PDA

View Full Version : Question about X-ray film, and a lens for 8x10.



Bill, 70's military B&W
18-Jul-2012, 18:49
I am just about finished acquiring a 8x10 camera and I have heard that a good way to start is by using X-ray film.

http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/8x10-in-fuji-xray-film-p-384.html

ZZ medical has several types of X-ray film. Blue or green, different brands, single sided emulsion or 2-sided.
Which is best, and why? How good is X-ray film? I've heard it has more contrast than regular film. I've heard it scratches more easily.
Are there any advantages other than cost? What are the disadvantages?
What process do you recom to develop X-ray film.

I do not have a lens/shutter for the 8x10 yet. What would you recom as a good all around lens? I believe I would like a shutter but I am open to what the board has to say.

Thanks,
Bill

ic-racer
18-Jul-2012, 20:47
Check out the x-ray film thread.

300mm lens is nice if I only had one lens.

If you can afford a shutter I'd go that route.

joselsgil
19-Jul-2012, 00:13
Bill,

Look into the x-ray postings.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-X-ray-Film-example-and-comparison

The disadvantage of using X-ray film is that it scratches very easy. It doesn't respond to B&W filters, like panchromatic film. One advantage is that you can load the holder and develop the film under red safety light.

For processing, use what ever you are comfortable with. I believe some folks have even developed the film in Dektol paper developer.

For lens recommendations, 300mm is the "normal" size lens for an 8X10. After that, it pretty much what kind of photography you plan on using the camera for.

I have a Turner-Reich triple convertible on my Kodak 2D. It is heavy, old, but you get 3 different focal lengths in the combination. The price of these vintage lenses is starting to get crazy. Like everything else with large format photography, a good deal sometimes falls in your lap when you least expect it.

Good luck,

Jose

Drew Bedo
20-Jul-2012, 10:47
I used to get an 8x10 film, "Ektascan", a Kodak film used for Ultra-sound imaging. I worked in a clinic and ran the exposed negs through the automatic processor in our darkroom. The same processor was used for the X-Ray films and the marketing boys ran their
Tri-X in the same machine without changing anything.

If you can find a clinic that atill processes X-Ray FILM . . . .this may still be a option.

Th

Bill, 70's military B&W
21-Jul-2012, 17:16
Thanks guys, I'm up to page 20 on the x-ray thread. Wow there is a lot to it. Still confused though. I can shoot B&W on a digital and it comes out all right, esp with the newest Photoshop.
Being a newbie, there is a lot that I do not have experience with yet, I wanted to go into LF to get a very detailed (fine???) print, a 8x10 or larger contact print, is supposed to have detail that can not be surpassed. How does x-ray film compare in that department. On the thread I am looking at small images, many of them scanned, I'm on a laptop...Not exactly the best way to judge anything.
I do understand that x-ray film can be used for special effects, but how does it compare to a good quality B&W film. Would AA have used it?
I'm just trying to build an educational base.

desertrat
21-Jul-2012, 19:00
Contact prints from x-ray film negatives can have more detail than can be seen with the naked eye, even on close examination. It takes a loupe or similar magnifier to see all the detail. After you get done with the x-ray film thread, there's another x-ray film thread in the Image Sharing subforum. It hasn't been posted to in a while, so it's back on page 3 of that subforum. On page 2 and 3 of that thread I posted some scans, some done at 600 dpi to show some of the finer detail of a contact print.

ic-racer
21-Jul-2012, 19:04
No one in that thread posted a curve that I could find, leaving much of what it discussed somewhat of a mystery. From my work in the x-ray field I can say that the available tonal scale does not have a nice long straight line like T-max.

For example, Alsubael (2009) studied H&D curves from 26 x-ray clinics shown below. As you can see the straight line portion is only about 3 stops and the total available range about six!
77619

In terms of sharpness. X-ray films don't have to be very sharp because the are (were) usually viewed at the original size and the images recorded are shadows with penumbras which limit the sharpness of conventional radiography.

premortho
22-Jul-2012, 10:25
I use the blue x-ray film because it is only single sided. It is mildly orthochromatic and responds to a lite yellow filter. I would use the green film if I could find it single sided, as it is more orthochromatic than the blue film is. You can use a stronger yellow filter with it. You can also use a paper such as Ilford's for a contact neg if you choose. It is much slower... about asa 6-9.
Bill,

Look into the x-ray postings.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-X-ray-Film-example-and-comparison

The disadvantage of using X-ray film is that it scratches very easy. It doesn't respond to B&W filters, like panchromatic film. One advantage is that you can load the holder and develop the film under red safety light.

For processing, use what ever you are comfortable with. I believe some folks have even developed the film in Dektol paper developer.

For lens recommendations, 300mm is the "normal" size lens for an 8X10. After that, it pretty much what kind of photography you plan on using the camera for.

I have a Turner-Reich triple convertible on my Kodak 2D. It is heavy, old, but you get 3 different focal lengths in the combination. The price of these vintage lenses is starting to get crazy. Like everything else with large format photography, a good deal sometimes falls in your lap when you least expect it.

Good luck,

Jose

Bill, 70's military B&W
22-Jul-2012, 17:50
premortho, why are you attracted to orthochromatic? Again, I am a newbie, but still confused, panchromatic captures tones similar to how our eyes see them. Orthochromatic is not sensitive to red. The major color in skin tones is red. Orthochromatic does not do a good job of showing clouds in the sky.
Yes I can see how it is more convenient to use a red filter in the darkroom, but from what I am seeing I would not use orthochromatic to photograph a pretty girl.
What am I missing?

Bill, 70's military B&W
22-Jul-2012, 17:53
Ic-racer, so it sounds like you would not use x-ray film for a fine print, say of a female model. But it may be a cheap way of getting special effects.

Andrew O'Neill
22-Jul-2012, 18:48
Not sure why you posted this here but...Bill, I'm not sure what you mean special effects with xray film other than it will render yellows and reds as very dark grays to black. I use the green sensitive type and quite like it. I contact print to make carbon transfer prints, so I don't care about it having emulsion on both sides. Prints still look quite sharp to me. I certainly wouldn't enlarge it but some people strip the emulsion from the backside of the film before doing so.
This film with a light yellow filter (#8 kodak wratten) will seperate clouds from blue sky, but of course not as dramatically as you can with a red filter on pan film. A red filter will result in a clear sheet of xray film. I sometimes use a green #57 to slightly lighten foliage.
Why not photograph a pretty girl with xray film?? I've seen some lovely portraits taken with it (not in person, mind you).
It's cheap. Try it.

ic-racer
22-Jul-2012, 18:53
Ic-racer, so it sounds like you would not use x-ray film for a fine print, say of a female model. But it may be a cheap way of getting special effects.

Many subjects out there have a limited tonal range and would give excellent results X-ray film. I'd like to try 8x10 x-ray film some time but don't have any way to process it.

Jody_S
22-Jul-2012, 22:00
No one in that thread posted a curve that I could find, leaving much of what it discussed somewhat of a mystery. From my work in the x-ray field I can say that the available tonal scale does not have a nice long straight line like T-max.

For example, Alsubael (2009) studied H&D curves from 26 x-ray clinics shown below. As you can see the straight line portion is only about 3 stops and the total available range about six!
77619


In terms of sharpness. X-ray films don't have to be very sharp because the are (were) usually viewed at the original size and the images recorded are shadows with penumbras which limit the sharpness of conventional radiography.

Thank you, this is very helpful. I've been trying pull processing, pre-flashing, etc, to try to tame the contrast a little, but obviously nothing is going to make detail magically appear where it simply isn't present on the negative.

premortho
23-Jul-2012, 06:11
I like the way it renders colors, especially with a light yellow filter:) There is another thread on here in the darkroom film section with more than 50 pages of info on x-ray film some with images, including portraits...check them out and decide if you like the results. I started using ortho film in 1948, and my grandfather taught me to use pan film for women over thirty, and ortho for everything else. I was 10 years old at the time, and was sure he knew all there was to know about photography. Well, maybe he didn't know everything---but he knew a lot. He started in photography in about 1895.:D
premortho, why are you attracted to orthochromatic? Again, I am a newbie, but still confused, panchromatic captures tones similar to how our eyes see them. Orthochromatic is not sensitive to red. The major color in skin tones is red. Orthochromatic does not do a good job of showing clouds in the sky.
Yes I can see how it is more convenient to use a red filter in the darkroom, but from what I am seeing I would not use orthochromatic to photograph a pretty girl.
What am I missing?

premortho
23-Jul-2012, 06:30
If I may make another point...What you need more than how sharp the film is and how many of this and that it does/does not have, is experience. I bought 100 sheets of 8X10 blue single sided x-ray film for 36 dollars, including shipping. If my math is right, that's 36 cents a sheet. You can afford to make a lot of mistakes at 36 cents a sheet. You can learn about composition, composing on the ground glass, how to use a dark cloth, how to develope by doing it under a red light, how to use a light meter, if your tripod is sturdy enough, why some people use bulb (air) release instead of cable release, and on and on. By the time you are 3/4's of the way through that 100 sheets you will be ready for expensive Panchromatic film---like Tri-x 320 speed..the only pan film I use. Hope this helps you.

Randy
25-Jul-2012, 05:37
Bill, I got into using X-ray film with my 8X10 for one reason - cost. The least expensive panchromatic film I could find was Arista EDU from Freestyle and it cost about $2.50 a sheet compared to about $.40 a sheet for CSX green X-ray film. I have been pleasantly surprised with the results but if I could afford panchromatic films I'd probably just stick with them.

Jim Fitzgerald
25-Jul-2012, 06:55
So I guess I'll add my .02. I shoot green and blue x-ray film in three sizes. 8x10, 11x14 and 14x17. I find that for me it works great especially for my pictoralist, portrait and landscape work. Is it critically as sharp as my normal Efke-25? No. I print in carbon transfer like Andrew and I find it works great for my process. No stripping or any of that crap. It is cheap. Learn how to use it for your process. Read all you can and then just do it! You learn by doing and making mistakes. I use it with my students and it makes a lot of sense because of the cost.I'll attach a couple of PRINTS that I scanned and you can judge for yourself.

Bill, 70's military B&W
25-Jul-2012, 18:20
Thanks everyone,
I definitely have to gain some experience. I WILL order 100 sheets of X-ray film and see what I can do with it. If my prints come out close to Jim's I'll be really happy. Those really are nice.
What developer do you recommend I start with? The thread on x-ray film has some one using cafinol or something like that, and his prints looked really nice, good tonal range. There are so many to choose from, what are the differences between the common choices, results? cost? ease of use? etc...

Lastly, I want to follow everyone's recom and get a 12 inch lens, preferably with a shutter. What specific lens do you recom?
Thanks again,
Bill

Corran
25-Jul-2012, 18:50
You're right, the images dev'd with caffenol look really nice, I still need to try it. However I've found that Rodinal 1:100 does really well. So you might start with that since many have stated it works well with x-ray film. I rate mine at 50 and develop for 7 minutes in a BTZS tube and then strip the rear emulsion. If you want you can find lots of x-ray images on my blog.

Jim Fitzgerald
25-Jul-2012, 23:18
I use Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100. 6 minutes dip and dunk for my 8x10. D-76 is good as well. Develop in a red safe light. works great. Printing in carbon well, that is a different story.

tgtaylor
26-Jul-2012, 08:54
I have a Nikkor 120mm f/8, 300mm Nikkor-M, and 360mm Schneider Symmer-S - all of which work on the 8x10. If I had to choose between them, I would choose the 360 without hesitation. It's the best "all around" lens for the 8x10 IMO.

Thomas

Bill, 70's military B&W
31-Jul-2012, 17:54
Thanks everyone, I am reading, and I'm looking for a lens to show up on the for sale section of the forum. I think 360 would be a perfect size for the 8x10. Does anyone recom e-bay? So many lenses are available but???
Bill

John Kasaian
31-Jul-2012, 19:21
Thanks everyone, I am reading, and I'm looking for a lens to show up on the for sale section of the forum. I think 360 would be a perfect size for the 8x10. Does anyone recom e-bay? So many lenses are available but???
Bill

I'm partial to the 14" Commercial Ektar. Schneider Symmar double convertibles are pretty slick as well and the 14" APO Artar is also a nice lens on an 8x10 and often less expensive because they won't have all the wiggle room Commercial Ektars have, but they do cover the format. Just sayin'

Bill, 70's military B&W
5-Aug-2012, 10:32
Thanks, I'm still looking for a lens, they do not come up all that often. Kinda scared of e-bay. I guess that it would be wise to figure the price of a CLA to be included when purchasing a lens.

John Kasaian
5-Aug-2012, 10:55
Talk to Jim at Midwest Photo---tell him what you're after and what your budget is.
I bought my 14" Commercial Ektar from him years ago. Any of the G Clarons, from 240mm on up will work nicely on an 8x10

Jim Galli
6-Aug-2012, 06:52
I have a very very ugly Turner Reich Convertible lens in an Ilex #4 shutter. The shutter is running great and the lens is respectably sharp though scary ugly. Probably get you off and running. Cheap at $225 bucks shipped.

BTW your PM box is full. People may be standing in line trying to give away 8X10 lenses for free and can't PM ya.

Fotoguy20d
6-Aug-2012, 09:22
Thanks, I'm still looking for a lens, they do not come up all that often. Kinda scared of e-bay. I guess that it would be wise to figure the price of a CLA to be included when purchasing a lens.

Im getting away from 8x10 (hopefully just for a while) but I'm not sure yet which lenses to keep. I have a Symmar 240/420 I don't use. I think the IC is 320 so it should cover 8x10. I have a 14" CE in Ilex just back from Carol Miller. A 12" velostigmat (that one does need a CLA). Probably a couple of others. PM me if you're interested.

Dan