PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Gene McCluney
19-Apr-2009, 17:23
I was doing some film/developer testing today, and I thought some of you might enjoy a comparison between Standard camera film and Xray film shot in a camera. The Fomapan 200 shot was on 5x7, exposed at an ISO of 100 and developed for 4.5 minutes in Xtol straight in deep tank. The X-ray shot was shot on 8x10 Blue Sensitive Xray film exposed at an ISO of 200 and developed in Xtol straight for 4 minutes in deep tank. These are not meant to be "art" rather they are just exposure and tone examples. The first thumbnail on the left is the Fomapan 200.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
19-Apr-2009, 19:32
Nice work Gene!

I have been messing with green sensitive x-ray film. I have attached an early 8x10 image which was developed in D76 1:3 for about six minutes. As perhaps you can see from the scan, I didn't manage to completely tame the contrast with this developer, so following Chris Nze and Jim Galli's advice, I switched to Rodinal. I am currently developing green sensitive Xray film (50 ISO) for Kallitypes in Rodinal 1:200 for about six minutes. This is working very well for me, and at 58Ē a sheet for 11x14 I really can't complain!

Unfortunately I can't scan my more recent work since since they are all 11x14 and larger than my scanner...

Brian Ellis
19-Apr-2009, 19:52
That's the first xray film I've seen with square corners, what I've seen (not all that much, just a few boxes from Freestyle years ago) had rounded corners. And your results are much better than mine, I couldn't get the contrast than you've gotten.

Gene McCluney
19-Apr-2009, 20:17
That's the first xray film I've seen with square corners, what I've seen (not all that much, just a few boxes from Freestyle years ago) had rounded corners. And your results are much better than mine, I couldn't get the contrast than you've gotten.

My boxes of film have round corners on the films, but I cropped my scan to just the image, as my tape I tape the neg down to the scanner glass would show otherwise.

Gene McCluney
19-Apr-2009, 20:20
Nice work Gene!

I have been messing with green sensitive x-ray film. I have attached an early 8x10 image which was developed in D76 1:3 for about six minutes. As perhaps you can see from the scan, I didn't manage to completely tame the contrast with this developer, so following Chris Nze and Jim Galli's advice, I switched to Rodinal. I am currently developing green sensitive Xray film (50 ISO) for Kallitypes in Rodinal 1:200 for about six minutes. This is working very well for me, and at 58Ē a sheet for 11x14 I really can't complain!

Unfortunately I can't scan my more recent work since since they are all 11x14 and larger than my scanner...

Your image of the mother and child is incredible, such beautiful tones from Xray film. What film did you use (Brand and type of Xray film). Maybe the green sensitive has better tonality in general?

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
20-Apr-2009, 19:22
Thanks Gene. It is the no-name green sensitive film from http://www.cxsonline.com/ I think it is the same as all the other no-name brands (physician's choice or what not), made by Konica in the US.

I have never used the blue sensitive, although may well buy a box sometime soon just to try it. I have been pretty happy with the tonality, it isn't "real" film, but for the price it is an incredible bargain. With 11x14 I was always wondering if the image was worth the price of the film, which really curtails experimentation. I can now use about ten sheets of xray film for one sheet of Efke.

My only issue right now is that the film seems to be a fingerprint and water mark magnet. Have you had this issue Gene?

Gene McCluney
20-Apr-2009, 19:32
Thanks Gene.

My only issue right now is that the film seems to be a fingerprint and water mark magnet. Have you had this issue Gene?

I have found that the film is very delicate. I process on film hangers, so I don't actually touch the film until I take it off the hanger to go into the Photo-flo. I then wipe the film down with photo sponges that have been saturated with photo-flo. I don't have any particular problems with defects, that way, although I did get quite a few emulsion scratches when I tried to cut some down to 5x7. I think I could overcome that also.

Jim Fitzgerald
21-Apr-2009, 07:48
Okay you guys, now I have to decide which one to get. Green or blue? I agree that if I can use this for my 11x14 work it would be great. I usually shoot for high contrast neg's for my carbon printing. If I can get 100 sheets of this film for .58 cents I could shoot a lot more 11x14 or 8x10 for that matter.
Jason, are you using Jim Galli's Rodinal formula from his website or is it just diluted 1:200? I develop all of my film in tanks with hangers. I have a system for 11x14 in hangers and I have to test it out. Uses a lot of chemicals but I am currently using Pyrocat-HD which is very inexpensive.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
21-Apr-2009, 08:52
I never had much luck with Jim Galli's formula which was developed for graphic arts films, not Xray. I tried a few other low contrast developers including POTA and another whose name escapes me. The contrast was always way too low for my purposes and the tonalities were weird. I had good luck with Rodinal 1:100 (four minutes for a DR of 1.4) and Rodinal 1:200 (six minutes for a DR of 1.4) with no additives. Assuming I am doing 11x14 @1:200 I put 1L of water into a tray and swish the neg around for one minute. I then add the other liter of water with 10ml Rodinal and develop with CONSTANT motion for four to 12 minutes, depending on contrast. The film scratches very easily, so be careful! Also, since these films have emulsions on both sides you must be sure that all parts of both sides receive equal amounts of developer, otherwise you will have weird marks on the rear. I develop exposed emulsion up and to ensure that the rear emulsion is developed I use a flat bottom tray. A dimpled or ribbed bottom can leave weird marks. A hardening fixer is very helpful and it fixes in about one minute.

One main difference I know between the films is that the high-speed blue is about 200 ISO while the ortho green is 50 ISO. Of couse, the color sensitivity is also different, but this is probably mostly an aesthetic choice.

Don Dudenbostel
21-Apr-2009, 19:49
I would suggest trying mamography film. It comes in odd sizes but its single coated on one side and fairly durable. I use it in special xray applications and find kodak and agfa to be finer grain than traditional double coated film. I need more contrast in what I do and run it in D19 1:1 and have used HC110 1:31 with good results. You also might try industrial fray film. I think most are single coated and come in sizes that might work well for pano cameras.

wclavey
21-Apr-2009, 20:46
I have used up my first pack of blue sensitive 8x10 x-ray film (CXS Online high speed blue). I cut it down to 4x5, rated it at 100 and developed it in Diafine diluted 1:1 in a rotary processor. The diluted Diafine and rotary processing really makes it quite usable, contrast-wise. I have 2 images posted over in the APUG gallery if you want to see how they look in Diafine. I have printed and scanned them and it reminds me a lot of Tri-X, except a lot slower.

It does scratch easily when wet, but once dry, the emulsion is quite hard. I spent 8 years as an x-ray technician in a large veterinary hospital and the utensil of choice by people reading x-rays seemed to be ballpoint pens - - they would crease the film base but the emulsion stayed put.

Jeff Bannow
22-Apr-2009, 06:24
Anyone tried developing in a Jobo? I'm interested in trying some in 8x10 and/or 5x12 but do all of my processing right now via Jobo with Pyrocat HD. I could order some Rodinal though ...

Gene McCluney
22-Apr-2009, 09:26
Anyone tried developing in a Jobo? I'm interested in trying some in 8x10 and/or 5x12 but do all of my processing right now via Jobo with Pyrocat HD. I could order some Rodinal though ...

X-ray film has identical emulsion on both sides of film base. You really need to develop in a tray, or film hangers in a tank, so the developer can work evenly on both sides of the film, otherwise you may get streaks or mottling.

I think you can get acceptable pictorial results with any film developer, but it will be trial and error until you work out your exposure and development times to your satisfaction.

venchka
22-Apr-2009, 14:25
Wouldn't x-ray film and a 2509 reel be ok? The film is evenly bathed on both sides by delevoper. I've seen Westley's negatives from a Jobo reel & tank and they are fine. Two posts back ^.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
22-Apr-2009, 14:32
Yes, the reels would be just fine, but the Jobo expert, or print drums, or BTZS tubes won't work well.

Gene McCluney
22-Apr-2009, 14:36
The KEY is having equal developer and fixer access to both sides of the film. Any way you want to develop that allows for full and free access to both sides of the film would work. My experience with drums is old. I think of the print drums I used years ago for color prints, and the paper basically touched the inside of the drum on the back side, and chemistry only had free access on the image side. This will not work for X-ray film.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
22-Apr-2009, 14:42
I would suggest trying mamography film. It comes in odd sizes but its single coated on one side and fairly durable. I use it in special xray applications and find kodak and agfa to be finer grain than traditional double coated film. I need more contrast in what I do and run it in D19 1:1 and have used HC110 1:31 with good results. You also might try industrial fray film. I think most are single coated and come in sizes that might work well for pano cameras.

I priced the mamography film a few months back and it didn't seem that much cheaper than "regular" B&W film. Am I missing something? I will look into the industrial film however, thanks.

Gene McCluney
22-Apr-2009, 14:47
I priced the mamography film a few months back and it didn't seem that much cheaper than "regular" B&W film. Am I missing something? I will look into the industrial film however, thanks.

Right, the mammography film is more costly than common x-ray film. I haven't found a source for industrial X-ray film, would appreciate any links or leads.

Gene McCluney
22-Apr-2009, 14:57
Here is another example of Blue Sensitive X-ray film (from CXS online) developed in X-tol for about 4 minutes.

EdWorkman
22-Apr-2009, 17:37
Industrial NDT [non-destructive testing] film appears to be quite expensive.
For the sites I could turn up, pricing is hard to find- one site sez click for price but, maybe account I dont use IE, didn't work. But certainly all the sites- a lot fewer than medical x ray- are very much less transparent about $ than the medicals- perhaps much less volume and competition. There was one past-date clearance item that was able to check - 25 sheets 7x17 for $108, regularly $349. Good news is that I've found data for films by Kodak [Industrex], Fuji , and Agfa [Structurix], and the many weird roll sizes are tantalizing -70, 90, 100 mm, 5, 14 inch etc. So far, I fear it MAY be very costly, but for certain [strange] sizes it may be the only game. I haven't tried a telephone call yet, awaiting actual disposable income.
Thanks very much to Gene for his continuing reports, and to wclavey.

Here's a start for the adventurous
http://www.mpmproducts.com/products_rad_film_kodak.htm
http://www.tedndt.com/cat/index.php?TED=30
http://www.ndtmart.com

Jim Fitzgerald
22-Apr-2009, 17:39
Here is another example of Blue Sensitive X-ray film (from CXS online) developed in X-tol for about 4 minutes.

Gene, that is a very nice shot. What color is the Cadillac? Curious to know how the film handles different tones. Does anyone know what the affect filters has on these films? I mean the standard ones like yellow, orange, green and red? It would be nice to try this stuff in 11x14. I have hangers for my 11x14 film so development could be in tanks.

Jim

EdWorkman
22-Apr-2009, 17:39
I didn't mean to forget to thank Jason too, but I did, sorry

EdWorkman
22-Apr-2009, 18:14
Here's a site with prices, for your enjoyment
http://www.ndtmart.com/default.php

Don Dudenbostel
22-Apr-2009, 18:47
I priced the mamography film a few months back and it didn't seem that much cheaper than "regular" B&W film. Am I missing something? I will look into the industrial film however, thanks.

I've purchased in date or slightly out of date Kodak Min-R Mammography film off ebay for $25 per box of 100 sheets in 18x24cm size. I think I bought 5 boxes at one time at that price. Also bought Agfa a few years ago for about the same price. Keep your eyes open you'll eventually find some. Also call your local diagnostic center and hospital to see if they have any they are tossing out or will sell cheap. Almost all mammography centers are digital now.

I actually use very little of the mamo film now for my x-ray work and more often use HP-5 due to finer grain and better definition in extreme enlargements. I do x-rays of flowers (www.x-rayarts.com) and enlarge small images to 24x36 inches so high res and fine grain are important. The mamo film works very well for objects like shells and found objects.

Gene McCluney
22-Apr-2009, 19:10
Gene, that is a very nice shot. What color is the Cadillac? Curious to know how the film handles different tones. Does anyone know what the affect filters has on these films? I mean the standard ones like yellow, orange, green and red? It would be nice to try this stuff in 11x14. I have hangers for my 11x14 film so development could be in tanks.

Jim

Jim, the CHRYSLER was originally black, but it has oxidized as it sits in my side yard. I wouldn't think a film that is only sensitive to the blue end of the visible spectrum would be a good choice for use with filters. A yellow or Red filter would just about filter out all the light the film is sensitive to.

Don Dudenbostel
22-Apr-2009, 19:12
I just looked at ebay (no connection to seller) and found a few mamo films and an example of industrial film. 220400581656 Larger can often be found. Industrial is a little different than medical film. It's single sided generally and has no particular color sensitivity. Medical film is either green or blue sensitive because it's sandwiched between one (mamo film) or two screens (medical general purpose film) fluorescent screens that makes the actual exposure on the film. The screen fluoresces when struck by x-rays.Exposure to radiation is much less with this system as opposed to a straight exposure with x-rays only. The downside is the resolution is less than without the screens. In industrial work resolution is more important than speed and exposing the subject to x-rays is not a factor generally. Also in mammography resolution is critical so single coated film is used and a single high res screen to reduce x-ray exposure to the patient.

Gene McCluney
22-Apr-2009, 19:20
I have hangers for my 11x14 film so development could be in tanks.

Jim


Sigh!! I wish I had 11x14 film hangers. I could work up some tanks if I only had the hangers.

Jim Fitzgerald
22-Apr-2009, 21:23
Sigh!! I wish I had 11x14 film hangers. I could work up some tanks if I only had the hangers.

Gene, sorry about the car! I need to look more closely next time. I'll try to find a way to photograph my 11x14 hangers. They are made out of plexi. I don't know if they will work with x-ray film but eventually I'll try. Imagine the Kodak hangers but they have a dimpled back piece of plexi sheet and small screws that hold the film off of the sheet. Like I said I don't know if I'll be able to get enough developer behind the sheet. i think so but I'll know when I test it out. Worst case would be to develop one at an time. i already do that with my 11x14 and develop by inspection.

Jim

wclavey
23-Apr-2009, 07:37
I thought that this might be useful information for people considering using x-ray film - - it is from a textbook on medical radiation physics.

The attached graph shows 3 lines on it:

the normal eye's sensitivity to the spectrum
the emission frequency of a blue x-ray screen
the frequency response of blue sensitive x-ray film

I actually suspect that the cut-off of x-ray film sensitivity in the green range is not as absolutely sharp as it might appear here, given some of the negatives I have taken, but it is probably is close.

EdWorkman
23-Apr-2009, 09:09
11x14 film hangers for xrays:
Stainless, perhaps the clips punch holes in the film ? $42
Plastic $14, not in 11x14, but 14x17 vert, so a hack could make it into 11x14, probly and "No holes punched in film"

Gene McCluney
23-Apr-2009, 10:25
11x14 film hangers for xrays:
Stainless, perhaps the clips punch holes in the film ? $42
Plastic $14, not in 11x14, but 14x17 vert, so a hack could make it into 11x14, probly and "No holes punched in film"


Are you selling? Do you have illustrations? I sent you an email.

EdWorkman
23-Apr-2009, 11:12
Here's my answer to Gene, perhaps others can use this info

Hi Gene
I spent hours a year or so ago surfing the web for info about using Xray film
Your posts have been most helpful
In all that info, I found suppliers of hangers - and some very weird sizes
So you can exhale :>) here are some urls- I didn't post them account I didn't know if they were really of interest
Stainless with a picture and pricing @ $41.80 each {hmm do one have to buy more than 1?]
http://www.quickmedical.com/wolf_xray/darkroom_equipment/film_developing_hangers.html
plastic 14x17, small photo
this is the hack candidate
http://www.xraysupercenter.com/show.asp?CatNumParam=PMPH17
I chased down the manufacturer's site and saw the same photo- can't recall if the type of "poly" is stated anywhere, but if/when I get off my duff into 7x17 I will pop $14 and a hacksaw- if you don't first :>)
hope this helps you
regards, and thanks again- keep them coming
Ed

Jeff Bannow
23-Apr-2009, 11:30
I saw some for 5x12 as well - looks like it is a dental x-ray size. They were also about $40.

Gene McCluney
23-Apr-2009, 12:44
Heres your daily X-ray film shot 8x10. Green foliage goes really dark on the blue sensitive film. "Old Shed"

EdWorkman
23-Apr-2009, 14:20
Ahhhhh
Thank you
Seeya tomorrow

venchka
23-Apr-2009, 14:39
OK, so is anybody using the green sensitive film?
Bueller? Bueller? Clavey? Anybody?

Brian Bullen
23-Apr-2009, 14:54
This is green sensitive Kodak T/Mat x-ray. An 8x10 palladium print, sorry for the poor scan but it gives you an idea.

Brian Bullen
23-Apr-2009, 15:04
Another quick scan,
8x10 palladium
Kodak Tmat

wclavey
23-Apr-2009, 15:06
Gene, is the shed actually white? That foliage did go really dark.

I'm getting ready to order another box and I was just going to get more blue sensitive. I can't find a sensitivity curve for the green and I just suspected that it probably looked like the blue curve, just shifted further to the right... but if that were true, I would have expected lighter foliage in Brian's 8x10... I guess I'll just stick with what I know.

venchka
23-Apr-2009, 15:08
Surely the green film with a green or yellow green filter would produce lighter foliage with more detail. Isn't the mammography film more or less panchromatic?

Brian Bullen
23-Apr-2009, 15:35
The green sensitive film will give lighter foliage if processed "normally".Here is a crop from an 11x14 green sensitive neg of wild columbine. The flowers are red and foliage is a medium green.

wclavey
23-Apr-2009, 18:22
Brian, that looks more like I expected. Thanks.

Jim Fitzgerald
23-Apr-2009, 18:26
The green sensitive film will give lighter foliage if processed "normally".Here is a crop from an 11x14 green sensitive neg of wild columbine. The flowers are red and foliage is a medium green.

Brian, thanks for giving me this information. It helps if I can visualize the effects. As I recall in a past post you posted a shot done with a soft focus lens that I was very impressed with. This is a very nice image also.

Jim

wclavey
23-Apr-2009, 18:41
I would suggest trying mamography film. It comes in odd sizes but its single coated on one side and fairly durable. I use it in special xray applications and find kodak and agfa to be finer grain than traditional double coated film. I need more contrast in what I do and run it in D19 1:1 and have used HC110 1:31 with good results. You also might try industrial fray film. I think most are single coated and come in sizes that might work well for pano cameras.

Don, do you have a source for mammography film... I have found very few on-line x-ray product stores that sell it and the ones that do only have Kodak brand which is 4 times the price of regular blue sensitive (8x10). Or perhaps I am looking at the wrong types of suppliers.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
23-Apr-2009, 22:22
Thanks Ed,

That is most helpful. If anybody orders the stainless I would be interested in hearing if it punctures the film or not. Anyhow, it looks like I will be building some tanks.

jason


Here's my answer to Gene, perhaps others can use this info

Hi Gene
I spent hours a year or so ago surfing the web for info about using Xray film
Your posts have been most helpful
In all that info, I found suppliers of hangers - and some very weird sizes
So you can exhale :>) here are some urls- I didn't post them account I didn't know if they were really of interest
Stainless with a picture and pricing @ $41.80 each {hmm do one have to buy more than 1?]
http://www.quickmedical.com/wolf_xray/darkroom_equipment/film_developing_hangers.html
plastic 14x17, small photo
this is the hack candidate
http://www.xraysupercenter.com/show.asp?CatNumParam=PMPH17
I chased down the manufacturer's site and saw the same photo- can't recall if the type of "poly" is stated anywhere, but if/when I get off my duff into 7x17 I will pop $14 and a hacksaw- if you don't first :>)
hope this helps you
regards, and thanks again- keep them coming
Ed

Don Dudenbostel
24-Apr-2009, 05:16
The best place to find Mamo film cheap is ebay or check with your local hospital or diagnostic center. Most have or are going digital and throwing this film away.

venchka
24-Apr-2009, 05:36
Wes,

Mamography film is expensive. Single sided, orthochromatic. Just like rgular film. Almost.

http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/film-fuji-film-c-28_103.html

I also see x-ray duplicating film. Has anyone used this film in an enlarger to make duplicate negatives for contact printing?

Jim Fitzgerald
24-Apr-2009, 07:46
I have an idea for some hangers that I am going to try for 11x14. I have some now but they are for regular film. They have a sheet of dimpled plexi that holds the film off of the surface. Another photographer gave them to me with the tanks and I have not used them yet. Like I said I have an idea to make some like the Kodak hangers that I have in 8x10. I'll be sure to post my results with pictures when I get them done. i think I'll try the ones I have now and see if they work.

Jim

EdWorkman
24-Apr-2009, 08:30
Venchka
I have used what I am morally certain is Xray dupe, albeit "continuous tone direct positive" from Photo Warehouse
Blue base, round corners...
It is very slow, but I have, in desperation perhaps, used it in projection mode- Beseler 8x10 cold light. i rescued a 116 size neg that had greatly faded since 1941 or so, and I used the dupe to raise contrast as well as density. Hmm probly the time wasn't that bad for that neg, as it was extremely thin. Other things i tried from more normal old negs, took 5 or more min of exposure.
Under those extremes I got a fairly gritty look, but a printable negative.

I actually pried myself out of a long funk to develop film yesterday, and if the motivation lasts for a coupla more days [ i hope I hope] I'll go try some prints from more of the enlarged dupes and report further.
Should work if you have enough time or LOTS of light- The cost-benefit ratio of a 25 sheet package should pay off, I think.

EdWorkman
24-Apr-2009, 08:42
I should add that typically I have processed the xdupe in developers meant for paper- the gallon liquid concentrates from Freestyle and Photwarehouse and most recently [ has it been two years ??? ] the film versions. Developing times are short , in the two minute range, with either and contrast is easier to control with the film version, not surprisingly.
Here's a watch out.
These developers can stain paper and mottle dupe film as they weaken/age and water rinse is used for stop- but then I should probably be called a "sloppy worker"....

venchka
25-Apr-2009, 19:32
I just happen to have a couple gallon bags of D-19. I know this is x-ray developer, but does it work for pictorial uses of x-ray film? I guess I need to re-read from the beginning for developers that y'all use. Besides Diafine.

Don Dudenbostel
25-Apr-2009, 19:41
D-19 isn't x-ray developer but it works fine for x-ray applications. X-ray developer gives a very long tonal scale without high contrast. X-ray applications require all the subtle tones to be reproduced but with good separation. D-19 is a higher contrast developer but quite different than any x-ray developer I've used. My applications require a contrast boost for some subjects and D-19 does that very well if used straight. In 1:1 or 1:2 it can produce very nice negs. My guess it would be fine for pictorial use if you work out the time and dilution. For my needs I've even considered D-11 with HP-5 but I haven't tried it yet.

Mark Sawyer
25-Apr-2009, 20:02
A couple of questions from one completely ignorant about these films...

Are they notched so you know which side is which?

My developing method is strictly for one-sided film. Are mammography film and industrial x-ray film the only films we're talking about here that would be appropriate for my methods?

How do these films handle human skin? Blotchy, smooth, or fairly normal?

And I assume they fit the standard film holders? (My 11x14 Fidelity Medical Cassettes are the same size as my Fidelity film holder.)

Thanks muchly!

Gene McCluney
25-Apr-2009, 20:07
A couple of questions from one completely ignorant about these films...

Are they notched so you know which side is which?

My developing method is strictly for one-sided film. Are mammography film and industrial x-ray film the only films we're talking about here that would be appropriate for my methods?

How do these films handle human skin? Blotchy, smooth, or fairly normal?

And I assume they fit the standard film holders? (My 11x14 Fidelity Medical Cassettes are the same size as my Fidelity film holder.)

Thanks muchly!


All common inexpensive X-ray films are double sided (emulsion on both sides) thus they do not need a notch to determine side. The 8x10 size does fit 8x10 film holders such as Fidelity, Lisco, etc. I haven't tried 11x14 yet, but have some and will soon.

The mammography film is single sided, but it doesn't seem to be available in the common pictorial film sizes such as 8x10..so it would have to be cut to size. It is also more expensive (for some reason).

Gene McCluney
25-Apr-2009, 20:09
I just happen to have a couple gallon bags of D-19. I know this is x-ray developer, but does it work for pictorial uses of x-ray film? I guess I need to re-read from the beginning for developers that y'all use. Besides Diafine.


Xtol, HC-110, D76 all work fine. Your developing time will have to be determined by trial and error.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
25-Apr-2009, 20:18
I have taken to notching the xray film as I load it with a paper punch, so I always know which way is up.

Brian Bullen
25-Apr-2009, 20:22
Mark, I bought 8x10 Fidelity holders from a hospital that was using them for x-rays. I don't have 11x14 fidelitys but the film fits nicely in 11x14 sterling/graflex holders.

wclavey
26-Apr-2009, 08:55
I have taken to notching the xray film as I load it with a paper punch, so I always know which way is up.

Since I cut the 8x10 sheet into 4 4x5 sheets, I end up with 4 rounded corners and I use the rounded corner as a "notch," mostly so that I always load the film in the same direction and can keep the commonality (routine) of loading and handling all my 4x5 film - - not because I need to worry about which side the emulsion is on. I started off with a paper punch making my own notch, but then I realized that i was using the rounded corner as a guide to the placement the punch... DUH, so why not use the rounded corner as the "notch"... But if you use the single sided film, then the rounded corner idea would not work.

Gene McCluney
26-Apr-2009, 09:03
A couple of questions from one completely ignorant about these films...

My developing method is strictly for one-sided film. Are mammography film and industrial x-ray film the only films we're talking about here that would be appropriate for my methods?

Thanks muchly!

By avoiding the 2-sided common X-ray film, you are eliminating the main reason for using X-ray film, and that is cost. The common blue-sensitive and green-sensitive 2-sided films are the ones that are cheap. If you are going to attempt to use the much more expensive mammography and/or industrial xray films, you might as well just use conventional private label sheet films from a vendor such as Freestyle.

Of course, the tonal rendition of a blue and/or green sensitive film is different than a panchromatic or orthochromatic film and that is another reason for using common x-ray film, as a creative tool, to interpret your vision in a different way.

EdWorkman
26-Apr-2009, 11:59
Xray film is not panchromatic.
Your eyes will tell you, under a red safelite, if indeed there is any difference at all.
And if you use a tent or change bag- it doesn't matter- that's why no notches

Gene McCluney
26-Apr-2009, 12:05
Xray film is not panchromatic.
Your eyes will tell you, under a red safelite, if indeed there is any difference at all.
And if you use a tent or change bag- it doesn't matter- that's why no notches

X-ray film may not be Panchromatic, but I have had some fogging trying to develop by inspection under a red graphic-arts safelight. (This was blue-sensitive film)

Jim Fitzgerald
29-Apr-2009, 21:26
Forgot to ask this earlier. Are there any reciprocity numbers with the x-ray film? I mean at f-64-90 we are looking at some long exposures. Curious if someone has info on this. Thanks.

Jim

Gene McCluney
29-Apr-2009, 21:58
Forgot to ask this earlier. Are there any reciprocity numbers with the x-ray film? I mean at f-64-90 we are looking at some long exposures. Curious if someone has info on this. Thanks.

Jim

Since reciprocity is not a factor in using these films for Xray applications, I doubt the manufacturers actually publish data such as this. I think it would be more trial and error. Boy I don't know many people that expose at f90. I generally go down to about f32 with 8x10.

Jim Fitzgerald
29-Apr-2009, 22:07
Since reciprocity is not a factor in using these films for Xray applications, I doubt the manufacturers actually publish data such as this. I think it would be more trial and error. Boy I don't know many people that expose at f90. I generally go down to about f32 with 8x10.

Gene, thanks. I figured some testing was in order. i normally shoot Efke 25 in 8x10, 11x14 and 8x20 and I am usually shooting at F- 32 to F-90 or even 128. I like to take a walk during some of my multi minute exposures. I can see fun and games ahead with x-ray film. Thanks.

Jim

Jim Fitzgerald
4-May-2009, 12:25
I forgot to ask if there is any issue with this type of film being a couple of years out of date. Is it still good if it is past expiration? I use regular film past date with good results, just wondered if this holds true for x-ray film. Thanks,

Jim

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
4-May-2009, 12:33
Forgot to ask this earlier. Are there any reciprocity numbers with the x-ray film? I mean at f-64-90 we are looking at some long exposures. Curious if someone has info on this. Thanks.

Jim

I have routinely made exposures ranging from 1/8 of a second to a minute using the CXS green-sensitive x-ray film have have not noticed any sort of reciprocity failure.

Jim Fitzgerald
4-May-2009, 13:06
I have routinely made exposures ranging from 1/8 of a second to a minute using the CXS green-sensitive x-ray film have have not noticed any sort of reciprocity failure.

Jason, this is awesome info. Thanks. Have you used any expired stuff. I have some 2 year old stuff on hold pending what everyone says here. Does this stuff hold up past its use date? Thanks.

Jim

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
4-May-2009, 14:05
I can't say, all of my film is still in date...

Anyhow, I got some really nice results yesterday with 11x14 CXS Green. At twilight at f22 for 28 seconds. I developed them for six minutes in Rodinal 1:200 at 21C and they look great. Best I have had so far. If I can ever figure out how to scan my 11x14s without stitching four together, I will post them...

Jim Fitzgerald
4-May-2009, 14:42
I can't say, all of my film is still in date...

Anyhow, I got some really nice results yesterday with 11x14 CXS Green. At twilight at f22 for 28 seconds. I developed them for six minutes in Rodinal 1:200 at 21C and they look great. Best I have had so far. If I can ever figure out how to scan my 11x14s without stitching four together, I will post them...

Jason sounds great with your results. Like I said i have 500 sheets that I have on hold because the seller forgot to tell me it was past date by 2 years. It will be a good deal but I have never used expired x-ray film and thought I would ask. Does anyone know? If not I may reconsider. Thanks.
Jim

DeBone75
4-May-2009, 15:33
My 2 cents. I use Kodak Green or any of the rebrands of the same. Also Agfa. I rate at iso 100. I develop in Beutler High Def. dilluted at 1:1/2:8 1/2 for 6 min. at about 68 degrees I find this gives me the best contrast control and gradiation. I don't have a scanner so I can't post any of my results. As a side note, I found this combination also works well with Edu Ultra 200.

Brian Bullen
4-May-2009, 15:35
Jim,
My first batch of 8x10 x-film was 8 years past date and it worked very well. Contrast was excellent, I couldn't find any defects except for my own ;) Exposure times in the nuarc were pretty short to start out, so no noticeable base fog. That's what got me hooked.

Gene McCluney
4-May-2009, 15:53
I see no reason that black and white Xray film would be any more prone to age effects than conventional b/w film. It is a slow film (ISO 100 approx). So it should have the same keeping qualities as FP4+ or Plus-X. Remember-it is just double sided b/w film-sensitive to either blue light, or blue & Green light (Ortho), and it is on a blue base, rather than clear base, but other than that, it is not exotic in any way. If I recall, some Foma 120 size roll film is also on a blue base. It is so cheap to purchase fresh and new, I would be hesitant to purchase any old film unless you could get it for 10 cents a sheet or so for 8x10. I just ordered 100 sheets of Green sensitive 7x17 for $56.

Jim Fitzgerald
4-May-2009, 16:04
I see no reason that black and white Xray film would be any more prone to age effects than conventional b/w film. It is a slow film (ISO 100 approx). So it should have the same keeping qualities as FP4+ or Plus-X. Remember-it is just double sided b/w film-sensitive to either blue light, or blue & Green light (Ortho), and it is on a blue base, rather than clear base, but other than that, it is not exotic in any way. If I recall, some Foma 120 size roll film is also on a blue base. It is so cheap to purchase fresh and new, I would be hesitant to purchase any old film unless you could get it for 10 cents a sheet or so for 8x10. I just ordered 100 sheets of Green sensitive 7x17 for $56.

Guys, thanks a lot! i just got 500 sheets of green sensitive for .15 a sheet that is 2 years past date. I'll tell the seller to send it. Looks like I'll be stocked for a while!
Now to get some 8x10! too bad there is no 8x20!


Jim

jb7
5-May-2009, 07:30
ok, stupid question coming up...

I'd quite like to try this at some point-
but that will probably mean having it shipped, or brought over from the states...

stupid question-

How do you think it might be affected by airport security scanners?

venchka
5-May-2009, 07:34
They don't use x-ray film in the EU?

jb7
5-May-2009, 07:49
Well, They probably do, I've just been doing a search-
nothing come up for Ireland so far...

If it came in from abroad, it might be scanned anyway-

The point is, those prices in the US are affordable,
and might make it worthwhile-

I'm sure the price for similar material here would be multiples of the prices referred to in this thread...

Gene McCluney
5-May-2009, 08:05
X-ray film is used worldwide. You should be able to find a vendor in Ireland, or the EU easily. You should inquire at a local health clinic or Doctors office.

jb7
5-May-2009, 08:22
Will do, thank you...

Jiri Vasina
5-May-2009, 09:21
It's getting more difficult to obtain X-Ray film at least here in the Czech Republic, and I think it would also be true for the rest of EU. The reason is the progress of digitalization - all the university hospitals here and some of the smaller ones have "upgraded" (?) to digital X-Ray machines that do not use film.

The one film that was used for photography (or better, was reported to be used as such. I haven't used any of them yet), Foma Medix PT was discontinued without supplement...

Gene McCluney
5-May-2009, 10:14
It's getting more difficult to obtain X-Ray film at least here in the Czech Republic, and I think it would also be true for the rest of EU. The reason is the progress of digitalization - all the university hospitals here and some of the smaller ones have "upgraded" (?) to digital X-Ray machines that do not use film.



While the market is shrinking, I don't think it has evaporated. Small clinics can't afford the digital equipment. They get their X-ray film from somewhere. It would be informative to inquire around with those still using X-ray film.

venchka
6-May-2009, 05:58
While researching sources, I came across Konica-Minolta and Sony x-ray film. I wonder who is actually making it? Fuji?

Nerdy question: Since the film is coated on both sides, should we treat the film as two sheets for minimum developer and fixer life? That seems abundantly clear, but wanted to get confirmation.

Thanks!

Gene McCluney
6-May-2009, 06:59
While researching sources, I came across Konica-Minolta and Sony x-ray film. I wonder who is actually making it? Fuji?

Nerdy question: Since the film is coated on both sides, should we treat the film as two sheets for minimum developer and fixer life? That seems abundantly clear, but wanted to get confirmation.

Thanks!

Konica-Minolta, Agfa/Gevart, Kodak and Fuji are the primary sources it seems.

I would also think that you replenish for the square inches of emulsion. If it is on both sides of a film, then you figure 2x the replenishment of a single coated film.

venchka
6-May-2009, 07:03
Thanks Gene. I use one shot developers. I'll double up on the volume.

If Konica-Minolta can stay in the x-ray film business, why not the scanner and wonderful wee 35mm lens business??????????????

Gene McCluney
6-May-2009, 07:49
Thanks Gene. I use one shot developers. I'll double up on the volume.

If Konica-Minolta can stay in the x-ray film business, why not the scanner and wonderful wee 35mm lens business??????????????

I believe they sold their medical imaging business, possibly to GE. They sold their camera business to Sony. Their excellent light-meters are made by yet another company. No one makes their scanners. Many of the current Sony and Zeiss lenses sold thru Sony would be the same as previously sold under the Minolta brand. AFAIK, the current Sony digital slr cameras use the same Minolta Maxxum lens mount designed for Minolta Maxxum 35mm film SLR cameras.

Jim Fitzgerald
11-May-2009, 18:54
I just received 500 sheets of 11x14 green. Now i can play. This film is by McKesson and it is a medium speed green. With this much film for about .15 a sheet I can experiment to my hearts content. I'll post some prints of my tests when I get them done.

Jim

Gene McCluney
11-May-2009, 20:25
I just received 500 sheets of 11x14 green. Now i can play. This film is by McKesson and it is a medium speed green. With this much film for about .15 a sheet I can experiment to my hearts content. I'll post some prints of my tests when I get them done.

Jim


Well hurry up, no need to sleep with that much film to consume. Get those samples up.

EdWorkman
12-May-2009, 13:45
Here's a place in UK that sells stainless film hangers- two styles tension and regular
http://www.richards.uk.com/xraylis1.htm
It appears that the 11x14 is 17.1 poundsmoney- about $25? plus $$?? for shipping.
Take a look also at the nifty processing tank thingies

Gene McCluney
12-May-2009, 14:05
Here's a place in UK that sells stainless film hangers- two styles tension and regular
http://www.richards.uk.com/xraylis1.htm
It appears that the 11x14 is 17.1 poundsmoney- about $25? plus $$?? for shipping.
Take a look also at the nifty processing tank thingies

That price list is 2001. I wonder if they keep the same prices.

EdWorkman
12-May-2009, 14:17
2001? Arghh Wonder if they are still in business.

Jim Fitzgerald
12-May-2009, 17:55
Gene, I know, I know! Hell I have never had 500 sheets of film to use ever. i'm like a kid in a candy store. I'll try to post some stuff this weekend.

Jim

venchka
12-May-2009, 18:45
Jim,

You could sub-divide and recover your cost.

emo supremo
15-May-2009, 20:51
Dear wclavey,
With regard to your posted graph of sensitivity versus wavelength....if the user who suggested this film is panchromatic by developing by inspection under safelight were to put a UV filter in front of the that safelight might we not be able to develop under safelight conditions. We use ortho film developed in D19 under safelight. I'm guessing the UV filter would 'take the wind' out of any light that is causing his foggin.

Jim Fitzgerald
16-May-2009, 06:39
Jim,

You could sub-divide and recover your cost.

This is a good idea and one I may consider.

Jim

Jim Fitzgerald
17-May-2009, 19:37
Okay, I just completed a simple test in my studio....er apartment. I loaded one holder with the 11x14 green sensitive medium speed X-ray film and set up a still life. Some plants in the courtyard gladly volunteered to help, well no one was looking when I did a little landscape work. Anyhow I used my big Darlot and I shot it at about F-5.6 (it opens to F-4) and I did two exposures. I metered at 100 and I took one at 2 seconds and one at 4 seconds. My lighting was daylight and a daylight balanced fluorescent bulb. Very simple set up and I did not realize that my backdrop fell down but what the heck this is a test.
I developed the negatives in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 @ 72 degrees in a tray for 10 minutes. I pre-soaked the film for 5 minutes and then did normal agitation for the ten minutes. 30 seconds agitation at the beginning and 5 seconds every minute. The negatives came out great and are drying. You do have to use trays that do not have raised ridges as Gene said and I did one in a tray to see what it looks like. The second negative I did I used the right tray and it came out great. No scratches at all I think in part to the hardening of the pyro.
Now, I need to get the hangers done because this stuff looks great. This will allow me to shoot a lot of 11x14 and 8x10. i have some 8x10 on the way.
I will post an example when I can. The film is still wet and I will only be able to scan a part of the image as my Epson 4870 can't do an 11x14 negative.

Jim

Jim Fitzgerald
17-May-2009, 19:41
Jim,

You could sub-divide and recover your cost.

Good idea, I did! Share the wealth!

Jim

Jim Fitzgerald
17-May-2009, 21:25
I have another question regarding X-ray film? I normally print carbon transfer with single transfer. Normally with regular film the image is reversed. Since X-ray film has emulsion on both sides do I need to be concerned with which side I print? I mean the emulsion is on both sides even though the film has been developed, right? It just seems strange but if this is the case then this is an added bonus.

Jim

Gene McCluney
17-May-2009, 21:38
Theoretically emulsion side facing the lens would be the sharpest, but in practice it may not matter.

Jim Fitzgerald
17-May-2009, 21:50
Theoretically emulsion side facing the lens would be the sharpest, but in practice it may not matter.

Gene, thanks I'll give it a try when I get a chance to print the negatives.

Just took a density reading and the neg's DR is 1.96. This will work for carbon!

Jim

Vaughn
17-May-2009, 23:07
Theoretically emulsion side facing the lens would be the sharpest, but in practice it may not matter.

It matters some. I used some X-ray film and made a carbon print. While it was not nearly as soft as using traditional film printed with the negative reversed, there still was some loss of sharpness using thick, lightly pigmented carbon tissue. I also made a print from the same negative using the thinner, more highly pigmented B&S carbon tissue that was much sharper.

The above negative was processed at a hospital, so I don't know exactly what chemicals were used.

I have 300 sheets or so of some Agfa "daylight" X-ray film I keep meaning to experiment more with. It is 14x17...a seems bit of a shame to cut it down to 8x10.

Its effective ASA seems to change greatly depending on the light. In the open shade, it seemed to be between 400 and 800...but quite a bit slower when used in the deep forest. I'd love to have a 7x17 camera to use to play with this film!

Vaughn

Jim Fitzgerald
18-May-2009, 06:52
Vaughn, this is encouraging news. I did not know that you had experimented with or had some of this film. Is what you have green or blue sensitive? Interesting that the ISO changes so much. Looks like I need to test it in different lighting situations.
Just think if you cut it in two you have 600 sheets of 7x17! What do I need to build a 7x17?

Jim

Vaughn
18-May-2009, 07:17
Jim, the film I have just says "daylight". Perhaps it is blue-sensitive, which would make sense since open shade and out in the sun has a lot of blue light, but under the dense redwood forest, there would be, relative to the total amount of light, less blue light.

I have not really had a chance to experiment with it (with so little time to devote to photography, I tend not to do much extra in terms of experimenting). The film was given to me after the hospital changed brands of X-ray film...I have been keeping it in the fridge. I cut it down in the darkroom using a red safe light.

I have only developed a few sheets myself...I had the hospital develop the first batch. I can't remember what I developed the second batch of negs in...I'll have to check my records.

This X-ray film image is a carbon print, printed "reversed" onto B&S tissue.

http://bostick-sullivan.invisionzone.com/index.php?autocom=gallery&req=si&img=70

Vaughn

Jim Fitzgerald
18-May-2009, 08:11
Thanks, Vaughn for the info. I do remember that shot of the boys and the train. They grow up fast don't they? I guess I need to experiment with my green sensitive 11x14 in some different lighting situations. If this is high contrast stuff may be a cheap way to shoot a lot of 11x14 for carbon.

Jim

Jim Fitzgerald
19-May-2009, 06:21
Okay, this is not a good example but what the heck. I set up a studio shot with my 11x14 and my big Darlot. This was shot on the green sensitive film. The flower was a deep orange and the leaves a light green. No filter used. I developed the film in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 for 10 minutes. My backdrop fell when I took the lens cap off for the 4 second exposure so that is why there is that funky black at the top. I shot this at about F 5.6. I need to shoot some outside to get a better idea.

Jim

jb7
19-May-2009, 06:54
Is that a scan of the negative?
Looks a bit overexposed, but I presume you're exposing for your carbon printing-

Look forward to seeing the outside shots-

Vaughn
19-May-2009, 07:00
Hey Jim!

Just made a couple 8x10 carbons using a X-Ray film negative. These posts got me thinking, so I thought I'd double check my assumptions.

The x-ray film is definitely softer when printed in reverse...at least with my way of printing. Thick pigmented gelatin layer, low pigment concentration, using my double merc vapor light unit, transferred onto fixed out glossy fiber photo paper.

The negative itself has plenty of contrast relative to my usual film. The scene only had 5 zones (EV 7 to 11, and exposed at EV 9 -- f22 at 1/4 sec -- using an ASA of 400). The image is one of my boys standing in front of a redwood on the edge of a meadow -- so lots of blue light.

I gave the neg some pretty hefty development...Ilford Universal PQ Developer at 1:9, 75F for 7 minutes, in a tray (constant agitation). Definitely got more contrast out of the negative than most conventional films -- close to what I use to get with Kodak Copy Film. (comparisons are subjective -- not quantative).

It is still possible that you might get better sharpness with the neg reversed using your vacuum easel and the point light source of your NuArc beasty.

I also printed a neg from my Diana camera -- a precious little 1.75"x1.75" carbon print -- an accidental double exposure on some out-dated Tech Pan film.

I got a 4x5 ready to develop (using up some scraps of tissue I have had around for awhile...left overs from the workshop). So off I go!

Your flower certainly shows the effects of an ortho film! Good luck taking the film outside!

Vaughn

Andrew O'Neill
6-Jun-2009, 09:17
That's very good, Dann. Thanks for sharing.

Andrew O'Neill
6-Jun-2009, 18:45
Here's a contact print of the back yard made with CSX Green 8x10. If you look really close you can see my reflection in the window...ala Eugene Atget.
Film was exposed at EI 50 for 4 seconds f/22.5. Developed in Pyrocat-HD (10ml+10ml+1000ml water) for 10:00, 21 C.
It was a bit breezy outside, so some of the foliage is blurry.
Overall a nice film. Not as sharp as I'd like which I think is due to emulsion on both sides...but Dann's method of removing one side's emulsion with bleach might help.

Andrew O'Neill
6-Jun-2009, 19:10
Hmmm, the uploaded print is slightly darker than the actual print...Should also state that the print is on Foma Variant FB....a paper that I've never used.

Andrew O'Neill
6-Jun-2009, 19:24
I tried lightening it up a bit to match the print...

Jim Fitzgerald
7-Jun-2009, 21:09
My first real print from 11x14 green sensitive x-ray film. This is a portrait of my youngest son. I used my 18" Voigtlander Euroscop at F-11 and 1/2 second in open shade. I developed the film in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 in a tray for 12 minutes. The image is printed on some 1976 Azo and is untoned.

Jim

Andrew O'Neill
7-Jun-2009, 21:23
Hey Jim, That's very nice. Nice "ortho" tones, eh?

Jim Fitzgerald
7-Jun-2009, 21:36
Andrew, thanks. It should work nicely on the Hollywood style stuff I intend to try. I can change the look if I print this a little lighter.

Jim

Andrew O'Neill
7-Jun-2009, 21:49
Are you going to use this film for carbon printing?

Jim Fitzgerald
8-Jun-2009, 06:02
Are you going to use this film for carbon printing?

Yes, I'll see what it does. I have some images that I need to develop and then I can tell if this is sharp enough for my carbon work.

Jim

Andrew O'Neill
8-Jun-2009, 15:52
That's great Jim. Please keep us updated here as well as over at the carbon printing forum!

mrpengun
8-Jun-2009, 19:27
I wish I had found this thread before ordering that x-ray film. Oh boy, what fun. But, Z & Z Medical, Cedar Falls was just the ticket. http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/8x10-kodak-xray-film-p-419.html

The first problem I noticed was that the negatives were really dense, having two exposed sides on a single base material. So, I taped the 8x10 negative to a clean surface using cellophane tape, sealing all four edges to that surface. Then using a soft 1/2" wide artist brush I reduced one side of the negative using common household Clorox bleach. That only takes a minute. A good wash, and now I have a single-sided negative. Of course this experiment is non-scientific and requires more refinement, but it immediately remedied three odvious problems. The double density issue, the bromide drag marks on the back that were caused from drum processing, and scratched emulsion on the back that was also caused by drum processing.

out of curiosity, Do you have any scans of the pre-post bleach difference?

mrpengun
8-Jun-2009, 22:37
Thanks! If only i knew how to read, I would have seen that earlier. :-)
do you feel that the bleached parts of the negative are significantly sharper? They appear so on the scans, but that could be simply because they are lighter due to having less emulsion :-)

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
10-Jun-2009, 12:45
There couldn't possibly be an anti-halation layer, as it would defeat the purpose of the double emulsion.

I wonder if, rather than developing both sides and then bleaching one side, it might make more sense to develop one side only. Perhaps this could be achieved through a modified form of your bleaching technique--taping the negative onto the bottom of a tray and then pouring in the developer.

The xray film I am using (green-sensitive CXS) has pretty limited resolution (I am not sure if this is because of the double emulsion or possibly some other reason), however I have not found it to be a problem as I am using the film only for Kallitypy, which doesn't produce high resolution prints.

Jimi
11-Jun-2009, 02:02
I wonder if, rather than developing both sides and then bleaching one side, it might make more sense to develop one side only. Perhaps this could be achieved through a modified form of your bleaching technique--taping the negative onto the bottom of a tray and then pouring in the developer.


What about brushing on the developer with a soft brush? I have never done this, so I am acting on hearsay and what have you here. :)

EdWorkman
11-Jun-2009, 09:41
Thanks for your continuing work!
I got Full Blue and Green Latitude yesterday.
Gotta get the new parts for the lens board retainer on the 2D and then I have a spot to make tests: Green lawn, dark green trees, orange brick building , red-orange roof tile, and if the record June gloom will permit , blue sky for sunny-sixteen testing.
regards
Ed

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
11-Jun-2009, 10:22
You would, of course, have to fix both sides of the negative after developing just one side.

Also, I don't think the the xrays effect the film directly. Rather, they cause the holders to emit green or blue light (phosphoresce?). So, an anti-halation layer--necessarily on the outside of the emulsion so it can be washed off--would prevent one of the sides from being exposed.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
11-Jun-2009, 11:03
Sure, I will try it when I have time, perhaps this weekend. I guess the question will be how much extra exposure to give it...

Gene McCluney
11-Jun-2009, 13:13
You would, of course, have to fix both sides of the negative after developing just one side.

Also, I don't think the the xrays effect the film directly. Rather, they cause the holders to emit green or blue light (phosphoresce?). So, an anti-halation layer--necessarily on the outside of the emulsion so it can be washed off--would prevent one of the sides from being exposed.


You are correct, modern Xray work is done with film cassettes that have phosphor screens on both sides of the sheet of film, and under Xrays they emit blue or green phosphoresence that exposes the film. X-rays do not directly expose the film.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
12-Jun-2009, 08:46
It doesn't look like there is a significant difference, but perhaps the limiting factor might be your lens. Half of a RR at f22 isn't all that sharp...

EdWorkman
12-Jun-2009, 12:38
So much for science- There doesn't seem to be a lot of difference and I hope that is true for contact prints.
my goal is to shoot some 7x17 [after 8x10 experience] so I'd like to see some contact prints anyways- and maybe I can see my own by monday.
Thanks for all the work!

venchka
12-Jun-2009, 12:46
I could be wrong. Always a distinct possibility. Wasn't the double sided emulsion question raised earlier in this discussion? The conclusion, from folks in the know, was that the emulsion on the back of the film wasn't exposed and removed during fixing.

It seems to me that even if there are traces of the second emulsion remaining, it just adds a bit of character to the x-ray film image. Use x-ray film because it looks like x-ray film. Does that make sense?

Jim Fitzgerald
12-Jun-2009, 20:28
This is cool as far as testing goes. I have 4 images to develop this weekend of some well lit rocks shot with my 11x14 and some green sensitive film. I used my 15" Ilex process lens and the images were all shot at F-64 or 90. I have some carbon tissue ready to print these on if I have good images. I have a similar image done on Efke-25 from the same area in the same type of light. Nothing scientific but I am confident that I will have a great image to share by the end of the weekend. I don't care about the how or why. If I get a great image and can print it in carbon then I will be happy. If I can only print it in silver then I'll still be happy as I am really shooting my free 11x14 x-ray film. I already have a portrait that I shot of my son and I am completely happy with that so I expect that my 'Sharp" images will be just fine.

Jim

Brian Bullen
15-Jun-2009, 19:42
Here is an example of Konica PPB (IIRC) 7x14 cropped from a 7x17 neg. This is just a test, I haven't quite nailed down the exposure yet. Shot at 64 developed in D76 1:1 for 7 minutes. The neg would be perfect for silver printing.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
16-Jun-2009, 08:29
Out of curiosity and some frustration with the occasional scratch I ordered one of the 11x14 hangers from here:
http://www.quickmedical.com/wolf_xray/darkroom_equipment/film_developing_hangers.html
It is well made, although as I suspected, it does pierce the negative in all four corners with a small hole. I will eventually make three dip tanks for the hanger.

Jim Fitzgerald
18-Jun-2009, 18:59
This is not the image I was referring to in the earlier post but it will do. I am reprinting this with the negative reversed on the same carbon tissue to see if there is any difference. It seems like in carbon there is some softening of the image. I do not have a problem with this and I think it will be okay for some of my future work.
Eventually I will print this on some Azo to compare but I like the final result of the x-ray film. I developed the negative in a tray in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 for 15 minutes. It gave me a DR of 2.32. The range of contrast in the scene was about 3 stops. The image has some awesome relief. Still some more testing to do and I have to make the hangers for the 11x14 because I did get some scratching but so far I'm very happy.

Jim

Jim Fitzgerald
18-Jun-2009, 22:10
Correction. I just printed the reverse of this image and I think I got it wrong to begin with. The image I just printed looks much sharper.
Jim

Philippe Grunchec
10-Jul-2009, 07:19
I was given today several sheets of FOMA Dentix Panoramic Green and Blue film (12,7x30,5cm) and Medix XBU (blue) / XG (green) film 35x43cm: does some know this films? Jiri?

EdWorkman
10-Jul-2009, 08:59
I am in the middle of testing CXS Blue for EI, along with lenscapshutter, filmholders for light leaks, development times, and maximum rise on my 2D.

I shot in mid day daylight using a Fuji 250 f6.7 with a shutter, and tried EI 125 and EI 250. BOth seem to be in the ballpark nicely.

For developing I used Clayton F60 concentrate, cuz I had unopened gallon
I started with 10 oz + 96 oz and got a very faint immage in 6 min, so I added 5 oz and tried 7 min- whooaaa boiler plate
BUt around 5-1/2 at 69 F appears to work pretty well- no contacts yet, just looking thru the neg. In the neg I even got separation of airplane contrails from the high blue sky, and separation of light roof from blue sky

I made a couple of seemingly good negs with a 180 Protar V from eddie gunks.
Like he said it would be- I never ran out of rise, and I need it for the feedmill.
Who knew it could come out so well- if I had known I wouldn't have marked the holder number on the film, in the sky, large, right at the peak of the feedmill roof peak.
Maybe prints tomorrow, then to re-shoot and try by about half.

I got a windowscreenframe hanger made for 8x10- the concept will work, I think, and tomorrow I'll dunk it in the trays to see how it stands up the the chemicals. If it does, I have a jig to assemble 7x17s- today's project is to see if I can finish the filmholder for the Bahnhof No2 7x17 panoramic Poco, that's has had me intimidated for a year or so.
I am verrrrrry slow, but thanks again to you folks who have shown the way

Wallace_Billingham
14-Jul-2009, 05:45
So, I taped the 8x10 negative to a clean surface using cellophane tape, sealing all four edges to that surface. Then using a soft 1/2" wide artist brush I reduced one side of the negative using common household Clorox bleach. That only takes a minute. A good wash, and now I have a single-sided negative.

Did you use the bleach full strength? Or did you dilute it at all?

Thanks!

Blair Ware
15-Jul-2009, 22:30
Dann, what a cliff hanger... looking forward to hearing about your results.

Your technique suggests a jobo drum could be used to develop the exposed side and the bleach to remove the backside.

Has anyone tried developing with a Unidrum where chemicals can get in between the drum and the backside of the film?

Blair Ware
16-Jul-2009, 03:51
So, if I don't to be a stripper, I better stay away from the drums. :)

david bailey
16-Jul-2009, 13:19
This may have been answered already, but can photographs taken with x-ray film be developed with x-ray developer? The reason I ask this is I work at a hospital that is in the process of going digital and there are literally thousands of unused x-ray film sheets and gallons & gallons of developer and fixer that I have dibs on, as no one else has any use for it. I had at first just been interested in the equipment -safety lights, film safes, etc., but when I read that x-ray film can be used in cameras (something I had wondered about for some time now) the idea getting all that free film along with the equipment is really exciting. Also, on the developer, can it be used on regular B&W film?

EdWorkman
16-Jul-2009, 13:47
David- you the man to tell US about the developer. I have found that the specialty stuff is described in ways foreign to "real" photography- even tho it may be useable. We depend on the kindness of strangers- to try stuff for which info is not available.
Obviously, that usually requires free or reeeeaaaaly cheap stuff for experiments.
So I hope you try it and find it useful. It "Should" work, as the film responds to pictorial use. You may find the developer has special characteristics, such as high contrast or short developing times or ??? , some of which you could counteract by dilution I suppose. Or see if Pat Gainer, who loves to mess about with developers and chemicals, wants to play.

eddie
16-Jul-2009, 16:39
I made a couple of seemingly good negs with a 180 Protar V from eddie gunks.
Like he said it would be- I never ran out of rise, and I need it for the feedmill.
Who knew it could come out so well- if I had known I wouldn't have marked the holder number on the film, in the sky, large, right at the peak of the feedmill roof peak.
Maybe prints tomorrow, then to re-shoot and try by about half.


show us the shots! you should try that lens on 11x14....:)

EdWorkman
16-Jul-2009, 16:56
Well eddie I DO plan to present one of them, if for no other reason than to show the tones- maybe I'll print in the next day or so......
As for 11x14, I don't have one- got any ideas ??

Jim Fitzgerald
16-Jul-2009, 19:54
Well eddie I DO plan to present one of them, if for no other reason than to show the tones- maybe I'll print in the next day or so......
As for 11x14, I don't have one- got any ideas ??

Ed, build one! It is lots of fun!

Jim

EdWorkman
17-Jul-2009, 06:32
Okay Jim
I'm almost done with Model 1a Poco- had to build an 8x10 spring back and the springs are just about done.
Boy have I learned a LOT about how things really go together- and how they don't.
Still struggling with my 7x17 filmholder- I gotta wait for my son to get his work done so he can cut some parts- springs for the light valves and a revised filmplane shim
If that works 11x14 should be easier cuz perhaps I'll have made most of the mistakes- and perhaps won't repeat some of them.
Thanks for your encouragement!

Jim Fitzgerald
17-Jul-2009, 07:16
Okay Jim
I'm almost done with Model 1a Poco- had to build an 8x10 spring back and the springs are just about done.
Boy have I learned a LOT about how things really go together- and how they don't.
Still struggling with my 7x17 filmholder- I gotta wait for my son to get his work done so he can cut some parts- springs for the light valves and a revised filmplane shim
If that works 11x14 should be easier cuz perhaps I'll have made most of the mistakes- and perhaps won't repeat some of them.
Thanks for your encouragement!

Ed, you can do it and with the valuable experience you have gained you know it is not as intimidating as the first one you build. I built the 8x20 first and that was fun but it took time. I purposely did not rush because I wanted to do it as good as I could. The camera works fine. The 11x14 was faster to build and I use it more than the 8x20 due to the fact that I have 300 sheets of green x-ray film that I virtually got for free. I am in Ventura and if you need some help just let me know.

Jim

david bailey
18-Jul-2009, 13:21
I went to the mamography room at the hospital where I work after posting and the tech told me that she worked with a guy who used to run his B&W film through the x-ray processor she didn't know what results he got, but he did it enough times that she felt they must have been satisfactory at least. So like you said, it being free, it's at least worth experimenting with. I think I'll try the gammit: Run the x-ray film through x-ray developer run B&W film through it and even try developing paper with it -as I've read x-ray film acts much like paper and that 'positive paper' stuff. I will keep you all posted.

Also, for anyone interested I saw that the x-ray film makes for some really interesting positive prints when used in lew of paper and back lit.

WayneStevenson
5-Aug-2009, 09:04
I see those sheet X-Ray processors go used some places for only a few hundred (as opposed to a couple thousand. Does anyone know if the times are programmable, for putting our own dev, and fix in , or say for C-41 dev / blix processing?

I am paranoid I am slowly getting poisoned by my chems working in such tight spaces. Heh. I would love to be able to just walk away from the tray developing. :D

DeBone75
26-Aug-2009, 15:04
For those who haved used both blue and green which did you like better and was it half or full speed. I have only used the green and was wandering how much of a difference between the two as far as contrast control.

nolindan
26-Aug-2009, 15:32
It seems LF photographers aren't the only ones using X-ray film for their own ends. See how this sounds to you: http://www.kk.org/streetuse/archives/2006/08/jazz_on_bones_xray_sound_recor_1.php

Philippe Grunchec
27-Aug-2009, 06:05
Do 8x10" Kodak or Fuji X-ray films fit into normal holders without any adaptation?

EdWorkman
27-Aug-2009, 07:31
Yes Xray 8x10 fits standard holders

Philippe Grunchec
27-Aug-2009, 07:43
Thanks for the quick answer, Ed!

Wallace_Billingham
27-Aug-2009, 08:11
For those who haved used both blue and green which did you like better and was it half or full speed. I have only used the green and was wandering how much of a difference between the two as far as contrast control.

are you looking for more or less contrast? I have now played with Green, Blue, and "Green Latitude" and it seems to me that the "Green Latitude" has much richer/expanded midtones than the regular Green or Blue films.

I have only shot them in Homemade 8x10 Pinholes however so YMMV.

BTW I see you are in Erie, I live down in Corry, nice to meet you

DeBone75
27-Aug-2009, 08:39
"BTW I see you are in Erie, I live down in Corry, nice to meet you"
Hi. I'm asking cause I just bought a case, very cheap, of the full speed blue. I've seen the work of some that have used it and it looked pretty good. As with any film it takes some learning and tweeking to get it nailed down. I have not gotten the film yet but I'm pumped. I have about 150 sheets of the green and like it. I was telling someone yesterday that I like photography in that you can always find some sort of nitch. I shoot 8X10 and that is a nitch. I shoot 8X10 with X-ray film and that is a nitch in a nitch He shoots macro digital stereo. A nitch.

Wallace_Billingham
27-Aug-2009, 10:09
well the nice thing about X-Ray film is that it is so cheap that even if you don't like it you are not out much.

The blue film renders green foliage very dark, so right now in summer I prefer the Green Latitude, however once the leaves drop and the snow begins to fly the blue film we become my goto film

Philippe Grunchec
27-Aug-2009, 11:11
Is it possible to develop the blue film under red safelight?

Robert Hughes
27-Aug-2009, 12:45
Is it possible to develop the blue film under red safelight?
According to Mortenson's 1939 book "The Negative", blue-sensitive and orthochromatic films should spend at least the first half of their development cycle in darkness; after that the emulsion becomes less sensitive to light and you can turn on a red safelight to view density buildup. Of course, YMMV; test first before you try it on your "Moonrise Over Hernandez"...

Wallace_Billingham
27-Aug-2009, 20:45
Is it possible to develop the blue film under red safelight?

I do it with both the green and the red using Red LED lights. I have not noticed any fogging

Jim Fitzgerald
27-Aug-2009, 21:05
I do it with both the green and the red using Red LED lights. I have not noticed any fogging

This is some timely info. I have some sheets of green x-ray 8x10 film to develop and I'm glad I did not get rid of that red safelight.

Wallace what kind of change do you see in the winter with the blue sensitive film and also has anyone used filters with this stuff. I need to do some testing to see the effect of filters on x-ray film.

Jim

Wallace_Billingham
28-Aug-2009, 06:57
This is some timely info. I have some sheets of green x-ray 8x10 film to develop and I'm glad I did not get rid of that red safelight.

Wallace what kind of change do you see in the winter with the blue sensitive film and also has anyone used filters with this stuff. I need to do some testing to see the effect of filters on x-ray film.

Jim

I would be carefull with a regular red safelight. My guess is you will be fine, but I know that some of them that use a regular light bulb behind a red filter can make other wavelengths of light as well. With the LEDs they only emit red light so you have no issues. This is a link to the blubs I use
http://www.superbrightleds.com/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?product=MR16#E27-x24

Someone else from this foum posted a link to it a few weeks ago. I use the "wide" red bulb. And it lights up my bathroom/darkroom pretty good.

I have not used the Blue yet in winter conditions. I plan on using it because there will not be any leaves on the trees then and I don't like the way that the Blue film renders the green foliage so dark, and I much prefer the green latitude for the way it seperates the values in the leaves. As I understand it the medical use for the green latitude film is for things like chest X-Rays of your lungs so you get better seperation of the midtones.

Around here in the heart of the Lake Erie Snow Belts we get tons and tons of snow, and have it on the ground pretty much all winter so my thinking is the blue film will work great and it is a bit faster which is nice for low winter light levels

Wallace_Billingham
28-Aug-2009, 07:18
also I should mention that I found a webpage online from a google search
http://www.andrewsanderson.com/docs/X-rayfilm.pdf

This guy does a lot of urban night photography and found that the orange light from sodium street lighting did not expose X-Ray film either. On a whim I loaded up 2 sheets of the green film using some spillover light shining in the window from the street lamp outside my house in my downstairs bathroom. No other lights were on in my house and it was otherwise dark outside. The light did not directly hit the film but bounced off the white walls so that I could see once my eyes adjusted to the dark. That film also turned out fine.

While not a full replacement for regular panchromatic B&W film, its ability to be used under red led safelight, and to not to be seemingly effected by a little spillover light from a street lamp, could come in pretty handy on trips when you need to change/load film in holders in things like a Motel bathroom.

It was also quite interesting to try develop sheet film using a safelight, where you can see what is going on. I developed 6 sheets of it over the weekend in Diafine (which works great with X-Ray film BTW) and when I dropped the film into solution B after soaking in solution A, it very rapidly developed into an image after only about 5 seconds. I am sure development continued after that in the shadows and I left it in for the full 3 minutes but I am pretty certain that about 95% of the development happens in the first 5 seconds

Jim Fitzgerald
28-Aug-2009, 08:56
Wallace thanks for the link on the red LED lights. In the past and still today when I develop my regular film I develop by inspection using Pyrocat-HD with a green safelight. The light is turned on and the film is checked when development is about 80% complete. I'll try a test sheet using the red safelight I have and this procedure to see what happens until the LED light arrives. Nice to know that in dim light you can develop x-ray film and I agree that this makes it great for those times when you develop in a motel. Heck I wonder if you could develop by campfire light? I can see it now trays on the table at the campsite!


Jim

WayneStevenson
1-Sep-2009, 20:50
I am going to do some experiments with this film to nail down exposure sensitivity, and
find development times for a standard (such as xtol, HC-110b, ID-11, etc).

Once I find the speeds and development times, I'll do comparitive photos of green sensitive, green latitude, blue, and half-speed blue for everyone so that I think everyone's questions will be answered.

Should have this all taken care of within a week's time hopefully.

Going to probably start with T-Max. Have litres of this junk I've been meaning to dump down the drain (shhhhh). I'm not a fan of it. Best to actually use it for anything I suppose. See what HC-110b will do to it as well.

Anyone tried either of those?

BetterSense
3-Sep-2009, 18:18
I appreciated the test of the scanned negative that had one emulsion removed. It looked like there wasn't much difference.

I test I would like to see now would be a double-sided contact print and a one-emulsion contact print. It almost seems like if the sharp side of the film was placed down, the back would act as a kind of "unsharp mask".

BetterSense
4-Sep-2009, 11:48
Very interesting. Thank you for the test.

It seems that very little sharpness is lost by the double-sidedness in a contact print. It could be that the xray film is less sharp than "real" film, but it looks like if it is, it's because of the emulsion itself and not due to the doublesidedness. The example images in the parent post of this thread do seem to show that the xray film is less sharp, although this could be development too.

I'm still not sure what to think of the increased density that would seem to result from a double-sided negative and how that would effect silver printing--I mean I don't know what "good" Xray negative should look like. It almost seems like if you underexpose enough to bring the overall density down to normal-looking levels, you would end up pushing the shadows out onto the toe. Then again, even twice the density is only a difference of .3 density.

Robert Hughes
5-Sep-2009, 09:48
I just received a box of the CXS house-brand 8"x10" green-sensitive film, and did a little experimenting last night. It's also orange-sensitive, so my first safelight exposure came out fully exposed - oops. It seems to expose about ASA 100 (similar to my Efke 100) but develops faster in D76, and since it's double sided has a much deeper black. The emulsion is very fragile when wet, but solid when dry, as others have noted. It also has a bluish tint to the base, similar to 1/4 blue or CTB gels. After bleaching off one side of the emulsion, the x-ray and Efke stocks were approximately similar. I found the sharpness of the film to be certainly sharp enough for contact printing - there's no antihalation layer of course, so some highlights may bloom. YMMV.

I expect that this film (with double sided emulsion) will work very well for the use I intend to make of it; contact print to cyanotype and other alternate print techniques. Over the next few weeks I'll be building a rough-and-ready 8x10 camera out of an old Wollensak lens and junk lumber, then see how it works.

BetterSense - I don't think underexposure is the solution to the x-ray film density issue. You may get less density overall, but you will lose shadow detail. You could try for extreme underdevelopment or water bath development for highlight control, but you may risk uneven processing then (I didn't try water bath). A spritz of Clorox on one side of the film is quick and very effective - but you risk leak through if there are any pinholes in the negative base (I noticed one on the sheet I bleached).

BetterSense
5-Sep-2009, 19:42
A spritz of Clorox on one side of the film is quick and very effective - but you risk leak through if there are any pinholes in the negative base (I noticed one on the sheet I bleached).

Are you even taping the edges of the negative down, then? You make it sound like you have discovered a good system for bleaching one side.

Jim Fitzgerald
6-Sep-2009, 09:05
Okay, here is an update on some recent 8x10 shots that I did. I use Pyrocat-HD to develop my negatives. For the x-ray film I use the 1:1:200 dilution. I developed the 8x10's in a tank and tried minimal agitation. I must say that hangers are the way to go with this film as there are no scratches at all and the Pyro hardens the emulsion. My times were 17 1/2 minutes and I got some good negatives. I shot the film at 100 and some of the scenes were low contrast and some high. 10 zones or more. I did develop a couple of sheets for 12 1/2 minutes and they were very thin.I have a foot switch that I use and I plugged it into my red safe light and checked development with no fogging that I can see. I just switched it on about 3/4 of the way through development.

I am going to try to develop some sheets next time using my standard agitation technique and watch development because I see no benefit to the minimal agitation at least for the x-ray film. Nothing scientific going on here but I'm going to re-shoot the scenes and then develop with a different approach. If I get some higher contrast all the better as I print alternative process carbon transfer.

I have not noticed a huge difference in sharpness when printing both sides. I print in carbon and I did do an 11x14 negative of the same scene printed both ways. You can see the sharpness difference when the negative is reversed. Could be that the negative is so big that it shows more. The high contrast of this film and the cost are a couple of great factors to consider for the alt. process printer.

Jim

EdWorkman
6-Sep-2009, 15:55
Jim
Thanks for the update. I have a day or so to go before I finish 3 tanks. The scratches from tray developing are daunting. I have tested a window-screen-frame film hanger by dunking it in the chemicals and, for very limited tests, see no corrosion issues.
The width of these hangers is extreme compared to "real" hangers, so the tank tests should reveal edge turbulence issues- glad to see a semi-stand approach is also viable.
Shoot I'm waay behind
regards
Ed

Jim Fitzgerald
6-Sep-2009, 16:17
Jim
Thanks for the update. I have a day or so to go before I finish 3 tanks. The scratches from tray developing are daunting. I have tested a window-screen-frame film hanger by dunking it in the chemicals and, for very limited tests, see no corrosion issues.
The width of these hangers is extreme compared to "real" hangers, so the tank tests should reveal edge turbulence issues- glad to see a semi-stand approach is also viable.
Shoot I'm waay behind
regards
Ed

Ed it is a matter of time isn't it? I still have to finish the 11x14 film hangers. I have the tanks but I've been immersed in carbon transfer printing and I need to get the hangers done. My 8x10 negatives are scratch free. I still need to test normal development with the film in tanks. With my red safelight I can easily judge when to pull the negative to get the required density for carbon printing. The Pyrocat-HD works great at controlling the highlights. Normally I use 1:1:150 for minimal agitation with great results. I think I'll try this dilution and normal agitation to see what I get. The developer is cheap as I mix it from scratch and the film is.... what can I say. I have 300 sheets of 11x14 which I got for almost free. Maybe .03 cents a sheet. Carbon transfer printing is cheap and my results are outstanding. Life is GOOD!

Jim

Wallace_Billingham
8-Sep-2009, 18:29
Just thought I would post an example of the CXS Brand Green Latitude film. I am pretty sure it is made by Kodak. This was shot in my homeade 8x10 Pinhole which I made just for this film. As you can see the green foliage gets very light with this film almost like an IR shot

Jim Fitzgerald
8-Sep-2009, 22:27
Wallace, thanks for posting this example. I think we all need to post some visuals of what we are doing with this film so we can see what it is all about. Very nice pinhole by the way.


Jim

Wallace_Billingham
9-Sep-2009, 07:39
Thanks Jim, I am really enjoying using this fiilm. I am not sure what to really rate it at. I only have four 8x10 holders so I did a series of 8 test shots each one stop apart. This shot was done for 8 minutes at around f/420 in cloudy light, that I metered at 1/100th at f/8 with 200 speed film. The 4 minute exposure was thin but would have been printable, and the 16 minute exposure was very dense and would have been hard to print.

Robert Hughes
9-Sep-2009, 07:53
Just thought I would post an example of the CXS Brand Green Latitude film. I am pretty sure it is made by Kodak. This was shot in my homeade 8x10 Pinhole which I made just for this film. As you can see the green foliage gets very light with this film almost like an IR shot

Wallace, pinhole is a perfect use for this film. I might try that myself. What size pinhole are you using? You might try a slightly larger pinhole to reduce diffraction. Are you involved with the f/295 pinhole (http://www.f295.org/) group? edit - I see you are - I'm looking at your "dreamy tree" photo over there right now.

Robert Hughes
9-Sep-2009, 08:07
oops, dbl post.

Raidahl
21-Sep-2009, 10:05
Okay, I might get some Agfa Curix Ortho ht-g X-ray film. Now I wonder hwo to exposure that, what is ASA value of the film, does enybody know? Also developer suggestions would be nice, I have Rodinal, Pyrocat HD, Ilfotec DD-X

EdWorkman
21-Sep-2009, 10:18
There is no ASA or ISO cuz it's not pictorial film
So that means you are on your own- sort of
If I had a box of it, from some limited experience with brandX, I'd try EI 100-200
Then I'd use your Rodinal 1:50 in the time range as for a "real" film in that speed range. I've done my testing with Clayton F60- not a mainstream developer, but sufficiently similar to vanilla. I'll probly have to re-test, but Xray film is CHEAP so I'm not worried. The main concern has been scratching of the emulsion on the "otherside", so my next shots will be developed on hangers- hey maybe this afternoon, if my good intentions pave a road to the feed mill
Others have reported their results, but I don't recal that any were for your specifics, but certainly everyone has been very helpful to me.

Raidahl
21-Sep-2009, 11:19
There is no ASA or ISO cuz it's not pictorial film
So that means you are on your own- sort of
If I had a box of it, from some limited experience with brandX, I'd try EI 100-200
Then I'd use your Rodinal 1:50 in the time range as for a "real" film in that speed range. I've done my testing with Clayton F60- not a mainstream developer, but sufficiently similar to vanilla. I'll probly have to re-test, but Xray film is CHEAP so I'm not worried. The main concern has been scratching of the emulsion on the "otherside", so my next shots will be developed on hangers- hey maybe this afternoon, if my good intentions pave a road to the feed mill
Others have reported their results, but I don't recal that any were for your specifics, but certainly everyone has been very helpful to me.

Okay, Thanks for this. All now is needed, is to win bid :) As you said, itīs cheap, 100pcs 30x40cm about 22$

Jim Fitzgerald
19-Oct-2009, 07:38
I thought it would be a good idea to post a recent shot done on the green sensitive x-ray film so that everyone can see how it handles skin tone. This image is posted in the portrait section also but since it is on x-ray film I thought some follow up here appropriate. The image had a 3 stop range when metered and was shot in natural daylight in the shade with a silver reflector to bounce a small amount of light back on her. I shot this at ISO 100 and developed in Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1.5:100 in an 8x10 tank on hangers with standard agitation for 10 minutes. When I read the density it came in at 2.20 DR. I printed this in carbon transfer and was a test image and the crop of the 8x10 is due to some compositional issues and some areas of the tissue that pulled during development. I will print this on some Azo when I get a chance and do some comparisons. I am very happy with the green x-ray film and for me and my carbon printing it fits the bill. It does build density quickly and I used my standard red safe light to monitor development.

Jim

Atlo
21-Oct-2009, 19:03
To the guy who was wondering about xraying the film in shipping, he shouldn't worry. my dad is a doctor and told me xray film isn't sensitive to xrays. they put rare earth sheets in front of it, which light up when xrays hit them. the light from the rare earth sheet is what exposes the film.
now i just need to buy some.

Philippe Grunchec
22-Oct-2009, 06:37
I must be "the guy": thanks!

Robert Hughes
22-Oct-2009, 07:23
I thought it would be a good idea to post a recent shot done on the green sensitive x-ray film so that everyone can see how it handles skin tone.
Thanks for the photo and explanation, Jim. I've got some of this stuff also, about to try it out in a home-made camera I'm building this month. Did you bleach off the 2nd side of emulsion, or develop with the intention of keeping both emulsions?

Jim Fitzgerald
23-Oct-2009, 07:30
Thanks for the photo and explanation, Jim. I've got some of this stuff also, about to try it out in a home-made camera I'm building this month. Did you bleach off the 2nd side of emulsion, or develop with the intention of keeping both emulsions?

Robert, thanks. I did not bleach this image at all. I have printed both sides of a negative before and I have noticed some differences in sharpness. I know that the key for me at least, is developing the film in hangers in tanks. The Pyrocat works great with x-ray film and the developer hardens the emulsion. No scratching at all and with the red safe light I can control the density range of the negative for my printing process. I still have some negatives to print that are landscape images where I used filters and I am curious to see the effect. I'll post them when I can.

Jim

wclavey
19-Nov-2009, 10:30
...resurrecting a thread from last month...

Here is a recent picture I shot on green-sensitive x-ray film, in some light shade. I actually made 3 exposures and this one was metered at 100 and developed in Diafine diluted 1:1 in a Jobo roller tank (so the actual speed of the film was probably around 50 or so). This is my first exposure with the green-sensitive film; all my prior work was done with blue-sensitive. I expected the foliage to look different, but the grass surprised me here.

Shen Hao, 210mm Sironar-N
http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/191904-2/WMC-img_760+sm.jpg

BetterSense
19-Nov-2009, 16:09
I've been testing CXS "green latitude" film. It works, and looks fairly normal, that is, more normal than paper negatives. I just can't seem to avoid scratching it, processing individually in trays. It seems to scratch if you look at it funny. It seems to be about 100 speed, but I admit I haven't been very scientific about exposing or developing it. I can easily handle and develop it under my LED safelight.

wclavey
19-Nov-2009, 18:28
I had few if any problems with the CXS blue film scratching, but this CXS green seems to have a much softer emulsion. I have several more sheets already cut to load into holders, but I have been waiting until I got a few tests done, so it looks like I can continue. I bought an LED safelight that had a cutoff well outside the sensitivity range for the blue film and used it for all my darkroom work - - for developing prints too. I wasn't sure the green film would be OK, but it seems to be.

Jim Fitzgerald
19-Nov-2009, 18:35
I shoot the green sensitive film in 8x10 and 11x14 and I find that it is sensitive to scratching even more so than my Efke. I use 8x10 tanks and hangers and use dilute Pyrocat-HD to develop and the neg's come out great. Still working on some 11x14 hanger designs.

Westley, nice image and it looks like the highlights and shadows are well under control. Can't beat the price of this stuff and I agree that I was surprised with the foliage color.

Jim

wclavey
20-Nov-2009, 08:22
I'm only 4 sheets into a box of 100, and each sheet becomes 4 4x5s, so I have a long way to go, but If I cannot find a way to deal with the soft emulsion, I'm going back to the blue sensitive film. Even though I like the way the foliage looks on the green, it requires too much touching up in Photoshop and it would be impossible to contact print - - which is really why I do 4x5. I have some nice contact 4x5 contact prints from the blue film.

EdWorkman
20-Nov-2009, 09:03
What Jim said
I have 8x10 hangers & am about done building tanks to hang them in- leak tests are all I lack . I have my Pyrocat HD. I just could not avoid horrid scratches in the trays.
80 sheets of blue and 100 sheets of green await exposure

BetterSense
20-Nov-2009, 09:05
I just got some film hangers coming in the mail; maybe using tank processing will help my scratching. It's good to know that the blue sensitive film is tougher, although I also like the look of the green.

SteveKarr
20-Nov-2009, 21:16
Hey Guys,
This X-Ray stiff is fun! I have 500 sheet of Agfa Blue. I had 50 sheets green and here are a few images... CHEAP! and looks like pushed Plus X to me ... I have `12 more of the Kodak blue to do tonite ... Dip & dunk ... Dip & Dunk ....

Steve

SteveKarr
20-Nov-2009, 21:17
Off topic ... I also shot the same fellow in Liquid light ... ASA 1 !

Jim Fitzgerald
20-Nov-2009, 21:19
Yes, dip n' dunk is the way to go with this stuff. Nice high contrast images Steve.

Jim

wclavey
21-Nov-2009, 09:44
I just got some film hangers coming in the mail; maybe using tank processing will help my scratching. It's good to know that the blue sensitive film is tougher, although I also like the look of the green.

Perhaps I am mistaken... I often am (my wife says that I may be wrong, but I'm never in doubt!)...

But it seems to me that, at least in my case, the scratches are probably coming from the cutting process and not from the developing process. I develop it in the Jobo 2509 reels and I would have thought that if it were there, I would have seen it in other films... there just isn't much room in the development process for scratching to come into the process. However, cutting 8x10 down to 4x5 provides plenty of chance for that. I think, in fact, that since the top of my work surface on which I do the cutting is plywood, I think that simply having it fall onto the surface from the paper cutter and then the process of picking it up probably introduces scratches. I should put a piece of glass or something under the paper cutter.

I was an x-ray technician for about 9 years back in the 1970s and we processed all our film on hangers in narrow dip & dunk tanks... I could get about 6 hangers into a single tank about 3.5 inches wide with no scratching - - and the film was generally a mix of 3 different sizes. I could see how the shuffling process of tray development might introduce scratches, but not hangers and not the 2509 reel.

The insides of the x-ray cassettes were very smooth - - much smoother than the inside of a 4x5 film holder. The film glided over the surface of the phosphorous sides. If a holder has any rough spots in it and you are using regular film, it may not be enough of an issue unless it gouges the film base - - but it could probably do a real number on emulsion. I am currently using my oldest 4x5 holders for fooling around with the x-ray film - - perhaps I should buy a few newer ones instead.

SteveKarr
21-Nov-2009, 10:15
Hey everyone,
So last night at 2:30 am I was doing some scanns for proof & couldn't help myself. The scans are lame, but there may be potential ....

A friend that's also a shooter. He did portraits at Burning Man and this is a gallery showing of the images. But he used FP4+ ... how 1998's is that!!!! Ha

Robert Hughes
21-Nov-2009, 10:16
I'm using the CXS green-sensitive film and developing in trays. I do have to be easy with this stuff and try not to abrade the surface while agitating (usually not a problem with regular film), but when I get the hang of it I can hold the scratches down to a retouchable, minimal level. And the images are fun to work with! 8x10 has a whole different feel, I've never experienced it before.

BetterSense
21-Nov-2009, 17:46
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2568/4123525938_5c2c63bd1b_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2615/4123525940_ff373220d1_o.jpg

Couple pics on green film. Note scratching (and dark-colored brick)

Jim Fitzgerald
22-Nov-2009, 21:41
I think the cutting process is a problem with x-ray film. You need to be very careful when loading the film holders and unloading them. If you do this and use hangers you should be okay. Use a pyro based developer for its hardening ability and you should be good to go.
Jim

SteveKarr
22-Nov-2009, 22:14
Jim,
I have been playing with D-76 1:1 at around 8 min in Tanks or trays. What Pyro mix are you using and what times & ASA's ?

Thanks ... just trying to get a head start & save some materials and time,

Steve

Jim Fitzgerald
24-Nov-2009, 21:54
Jim,
I have been playing with D-76 1:1 at around 8 min in Tanks or trays. What Pyro mix are you using and what times & ASA's ?

Thanks ... just trying to get a head start & save some materials and time,

Steve

Steve, I'm using Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 in tanks for about 10-14 minutes. I am developing my negatives for carbon transfer printing and I try to get the DR up to about 2.00-2.40. I can build density nicely with this combo and the Pyro hardens and helps tame the highlights and the carbon printing takes care of the rest.

I use my red safe light during the development process to inspect the negatives. Very easy to do with the red safe light. No scratches at all this way.

Jim

SteveKarr
24-Nov-2009, 22:50
Hey Jim,
Thanks I have the same soup... What agitation do you use or stand? And 100 asa ...?

Steve

SteveKarr
25-Nov-2009, 12:04
Hi X-Ray'ers,

Just a note on Film choices. I just bought & tested Agfa Cronex 10T half speed blue. I got 500 sheets 810 for $50 shipped.

But after 4 rounds of film testing this film is a little higher contrast than the Kodak T-Mat HRA green by a zone or so in the highlights... no big deal... BUT is 12 ASA under daylight unlike the Kodak Green that is a solid 100 Asa.

So just a heads-up if you are thinking of buying 1/2 speed XRay... it is really 3 stops slower.


Didn't someone mention Diafine? X-Ray has such a thin emulsion coating, but maybe is worth a test.
FWIW...
Steve

Wallace_Billingham
25-Nov-2009, 12:21
Didn't someone mention Diafine? X-Ray has such a thin emulsion coating, but maybe is worth a test.
FWIW...
Steve

I have used Diafine with great results

SteveKarr
25-Nov-2009, 12:45
Hey Wallace,
So what's the secret? Still 3 min in each? Do you do trays or hangers? And dare I ask about ASA?

Also did I read you dilute the soup??

Hmmm ....

Thanks for replying...
Steve

SteveKarr
25-Nov-2009, 19:44
Ok,
So trying to show some control over this darn X-Ray film I did some tests the last few nights. I found:

1) The ASA and development times in D-76 1:1 to give a med gray card 130 with the color picker.

2) Blue sensitive Looks really different than Green ... Who woo'da guessed?
In my test the wall is Kermet green. And the Green sensitive is on the Left ...

My test were not to find first image above base fog, or .000001 on a densitometer ...But simply Middle Gray. So I metered off a gray card with a Minotla F Spot & scanned in SilverFast with NO adjustments anywhere. Not even black/white points.

So Kodak HRA Green sensitive a solid 100asa 7.5 min D-76 1:1 68*
Agfa 10T 1/2 Speed Blue 12asa 9 min D-76 1:1 68*



So here yea go ... Enjoy
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/9876/xrayagfatmathracompare.jpg (http://img509.imageshack.us/i/xrayagfatmathracompare.jpg/)

Wallace_Billingham
25-Nov-2009, 20:34
Hey Wallace,
So what's the secret? Still 3 min in each? Do you do trays or hangers? And dare I ask about ASA?

Also did I read you dilute the soup??

Hmmm ....

Thanks for replying...
Steve

Hi Steve,

I use a system of 9 trays. For the trays I use Rubbermaid dishpans from Wal-Mart @ $1.88 a pop I also do everything under a Red LED safelight so I can see everything. I also do this in my Bathroom/Darkroom. Also all the chemicals are mixed per the standard box directions.

In tray 1 I use plain tap water as a preasoak. This tray sits on the back left corner of my vanity/sink.

In tray 2 I use Diafine A this sits on the front left corner of the sink

In tray 3 I use Diafine B this sits on the front right corner of my sink

In tray 4 I use plain water as a stop bath and that sits in the back right corner of the sink

In tray 5 I use cheapy Freestyle Brand "Arista" liquid rapid fixer and that sits on the back of the "throne"

I then set up 4 more trays in the bottom of my bathtub all filled with plain tap water.

I do one sheet at a time in each tray and just drop it in and let it float for 4 minutes then I move them down the line. I only have four 8x10 film holders and I develop all 8 sheets from them at one time.

I find that with the Diafine in trays you do not really need to have any significant agitation. What I do is gently lay the film sheet on top of the solution and it will slowly sink but never really get flat on the bottom. I very carefully lift the sheet out of the solution and flip it over 2 or 3 times during the 4 minutes in each cycle. Going right down the line. You need to be careful not to get any Part B into the Part A tray I wear disposable netrile medical exam gloves and only use my left hand for part A and since I am right handed I use my right hand for everything else. I also do not use tongs but just gently use my hands with the gloves and try to grab the sheets by the corner.

Every tray gets around 4 minutes of soak. That is probably more time than is needed for the fix but it really does not hurt anything. Also I don't sweat it if it goes for longer as it will not hurt anything and when you have all 8 trays going it is pretty hetic.

For the 4 trays of rinse water I fill a new one up for each sheet in the tray under the faucet and slide the rest down that way the final rinse tray is always 100% fresh water. So each sheet of film sits in the rinse water baths for 16-20 minutes.

It seems to work well for me and I have not had any serious issues with scratching.

What I notice doing Diafine under safelight is that once the sheet hits Part B in only a few seconds it very quickly gets an image on it. My guess is that 90+% of the development happens in the first 10 seconds

Jim Fitzgerald
25-Nov-2009, 21:10
Hey Jim,
Thanks I have the same soup... What agitation do you use or stand? And 100 asa ...?

Steve

Steve, I'm using minimal agitation. Agitate for 1 1/2 minutes at first, after pre soak that is, then once every three minutes for 10 seconds. ISO 100 is right on and the great thing is you do not have to worry about reciprocity! I have some shots that I metered @ 20-30 seconds and shot them at that time and the negs are great.

Jim

wclavey
29-Nov-2009, 18:51
Didn't someone mention Diafine? X-Ray has such a thin emulsion coating, but maybe is worth a test.
FWIW...
Steve

Yes, I too am using Diafine, but each solution is diluted 1:1 with water I use it in a Jobo rotary tank process. I used it on the High Speed blue sensitive and it worked very well. I have been using it on the little of the green that I have been testing and it seems to work fine there, too, although, at least with Diafine on the normal speed green (CXS brand), 100 is too much exposure.

GOLDFISH
6-Dec-2009, 13:21
sorry i came late to the classroom :) Ok i just got KODAK Medical X-Ray Film / General Purpose / Green ..SO
1.Can i use xtol Dev?
2.Should I pr-soak?
3.what iso should i set ?
4.Im gonig to use my Cpp2 (is it good idea or not?)

SteveKarr
6-Dec-2009, 13:59
Goldfish ....

Get some snacks & read the whole thread. It is 98% of what you need to know to make X Ray look great.

Use hangers... BTW

Jim Fitzgerald
7-Dec-2009, 06:24
GOLDFISH, I've had success with pre-soak and develop in a weak Pyrocat-HD. Use hangers for sure. I shoot my green sensitive @ ISO 100.

Jim

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
3-Jan-2010, 18:17
After quite a bit of effort, and nearly 50 sheets of film, I have finally managed to produce a negative from green sensitive xray which is comparable to regular panchromatic film.

My goal was to produce a negative for kallitypes, primarily studio portraits. I use Rodinal 1:100 in a flat bottomed tray with 1 liter of solution (convenient and cheap). My negatives swung between having compressed tonality--resulting in weird blotchy skin tones--or blown highlights. The key for me was using the ideas in D.F. Cardwell's article "Shaping the tone curve of a Rodinal Negative" (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/69617-shaping-tone-curve-rodinal-negative.html) to compensate for the oddities of X-Ray film. I dropped my ASA from 100 to 64, which produced nice rich skin tones, and also significantly reduced by agitation, which tamed my highlights. I did not change my development time of 6 minutes nor my dilution of 1:100 which I had come to through a failed (and lame) attempt to apply BTZS ideas to xray film.

As (hopefully) you can see from the attached scan (an 8x10 crop of an 11x14 negative, with only very minor adjustments), my negatives are quite sharp, and most importantly, produce great kallitypes. Much of the sharpness I should attribute to using strobes (which I am a novice, so please forgive the double catch-lights and other flaws in the attached sample). This was of great help, since it reduced the number of variables I was working with. Anyhow, it is too dark and rainy to go out with an 11x14.

EdWorkman
4-Jan-2010, 13:00
Jason-congratulations.
Did you encounter [and conquer] the scratching problem some of us have had when tray processing/ [ with the blue film]?

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
4-Jan-2010, 13:22
No, that remains the Achilles heel. I use a smooth bottom stainless tray, but continue to have some scratches, caused I think by my washer. I had fewer when using a hardener in my fixer (I ran out of alum and haven't bought more), but am considering using either a prehardening bath or a hardening stop. Anyone have any experience with these? I do have an 11x14 tank set and one hanger, but really don't want to mix up five gallons of chemicals.

Another issue is a light scum which forms on the surface of the negatives. I can usually brush it off in a final rinse in distilled water and photoflo, but I don't always manage to remove it. No idea what causes it, as it is not present with my panchromatic films. I was thinking about trying some of the fix from CXS and seeing if that reduces it.

EdWorkman
4-Jan-2010, 17:28
Freestyle had a clearance of hardener so I got some to try- just haven't got back to the darkroom. It is touted for alternative process/liquid emulsion type things so I assumed it would not kill developers, and I figure that'e the place I gotta have help. Actually I tried using only a hardening fixer and scratched the neg- the only "good" thing about it is the scratches are in the sky and I can probably spot the neg and then the prints. So then I saw the pre-hardener and ordered it.
I owe you and others reports on my experiments- but I haven't got anything to work better, yet
Thanks loads
regards
Ed

Michael Batchelor
4-Jan-2010, 18:06
Another issue is a light scum which forms on the surface of the negatives. I can usually brush it off in a final rinse in distilled water and photoflo, but I don't always manage to remove it. No idea what causes it, as it is not present with my panchromatic films. I was thinking about trying some of the fix from CXS and seeing if that reduces it.

I've been following this thread for a while, planning to get in on this later in the spring.

Congratulations on your success, BTW. It looks great.

As for the scum, I have experienced and read about the gelatinous layer that forms on EFKE films if you do not use a hardener in the fixer. My experience with that has been that if you ignore it then it dries into a hard invisible film on the surface of the emulsion.

Is this similar? If you do not remove the scum, then it dries and is not an issue? Or are the negatives compromised by the contamination?

Michael

Andrew O'Neill
4-Jan-2010, 18:31
You can reduce scratches with a tanning deveoper like Pyrocat-HD. I've had no problems.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
4-Jan-2010, 20:47
What I have on my negatives can easily be removed in a second wash, so long as I wipe it off with my gloved hand. It could probably be squeegeed off, but I am afraid to try. I think it is something in my fixer reacting to the film, or perhaps a reaction to my citric acid stop? Too many variables. Others have recommended pyrocat, but I have never much liked the results I get with staining developers, so haven't tried.

For what it is worth, I just looked at the attachment I posted, and noticed that it looks a lot worse in the conversion into JPG, so please know that it is actually quite a bit nicer in reality.

BetterSense
4-Jan-2010, 20:49
I've taken to developing my Xray by inspection via infrared goggles. The character of the density buildup is very different than pictorial films. Usually picture films develop density slowly, almost at a decaying rate, so that hitting the correct development time is easier. Xray film is the opposite....several minutes go by with no image formation at all, making me think it's not exposed, and then the image starts to build, and then within the space of probably 30 seconds the density shoots up to the value that I want. I have to really pay attention to throw the sheet in the stop when it looks right. I imagine developing by time/temp would be somewhat difficult, though maybe not.

EDIT: actually with my LED safelight, I can develop green Xray film under red safelight. I develop my normal sheet film with IR goggles though, and sometimes I mix them, so I use the IR goggles then for both.

wclavey
5-Jan-2010, 09:47
I have a question on scratching and I will admit right up front that I have not gone back and looked at my pages of x-ray film negatives... Does anyone think that some of the scratching may come from being loaded with an emulsion side against the back of the film holder? I would think that it would mean all the scratches would generally run linearly in the direction of the film loading and unloading... and that's what I plan to check - - I just can't do it from work. I know that I pick up some scratches from the cutting process when I am not careful about the pieces being cut and they fall onto the plywood table top... those are definitely my fault.

venchka
5-Jan-2010, 10:17
A piece of felt on the plywood?

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
5-Jan-2010, 10:18
My scratches do not run in the direction of the film loading, but usually run at about a 45 degree angle from the sides. For what it is worth, my 11x14 holders are old and rough, but don't seem to scratch the film.

wclavey
5-Jan-2010, 13:15
A piece of felt on the plywood?

I'm going to put a sheet of glass down on the table on the cutting blade side of the paper cutter... so that the film that drops from the cut falls onto the smooth glass... so it should be lower impact to the film surface and easier to pick up... I also want to be more "purposeful" in my placement of the 8x10 sheet into the stops I glued to the paper cutter for making the actual cut... placing it in the right spot, being careful not to slide it into the right spot...

EdWorkman
6-Jan-2010, 09:29
My scratches are rather short and very random- I blame myself in handing the film in the tray- even one-at-a-time. Smooth bottom trays allow me to make scratches with my fingernails I guess. I have six sheets loaded for an excusion today, and good intentions to use hangers in tanks in Pyrocat HD. BTW, early-on I had successful tests but forgot that writing on the film to identify a sheet [at the loading flap] would end up in an important part of the image.
so it goes

Robert Hughes
12-Jan-2010, 10:59
What's the best technique for tray development with this X-ray (green sensitive) film? Earlier I agitated vigorously and flipped the sheet every couple minutes, but got lots of scratches. Yesterday I let the film sit 5 minutes/side with gentle sloshing; the scratches were a lot less, but I had uneven development (a lot of buildup at the edges of the frame). :confused:

BetterSense
13-Jan-2010, 22:16
What's the best technique for tray development with this X-ray (green sensitive) film?

Don't tray process. I never fully solved it, and went to hangars, thanks to the generosity of my hangar-donor.

Gene McCluney
13-Jan-2010, 23:32
Don't tray process. I never fully solved it, and went to hangars, thanks to the generosity of my hangar-donor.


Hangers only work for up to 8x10 (in general) and other odd large sizes such as 7x17 and 8x20, 20x24 all have to be tray processed because of lack of hangers and tanks to accomodate.

BetterSense
14-Jan-2010, 00:54
True. I was only thinking about 4x5 because that's what I shoot.

EdWorkman
14-Jan-2010, 14:06
DannL
As I understand it, access of chemical to the backside is problematic in Jobo- but real Jobophiles can weigh in here. So unless one bleaches the emulsion off the back Jobo might not work well. Then again, if the rear emulsion is removed tray processing should not be such a scratch problem

venchka
14-Jan-2010, 14:09
Plain water dissolves the backing layers on normal film in my Jobo 3010. I imagine that fixer would get back there too and remove the second emulsion. Ooops. Senior moment. The print tubes may be different.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
14-Jan-2010, 14:24
It is quite possible to use 11x14 hangers. These are still made by Wolf and are available new for about $50 per piece. The tanks are available used on eBay, and yesterday i even saw a complete 11x14 tank set with sink and inserts for sale (although it was in Billings, Montana). The problem for me is that the tanks take 5 gallons of chemicals to fill! Too much for me.

Richard M. Coda
14-Jan-2010, 15:10
I know you're right. For that reason I always bleach the emulsion off the back. Its just another step like fixing and washing. My concern here, I suppose, would be an even development over the entire sheet of film (the front emulsion layer only).

I bought some Xray film to play around with on 11x14. I believe it is double coated.

I have never bleached anything. How do you bleach just one side of a negative without affecting the other side with the fixed image? Tape to glass?

I appreciate your guidance.

Thanks.

Rich

BetterSense
14-Jan-2010, 15:38
It's discussed earlier in the thread if you can find it. I believe it involves taping the negative to glass with masking tape, and using household bleach and a brush to remove the second emulsion. I've never tried it myself.

EdWorkman
14-Jan-2010, 15:53
AAhhh
I didn't realize the bleach step was AFTER development, [ big fat duuuh here].
So the rear/bottom emulsion gets exposed,developed,discarded, and all my scratches go with it? Or do i worry about almost not visible scratches in the gelatine layer- from which silver compounds have been bleached?
regards
Ed

Richard M. Coda
14-Jan-2010, 16:03
Thanks for the procedure. Seems simple enough that even I could do it! :)

Michael Batchelor
14-Jan-2010, 17:11
....1. Always remember what side of the film originally faced the lens. This is the emulsion side we protect.

Since this can be worked under safelight, it seems to me that it would be prudent to use a single hole punch or a pair of scissors to notch the film in the "customary" upper right corner when loading the holders. That would make it a lot easier to make certain you're working the proper side when removing the extraneous emulsion.

Or maybe it already is notched if you aren't cutting it down from large sheets.

EdWorkman
14-Jan-2010, 17:14
No notches, or, I don't got to show you no steeenkin notches.
On 8x10 all 4 corners are rounded- hmm If one cuts to 4x5, the round corner serves

DeBone75
16-Jan-2010, 06:34
Tried the emulsion stripping last night. Worked rather well. Most of my scratches seem to happen while trying to pull the fill out of the holder. Rough fingers, fragile film not always a good mix.

DeBone75
17-Jan-2010, 12:43
I didn't have any painters tape so I used scotch tape. Wouldn't recommend it. To hard to get off. I used straight bleech in a spray bottle and a sponge brush .Other than that worked like a charm. My negs tend to be a little on the dense side anyway so this just evens it out.

gbogatko
18-Jan-2010, 21:27
Just got a delivery of film. This using the Kodak stuff -- first time out. VERY happy it's only about .25 a 'plate.'

Gosh, it's BLUE after development (D76) -- kinda like the Aristo.edu 400. Funky stuff.

Confession: The attachment's been photoshop'd to get rid of the shmutz and flare, but this is pretty much what the camera captured.

George

Jim Fitzgerald
30-Jan-2010, 18:20
I put this in the alternative section but since it is shot on Green sensitive X-ray film I decided to post it here also. The negative was developed in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:150 in a tank for 16 1/2 minutes and printed in carbon.

Jim

Jim Fitzgerald
1-Feb-2010, 09:07
Well, I thought I would post some follow up info for everyone using this film. I have been working on finding the developing that works the best for me and my eventual required negative density range for my carbon printing using the green sensitive film.
Here is a what I found. I develop in Pyrocat-Hd. I am using 1 gallon tanks and developing 4 sheets at a time. I am using 30ml of A, 30ml of B and 3600ml of water. I presoak for 5 minutes and then agitate for 1 1/2 minutes and then 10 seconds agitation every three minutes. I develop this way for 18 1/2 minutes and then I agitate normally for the last 3 minutes. 10 seconds every minute. The negatives match a similar image I have on Efke 25. My DR came in at 2.45Dr which for a carbon printer is very nice. The tonal ranges is outstanding with great shadow detail and the highlights under control. I can't wait to print the negatives. I do not have a way to scan the negatives and post them but I will post the print when I get it done. This works very well for me and my process and YRMV. I used an ISO of 80 for the green sensitive film BTW.

Jim

Robert Hughes
26-Mar-2010, 08:23
Last night I tried bag processing a sheet of green ortho X-ray film, and was happily surprised with results. I used a 1 gallon zip-lock bag that just fits a sheet of 8x10 film, and poured in the chemicals, vigorously sloshing it around in a tray to keep leaks from spilling around.

The results? A lot less scratching of the (very soft and touchy, 2 sided) emulsion - and I wasn't being overly gentle either. I'm going to revisit this in the future. :)

EdWorkman
26-Mar-2010, 08:39
Thanks for the tip
I've had a coupla sheets of Blue to develope for a few months and have dreaded repeating my past scratches-
regards
Ed

Jim Fitzgerald
26-Mar-2010, 18:40
I would be interested in the outcome also. I did get my supplies for my 11x14 hangers that I have in mind to make. If they work out I'll be sure to post an update. It will take me some time but I will update everyone. Using hangers for my 8x10 I have not scratched any x-ray film.

Jim

Andrew O'Neill
5-May-2010, 10:54
I like your ziplock bag trick. I'll give it a shot. I have been using 8x10 hangers, but that requires a hell of a lot of developer.

Jim, is your pyrocat at 21C?

sanking
8-May-2010, 06:09
Well, I thought I would post some follow up info for everyone using this film. I have been working on finding the developing that works the best for me and my eventual required negative density range for my carbon printing using the green sensitive film.
Here is a what I found. I develop in Pyrocat-Hd. I am using 1 gallon tanks and developing 4 sheets at a time. I am using 30ml of A, 30ml of B and 3600ml of water. I presoak for 5 minutes and then agitate for 1 1/2 minutes and then 10 seconds agitation every three minutes. I develop this way for 18 1/2 minutes and then I agitate normally for the last 3 minutes. 10 seconds every minute. The negatives match a similar image I have on Efke 25. My DR came in at 2.45Dr which for a carbon printer is very nice. The tonal ranges is outstanding with great shadow detail and the highlights under control. I can't wait to print the negatives. I do not have a way to scan the negatives and post them but I will post the print when I get it done. This works very well for me and my process and YRMV. I used an ISO of 80 for the green sensitive film BTW.

Jim

I am considering buying some of the green sensitive for use with my large camera (with a 10X24" reducing back) but am worried about scratches, both in cutting the film down and in processing. My original idea was to develop in a 20X24" drum but from what you all have indicated the back of the film may scratch in inserting the film in the drum and removing it. Does the film scratch easily when dry, or does it only scratch when wet?

Have anyone tried a pre-soak in a hardening bath?

Sandy

Andrew O'Neill
8-May-2010, 08:36
Hi Sandy,

I've been using the green sensitive film on and off for about a year now. The film scratches very easily when wet, but not so when dry. I have on the other hand, lightly scratched the film when inserting it into a film holder, so insertion has to be done with caution. To avoid this, I slip a wasted piece of film halfway into the holder before inserting the x-ray film. Seems to help.
I've cut x-ray with an exacto knife with no problems. Just have to be very careful. I imagine a rotary type cutter would work okay, as long as a protective paper was layed over top of the film.
Since the film has emulsion on both sides, I'm not sure if it would develop evenly in a drum. I use a flat bottom tray, agitate very little... and gently. The more I use this film, the more I like it.
What would you recommend for a hardening bath? Never tried one, but would like to.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
8-May-2010, 09:44
I think that most prehardening baths use formalin, which I don't have so I have never tried it. Still I think a prehardening bath would work well. I currently use an alum-based hardening stop, which works well.

The film will scratch very easily wet or dry, so cutting will be a challenge. I imagine a rotary cutter would be best, but you will need to put a soft cloth on the base of your cutter and be careful while slipping it under the guide.

I currently line the bottom of my trays with a sheet a glass (obviously plastic would work too) and tray develop one 8x10 or 11x14 sheet at a time. For green sensitive (ISO 64) I use Rodinal 1:100 for 6 minutes (DR=1.4 with studio strobes) and agitate for three seconds every 30. I have very few scratches on my negatives. I would use hangers, but making gallons of chemicals is not economical for my limited use of the film.

Before buying a lot, make sure it is sharp enough for your purposes. I have not found the commonly available blue or green double-sided xray film to be very sharp, but it works for me as a cheap replacement for film.

EdWorkman
8-May-2010, 11:10
I ran across some prehardener in the "Hot Deals" section of the Freestyle site , bought some, but have yet to try it. As it is intended for alternate/homemade emulsions I figure it won't hurt development.

jb7
8-May-2010, 11:52
Stupid question-
would this stuff survive international postage?
Any chance it's insensitive to the wavelengths used by scanners?

sanking
8-May-2010, 12:16
Before buying a lot, make sure it is sharp enough for your purposes. I have not found the commonly available blue or green double-sided xray film to be very sharp, but it works for me as a cheap replacement for film.

Does the lack of sharpness come from the coating on both sides? And is all of the xray film coated on both sides? Jim Fitzgerald is using this stuff for carbon transfer printing, which is a very sharp process, (with ULF negatives at that) and I can not imagine that he would be using the stuff if it did not give sharp results.

Sandy King