Enlarging onto X-ray film

[false_Aesthetic]

Anyone ever stuck Xray film under an enlarger with some success?


I saw a dude make prints on xray film about 8 years ago. Can't remember the name can't find it on the net.

Figured ya'll might have an idea.

[ic-racer]

If you use the 'X-ray copy film' you can make big negatives for UV-light contact printing.

[Roger Cole]

If you use the 'X-ray copy film' you can make big negatives for UV-light contact printing.

Well that's one answer to the question I was going to ask of, "why?"

Enlarged negatives for alternative process contact printing did occur to me, but won't you need two generations to get back to a negative, picking up contrast in both steps? Can the stuff be reversal processed? Or can it be developed to low enough contrast that two stages give a good result? Come to think of it, though I've never dabbled in alternative processes, I think many of them require more contrast and density anyway, don't they?

[EdWorkman]

IF
you want big negs from a neg you can try Xray dupe film, also known at Photowarehouse as Direct Duplicating Film
Back in the threads someplace you will find info.
But to repeat what I have said
I use it to dupe negs, by contact and by projection.
The stuff is slow, at least under my Beslaer 8x10 enlarger
For contact I take the lens out.
For projeection , to get a larger neg and to be able to dodfe and burn, I use an appropriate lens stopped down a couple.
For about 2x- 116 t0 5x7-ish, a reasonable neg takes 6-8 minutes, and you better not move or breathe or vibration will kill it.
Contrast is usually a problem of "too much" rather than too little, and I've used that to salvage a neg that had nearly faded away. Now I have a printable neg, albeit gritty.
Higher contrast------print developer.
More normal contrast, or less hassle to avoid bumping it up, I use Clayton 76 film developer.
Direct dupe is not a reversal process, it's, well, direct, one step "just like" printing, only you have a new negative.
Only drawback is very slow speed, but beats the poo out of many alternatives

[dsphotog]

I think maybe the OP had in mind a positive , perhaps to display backlit in a window or a lightbox.

[false_Aesthetic]

I think maybe the OP had in mind a positive , perhaps to display backlit in a window or a lightbox.

bingo.

though the idea of enlarging a MF or 35mm neg to make a larger contact for alt process sounds fun.

[rjmeyer314]

What you want is duplicating film. Kodak has marketed this under many names. I think the last I used was called something like "Kodak Versalite TDF", where the DF stands for duplicating film, and I presume the T is for Tungsten. You expose this stuff just like paper and develop it in Dektol and you get a negative. You don't need to go through the step of getting an "internegative" positive transparency. I use this stuff when I want to make a copy of a negative from my 11x14 view camera. I then cut out a section and can make enlargements of that in my 8x10 Elwood enlarger.

[EdWorkman]

Ok, make a positive from a neg
Same as with ortho - but two sides to the emulsion- dunno how that affects the "look" .
YOU try it, it's a heck of a lot cheaper than anything else- ortho film, paper, etc.

[jp]

IF
you want big negs from a neg you can try Xray dupe film, also known at Photowarehouse as Direct Duplicating Film
Back in the threads someplace you will find info.
But to repeat what I have said
I use it to dupe negs, by contact and by projection.
The stuff is slow, at least under my Beslaer 8x10 enlarger
For contact I take the lens out.
For projeection , to get a larger neg and to be able to dodfe and burn, I use an appropriate lens stopped down a couple.
For about 2x- 116 t0 5x7-ish, a reasonable neg takes 6-8 minutes, and you better not move or breathe or vibration will kill it.
Contrast is usually a problem of "too much" rather than too little, and I've used that to salvage a neg that had nearly faded away. Now I have a printable neg, albeit gritty.
Higher contrast------print developer.
More normal contrast, or less hassle to avoid bumping it up, I use Clayton 76 film developer.
Direct dupe is not a reversal process, it's, well, direct, one step "just like" printing, only you have a new negative.
Only drawback is very slow speed, but beats the poo out of many alternatives

This Xray duplicating film can have different contrasts depending on the developer used. Did some tests here: http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/lff/xray/_DSC1802.jpg

Found dektol mixed with Xtol made a nice pleasant positive.

[UberSquid]

has anyone ever thought of making a positive image this way and mounting it on top of a nice glossy white surface? I read about using Opal Glass for prints, it seems you could do a poor mans version with ink jet paper and a mat.

[UberSquid]

I did it last night to see what happens. I picked up some 8x10 Kodak green sensitive latitude x-ray film to shoot in my 4x5 camera. Since I have so much I figured it would be a fun experiment so I exposed a sheet under my enlarger for 1.5 seconds and developed it in Dektol since that was what I had out running prints. It came out ok, the image was well exposed but the idea of putting it on a paper mat to be able to see the image didn't work. The blue base is just too dark, you can't really pick out the image. When I held it up to the light it shows up nicely though. I'm thinking now about scanning it and printing the scan on an inkjet printer. The blue cast might make for an interesting print. My wife also suggested sandwiching it between two pieces of glass and hanging it in the window. I might try that as well but other than those options I'm considering this line of experimentation dead for now. It was fun to play with for a few minutes though.