today are looking bad - more unevenness. This is really quite frustrating.
photoevangelist
19-Jul-2013, 02:31
XTOL seems to agree a bit better with me, about the same as Pyro PMK, except I'm getting glove prints and scratches on my PMK.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7349/9317882031_7a208f781b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9317882031/)
Dalsung Swamp #09 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9317882031/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7398/9320676240_a985de7208_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9320676240/)
Dalsung Swamp #07 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9320676240/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7293/9317916089_86707b091e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9317916089/)
Dalsung Swamp #03 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9317916089/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
7x17 Folmer & Shwing, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray), XTOL 1:1, 3 min
Observations: The edges are a bit hot. But something to work towards improving. At this point, I'm not liking ULF and Rodinal in trays.
XTOL seems to agree a bit better with me, about the same as Pyro PMK, except I'm getting glove prints and scratches on my PMK.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7349/9317882031_7a208f781b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9317882031/)
Dalsung Swamp #09 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9317882031/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7398/9320676240_a985de7208_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9320676240/)
Dalsung Swamp #07 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9320676240/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7293/9317916089_86707b091e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9317916089/)
Dalsung Swamp #03 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_smathers/9317916089/) by Lee Smathers (http://www.flickr.com/people/lee_smathers/), on Flickr
7x17 Folmer & Shwing, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray), XTOL 1:1, 3 min
Observations: The edges are a bit hot. But something to work towards improving. At this point, I'm not liking ULF and Rodinal in trays.
Perhaps you could try less agitation?
I've only done one batch, and my setup was pretty crude in a makeshift darkroom, so I'm not without scratches either.
However, I believe I'm on the right track, for trays at least. Jim's process, using deep tanks, seems the most sensible for this film...
I don't know what agitation regime you're using, but here's what I've been doing for 11x17.
4 liters of solution, I have been using D76, 1:3 and 1:5, but have run out of that, and will be trying HC 110 5 litres, 1:100 next. No pre-soak, agitation for the first 20 seconds, then stand for the remainder of the first three minutes. Gently lift film from bottom of the tray (smooth bottomed) and turn over and repeat. This is for a process time of 12 minutes, so I was flipping the film over three times.
For the next batch, HC110, I plan on only having to flip once, but I need to determine the overall time first, then flip on the halfway point.
Do you think that the extra density around the edges might be to do with increased development? This semi-stand method might help with that, since the film is lying on the bottom of the tray for long periods, minimizing the effect of fresh developer ingress to the underside.
I should be doing another batch soon, need to repurpose some space. (Tidy up)
I also have some 510 Pyro to try, but I think that might be tempting fate just a little too far, without deep tanks...
Will give it a go when I've shot some fresh tests.
7x17 Folmer & Shwing, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray),
Do you mean Fuji HR-HA? HR-A doesn't seem to exist in Google.
photoevangelist
19-Jul-2013, 05:41
Perhaps you could try less agitation?
I've only done one batch, and my setup was pretty crude in a makeshift darkroom, so I'm not without scratches either.
However, I believe I'm on the right track, for trays at least. Jim's process, using deep tanks, seems the most sensible for this film...
I don't know what agitation regime you're using, but here's what I've been doing for 11x17.
4 liters of solution, I have been using D76, 1:3 and 1:5, but have run out of that, and will be trying HC 110 5 litres, 1:100 next. No pre-soak, agitation for the first 20 seconds, then stand for the remainder of the first three minutes. Gently lift film from bottom of the tray (smooth bottomed) and turn over and repeat. This is for a process time of 12 minutes, so I was flipping the film over three times.
For the next batch, HC110, I plan on only having to flip once, but I need to determine the overall time first, then flip on the halfway point.
Do you think that the extra density around the edges might be to do with increased development? This semi-stand method might help with that, since the film is lying on the bottom of the tray for long periods, minimizing the effect of fresh developer ingress to the underside.
I should be doing another batch soon, need to repurpose some space. (Tidy up)
ANYTHING I do with Rodinal: 1:50, 1:100, 1:200 - stand, semi-stand, vigorous agitation- all seem to be failures for me with 7x17 in trays. I had it down packed with 8x10 in trays and tanks - same film, different size.
I don't know what the problem is. I was also using 4 liters.
photoevangelist
19-Jul-2013, 05:45
Do you mean Fuji HR-HA? HR-A doesn't seem to exist in Google.
It is indeed: Fuji HR-A. I was clueless too. I can only find it offered in South Korea. Supposedly it's the same stuff as HR-U but less silver so its cheaper? I don't know. That's what I think the lady told me. Korean isn't my first language.
Perhaps they're testing it here first before releasing it to other parts of the world?
I've seen beautiful stuff on this thread with HR-T, but its not offered here in Korea.
I can't help you because you are way outside my area of knowledge, but these are looking very pretty though Lee!
William Whitaker
19-Jul-2013, 07:39
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.
http://parkseed.com/large-perma-nest-plant-trays-and-domes/p/v1590/
Jim Noel
19-Jul-2013, 07:41
"Do you think that the extra density around the edges might be to do with increased development? This semi-stand method might help with that, since the film is lying on the bottom of the tray for long periods, minimizing the effect of fresh developer ingress to the underside."
How large are your trays? A tray which is too close to the same dimensions as the film can cause over-agitation as the developer sloshes against the the edge of the tray. I use 10x20" trays for 7x17" film and agitate rather gently in order to prevent this.
"Do you think that the extra density around the edges might be to do with increased development? This semi-stand method might help with that, since the film is lying on the bottom of the tray for long periods, minimizing the effect of fresh developer ingress to the underside."
How large are your trays? A tray which is too close to the same dimensions as the film can cause over-agitation as the developer sloshes against the the edge of the tray. I use 10x20" trays for 7x17" film and agitate rather gently in order to prevent this.
Well I don't actually have that problem, at least I don't think so, I haven't scanned or printed my negs yet. I'm aware of the tray size issue, however, x-ray film is further complicated due to the double sided emulsion. If a negative has a short development time there is more chance of uneven development, particularly on the lower surface in contact with the smooth bottomed tray. There might be more chance of finding fresher developer around the edges of the underside, rather than towards the centre.
I use 16x20 trays for 11x17...
William Whitaker
19-Jul-2013, 07:56
I now have a 14x17 film holder and will be making my 14x17 extension back. I am curious what lenses people are shooting 14x17 with.
The basis for my lens kit for 14x17 and 12x20 are the 355mm G-Claron, 450 M-Nikkor and a 270mm Computar. I also have a 600mm Apo-Ronar which seems to be ideal. Also have a 500mm Wollaston from Reinhold. There are some other older, fuzzier lenses, too, but that's the core kit.
Andrew O'Neill
19-Jul-2013, 09:05
I am curious what lenses people are shooting 14x17 with.
My 300M Nikkor, 355G-Claron, 450M Nikkor, 600C Fujinon all cover my Rickety1417.
photoevangelist
19-Jul-2013, 11:10
http://parkseed.com/large-perma-nest-plant-trays-and-domes/p/v1590/
This and other plant supply stores won't ship internationally unfortunately. Apparently these trays are a thing of the past in Korea too. Any flower store I visit in Korea doesn't carry these. I can't find them online in Korea either.
Actually not. Looks like it wasn't the film with problems (except for the spots I was getting - because I don't have those). The problem is me. I just cannot master this tray processing thing! The Rodinal 1:100 images I processed today are looking bad - more unevenness. This is really quite frustrating.
Possible agitation and developer problems aside, you're getting better skies, though. Which filter, again? I'm using a #12 (medium yellow) but still seems to be luck if I get much in the way of clouds but it does make something of a difference, at least.
3 min. in XTOL 1:1 seems pretty short, however (not that it doesn't seem to be working), considered trying 1:2 or 1:3?
photoevangelist
19-Jul-2013, 11:30
"Do you think that the extra density around the edges might be to do with increased development? This semi-stand method might help with that, since the film is lying on the bottom of the tray for long periods, minimizing the effect of fresh developer ingress to the underside."
How large are your trays? A tray which is too close to the same dimensions as the film can cause over-agitation as the developer sloshes against the the edge of the tray. I use 10x20" trays for 7x17" film and agitate rather gently in order to prevent this.
My tray with developer is 16x20 for 7x17. It can dance all over the place since there is more room on the left and right sides. I've found however that a medium aggressive agitation gets me the evenness I need. One thing I wasn't doing before I processed with XTOL was long prewashes. I normally did 1:30 min - 2 min prewashes. I read somewhere that 5 min pre washes are necessary for even skies. I changed both developer and prewashing times at the same time so I can't be sure if the prewash or XTOL was the cure. For the film edges that are getting too hot, I think they could be cropped or perhaps try a more dilute mix for longer times. 3 min was never too short for my 8x10 in Rodinal 1:50. 7x17 is proving to be another demon on its own. I can't just look at my negative and tell there is a problem going on, so I've been using my scanner to preview before I try the next experiment. I'm very grateful I can do these scans in two parts. If I was doing any larger negative it may very well be impossible and would have to go all kinds of contact prints and would take me longer to figure this all out. I'm definitely more excited that XTOL and PMK are giving me results I can work with. I'd love to try Sandy King's Pyrocat HD. Freestyle didn't have it at the time, so I bought PMK instead. I'd mix it myself, but when I asked the chemical supply store, one of the ingredients had to be imported and it was looking mighty expensive. The premix would be cheaper for me even with the shipping fees.
Tin Can
19-Jul-2013, 11:38
Same exact film?
ANYTHING I do with Rodinal: 1:50, 1:100, 1:200 - stand, semi-stand, vigorous agitation- all seem to be failures for me with 7x17 in trays. I had it down packed with 8x10 in trays and tanks - same film, different size.
I don't know what the problem is. I was also using 4 liters.
photoevangelist
19-Jul-2013, 11:58
Possible agitation and developer problems aside, you're getting better skies, though. Which filter, again? I'm using a #12 (medium yellow) but still seems to be luck if I get much in the way of clouds but it does make something of a difference, at least.
3 min. in XTOL 1:1 seems pretty short, however (not that it doesn't seem to be working), considered trying 1:2 or 1:3?
These are with no filter. I tried a Tiffen #12 yellow before on landscapes and wasn't too thrilled. This was way back when I was trying to figure out my film speed on 8x10 though. I liked yellow filter on my portraits however, and green even more (but caused a two stop difference, instead of one with the yellow - so I vouched for the yellow).
I was shooting two exposures on these images. One was no filter and the other exposure was with a circle warming polarizer. I added two stops to my exposure bit they came out thinner than the ones without a filter. I thought a polarizer my help with a sky on xray film like it can with color... no cigar. I'd like to try yellow and green filters again, but I question how much they would actually benefit the image.
It's really fun to go out with a big camera and take a lot of care to compose each image. A whole lot of work goes into it. It really sucks to process the images and there be problems like scratches or uneven development that would most likely not exist if I was shooting conventional film. I've been wondering if I should just be using regular film (I've got two boxes of HP5 now, and one box of FP4 coming in the fall), but when it's gone - it's gone. I'm using xray film because I got amazing results with studio portraits and I've seen stunning landscapes by Bryan, Holden, and others. Perhaps I should load my holders with HP5+ on one side and xray film on the other. That way I get two variations of the same scene and can determine wether this xray film is worth spending all the extra effort to deal with.
photoevangelist
19-Jul-2013, 12:41
Same exact film?
The first 7x17 film I was using was expired HR-U that I received for free. I switched to a new freshly dated box of HR-A, which is the same emulsion that I was using for my portraits - familiar territory. However development problems were the same. Rodinal just isn't working for me in 7x17.
Without a filter I get no sky detail with single-sided Kodak B/RA.
FWIW, I always go out with both X-ray and conventional film. Personally, I think knowing you've got some 'real' film with results (processing-wise at least) you can be reasonably sure about has always helped with the sometime frustration of dealing with the quirks X-ray film. IOW, I'd want to shoot a little bit, at least, of that Ilford, too. :)
Totally understand your concerns about the limited supply of Ilford 7x17, but maybe you could ask around and locate a bit more if you begin to run out prematurely. Plus, by that time you'll probably have long-since solved the x-ray film problems and can better figure out what works best for which type of subject matter.
Just my very humble .02. :)
These are with no filter. I tried a Tiffen #12 yellow before on landscapes and wasn't too thrilled. This was way back when I was trying to figure out my film speed on 8x10 though. I liked yellow filter on my portraits however, and green even more (but caused a two stop difference, instead of one with the yellow - so I vouched for the yellow).
I was shooting two exposures on these images. One was no filter and the other exposure was with a circle warming polarizer. I added two stops to my exposure bit they came out thinner than the ones without a filter. I thought a polarizer my help with a sky on xray film like it can with color... no cigar. I'd like to try yellow and green filters again, but I question how much they would actually benefit the image.
It's really fun to go out with a big camera and take a lot of care to compose each image. A whole lot of work goes into it. It really sucks to process the images and there be problems like scratches or uneven development that would most likely not exist if I was shooting conventional film. I've been wondering if I should just be using regular film (I've got two boxes of HP5 now, and one box of FP4 coming in the fall), but when it's gone - it's gone. I'm using xray film because I got amazing results with studio portraits and I've seen stunning landscapes by Bryan, Holden, and others. Perhaps I should load my holders with HP5+ on one side and xray film on the other. That way I get two variations of the same scene and can determine wether this xray film is worth spending all the extra effort to deal with.
SergeiR
20-Jul-2013, 17:23
8x10 Kodak CSG, Yellow-green filter, Symmar 300/500 @ 300mm
rotary dev, rodinal 1:100, 15:00
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5491/9331783472_a80acf81fe_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9331783472/)
Scan-130720-0003www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9331783472/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5455/9329137785_b85199c4cf_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9329137785/)
Scan-130720-0004www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9329137785/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
SergeiR
21-Jul-2013, 13:46
and if you REALLY careful...
8x10, Kodak CSG, 1s, Yellow/Green filter, Symmar, 8m in 1:100 R09
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/9338583172_8c14bafee9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9338583172/)
Scan-130721-0004www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9338583172/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Tin Can
21-Jul-2013, 14:39
Shit happens...
and if you REALLY careful...
8x10, Kodak CSG, 1s, Yellow/Green filter, Symmar, 8m in 1:100 R09
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/9338583172_8c14bafee9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9338583172/)
Scan-130721-0004www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9338583172/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
tenderobject
21-Jul-2013, 15:19
Just awesome!
and if you really careful...
8x10, kodak csg, 1s, yellow/green filter, symmar, 8m in 1:100 r09
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/9338583172_8c14bafee9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9338583172/)
scan-130721-0004www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9338583172/) by sergei rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on flickr
William Whitaker
21-Jul-2013, 17:06
8x10 Kodak CSG, Yellow-green filter, Symmar 300/500 @ 300mm
rotary dev, rodinal 1:100, 15:00
What is Kodak CSG?
UlbabraB
23-Jul-2013, 00:34
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7420/9347124395_b0593728aa_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ulbabrab/9347124395/)
Beppe platinato (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ulbabrab/9347124395/) di Filippo Natali (http://www.flickr.com/people/ulbabrab/), su Flickr
Platinum/Palladium toned Kallitype, made from 14x17" Kodak Tmat Xray negative developed with Pyrocat-MC, Apo Ronar 600 F/9 (...or maybe Xenar 420mm F/4.5, I don't remember exactly)
Thank you all for the tons of helpful tips in this thread!
photoevangelist
23-Jul-2013, 14:27
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7420/9347124395_b0593728aa_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ulbabrab/9347124395/)
Beppe platinato (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ulbabrab/9347124395/) di Filippo Natali (http://www.flickr.com/people/ulbabrab/), su Flickr
Platinum/Palladium toned Kallitype, made from 14x17" Kodak Tmat Xray negative developed with Pyrocat-MC, Apo Ronar 600 F/9 (...or maybe Xenar 420mm F/4.5, I don't remember exactly)
Thank you all for the tons of helpful tips in this thread!
Looks gorgeous! Going to follow you on Flickr. Nice work!
What is Kodak CSG?
Its a green sensitive medium speed x-ray film. The better question is, what is Fuji HR-A???
photoevangelist
24-Jul-2013, 02:01
Its a green sensitive medium speed x-ray film. The better question is, what is Fuji HR-A???
Haha! Right! I have no idea either! I can show you a picture of a box of my film. I'm not trying to trick anyone. It's the cheapest xray film that's offered in Korea. It's made by Fuji and says its made in Japan. I have no idea if its a special product for Korea only or if its available in other parts of the world too. I'm not Korean and my language skills are only intermediate. I could ask the next time I buy a box to satisfy our curiousity.
kirkmacatangay
24-Jul-2013, 12:07
Hi,
Can anyone explain what the 14x36 inch trifold xray film looks like? Is the film able to be folded? Is it perforated so it can be folded? I know what the full length 14x36 version looks like. I cannot find an image of the trifold version to satisfy my curiousity.
Kirk
Tin Can
24-Jul-2013, 12:38
The answer costs $60 you need to buy the film to find out.
Hi,
Can anyone explain what the 14x36 inch trifold xray film looks like? Is the film able to be folded? Is it perforated so it can be folded? I know what the full length 14x36 version looks like. I cannot find an image of the trifold version to satisfy my curiousity.
Kirk
kirkmacatangay
24-Jul-2013, 13:36
Randy,
Actually, with foreign $$$ conversion, shipping and handling costs to Canada, it is more like $120 to find out. And no camera to shoot it with if I did buy it.
Or I can ask and see if someone knows already.
So, does anyone have a clue?
Kirk
Tin Can
24-Jul-2013, 16:38
Contact http://www.cxsonline.com/ and ask them. I can't see shooters using folding X-Ray in any size.
SergeiR
24-Jul-2013, 19:45
finally got around to do bunch of contact prints from xray film
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7438/9360636693_40d3f5736e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9360636693/)
Contact print - exposure test: scan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9360636693/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2807/9363413314_d4f1aecef0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9363413314/)
Contact print: scan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9363413314/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
For those who cares - it seems that with my typical development i do get them all around same exposure index (kinda knew that from scanning, but still). Used simple chineese 560 flash , mounted on wee light stand, about 60cm above contact frame made out of sheet of plex and plywood :) On minimal power of flash its 3 (or 5 for really dense) exposures. Developed with Dektol-like developer on Ilford multigrade. Certainly looks better than average 8x10 print from printer. Comes out cheaper too :)
Haha! Right! I have no idea either! I can show you a picture of a box of my film. I'm not trying to trick anyone. It's the cheapest xray film that's offered in Korea. It's made by Fuji and says its made in Japan. I have no idea if its a special product for Korea only or if its available in other parts of the world too. I'm not Korean and my language skills are only intermediate. I could ask the next time I buy a box to satisfy our curiousity.
It would be interesting to know, if you can find out. Or maybe if you find out what the other Fuji x-ray films are called in Korea, it will all become clear.
Ralph Weimer
24-Jul-2013, 22:15
This place offers the 14x36 straight film in blue and green sensitive, 25 sheet boxes for $60US. I've seen radiographs made with the trifold and the images were certainly of diagnostic quality, without perfs along the folds, but the film is held under a fair amount of compression in the xray cassettes. I don't think photographic holders would work very well with the trifold. Just my speculation.
http://www.physicalenterprise.com/fg.html
SergeiR
26-Jul-2013, 07:28
And some dorking around with printing techniques and xray film ;)
8x10 Kodak, wide open 360mm Heliar.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3666/9368371351_bd0eb7ccda_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9368371351/)
Anna (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9368371351/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Peter De Smidt
26-Jul-2013, 07:55
Sergie, did you use a Mortensen style texture screen? In any case it's a terrific portrait.
SergeiR
26-Jul-2013, 08:08
Sergie, did you use a Mortensen style texture screen? In any case it's a terrific portrait.
Thank you. I wish i knew source to get those ready-made :( I just hacked it by printing texture out. I am toying with some ideas here on trying lithography and texture printing.
Jim Cole
26-Jul-2013, 08:15
And some dorking around with printing techniques and xray film ;)
8x10 Kodak, wide open 360mm Heliar.
Wonderful!
Petzval Paul
26-Jul-2013, 09:31
Love both of these portraits, Lee and Sergei!
SergeiR
26-Jul-2013, 10:47
Thanks, Paul and Jim
I am not familiar with this technique, "printing texture out". What does it mean? Nice portrait...
Thank you. I wish i knew source to get those ready-made :( I just hacked it by printing texture out. I am toying with some ideas here on trying lithography and texture printing.
SergeiR
26-Jul-2013, 17:30
I am not familiar with this technique, "printing texture out". What does it mean? Nice portrait...
As in - i printed my own texture out on printer and then used it to sandwich print. I would love to have Mortensen's texture screens but it seems to virtually impossible to get them.
I'm pretty sure I don't know what that means either, which means I'm pretty sure I don't need to know and can't do it anyway. ;-)
Have you tried Texturefects for screens? I don't know if they are in business anymore.
2180 Charing Cross Drive. Lake Havasu City, AZ 86404 Phone: (928) 505-4606.
Finally got back into shooting 8x10 this weekend, so I can actually contribute a photo to this thread!
Shot this twice, and tried developing it in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100. Results weren't great and the film lost some speed, so I developed this shot in my normal Rodinal 1:100, 7 minutes @68F recipe.
Wista 8x10, Gundlach Radar 12" f/4.5 @ f/6.8, 1/2s exposure, Fuji HR-T rated at 64:
http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/test810-1147ss.jpg
I have a few more loaders full of film to develop. Trying different things - right now I'm trying semi-stand development in Pyrocat. Maybe that'll work better.
SergeiR
27-Jul-2013, 20:41
8x10 Kodak CSG, no filter, Symmar, as usual - rodinal 1+100/12m, rotary...
Couple of prints
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5542/9379766455_7fd8acc90a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9379766455/)
Scan-130727-0009www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9379766455/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
halation is pretty big issue on this film, if you going for long exposures, at least with my Symmar. It adds to certain mood, if you go for such mood. Overwise - might bite you in backside.. (admittedly you can sort of cheat it in printing, but not a whole lot)
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3787/9379724979_478b8e03c3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9379724979/)
Scan-130727-0008www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9379724979/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Jim Fitzgerald
27-Jul-2013, 20:52
Sergei, that second one would make a great carbon print.... for that matter the first one too. Nice!
Tin Can
27-Jul-2013, 21:03
Good to see prints!
Yeah I hate that grainy look in the highlights that I get in my x-ray film personally. Usually it happens when the film is just overexposed in that area, at least for me.
Here's part 2 of my test. I tried semi-stand developing in Pyrocat HD. Much more promising results!
http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/test810-1150ss.jpg
Instead of trying to reign in the highlights I just let it go...
Same development as above but a added a dash of Rodinal in the mix. Seems to have lifted the shadows a little.
http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/test810-1151ss.jpg
premortho
28-Jul-2013, 07:34
Finally got back into shooting 8x10 this weekend, so I can actually contribute a photo to this thread!
Shot this twice, and tried developing it in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100. Results weren't great and the film lost some speed, so I developed this shot in my normal Rodinal 1:100, 7 minutes @68F recipe.
Wista 8x10, Gundlach Radar 12" f/4.5 @ f/6.8, 1/2s exposure, Fuji HR-T rated at 64:
I really like this picture --- that's some lens! :)
http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/test810-1147ss.jpg
I have a few more loaders full of film to develop. Trying different things - right now I'm trying semi-stand development in Pyrocat. Maybe that'll work better.
Thanks, yes the Gundlach is quite a nice Tessar lens. I got mine with my first 8x10 and was going to sell it, but it ended up being a great performer!
ScottPhotoCo
28-Jul-2013, 14:47
Getting ready to test some Kodak B/RA film. What asa are you all shooting at for mammography film? I'll start there and see what I get. I'm going to try BTZS tube processing with Rodinal (1:50?) since I don't have tanks. Suggestions?
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
SergeiR
28-Jul-2013, 15:49
Thanks, yes the Gundlach is quite a nice Tessar lens. I got mine with my first 8x10 and was going to sell it, but it ended up being a great performer!
aye. They are. And you getting very nice results with it :)
premortho
29-Jul-2013, 05:29
Thanks, yes the Gundlach is quite a nice Tessar lens. I got mine with my first 8x10 and was going to sell it, but it ended up being a great performer!
I particularly like the way your lens renders out of focus areas. And the way it morphs from in focus to out of focus. I used to have a famous brand Tessar that was nice and sharp, but rendered the transition and o-o-f areas so harshly, it was a distraction.
What lens, out of curiosity?
photoevangelist
29-Jul-2013, 15:01
Getting ready to test some Kodak B/RA film. What asa are you all shooting at for mammography film? I'll start there and see what I get. I'm going to try BTZS tube processing with Rodinal (1:50?) since I don't have tanks. Suggestions?
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
You might find that 1:50 is too strong a dilution for your tubes with constant agitation. I was at 3 min in trays with 1:50. 1:100 or 1:200 might be the better dilution. Post your results whatever route you choose.
ScottPhotoCo
29-Jul-2013, 15:24
You might find that 1:50 is too strong a dilution for your tubes with constant agitation. I was at 3 min in trays with 1:50. 1:100 or 1:200 might be the better dilution. Post your results whatever route you choose.
Thanks Lee. I'll definitely give that a shot. Are x-ray films super sensitive to temperature during developing? I'm thinking 20-22 degrees centigrade with Adinol 1:100. If the BTZS tubes don't work well I'll have to find a way to tray process I guess.
premortho
30-Jul-2013, 14:06
Er - - - -I don't want to start a battle, so I'll just say it was made in Germany. Z.
What lens, out of curiosity?
Did a test session with Chiller(Steve) with my newly acquired KODAK 2D
270mm G_CLAREN Lens,set for a BTZS file test and the neg came out real well,
did a contact print on Agfa MC Matt and could not be more happy, developed neg in trays,
developer Rodinal 1:100 15.45min under a Kodak no2 safe light.
99609:)
Then we did a still life test and contact print reduced development by 10-15% and the resulting print
has now got me really impressed 8x10 print on Agfa paper.
the only spoiled part was a misaligned lens board(light leak) new one to make.
99610:)
Here what I shoot with 14x17 FuJi xray films, and contact printed in Ilford MG IV
9961799618
8x10 Kodak CSG/1, 1+100 R09, 9m
360mm Symmar-S, closed down to minimum.
Exposure is about 45m.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5511/9429967414_560f2f563e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9429967414/)
Time (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9429967414/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Er - - - -I don't want to start a battle, so I'll just say it was made in Germany. Z.
Huh??? Do you think I was being antagonistic? I don't really care that much.
Nice Sergei, perhaps I am imagining similarities.
I'm still here and working!
You are influential.
8x10 Kodak CSG/1, 1+100 R09, 9m
360mm Symmar-S, closed down to minimum.
Exposure is about 45m.
Nice Sergei, perhaps I am imagining similarities.
I'm still here and working!
You are influential.
8) thanks, yeah.. it was that kind of day when i shot it.. I am now curious about waiting for relatively cloudy (dark) day here in Dallas and make few shots of 1-12 hr long..
from this morning
good display of colour sensitivity of Kodak CSG
tea rose was dark-dark-dark red. Leaves obviously green. Shot in shadows.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/9427972901_a3983b4146_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9427972901/)
Scan-130803-0006www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9427972901/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Nice shots It is good film tray developed?
We just developed in the 8x10 trays one neg at a time
and no scratches Steve had a 8x10 squeegee and wiped of the
excess water after fixing and no scratches.
regards
Bazz8
gavjenks
7-Aug-2013, 18:57
I wanted to figure out how much each 8x10 x-ray photo cost with chemistry added for processing. Here is my assessment… others may vary depending on actual film used and type of chemistry…
Fuji HR-T: 100 sheets $35
PMK: one hundred liters (One liter per sheet of 8x10) $60
TF-4: ten liters (One liter per ten sheets of 8x10) $107
TOTAL $202 for 100 sheets of film.
Notes:
All prices include shipping from supplier to my home.
I’m going on the assumption that one sheet of 8x10 Fuji is equivalent to two rolls of film (160 square inches for both sides). Using the TF-4 published capacity of 20 rolls per liter, it works out to ten sheets per liter.
I’m also tray processing the developer which needs at least a liter to slosh the film
So, it roughly costs $2 per shot.
I think I can reduce that a bit if I can figure out how to make my own fixer.
Bill
Using the following tube design, you can process an 8x10 sheet evenly in daylight with LESS than 0.25 liters of each chemical (which is sufficient to not become exhausted on that one sheet. I get by just fine with 4 oz. of similar chemicals per 4x5, which is about 1/4 less than this. If you want more, just decrease the inner tube diameter a bit, but a whole liter is silly much), and you can make this yourself for $10 in plumbing parts or so. It's just a 2" PVC class 200 tube inside of a 2.5" one, held together with a bushing. You roll each piece of film so that the emulsion side is facing inward, slide it into its tube, and then fill with enough chemical to cover the film but not completely full. Then you can put the cap on and invert the tube back and forth for extremely effective and evenly distributed agitation. Bushings are usually flat on the end, too, so you can stand it upright and let it sit, too.
The nominal 2.5" pipe actually has an internal diameter of 2.6 or so inches, which is enough for an 8" wide sheet of film to not overlap itself at all.
Note that if you are processing with lights on, beware that PVC is somewhat transluscent. I have found that spraypainting black and then wrapping with heavy black duct tape or gaffers tape makes it completely opaque though.
99835
So your $167 would be more like $40.
This does require one sided film though, which means either mammography film or scraping your film with bleach, etc. Depending on how much you value your time, that could be somewhere between maybe $20 to $65 more expensive per sheet than the film you quoted (There is an 8x10 sony mammography 1 sided film for $1 a sheet)
Let's say $40 more for film to compromise. Total still ends up being $115 instead of $202. Of course even less if using powder mixes or DIY chemicals, etc. Could probably get down to $0.75 a sheet.
Gene McCluney
8-Aug-2013, 15:43
Wow, 69 pages devoted to the topic I started. I'm amazed!!
SergeiR
10-Aug-2013, 09:20
8x10 Symmar-S, 7m, Rodinal 1+100, rotary.
I keep seeing this, its almost like outdoors with sun Kodak CSG is about iso 200, and indoors with flash - about 100.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7352/9477840357_450eafc88d_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9477840357/)
Soul cage island - 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9477840357/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Took 3 shots yesterday in our Spa area ,it is under lazer-light and some shade cloth
which evens out the light considerably.
Scan of contact print: paper Agfa MCmat
the foreground leaves were fiery red and bits of black, the bush on the lh side was a pale green
the lattice is permapine and pale green.
tray developed rodinal!;100 7MIN light source enlarger
100015
SergeiR
11-Aug-2013, 17:44
8x10 scan
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2891/9480722005_0e83beacb0_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9480722005/)
Soul cage island - 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9480722005/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
and print of it (contact + screens + lith developer) ;) I actually shot whole series with idea to lith print them, and i am so glad it finally starting to work ;)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5449/9491506266_24ff7afbb2_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9491506266/)
Soul Cage Island. Print (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9491506266/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
ScottPhotoCo
12-Aug-2013, 11:33
Well, the testing and experimentation has begun and I have processed my first two sheets of film. Here are the details:
8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then at 10 mins for 30 seconds
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Late afternoon direct sun
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro using the Epson software with no additional adjustments
Shot one at 100 asa and a duplicate at 80 asa
Individual details for exposure below each image
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3740/9497203512_d7d5b8f917_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9497203512/)
Ektascan_BRA_100fs80-6.3001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9497203512/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Shot at 100 asa. 1/100 at f 6.3
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2872/9494402761_79335b3f4a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9494402761/)
Ektascan_BRA_80fs50-6.3001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9494402761/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Shot at 80 asa. 1/50 at f 6.3
General observations:
Not bad for a first test. Even in the overexposed image there is detail in the highlight areas. Perhaps I will try shooting at 125 asa to see how things compare. Processing in Adinol at 1:100 seemed to work fairly well. The grain is quite smooth. Overall I am quite happy with the potential for this inexpensive film.
Next steps:
I have 2 more subjects shot using the exact same set-up and exposures still to process. I think that I will process the same way for the same times to compare how the differing objects and light angles look on this film.
Any thoughts or recommendations from you all?
Jim Fitzgerald
12-Aug-2013, 11:36
Try one at 160 and at 125. I've been shooting at 160 when I'm in good outdoor light. 80 in deep shade.
ScottPhotoCo
12-Aug-2013, 11:43
Try one at 160 and at 125. I've been shooting at 160 when I'm in good outdoor light. 80 in deep shade.
Thanks Jim! I will for sure. :)
Contrast and range wise, how does the 100 asa image compare to what you're getting?
Jim Fitzgerald
12-Aug-2013, 12:30
In an image like you have posted over exposed. I did some wedding photos this weekend. 8x10 blue half speed. Open shade with my son bouncing a reflector into the scene. Shot at 160 and the neg's could use a little more exposure. So 125 would have been okay. Remember I'm a carbon printer not scanning or whatever else. Develop for your final presentation. I can make some wonderful carbon prints from these negatives. The bride's white dress has great detail and texture and is not blown out. Developed in D-76 for 8 minutes at 1:1. I can't post them yet as I don't scan negatives. I need to make prints but I know they are right on based on my negatives. You watch it happen in the red light. A great way to teach someone about development and what to look for as the film gains density.
ScottPhotoCo
12-Aug-2013, 13:27
In an image like you have posted over exposed. I did some wedding photos this weekend. 8x10 blue half speed. Open shade with my son bouncing a reflector into the scene. Shot at 160 and the neg's could use a little more exposure. So 125 would have been okay. Remember I'm a carbon printer not scanning or whatever else. Develop for your final presentation. I can make some wonderful carbon prints from these negatives. The bride's white dress has great detail and texture and is not blown out. Developed in D-76 for 8 minutes at 1:1. I can't post them yet as I don't scan negatives. I need to make prints but I know they are right on based on my negatives. You watch it happen in the red light. A great way to teach someone about development and what to look for as the film gains density.
Thank you Jim. Much appreciate you sharing your wealth of knowledge. I'll look forward to seeing those prints. :)
Jim Fitzgerald
12-Aug-2013, 16:55
Thank you Jim. Much appreciate you sharing your wealth of knowledge. I'll look forward to seeing those prints. :)
Me too!!
stradibarrius
13-Aug-2013, 04:50
8x10 scan
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2891/9480722005_0e83beacb0_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9480722005/)
Soul cage island - 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9480722005/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
This is a great shot and the lith really worksand print of it (contact + screens + lith developer) ;) I actually shot whole series with idea to lith print them, and i am so glad it finally starting to work ;)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5449/9491506266_24ff7afbb2_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9491506266/)
Soul Cage Island. Print (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9491506266/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
SergeiR
13-Aug-2013, 09:07
Que? :)
ScottPhotoCo
13-Aug-2013, 11:00
Here is another image in my test process.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3773/9504761644_cb1b3f27b8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9504761644/)
Ektascan_BRA_100fs.5-6.3001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9504761644/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Shot at 100 asa. 1/2 at f 6.3
General observations:
It's looking like I can safely shoot this film at asa 125. I will also be trying 160 (thanks Jim!). It does look like I'm getting some uneven development in the upper right hand side of the image. I will look forward to trying tanks for development to see just how refined I can get this film to act. At less than $1 a shot it's worth the investment in experimentation. :)
I have a couple of questions for the x-ray shooters...
Where do you usually get your x-ray film from? Does it have an ISO rating like color/bw film? Can I use my regular b/w chemicals to develope it? I'm assuming you have to cut it down to 4x5 or what ever size you want to shoot.
I have a close friend who I'v take images of her daughters. She runs an OBGYN clinic. I may be able to obtain film there.
Just thinking of playing around with it some...
TIA
imagedowser
14-Aug-2013, 06:11
Pfiltz, All the info you need and some you didn't know you needed is in the, now 1462, posts of this thread. But to answer your supply question, Z-Z Medical, is the one I've used lately. Things like this could be posted on a "links for materials and services suppliers" (like Artcraft Chemicals, lens repair, etc.) thread. Just a list without sales pitches, etc.
I wonder if someone can write an x-ray film article for the LF homepage? I might be willing to actually, or contribute. I'm not the best writer.
ScottPhotoCo
14-Aug-2013, 10:21
Ok, this is interesting to me.
In my testing process of this Kodak Ektascan Mammography x-ray film I shot two frames of each subject. One at 100 asa and the following at 80 asa. In the first set of images I processed them both the same way (Tray, 20 mins in Adinol 1:100) and compared the results. The contrast was quite good and it was looking like I was going to rate this film somewhere between 100-160 depending on lighting conditions.
After looking at some of the uneven development on one of the last images I processed I went to Flickr and looked up other images made on this film that looked good and asked questions. It was recommended to use a shorter development time, lower asa and continuous agitation. As I still had my 80 asa image yet to be developed I decided to try this to compare to the 100 asa semi-stand(ish) development I tried previously.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7292/9511753972_bc03b31314_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9511753972/)
Ektascan_BRA_80fs1-6.3001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9511753972/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Shot at 80 asa for 1 second at f6.3
I did seem to have a bit of a light leak on the right but this shouldn't affect the processing.
8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 6 minutes. Continuous agitation.
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Late afternoon direct sun
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro using the Epson software with no additional adjustments
General observations:
The processing seems much more even. Tones are even but overall the image is much flatter. I don't personally care as much for this image as it feels quite lifeless and not engaging to me.
Next steps:
I have another 2 shots in this test series to process. I am going to process the one shot at 100 asa for 20 minutes with 10 second agitation every minute to see what this does. My goal will be to smooth the development issues yet still keep the nice contrast of the originals. Once I see how that turns out I can decide how I want to process the second image shot at 80 asa.
Here is the partner image to the one above for comparison. Shot at 100 asa and Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then at 10 mins for 30 seconds
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3773/9504761644_cb1b3f27b8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9504761644/)
Ektascan_BRA_100fs.5-6.3001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9504761644/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
I will be ordering tanks from an LFF member here soon to see how that works for me as well. :)
rdelung
14-Aug-2013, 21:45
Ok, this is interesting to me.
In my testing process of this Kodak Ektascan Mammography x-ray film I shot two frames of each subject. One at 100 asa and the following at 80 asa. In the first set of images I processed them both the same way (Tray, 20 mins in Adinol 1:100) and compared the results. The contrast was quite good and it was looking like I was going to rate this film somewhere between 100-160 depending on lighting conditions.
After looking at some of the uneven development on one of the last images I processed I went to Flickr and looked up other images made on this film that looked good and asked questions. It was recommended to use a shorter development time, lower asa and continuous agitation. As I still had my 80 asa image yet to be developed I decided to try this to compare to the 100 asa semi-stand(ish) development I tried previously.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7292/9511753972_bc03b31314_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9511753972/)
Ektascan_BRA_80fs1-6.3001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9511753972/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Shot at 80 asa for 1 second at f6.3
I did seem to have a bit of a light leak on the right but this shouldn't affect the processing.
8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 6 minutes. Continuous agitation.
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Late afternoon direct sun
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro using the Epson software with no additional adjustments
General observations:
The processing seems much more even. Tones are even but overall the image is much flatter. I don't personally care as much for this image as it feels quite lifeless and not engaging to me.
Next steps:
I have another 2 shots in this test series to process. I am going to process the one shot at 100 asa for 20 minutes with 10 second agitation every minute to see what this does. My goal will be to smooth the development issues yet still keep the nice contrast of the originals. Once I see how that turns out I can decide how I want to process the second image shot at 80 asa.
Here is the partner image to the one above for comparison. Shot at 100 asa and Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then at 10 mins for 30 seconds
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3773/9504761644_cb1b3f27b8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9504761644/)
Ektascan_BRA_100fs.5-6.3001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9504761644/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
I will be ordering tanks from an LFF member here soon to see how that works for me as well. :)
Hi Scott, will you tell me just how you went about scanning with the Epson scanner. I've herd of folks using pennies supporting Anti-Nuton glass, and the neg. placed on top. Did you do this or use the neg holder that comes with the scanner. I have a new one, and want to use it on 8x10 work. I like how yours turned out. Could you share your technique
Thanks. R.W.Delung The Seattle Guy
ScottPhotoCo
14-Aug-2013, 22:44
Hi Scott, will you tell me just how you went about scanning with the Epson scanner. I've herd of folks using pennies supporting Anti-Nuton glass, and the neg. placed on top. Did you do this or use the neg holder that comes with the scanner. I have a new one, and want to use it on 8x10 work. I like how yours turned out. Could you share your technique
Thanks. R.W.Delung The Seattle Guy
Honestly, I just put the negative directly on the glass and scanned. No special sauce or adjustments. I had to use the Epson software as the Silverfast limited the size of the scanning area for some reason.
Happy to help further if I can be of assistance.
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
]I have a couple of questions for the x-ray shooters...
Where do you usually get your x-ray film from?
Google "x-ray film" and take your choice.
Does it have an ISO rating like color/bw film?
NO. But it seems most people are getting around 100, plus or minus a stop for medium speed green anyway.
Can I use my regular b/w chemicals to develope it?
Yes
I'm assuming you have to cut it down to 4x5 or what ever size you want to shoot.
It doesn't come in 4x5 so if that's the size you need, yes
I have a close friend who I'v take images of her daughters. She runs an OBGYN clinic. I may be able to obtain film there.
If it hasn't gone digital. And why not just order it online? Its dirt cheap.
Andrew O'Neill
15-Aug-2013, 19:35
I wonder if someone can write an x-ray film article for the LF homepage? I might be willing to actually, or contribute. I'm not the best writer.
I wrote an article for a talk that I gave a while back. It's based on my personal experience/workflow. If anyone's interested, I could post it tomorrow. I too am not the best writer!
Tin Can
15-Aug-2013, 20:00
I always say never stop a volunteer.
Have at it. It is long overdue.
Thanks!
I wrote an article for a talk that I gave a while back. It's based on my personal experience/workflow. If anyone's interested, I could post it tomorrow. I too am not the best writer!
Andrew O'Neill
16-Aug-2013, 17:32
Well, I tried but I haven't a clue how to go about getting the article on this site. Ken Lee suggested that I ask all the moderators. I tried QT Luong, but his message box is full.
Tin Can
16-Aug-2013, 17:51
On this page you can contact all mods at once.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_gen_rules_faq_item
Well, I tried but I haven't a clue how to go about getting the article on this site. Ken Lee suggested that I ask all the moderators. I tried QT Luong, but his message box is full.
Andrew O'Neill
17-Aug-2013, 09:16
Thanks. I got the info from Ken. I soon heard from Ralph Barker.
Tin Can
17-Aug-2013, 09:38
So, will it be posted? :)
I think there is a need so we can direct people to it, as it seems many are unwilling to read the complete existing threads.
btw, I have read all I can find here and elsewhere.
And I am still working with it. Very affordable.
Thanks. I got the info from Ken. I soon heard from Ralph Barker.
ScottPhotoCo
17-Aug-2013, 12:26
Last in this test series. With the results from the last 2 rounds I changed things up a bit on this processing scheme. I bolded below what I changed this time.
8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Late afternoon direct sun
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro using the Epson software with no additional adjustments
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5328/9533189404_4741dabeaa_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9533189404/)
Ektascan_BRA_100.5s1-6.3006 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9533189404/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
100 asa - 1/2 at f6.3
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then 15 seconds every 3 minutes
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5325/9533189442_51765dea64_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9533189442/)
Ektascan_BRA_80.25s1-6.3001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9533189442/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
80 asa - 1/4 at f6.3
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then 15 seconds every minute
Process changes:
After the fairly drastic difference between 80 and 100 asa on the previous tests and the uneven processing I was getting I tried two different things this time.
1. On the 100 asa image I changed the agitation scheme to 1 minute followed by 15 seconds every 3 minutes to see if the uneven agitation would be solved while keeping the contrast that was nice on the previous rounds. It appears it has. :)
2. On the 80 asa image I processed for a shorter time (10 minutes) and agitated the first minute and then for 15 seconds every minute.
Observations:
I was really surprised how similar these images came out. There are subtle changes in the highlight areas but the overall tonality seems nearly identical. The sharpness and detail is quite good.
Next steps:
I am finally comfortable to shoot this film and have an idea of what I am going to get. You can't beat the price point (for single sided film anyway) and processing isn't difficult. I love film. :)
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
I read the whole thing, and I'm on dialup. It took me days. And I just developed my first x-ray negatives last night. I developed the first one with a red ping-pong ball bulb about 15 feet away. It was almost black. Guess that was a mistake. The second one developed in dark turned out OKish, will try to print it tonight. Hard to judge this stuff for the first time without printing it.
So, will it be posted? :)
I think there is a need so we can direct people to it, as it seems many are unwilling to read the complete existing threads.
btw, I have read all I can find here and elsewhere.
And I am still working with it. Very affordable.
Andrew O'Neill
17-Aug-2013, 19:37
I can't do anything until QT Luong gets a hold of me. But he has to read my email first. It's probably not really necessary posting an article. The two main threads here (I wish they could at least be merged into one!!) in regards to X-ray film, are very meaty.
Tin Can
17-Aug-2013, 19:52
I think just a few bits would be good.
X-Ray film types and the 3 sizes that fit ANSI holders, (8x10, 11x14 and 14x17) sometimes the 7x17 fits and sometimes it does not, holders are not standard and 7x17 X-Ray film is actual size not 1/16" smaller like ANSI film.
An ISO guide and a suggestion that normal chems work.
Warning to be gentle with the doubled sided stuff, and so on.
Explanation of types and uses, including mammo, took me quite a while to figure mammo out, and I have yet to use it. But soon.
Now this will be lost in the forum, search does not work so good for me. imho ymmv
I can't do anything until QT Luong gets a hold of me. But he has to read my email first. It's probably not really necessary posting an article. The two main threads here (I wish they could at least be merged into one!!) in regards to X-ray film, are very meaty.
Andrew O'Neill
17-Aug-2013, 20:09
My article isn't comprehensive guide to x-ray film. It's based only on my personal experiences, although I do answer some of your points... except about some films do not fit standard holders. I have no experience with odd ball sizes. I only work with 8x10 and 14x17, in green latitude double-sided. I also talk about use of filters, EI's, methods of development, chemicals, conventional and alt printing abilities, and a bit on stripping... the film, not me.
Tin Can
17-Aug-2013, 20:13
Sounds like you know way more than I.
I will quietly await your article.
Thanks!
My article isn't comprehensive guide to x-ray film. It's based only on my personal experiences, although I do answer some of your points... except about some films do not fit standard holders. I have no experience with odd ball sizes. I only work with 8x10 and 14x17, in green latitude double-sided. I also talk about use of filters, EI's, methods of development, chemicals, conventional and alt printing abilities, and a bit on stripping... the film, not me.
The two main threads here (I wish they could at least be merged into one!!) ...
NOOOOO. It would take me over a week to reread it then.
SergeiR
17-Aug-2013, 20:58
i believe that if someone actually capable of shooting with camera - they are capable of reading and thus can find information. If information has to be chewed and spoon fed - may be that person shall not be there in first place. People conditioned to think that there is something super important about PROCESS. Thanks to lovely people of f64. Joy of discovering things, joy of trying new things, rediscovering something, hunting for bits and pieces - its all getting lost. Everything has to be "exposed for shadows" everything has to be under bloody developed and god forbid if you do something in dark room for 10 minutes and not 5:45.. You wont ever get good picture.... Riiiiiight.
---
8x10 kodak csg , 1:160 Rodinal, 7m rotary. Wollensak 12 inch SF series . Print.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/9533087969_a5660df34d_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9533087969/)
Scan-130809-0001www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9533087969/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
SergeiR
17-Aug-2013, 21:01
NOOOOO. It would take me over a week to reread it then.
aye. that would be completely and utterly wrong. One is for sharing another is for questions.. I know that sharing one quite often straying into discussions, but still
Two more Fuji HRT neg
Take late in the day last Sunday as a low light test
G-Claron 270mm f45 was concerned regarding light but shadow detail was good,
second print was a little darker the range of tones id better than I thought:)
Scan of Print:):D
100348
100349
This shot was in the opposite direction so a little sun was shining beyond the lattice wall
100350:)
GOOD COMMENT
Although not everyone is a good reader.
I read every post regarding the film process and Widely conflicting posts from
all manner of viewpoints( incluing the older set of posts took nights), so I wrote down the exposures posted from my judgment of the best looking images posted'
and used that as a starting dev time.
Having the mother of all battles actually buying x-ray film was just one step into the process' in AU you have to be a medico to buy x-ray film
my friendly Chiro offered to get some for me,as buying from USA +postage is over $100 dollars
so price was $55 from Fuji then the wholesaler got involved and price went to $110. but fresh stock
so $1 dollar a sheet for my new for me Kodak 8x10.
We do not have 8x10 but 240x180mm so my solution was sliding some 10mm dyno tape under the side and end rails,
then cutting some 13-15mm black card to fit under the metal rails and over the dyno tape.
when loading the film slide the film under the card which works quite well.
I have given up sticky taping the film in to the holder and use a 12mm stick on dot with holds the film in place.
which saves the jungle cat effort to remove the tape!.
Is it worth the effort absolutely never contact printed before so your initial development time was what I used 15.45 sec and 1.100 Rodinal
in trays 1 sheet at a time and rocking the tray side to side 1 lite mix each time
Still winter over here so bright sunshine just as lately is rare,time will tell
How it goes in our clear sunny days
Regards
Bazz8
Tin Can
17-Aug-2013, 21:53
Winter...
GOOD COMMENT
Although not everyone is a good reader.
I read every post regarding the film process and Widely conflicting posts from
all manner of viewpoints( incluing the older set of posts took nights), so I wrote down the exposures posted from my judgment of the best looking images posted'
and used that as a starting dev time.
Having the mother of all battles actually buying x-ray film was just one step into the process' in AU you have to be a medico to buy x-ray film
my friendly Chiro offered to get some for me,as buying from USA +postage is over $100 dollars
so price was $55 from Fuji then the wholesaler got involved and price went to $110. but fresh stock
so $1 dollar a sheet for my new for me Kodak 8x10.
We do not have 8x10 but 240x180mm so my solution was sliding some 10mm dyno tape under the side and end rails,
then cutting some 13-15mm black card to fit under the metal rails and over the dyno tape.
when loading the film slide the film under the card which works quite well.
I have given up sticky taping the film in to the holder and use a 12mm stick on dot with holds the film in place.
which saves the jungle cat effort to remove the tape!.
Is it worth the effort absolutely never contact printed before so your initial development time was what I used 15.45 sec and 1.100 Rodinal
in trays 1 sheet at a time and rocking the tray side to side 1 lite mix each time
Still winter over here so bright sunshine just as lately is rare,time will tell
How it goes in our clear sunny days
Regards
Bazz8
People conditioned to think that there is something super important about PROCESS. Thanks to lovely people of f64. Joy of discovering things, joy of trying new things, rediscovering something, hunting for bits and pieces - its all getting lost. Everything has to be "exposed for shadows" everything has to be under bloody developed and god forbid if you do something in dark room for 10 minutes and not 5:45.. You wont ever get good picture.... Riiiiiight.
Preach it!
As a fan of tmax400 film, that works nicely with good process, but it's the exception that proves the rule. So much in B&W photography deserves some experimenting.
Andrew O'Neill
19-Aug-2013, 11:12
I experiment, as do most B&W workers. Good process has served me well.
ScottPhotoCo
19-Aug-2013, 14:25
Well, here is my first effort actually shooting this film with an idea of outcome in mind. I'm not a nature or landscape photographer but I love the tones, softness and details in this image. This is an uncropped 8x10 shot made on Kodak Ektascan B/RA mammography x-ray film.
I wandering this weekend looking for interesting things to photograph and see the tones and range of this inexpensive film. About an hour from my house I found a state park with some quite beautiful small trees that I came to learn are Ironwood trees. They have a beautiful reddish smooth surface and the leaves and branches were quite beautiful. It was 105 degrees so I didn't wander far from the car to find a tree so I was forced to shoot a detail shot so that the parking lot or other elements wouldn't be visible in the image. Overall I love the tones and rendering of out-of-focus areas. I think that there are several crops of this image that would be more beautiful than the whole but I posted it here so that you could see how beautifully (in my opinion) that tones can be rendered by cheap film.
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Kodak Ektascan B/RA X-Ray Film
80 asa at 1/100 - f16
Tray processed in Adinol 1:100
Agitation for 1 minute followed by 15 seconds every minute
Scanned on an Epson 750 Pro
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7284/9550599952_2165358d69_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9550599952/)
Ironwood Detail (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9550599952/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Andrew O'Neill
19-Aug-2013, 15:02
Lovely
rdelung
19-Aug-2013, 15:38
i believe that if someone actually capable of shooting with camera - they are capable of reading and thus can find information. If information has to be chewed and spoon fed - may be that person shall not be there in first place. People conditioned to think that there is something super important about PROCESS. Thanks to lovely people of f64. Joy of discovering things, joy of trying new things, rediscovering something, hunting for bits and pieces - its all getting lost. Everything has to be "exposed for shadows" everything has to be under bloody developed and god forbid if you do something in dark room for 10 minutes and not 5:45.. You wont ever get good picture.... Riiiiiight.
SergeiR, First and foremost--I really like the photo. Where do you get these beautiful models? Second, I seem to have lost something in the translation over the passed few Threads, but what's this all about? Up tell now the forum has been a wealth of information for me. Did I miss something? I really do like your work, R.W.Delung The Seattle guy.
---
8x10 kodak csg , 1:160 Rodinal, 7m rotary. Wollensak 12 inch SF series . Print.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/9533087969_a5660df34d_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9533087969/)
Scan-130809-0001www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9533087969/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
ScottPhotoCo
19-Aug-2013, 17:43
A few details from the previously posted image:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5495/9551797460_11eb1b757e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9551797460/)
Abstract 3 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9551797460/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2843/9551797400_008444015f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9551797400/)
Abstract 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9551797400/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Yes, those are Newton rings and I like them here. :)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5547/9551797376_3507067280_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9551797376/)
Abstract 1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9551797376/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
SergeiR
19-Aug-2013, 18:12
Rodney - :) Quoting is.. art ;) But i glad you like it. Models. some i have to beg, some do ask me to be shot.. Its just kinda viscous circle.. Trust me - i have weeks when i cant find anyone b/c i am either too picky or everyone just too busy to shoot. I have real issues with being shy, so asking new people is insanely hard for me, so i started some time ago going to meetups (meetup.com) just to get acquainted with models i like to shoot later and it sort of started to bring new ones it too.
You basically missed yet another batch of questions on basics from someone who doesnt want to read through existing material, and few people nudging Andrew to build up Q&A article for site.
SergeiR
19-Aug-2013, 18:13
Tim - if you want to try - you can run image with newton rings through Capture one - it has moir removal tool that might work ;) It just never occured to me till now, and i might give it a whirl myself sometime ( i got big fat pile of digital shots to process ;(()
SergeiR
19-Aug-2013, 18:27
8x10 lith print from Kodak CSG. Had to crop a bit from original proportions, as i dont have dryer (go figure, i used to have one since i was 14 years old!) here yet, so edges of fb based paper curled a bit and i cant get damn thing to flatten properly.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2813/9549252495_4f859cd71c_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9549252495/)
Scan-130819-0001www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9549252495/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Seriously. You can have so much more fun and better time just by shooting and exploring and printing than sorting out best time to process or best film or something like that.. ;)
Andrew O'Neill
19-Aug-2013, 19:45
Very true...
ScottPhotoCo
19-Aug-2013, 21:32
Sergei,
I may have to try that. But seriously, in this image it doesn't bother me at all for some reason. :)
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
rustyair
20-Aug-2013, 06:59
Well, here is my first effort actually shooting this film with an idea of outcome in mind. I'm not a nature or landscape photographer but I love the tones, softness and details in this image. This is an uncropped 8x10 shot made on Kodak Ektascan B/RA mammography x-ray film.
I wandering this weekend looking for interesting things to photograph and see the tones and range of this inexpensive film. About an hour from my house I found a state park with some quite beautiful small trees that I came to learn are Ironwood trees. They have a beautiful reddish smooth surface and the leaves and branches were quite beautiful. It was 105 degrees so I didn't wander far from the car to find a tree so I was forced to shoot a detail shot so that the parking lot or other elements wouldn't be visible in the image. Overall I love the tones and rendering of out-of-focus areas. I think that there are several crops of this image that would be more beautiful than the whole but I posted it here so that you could see how beautifully (in my opinion) that tones can be rendered by cheap film.
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Kodak Ektascan B/RA X-Ray Film
80 asa at 1/100 - f16
Tray processed in Adinol 1:100
Agitation for 1 minute followed by 15 seconds every minute
Scanned on an Epson 750 Pro
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7284/9550599952_2165358d69_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9550599952/)
Ironwood Detail (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9550599952/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
Great image and the grain looks super fine.
Can you post 100% crop? And how big do you think you can print this Kodak Ektascan B/RA film comparing to regular 8x10 B&W film? I've just read all 150 pages and very close to jump on x-ray film. Thanks,
ScottPhotoCo
20-Aug-2013, 09:04
Great image and the grain looks super fine.
Can you post 100% crop? And how big do you think you can print this Kodak Ektascan B/RA film comparing to regular 8x10 B&W film? I've just read all 150 pages and very close to jump on x-ray film. Thanks,
Is there a specific section you'd like to see? I posted 3 detail shots above that are pretty close to a 100% crop though this is relative because it is a scan.
As far as size goes, it really depends on what you're after. A lot of it has to do with your subject, lighting and process as to how sharp things appear - if you're after sharp. I think you can print this at any size you wish depending on process (wet or digital) and what your desired look/feel is.
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
rustyair
20-Aug-2013, 10:16
Oh shoot, I didn't read carefully. I thought they were three different shots you took. :p
I posted 3 detail shots above that are pretty close to a 100% crop though this is relative because it is a scan.
ScottPhotoCo
20-Aug-2013, 11:12
First portrait test using x-ray film:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5464/9554834133_2cbd256af0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9554834133/)
Rachel 082013 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themdidit/9554834133/) by ScottPhoto.co (http://www.flickr.com/people/themdidit/), on Flickr
80 asa - 1/2 at f8
8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 13 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then every minute for 15 seconds
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro
rustyair
20-Aug-2013, 16:09
Inspiring Scott! I couldn't resist. I just placed an order of 8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA.
Jim Fitzgerald
20-Aug-2013, 18:48
I've been away from the thread for a while but I think everyone should understand by now that x-ray film is fun, cheap and can give you great results. Still, you have to create something worthwhile! All of the information is here along with examples. Just do it people! The more you DO the more you KNOW!!
SergeiR
20-Aug-2013, 18:58
I've been away from the thread for a while but I think everyone should understand by now that x-ray film is fun, cheap and can give you great results. Still, you have to create something worthwhile! All of the information is here along with examples. Just do it people! The more you DO the more you KNOW!!
+100
premortho
22-Aug-2013, 05:35
Scott, that is a fine example of a highlight portrait. It is very striking. I think that is the first example of a highlight shot I've seen done on x-ray film. Did you come up with that highlight idea on your own? I recognised it because I remember it from one of Mortenson's books. (expose for the highlights, let the shadows fall where they may).
Mkillmer
22-Aug-2013, 07:54
Blotchy X-ray (Fuji HTR), kind of suits the image...
100687
ScottPhotoCo
22-Aug-2013, 12:36
Scott, that is a fine example of a highlight portrait. It is very striking. I think that is the first example of a highlight shot I've seen done on x-ray film. Did you come up with that highlight idea on your own? I recognised it because I remember it from one of Mortenson's books. (expose for the highlights, let the shadows fall where they may).
Thank you for the kind words. Are you refering to William Mortensen? I just googled Mortensen photographer and his work came up. So no, I hadn't even heard of him. But I have now and just ordered a book of his work. Thanks!
The look I was after was actually a culmination of the entire process. I exposed the (x-ray) film at 80 asa and metered incident light and shot as metered. I processed using my baseline for this film + 2 minutes to bring in a little more contrast as I shot it in shade and wanted a bit more than I saw. Aftere processing I scanned the negative and completed my processing using dodging, burning and contrast in Photoshop to get the look I was after. As this is my wife, and she NEVER likes her photos I am careful to show her images as flattering as possible. I have found that on female portraits overexposure on the skin tends to smooth things out a bit and hide "imperfections". There was certainly plenty of detail in the original negative (you could clearly see skin pores). And there you have it. :)
SergeiR
22-Aug-2013, 13:21
Scott, that is a fine example of a highlight portrait. It is very striking. I think that is the first example of a highlight shot I've seen done on x-ray film. Did you come up with that highlight idea on your own? I recognised it because I remember it from one of Mortenson's books. (expose for the highlights, let the shadows fall where they may).
sorry, but you are about as wrong as it gets with classification.
Neverless - good start, Tim.
Mkillmer
22-Aug-2013, 20:45
sorry, but you are about as wrong as it gets with classification.
I'm not familiar with the term highlight portrait. I did a google search without much luck - what is a highlight portrait? Is it related to a high key portrait?
SergeiR
22-Aug-2013, 20:51
I'm not familiar with the term highlight portrait. I did a google search without much luck - what is a highlight portrait? Is it related to a high key portrait?
There isnt such thing :) it might be however something lost in translation (i am guilty of doing it too , every now and then ;)) and indeed meant as high key.
I was talking about classification of this as something that follows Mortensen's concepts - its pretty far from his 7D negative for pictorial portraits and i believe its not falling into his commercial portraiture category (i.e your off the mill typical AA style) mainly b/c of being a bit too high up too. But i dont have reference in front of me to judge latest. And its too late and i am lazy to dig book out ;)
Very bright areas and generally dense / contrastry negatives are something that you easily get with X-ray, i believe. Which is just perfect, apparently, for Jim's printing style. And i can vouch that it makes lith printing pretty darn easy too - have to blast them quite a bit though, to get your typical +2 exposure starting point ;)
Tin Can
22-Aug-2013, 23:17
5X7 slider back Calter 240mm at f22 and f16.
100730
SergeiR
23-Aug-2013, 04:13
See? Randy's negative got pictorial potential, as Mortensen would say ;)))
Jim Cole
23-Aug-2013, 08:00
5X7 slider back Calter 240mm at f22 and f16.
100730
Love that first pose Randy! Excellent.
Tin Can
23-Aug-2013, 08:09
I shot a previous version August 11th with Costco C41 processing, I present this image just to show I didn't exactly copy you Sergei, then I saw your doll and I had to do it again in LF. Of course I will be using Plastica for more practice.
Check the EXIF. I need a lot of practice.
100742
See? Randy's negative got pictorial potential, as Mortensen would say ;)))
SergeiR
23-Aug-2013, 08:21
Randy - i knew you werent :) If i may add suggestion - dont fall into typical LF shooter trap (i know, its hard to adjust thin DOF, but its doable) - dont do head-on shots of her.. Turn her a bit.
Tin Can
23-Aug-2013, 08:27
LOL, that can mean 2 things! I do plan to turn her head and she needs new clothes. Thanks for the advice!
Also, right now I am going to use sharp lenses in focus, if I can...
Been very busy building my dream darkroom, soon I will share pics of that. I now have 750 sq ft of total blackout, my entire small storefront! Not easy with south windows.
Randy - i knew you werent :) If i may add suggestion - dont fall into typical LF shooter trap (i know, its hard to adjust thin DOF, but its doable) - dont do head-on shots of her.. Turn her a bit.
SergeiR
23-Aug-2013, 10:38
Good luck with dark room. My back and bellows for ulf camera is finally ready and slowly drifting towards me in parcel, so at some point i am going to fight very peculiar battle of trying to figure out if i can use 14x17 taped in holder ;) Its a shame there is no 20x24 xray ;)
Tin Can
23-Aug-2013, 12:12
This is Michael Boruch, he taught me B&W analog photography 15 years ago for one college semester. At that time I had no darkroom experience and even now have only recently set up a darkroom. During his class I bought Nikon N70 and Nikon Coolpix 100 and did all assignments with both cameras. http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/others/100/ At that time there were no cell phone cameras and I could take digital pics with no one noticing. I fell in love with digital and wasted a lot of time and money.
Michael and I had no contact for 15 years, the other day he stopped by for a quick 6 hour visit. We talked and talked. He still teaches college photography.
Shot with chipped grey paint Ansco Studio 8x10 and Semi-Centennial stand, I got it almost free from a moldy basement, perfect bellows! Bad paint. My favorite rig.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7378/9579091874_1182c91b52_o.jpg
bobwysiwyg
23-Aug-2013, 13:32
I've been most impressed by many of the X-Ray shots here. Unfortunately, I only shoot 4x5 so I guess some cutting might be involved. Nice shot and tones.
Tin Can
23-Aug-2013, 13:55
I cut 7x17 to 5x7 which takes only one 4-15/16 cut per piece, 3 pieces to each film, thus getting 300 5x7 pieces of film for $60 delivered.
I've been most impressed by many of the X-Ray shots here. Unfortunately, I only shoot 4x5 so I guess some cutting might be involved. Nice shot and tones.
rdelung
23-Aug-2013, 17:23
Hi Randy, Off the wall question. I would like to develop some 8x10 blue sens. X-ray film in 10x12 trays. Approx. how many sheets of film would you say I can develop before I have to replenish my developer? I'll be using Rodinal @ 1:100 mixture. Thanks from the other Randy guy from Seattle Wash.
Tin Can
23-Aug-2013, 18:38
I did 4 Sheets of Kodak CSG 5x7 in 1 liter, 1-100 R09 and 2 sheets 8x10 same film in fresh batch. I did them 2 sheets at a time in 10x12 trays with grooves and I see no exhaustion or groove streaks.
I think 10 ML of R09 is cheap enough to use for 2 sheets, Sergei is the one I follow. If you go back he lists his results consistently with his experiments.
Soon I will try HC 110, just because I want to see how it does on roll film. I do not like R09 with roll film.
Hi Randy, Off the wall question. I would like to develop some 8x10 blue sens. X-ray film in 10x12 trays. Approx. how many sheets of film would you say I can develop before I have to replenish my developer? I'll be using Rodinal @ 1:100 mixture. Thanks from the other Randy guy from Seattle Wash.
HT Finley
23-Aug-2013, 21:52
I've followed this thread but gleaned little technical info. A lot of displays and complimenting. Can somebody please give me an idea of a starting developing time for Fuji HRT green in D-76? Thanks--HTF
Andrew O'Neill
23-Aug-2013, 22:36
Will you be wet printing or scanning? If wet printing, alt or gelatin silver?
HT Finley
24-Aug-2013, 08:16
I will be contact printing on the ordinary paper and Dektol manner.
SergeiR
24-Aug-2013, 08:39
I've followed this thread but gleaned little technical info. A lot of displays and complimenting. Can somebody please give me an idea of a starting developing time for Fuji HRT green in D-76? Thanks--HTF
First of all subforum called " image sharing ". Secondly it also doesnt contain an information on curves for scanning and on how to process Fuji HRT in MQ.. And its not end of the world.
You can always try and share with rest of people if you feel that information is missing. As processing by inspection is possible at 8x10 it will cost you less than buck to run through 3 sheets of xray. Then you willbe champion of all the people who like to use d76 and fuji xray ( and information is there, afaik)
Tin Can
24-Aug-2013, 08:40
I haven't used D76 for anything in years. A few of us use R09 aka Rodinal.
But it's all the same, X-Ray is just film and many developers will work. I suggest you conduct some tests starting with your normal D76 times for whatever other film you use.
I've followed this thread but gleaned little technical info. A lot of displays and complimenting. Can somebody please give me an idea of a starting developing time for Fuji HRT green in D-76? Thanks--HTF
Roger Thoms
24-Aug-2013, 09:00
I've followed this thread but gleaned little technical info. A lot of displays and complimenting. Can somebody please give me an idea of a starting developing time for Fuji HRT green in D-76? Thanks--HTF
You'll find more info here.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-X-ray-Film-example-and-comparison&highlight=Xray
Roger
rdelung
24-Aug-2013, 10:51
I did 4 Sheets of Kodak CSG 5x7 in 1 liter, 1-100 R09 and 2 sheets 8x10 same film in fresh batch. I did them 2 sheets at a time in 10x12 trays with grooves and I see no exhaustion or groove streaks.
I think 10 ML of R09 is cheap enough to use for 2 sheets, Sergei is the one I follow. If you go back he lists his results consistently with his experiments.
Soon I will try HC 110, just because I want to see how it does on roll film. I do not like R09 with roll film.
Thanks, I'm sure there will be more questions to follow. R.De. The Seattle Guy.
Having covered hundreds of km to that super spot this is one from my front yard.
Pine tree
Scan of print
green x-ray Fuji HDR
Kodak 2D 8x10 lens G-Claron 270mm f 45
Small issue light leak due to my clumsy efforts rotating the back on the 2D
The lighter of the two is the best
100809100810
SergeiR
24-Aug-2013, 16:28
btw, i just done two sheets in Pyrocat HD ;) looks interesting.
SergeiR
24-Aug-2013, 16:31
Btw, i use only 2ml of R09 per 2 sheets of 8x10 (makes 200ml). Seems to work just fine with rotary. So that + low cost of film - is really just plenty of experimentation. Same goes in fact for Pyro - i just did 1:1:100 that gave me usual 200ml and while sheets are drying up - negatives looks pretty darn interesting.
Curious side effect is that its yellow staining, and base of Kodak is blue, so you get duo-tone right away ;)
Tin Can
24-Aug-2013, 16:39
I have Pyro waiting. I'll get to it soon. I have a lot of experiments coming up.
Years I figure, but what else do I do in retirement. :)
Back to darkroom construction, plumbing is next and it will be a pain with the long drain runs. :(
Btw, i use only 2ml of R09 per 2 sheets of 8x10 (makes 200ml). Seems to work just fine with rotary. So that + low cost of film - is really just plenty of experimentation. Same goes in fact for Pyro - i just did 1:1:100 that gave me usual 200ml and while sheets are drying up - negatives looks pretty darn interesting.
Curious side effect is that its yellow staining, and base of Kodak is blue, so you get duo-tone right away ;)
Henricus
24-Aug-2013, 17:30
Joe, I'm bad. I rated this at ISO 80 and yes it is the CSX Green sensitive. Here is another print. Now I believe that the film is great regardless of how you print. I print carbon transfer and love the density I get with this film but you can develop it to the density you need for your printing process. Loading, unloading and developing in a red safe light make it easy.
Same info on this shot.
I really like this one. All very good images. Thanks for the post, you have inspired me to give it a try.
SergeiR
24-Aug-2013, 17:45
so here it is
Tin of sardines
8x10 Kodak CSG, Pyrocat HD (B&S version)1:1:200, 15m rotary
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3679/9584802187_9ee89e2e46_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9584802187/)
Scan-130824-0001www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9584802187/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Tin Can
24-Aug-2013, 17:48
Tasty, rotary is also waiting...
so here it is
Tin of sardines
8x10 Kodak CSG, Pyrocat HD (B&S version)1:1:200, 15m rotary
SergeiR
24-Aug-2013, 19:35
A bit.. umm confusing results with portraits though. Going to try half hour on next batch. (confusing as in - i do get a bit too much contrast, meaning that whole compensation isnt happening yet)
trying something here, with Pyrocat HD as developer and revisiting some lighting ideas from past.
8x10 , 14 inch heliar ( screens - retouched print to remove shoulders and add texture ), rotary , pyrocat hd 1:1:100, 15m
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7332/9588117636_3c53a4a308_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9588117636/)
Scan-130824-0002www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9588117636/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
grantflanagan
27-Aug-2013, 20:05
Using the following tube design, you can process an 8x10 sheet evenly in daylight with LESS than 0.25 liters of each chemical (which is sufficient to not become exhausted on that one sheet. I get by just fine with 4 oz. of similar chemicals per 4x5, which is about 1/4 less than this. If you want more, just decrease the inner tube diameter a bit, but a whole liter is silly much), and you can make this yourself for $10 in plumbing parts or so. It's just a 2" PVC class 200 tube inside of a 2.5" one, held together with a bushing. You roll each piece of film so that the emulsion side is facing inward, slide it into its tube, and then fill with enough chemical to cover the film but not completely full. Then you can put the cap on and invert the tube back and forth for extremely effective and evenly distributed agitation. Bushings are usually flat on the end, too, so you can stand it upright and let it sit, too.
The nominal 2.5" pipe actually has an internal diameter of 2.6 or so inches, which is enough for an 8" wide sheet of film to not overlap itself at all.
Note that if you are processing with lights on, beware that PVC is somewhat transluscent. I have found that spraypainting black and then wrapping with heavy black duct tape or gaffers tape makes it completely opaque though.
99835
So your $167 would be more like $40.
This does require one sided film though, which means either mammography film or scraping your film with bleach, etc. Depending on how much you value your time, that could be somewhere between maybe $20 to $65 more expensive per sheet than the film you quoted (There is an 8x10 sony mammography 1 sided film for $1 a sheet)
Let's say $40 more for film to compromise. Total still ends up being $115 instead of $202. Of course even less if using powder mixes or DIY chemicals, etc. Could probably get down to $0.75 a sheet.
Would this apply to any film with only a single side of emulsion?!
after some finicking and errors.. yep.. Pyrocat HD and xray - awesome skintone range, without any filters. Will not be super good for landscapes though, it doesnt really handle shadows, but it doesnt overpull highlights most of time ,if you expose it that way. Or so it seems.
today, 1:1:100 Pyrocat HD with Kodak Xray.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5465/9650628498_372d142727_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9650628498/)
Pictorial portraits: Mistress of Dragons (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9650628498/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
And i dont see any staining, anymore, btw.. guess its something about dilution or agitation (rotary man meself).
Excellent and I love the content, Dragon lady and all, I was stuck on creating Dragons as sculpture for 20 years!
I may combine my 3 obsessions, Dragons, photography and...
after some finicking and errors.. yep.. Pyrocat HD and xray - awesome skintone range, without any filters. Will not be super good for landscapes though, it doesnt really handle shadows, but it doesnt overpull highlights most of time ,if you expose it that way. Or so it seems.
today, 1:1:100 Pyrocat HD with Kodak Xray.
Thanks. Randy :) thats quite a list of hidden talents there ;)
I have Pyro waiting. I'll get to it soon. I have a lot of experiments coming up.
Years I figure, but what else do I do in retirement. :)
Back to darkroom construction, plumbing is next and it will be a pain with the long drain runs. :(
Hi Randy, just me again with another question for you and all our fellow readers. I'm using a 8x10 with a Betax No 5
lens. Very basic. How would you suggest going about using a Yellow filter? There are no threads to screw in a conventional
filter. Mounting within the bellows can be difficult. Outside diameter measures 82mm. Any ideas? R.W.Delung the Seattle
guy.
Jim Fitzgerald
2-Sep-2013, 15:13
Hi Randy, just me again with another question for you and all our fellow readers. I'm using a 8x10 with a Betax No 5
lens. Very basic. How would you suggest going about using a Yellow filter? There are no threads to screw in a conventional
filter. Mounting within the bellows can be difficult. Outside diameter measures 82mm. Any ideas? R.W.Delung the Seattle
guy.
Get one of the Lee filter holders with the rubberband and the Lee 4x4 filters. I think Freestyle has them.
Get one of the Lee filter holders with the rubberband and the Lee 4x4 filters. I think Freestyle has them.
pity they are freaky expensive though :(
Randy - what lens you use? Apart from shutter number :)
My last posted X-Ray 8x10 of Michael was shot with a Rodenstock APO-Ronar 480 mm f9, in Copal 3, with a 67 to 77 step-up ring to Mamiya yellow-green filter.
I have a couple bigger filter lenses that I don't have anything that fits and I have taped a fresh yellow lighting gel in front.
I also use the LEE rubber band PITA thing, that I rear mount on a few lenses, with a Calumet/LEE #12.
And Michael is picking up a donated enlarger for his college tomorrow!
pity they are freaky expensive though :(
Randy - what lens you use? Apart from shutter number :)
I meant other Randy ;)
I got Lee holder, btw, with few filters, but i never seems to use it all that much. Its just like too much hard work and i never see filters i want to be for sale or to be for sale for less than 200$ :(
Btw i just finished processing last sheet from other week, when i tried to do comparative Pyrocat HD vs Rodinal.
In all honesty - i am going back to R09. On exactly similar exposure (controlled by electronic flash, so no hand error and CLA suggestions), on Kodak CSG. R09 (7.30, 1:100) vs Pyrocat HD (15.00 1:1:100)
Shots were made to go into two different holders, and while i like general look of pyrocat results, i cant really say it compares anywhere near as good to R09 and while general contrast is indeed lower - i am not ready to loose shadow and speed THAT much.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7416/9661186108_eef2b025d9_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9661186108/)
Basic light: Pyrocat HD 15m 1:1:100 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9661186108/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3725/9661184968_53439a3e26_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9661184968/)
Basic light: R09 7.30m, 1:100 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9661184968/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Guess which developer is getting tossed into dust bin tonight?
Thanks for the comparative example. I found the same results, though I didn't do an exhaustive test like that.
Peter De Smidt
2-Sep-2013, 20:36
Sergei, What film speed did you use?
well it wasnt super duper exhaustive :) I just happen to know photographer here, very good one, who is swearing by Pyrocat, shooting art nudes in b&w and doing palladium printing.. so i kept telling myself i got to try it, just so i would have something to answer to him. I actually wanted to test how well basic light would work on X-ray, and shot few examples to try different developments. After looking at Pyrocat results last week i pretty much told myself there is no way - it just comes out underexposed instead of being 7D, so i thought i missed exposure, despite all the careful calculation. But it turned out i didnt . There is just enough of details in hair as 7D claims to have.
Anyway. Back to R09.
7.30m, 1:100, 200ml for 2 8x10s, rotary.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3752/9661739492_104305050f_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9661739492/)
Joshaa (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/9661739492/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr
Peter De Smidt
2-Sep-2013, 22:04
I used Pyrocat MC in a Jobo with Fuji Green. I used an EI with a green/yellow filter of 50 for landscape, and there was plenty of shadow detail, but then the Kodak film is no doubt different. I'll have to give the R09 a try, especially given how cheap it is to use.
I used Pyrocat MC in a Jobo with Fuji Green. I used an EI with a green/yellow filter of 50 for landscape, and there was plenty of shadow detail, but then the Kodak film is no doubt different. I'll have to give the R09 a try, especially given how cheap it is to use.
Shooting landscape is different kettle of fish from portrait - exposure methods, unless going for commercial in portaits - different in the end. I honestly dont think its film difference, its more like complete inability to handle underexposure thats is needed for portrait to have good tonal range in caucasian skin.
PS: i still believe that under sunny sky (or in shade but with plenty of sun bouncing around) Kodak CSG changes from about 100 to something like 200-250. Its like there is just way too much UV all the sudden ;)
Just thought I'd throw this out for your consideration.
When I first tried 8X10 X-ray film (because of this wonderful forum) I was inundated with scratches. I soon learned of the different techniques for processing (flat bottom trays, glass bottom trays, gallon zip-lock bags, tubes). I have tried some of these...but...due to my being rather stubborn, I just could not bring myself to process just one sheet at a time.
I just processed (in one session) 6 sheets of double sided CSX (Fugi?) 8X10 X-ray film in 9X11 print processing trays (the kind with raised raised sections on the bottom about 1 1/2" wide), and did not get any scratches...none. I have been using HC-110 1:63.
I set 3 trays in my bathtub, developer, pre-soak / stop, and fix. I pre-soak for about 2 minutes, adding them to the tray one at a time, then add the entire stack to the developer. The dev tray has 1500ml of solution in it.
I agitate (shuffle) by very gently lifting one end of the stack (that is farthest away from me), then sliding the bottom sheet out, being careful to minimize any contact it makes with the edge of the tray or the film on top of it (I do this by holding the end of the top 5 sheets up with my left hand while sliding the bottom sheet out and up with my right hand).
I then lay it on top of the stack and with my fingertips, push it down.
The process of doing this for one sheet takes about 10-12 seconds. With 6 sheets of film, I do this as if I had 7 sheets, after the 7th sheet, I turn the tray 1/4 turn, take about a 15 second break, then repeat (this way the same sheet is never left on the bottom during the break).
When time is up the whole stack goes into the water tray again, same agitation, once through the stack, then I put them into the fix tray one at a time, lifting the top sheet from the water tray and laying it in the fix then push it down with fingertips. Same agitation method is employed once all 6 sheets are in the fix.
Anyway, it can be done if you are slow and gentle enough.
Andrew O'Neill
3-Sep-2013, 13:11
That's good to hear, Randy. I'll have to give it a shot.
Great, good to hear Randy! Gentle is the key, now that i have calmed down and have a nice table to sit at under red light, I can cut X-Ray down to 5x7 and 2x3 without scratches. I do have to watch those holders as many have rough flaps.
I know it's all easy, but with my crappy hands, nothing is easy, even loading.
Sitting down is a big help for me in many tasks.
Just thought I'd throw this out for your consideration.
When I first tried 8X10 X-ray film (because of this wonderful forum) I was inundated with scratches. I soon learned of the different techniques for processing (flat bottom trays, glass bottom trays, gallon zip-lock bags, tubes). I have tried some of these...but...due to my being rather stubborn, I just could not bring myself to process just one sheet at a time.
I just processed (in one session) 6 sheets of double sided CSX (Fugi?) 8X10 X-ray film in 9X11 print processing trays (the kind with raised raised sections on the bottom about 1 1/2" wide), and did not get any scratches...none. I have been using HC-110 1:63.
I set 3 trays in my bathtub, developer, pre-soak / stop, and fix. I pre-soak for about 2 minutes, adding them to the tray one at a time, then add the entire stack to the developer. The dev tray has 1500ml of solution in it.
I agitate (shuffle) by very gently lifting one end of the stack (that is farthest away from me), then sliding the bottom sheet out, being careful to minimize any contact it makes with the edge of the tray or the film on top of it (I do this by holding the end of the top 5 sheets up with my left hand while sliding the bottom sheet out and up with my right hand).
I then lay it on top of the stack and with my fingertips, push it down.
The process of doing this for one sheet takes about 10-12 seconds. With 6 sheets of film, I do this as if I had 7 sheets, after the 7th sheet, I turn the tray 1/4 turn, take about a 15 second break, then repeat (this way the same sheet is never left on the bottom during the break).
When time is up the whole stack goes into the water tray again, same agitation, once through the stack, then I put them into the fix tray one at a time, lifting the top sheet from the water tray and laying it in the fix then push it down with fingertips. Same agitation method is employed once all 6 sheets are in the fix.
Anyway, it can be done if you are slow and gentle enough.
Mkillmer
5-Sep-2013, 07:41
I've taken a different approach to X-ray development...
I have been using a Jobo for paper development and have become very comfortable with processing film/paper without a darkroom - I wanted something similar to x-ray film.
In the end I bought a Paterson Orbital tank. Not cheap for what it is, but it allows me to process x-ray film without scratches.
As an insurance against internal motion, I use two small balls of blu-tack to hold down 2 diagonal corners.
So far - seems to work really well.
I can only process one 8x10 sheet at a time, but that is a fine trade-off for no scratches.
[http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2879/9677259593_99bd4d38cd.jpg
gavjenks
7-Sep-2013, 21:58
Would this apply to any film with only a single side of emulsion?!
Yes, in fact it ONLY works with a single side emulsion. I used to only use mammo film which is one sides, but now I also do it with double sided emulsions since I learned how to strip off the side that touches the wall with bleach after developing (it is horribly messed up, but if you just strip it, it doesn't matter).
Fixed up my surge marks due to the trays I was using
put some glass in the bottom and much better result.
Fuji HRT Green: lens G-Claron 270mm
scan of prints: Hindmarsh Falls,Joel
101594101595
HT Finley
8-Sep-2013, 19:15
OK, I've finally got my 8x10 up and running. I've done some film speed and development experiments on Fuji HR-T green film and D-76 1:3 6 minutes at about 70-72 degrees and I am getting much slower film speeds that what I was expecting from reading this forum. I had expected a speed of 80 maybe. Or 50. But what I'm getting here is more like a speed of 25 with no filter and ASA 12 or maybe 16 with a K2 yellow filter. I'm perplexed at why I'm not getting the much higher speeds these other guys are. One thing is for sure--this film is tough to get shadow detail with, but I'm doing what I have to to get some. And the speeds I just reported are where I seem to need to be to get that. Any comments? Thanks.
Hi Finley. I do indeed get ~50 ASA on HR-T with Rodinal. I'm not a D-76 fan myself. Not sure if anyone else has done testing with it though.
OK, I've finally got my 8x10 up and running. I've done some film speed and development experiments on Fuji HR-T green film and D-76 1:3 6 minutes at about 70-72 degrees and I am getting much slower film speeds that what I was expecting from reading this forum. I had expected a speed of 80 maybe. Or 50. But what I'm getting here is more like a speed of 25 with no filter and ASA 12 or maybe 16 with a K2 yellow filter. I'm perplexed at why I'm not getting the much higher speeds these other guys are. One thing is for sure--this film is tough to get shadow detail with, but I'm doing what I have to to get some. And the speeds I just reported are where I seem to need to be to get that. Any comments? Thanks.
I have only used Rodinal 1:100,the btzs file I am using for has a film speed of 68 the hindmarsh falls development time was 12 minutes
so 68 is in between the 50 and 80 I have not used a filter ( yellow green as yet) my biggest issue was the uneven developments
and thinking is was my restored Kodak 2D, indecently it is now light-tight in every way possible which is not a bad thing in sunny AU.
Bazz8
Jim Fitzgerald
8-Sep-2013, 20:19
OK, I've finally got my 8x10 up and running. I've done some film speed and development experiments on Fuji HR-T green film and D-76 1:3 6 minutes at about 70-72 degrees and I am getting much slower film speeds that what I was expecting from reading this forum. I had expected a speed of 80 maybe. Or 50. But what I'm getting here is more like a speed of 25 with no filter and ASA 12 or maybe 16 with a K2 yellow filter. I'm perplexed at why I'm not getting the much higher speeds these other guys are. One thing is for sure--this film is tough to get shadow detail with, but I'm doing what I have to to get some. And the speeds I just reported are where I seem to need to be to get that. Any comments? Thanks.
I shoot my film at 80 in subdued light and expose shadows at zone III. I develop in D-76 1:1 for 4-6 minutes and have no problem getting shadow detail. Reciprocity? I have found that if I double my exposure I'm close. Develop with the red safelight on and you should be able to "see" what is going on. A couple of tests in the light that you like to shoot in and you should be good to go. In bright sun I rate it at ISO 160! This is for the half speed blue.
HT Finley
8-Sep-2013, 20:34
It would be totally impossible for me to get the kinds of speeds out of this box of film that you guys are reporting. No way. This is very strange.
HT Finley
8-Sep-2013, 20:43
What would you Rodinal fanboys (of which I am not one) think of D-23?
What's wrong with Rodinal? I think it's the best and most versatile developer there is, for LF film. I have never used D-23.
Check out Sergei's test a few pages back. He gets better shadow detail with Rodinal than Pyrocat, another popular choice.
How are you metering? Are you stripping or no? I've found that the x-ray film (HR-T) is a little thinner than I'm used to seeing, when I've got a good exposure.
Mkillmer
9-Sep-2013, 02:57
I'm pretty new to the X-ray world, but I have been using paRodinal 1+50 for the last week - I'm very happy with the results:
101606
101607
101608
101609
I've been shooting Fuji HRT 8x10 at ISO 100 under strobes.
printed 2 more today
Hindmarsh falls 2
101612
architectural shot
101617
both shots with a Kodak2D 270mm G-claron
What would you Rodinal fanboys (of which I am not one) think of D-23?
that attitude, right there. Sorry.
I'm pretty new to the X-ray world, but I have been using paRodinal 1+50 for the last week - I'm very happy with the results:
aye, getting pretty good results, indeed.
Mkillmer
9-Sep-2013, 06:31
aye, getting pretty good results, indeed.
Hi Sergei,
Thanks for the kind words, your fantastic pictures have really inspired me to shoot better.
I noticed you mention that you rotary process them. Does that mean you strip them?
Mark
Hi Sergei,
Thanks for the kind words, your fantastic pictures have really inspired me to shoot better.
I noticed you mention that you rotary process them. Does that mean you strip them?
Mark
No, i dont do stripping unless i REALLY have to (i.e film got scratch and i intend it for contact print directly without paper neg). My negs are evenly developed on both sides :P
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.