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

8x10 Kodak CSG, no filter, Symmar, as usual - rodinal 1+100/12m, rotary...

Couple of prints

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5542/9...d8acc90a_b.jpg
Scan-130727-0009www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

halation is pretty big issue on this film, if you going for long exposures, at least with my Symmar. It adds to certain mood, if you go for such mood. Overwise - might bite you in backside.. (admittedly you can sort of cheat it in printing, but not a whole lot)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3787/9...8b8e03c3_b.jpg
Scan-130727-0008www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Sergei, that second one would make a great carbon print.... for that matter the first one too. Nice!

Good to see prints!

Yeah I hate that grainy look in the highlights that I get in my x-ray film personally. Usually it happens when the film is just overexposed in that area, at least for me.

Here's part 2 of my test. I tried semi-stand developing in Pyrocat HD. Much more promising results!

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/...810-1150ss.jpg

Instead of trying to reign in the highlights I just let it go...
Same development as above but a added a dash of Rodinal in the mix. Seems to have lifted the shadows a little.

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/...810-1151ss.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Finally got back into shooting 8x10 this weekend, so I can actually contribute a photo to this thread!

Shot this twice, and tried developing it in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100. Results weren't great and the film lost some speed, so I developed this shot in my normal Rodinal 1:100, 7 minutes @68F recipe.
Wista 8x10, Gundlach Radar 12" f/4.5 @ f/6.8, 1/2s exposure, Fuji HR-T rated at 64:
I really like this picture --- that's some lens! :)
http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/...810-1147ss.jpg

I have a few more loaders full of film to develop. Trying different things - right now I'm trying semi-stand development in Pyrocat. Maybe that'll work better.

---

Thanks, yes the Gundlach is quite a nice Tessar lens. I got mine with my first 8x10 and was going to sell it, but it ended up being a great performer!

Getting ready to test some Kodak B/RA film. What asa are you all shooting at for mammography film? I'll start there and see what I get. I'm going to try BTZS tube processing with Rodinal (1:50?) since I don't have tanks. Suggestions?

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Thanks, yes the Gundlach is quite a nice Tessar lens. I got mine with my first 8x10 and was going to sell it, but it ended up being a great performer!

---

aye. They are. And you getting very nice results with it :)

Thanks Sergei.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Thanks, yes the Gundlach is quite a nice Tessar lens. I got mine with my first 8x10 and was going to sell it, but it ended up being a great performer!

---

I particularly like the way your lens renders out of focus areas. And the way it morphs from in focus to out of focus. I used to have a famous brand Tessar that was nice and sharp, but rendered the transition and o-o-f areas so harshly, it was a distraction.

What lens, out of curiosity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottPhotoCo

Getting ready to test some Kodak B/RA film. What asa are you all shooting at for mammography film? I'll start there and see what I get. I'm going to try BTZS tube processing with Rodinal (1:50?) since I don't have tanks. Suggestions?

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

---

You might find that 1:50 is too strong a dilution for your tubes with constant agitation. I was at 3 min in trays with 1:50. 1:100 or 1:200 might be the better dilution. Post your results whatever route you choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photoevangelist

You might find that 1:50 is too strong a dilution for your tubes with constant agitation. I was at 3 min in trays with 1:50. 1:100 or 1:200 might be the better dilution. Post your results whatever route you choose.

---

Thanks Lee. I'll definitely give that a shot. Are x-ray films super sensitive to temperature during developing? I'm thinking 20-22 degrees centigrade with Adinol 1:100. If the BTZS tubes don't work well I'll have to find a way to tray process I guess.

Er - - - -I don't want to start a battle, so I'll just say it was made in Germany. Z.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

What lens, out of curiosity?

---

Did a test session with Chiller(Steve) with my newly acquired KODAK 2D
270mm G_CLAREN Lens,set for a BTZS file test and the neg came out real well,
did a contact print on Agfa MC Matt and could not be more happy, developed neg in trays,
developer Rodinal 1:100 15.45min under a Kodak no2 safe light.
Attachment 99609:)

Then we did a still life test and contact print reduced development by 10-15% and the resulting print
has now got me really impressed 8x10 print on Agfa paper.
the only spoiled part was a misaligned lens board(light leak) new one to make.
Attachment 99610:)

Here what I shoot with 14x17 FuJi xray films, and contact printed in Ilford MG IV
Attachment 99617Attachment 99618

8x10 Kodak CSG/1, 1+100 R09, 9m

360mm Symmar-S, closed down to minimum.

Exposure is about 45m.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5511/9...0f2f563e_b.jpg
Time by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by premortho

Er - - - -I don't want to start a battle, so I'll just say it was made in Germany. Z.

---

Huh??? Do you think I was being antagonistic? I don't really care that much.

Nice Sergei, perhaps I am imagining similarities.

I'm still here and working!

You are influential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SergeiR

8x10 Kodak CSG/1, 1+100 R09, 9m

360mm Symmar-S, closed down to minimum.

Exposure is about 45m.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

Nice Sergei, perhaps I am imagining similarities.

I'm still here and working!

You are influential.

---

8) thanks, yeah.. it was that kind of day when i shot it.. I am now curious about waiting for relatively cloudy (dark) day here in Dallas and make few shots of 1-12 hr long..

from this morning

good display of colour sensitivity of Kodak CSG

tea rose was dark-dark-dark red. Leaves obviously green. Shot in shadows.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/9...983b4146_b.jpg
Scan-130803-0006www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Nice shots It is good film tray developed?
We just developed in the 8x10 trays one neg at a time
and no scratches Steve had a 8x10 squeegee and wiped of the
excess water after fixing and no scratches.
regards
Bazz8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill_4606

I wanted to figure out how much each 8x10 x-ray photo cost with chemistry added for processing. Here is my assessment… others may vary depending on actual film used and type of chemistry…

Fuji HR-T: 100 sheets $35
PMK: one hundred liters (One liter per sheet of 8x10) $60
TF-4: ten liters (One liter per ten sheets of 8x10) $107
TOTAL $202 for 100 sheets of film.

Notes:
All prices include shipping from supplier to my home.
I’m going on the assumption that one sheet of 8x10 Fuji is equivalent to two rolls of film (160 square inches for both sides). Using the TF-4 published capacity of 20 rolls per liter, it works out to ten sheets per liter.
I’m also tray processing the developer which needs at least a liter to slosh the film


So, it roughly costs $2 per shot.
I think I can reduce that a bit if I can figure out how to make my own fixer.
Bill

---

Using the following tube design, you can process an 8x10 sheet evenly in daylight with LESS than 0.25 liters of each chemical (which is sufficient to not become exhausted on that one sheet. I get by just fine with 4 oz. of similar chemicals per 4x5, which is about 1/4 less than this. If you want more, just decrease the inner tube diameter a bit, but a whole liter is silly much), and you can make this yourself for $10 in plumbing parts or so. It's just a 2" PVC class 200 tube inside of a 2.5" one, held together with a bushing. You roll each piece of film so that the emulsion side is facing inward, slide it into its tube, and then fill with enough chemical to cover the film but not completely full. Then you can put the cap on and invert the tube back and forth for extremely effective and evenly distributed agitation. Bushings are usually flat on the end, too, so you can stand it upright and let it sit, too.

The nominal 2.5" pipe actually has an internal diameter of 2.6 or so inches, which is enough for an 8" wide sheet of film to not overlap itself at all.

Note that if you are processing with lights on, beware that PVC is somewhat transluscent. I have found that spraypainting black and then wrapping with heavy black duct tape or gaffers tape makes it completely opaque though.

Attachment 99835

So your $167 would be more like $40.
This does require one sided film though, which means either mammography film or scraping your film with bleach, etc. Depending on how much you value your time, that could be somewhere between maybe $20 to $65 more expensive per sheet than the film you quoted (There is an 8x10 sony mammography 1 sided film for $1 a sheet)

Let's say $40 more for film to compromise. Total still ends up being $115 instead of $202. Of course even less if using powder mixes or DIY chemicals, etc. Could probably get down to $0.75 a sheet.

Wow, 69 pages devoted to the topic I started. I'm amazed!!

8x10 Symmar-S, 7m, Rodinal 1+100, rotary.

I keep seeing this, its almost like outdoors with sun Kodak CSG is about iso 200, and indoors with flash - about 100.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7352/9...0eafc88d_o.jpg
Soul cage island - 1 by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Took 3 shots yesterday in our Spa area ,it is under lazer-light and some shade cloth
which evens out the light considerably.
Scan of contact print: paper Agfa MCmat
the foreground leaves were fiery red and bits of black, the bush on the lh side was a pale green
the lattice is permapine and pale green.
tray developed rodinal!;100 7MIN light source enlarger
Attachment 100015

8x10 scan

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2891/9...83beacb0_c.jpg
Soul cage island - 2 by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

and print of it (contact + screens + lith developer) ;) I actually shot whole series with idea to lith print them, and i am so glad it finally starting to work ;)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5449/9...ff7afbb2_c.jpg
Soul Cage Island. Print by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Well, the testing and experimentation has begun and I have processed my first two sheets of film. Here are the details:

8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then at 10 mins for 30 seconds
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Late afternoon direct sun
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro using the Epson software with no additional adjustments
Shot one at 100 asa and a duplicate at 80 asa
Individual details for exposure below each image

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3740/9...d5b8f917_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_100fs80-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Shot at 100 asa. 1/100 at f 6.3

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2872/9...335b3f4a_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_80fs50-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Shot at 80 asa. 1/50 at f 6.3

General observations:
Not bad for a first test. Even in the overexposed image there is detail in the highlight areas. Perhaps I will try shooting at 125 asa to see how things compare. Processing in Adinol at 1:100 seemed to work fairly well. The grain is quite smooth. Overall I am quite happy with the potential for this inexpensive film.

Next steps:
I have 2 more subjects shot using the exact same set-up and exposures still to process. I think that I will process the same way for the same times to compare how the differing objects and light angles look on this film.

Any thoughts or recommendations from you all?

Try one at 160 and at 125. I've been shooting at 160 when I'm in good outdoor light. 80 in deep shade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald

Try one at 160 and at 125. I've been shooting at 160 when I'm in good outdoor light. 80 in deep shade.

---

Thanks Jim! I will for sure. :)

Contrast and range wise, how does the 100 asa image compare to what you're getting?

In an image like you have posted over exposed. I did some wedding photos this weekend. 8x10 blue half speed. Open shade with my son bouncing a reflector into the scene. Shot at 160 and the neg's could use a little more exposure. So 125 would have been okay. Remember I'm a carbon printer not scanning or whatever else. Develop for your final presentation. I can make some wonderful carbon prints from these negatives. The bride's white dress has great detail and texture and is not blown out. Developed in D-76 for 8 minutes at 1:1. I can't post them yet as I don't scan negatives. I need to make prints but I know they are right on based on my negatives. You watch it happen in the red light. A great way to teach someone about development and what to look for as the film gains density.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald

In an image like you have posted over exposed. I did some wedding photos this weekend. 8x10 blue half speed. Open shade with my son bouncing a reflector into the scene. Shot at 160 and the neg's could use a little more exposure. So 125 would have been okay. Remember I'm a carbon printer not scanning or whatever else. Develop for your final presentation. I can make some wonderful carbon prints from these negatives. The bride's white dress has great detail and texture and is not blown out. Developed in D-76 for 8 minutes at 1:1. I can't post them yet as I don't scan negatives. I need to make prints but I know they are right on based on my negatives. You watch it happen in the red light. A great way to teach someone about development and what to look for as the film gains density.

---

Thank you Jim. Much appreciate you sharing your wealth of knowledge. I'll look forward to seeing those prints. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottPhotoCo

Thank you Jim. Much appreciate you sharing your wealth of knowledge. I'll look forward to seeing those prints. :)

---

Me too!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SergeiR

8x10 scan

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2891/9...83beacb0_c.jpg
Soul cage island - 2 by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

This is a great shot and the lith really worksand print of it (contact + screens + lith developer) ;) I actually shot whole series with idea to lith print them, and i am so glad it finally starting to work ;)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5449/9...ff7afbb2_c.jpg
Soul Cage Island. Print by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

---

Que? :)

Here is another image in my test process.



http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3773/9...1b3f27b8_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_100fs.5-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Shot at 100 asa. 1/2 at f 6.3

General observations:
It's looking like I can safely shoot this film at asa 125. I will also be trying 160 (thanks Jim!). It does look like I'm getting some uneven development in the upper right hand side of the image. I will look forward to trying tanks for development to see just how refined I can get this film to act. At less than $1 a shot it's worth the investment in experimentation. :)

I have a couple of questions for the x-ray shooters...

Where do you usually get your x-ray film from? Does it have an ISO rating like color/bw film? Can I use my regular b/w chemicals to develope it? I'm assuming you have to cut it down to 4x5 or what ever size you want to shoot.

I have a close friend who I'v take images of her daughters. She runs an OBGYN clinic. I may be able to obtain film there.

Just thinking of playing around with it some...

TIA

Pfiltz, All the info you need and some you didn't know you needed is in the, now 1462, posts of this thread. But to answer your supply question, Z-Z Medical, is the one I've used lately. Things like this could be posted on a "links for materials and services suppliers" (like Artcraft Chemicals, lens repair, etc.) thread. Just a list without sales pitches, etc.

I wonder if someone can write an x-ray film article for the LF homepage? I might be willing to actually, or contribute. I'm not the best writer.

Ok, this is interesting to me.

In my testing process of this Kodak Ektascan Mammography x-ray film I shot two frames of each subject. One at 100 asa and the following at 80 asa. In the first set of images I processed them both the same way (Tray, 20 mins in Adinol 1:100) and compared the results. The contrast was quite good and it was looking like I was going to rate this film somewhere between 100-160 depending on lighting conditions.

After looking at some of the uneven development on one of the last images I processed I went to Flickr and looked up other images made on this film that looked good and asked questions. It was recommended to use a shorter development time, lower asa and continuous agitation. As I still had my 80 asa image yet to be developed I decided to try this to compare to the 100 asa semi-stand(ish) development I tried previously.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7292/9...03b31314_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_80fs1-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Shot at 80 asa for 1 second at f6.3
I did seem to have a bit of a light leak on the right but this shouldn't affect the processing.

8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 6 minutes. Continuous agitation.
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Late afternoon direct sun
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro using the Epson software with no additional adjustments

General observations:
The processing seems much more even. Tones are even but overall the image is much flatter. I don't personally care as much for this image as it feels quite lifeless and not engaging to me.

Next steps:
I have another 2 shots in this test series to process. I am going to process the one shot at 100 asa for 20 minutes with 10 second agitation every minute to see what this does. My goal will be to smooth the development issues yet still keep the nice contrast of the originals. Once I see how that turns out I can decide how I want to process the second image shot at 80 asa.

Here is the partner image to the one above for comparison. Shot at 100 asa and Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then at 10 mins for 30 seconds
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3773/9...1b3f27b8_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_100fs.5-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr

I will be ordering tanks from an LFF member here soon to see how that works for me as well. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottPhotoCo

Ok, this is interesting to me.

In my testing process of this Kodak Ektascan Mammography x-ray film I shot two frames of each subject. One at 100 asa and the following at 80 asa. In the first set of images I processed them both the same way (Tray, 20 mins in Adinol 1:100) and compared the results. The contrast was quite good and it was looking like I was going to rate this film somewhere between 100-160 depending on lighting conditions.

After looking at some of the uneven development on one of the last images I processed I went to Flickr and looked up other images made on this film that looked good and asked questions. It was recommended to use a shorter development time, lower asa and continuous agitation. As I still had my 80 asa image yet to be developed I decided to try this to compare to the 100 asa semi-stand(ish) development I tried previously.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7292/9...03b31314_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_80fs1-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Shot at 80 asa for 1 second at f6.3
I did seem to have a bit of a light leak on the right but this shouldn't affect the processing.

8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 6 minutes. Continuous agitation.
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Late afternoon direct sun
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro using the Epson software with no additional adjustments

General observations:
The processing seems much more even. Tones are even but overall the image is much flatter. I don't personally care as much for this image as it feels quite lifeless and not engaging to me.

Next steps:
I have another 2 shots in this test series to process. I am going to process the one shot at 100 asa for 20 minutes with 10 second agitation every minute to see what this does. My goal will be to smooth the development issues yet still keep the nice contrast of the originals. Once I see how that turns out I can decide how I want to process the second image shot at 80 asa.

Here is the partner image to the one above for comparison. Shot at 100 asa and Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then at 10 mins for 30 seconds
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3773/9...1b3f27b8_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_100fs.5-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr

I will be ordering tanks from an LFF member here soon to see how that works for me as well. :)

---

Hi Scott, will you tell me just how you went about scanning with the Epson scanner. I've herd of folks using pennies supporting Anti-Nuton glass, and the neg. placed on top. Did you do this or use the neg holder that comes with the scanner. I have a new one, and want to use it on 8x10 work. I like how yours turned out. Could you share your technique
Thanks. R.W.Delung The Seattle Guy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdelung

Hi Scott, will you tell me just how you went about scanning with the Epson scanner. I've herd of folks using pennies supporting Anti-Nuton glass, and the neg. placed on top. Did you do this or use the neg holder that comes with the scanner. I have a new one, and want to use it on 8x10 work. I like how yours turned out. Could you share your technique
Thanks. R.W.Delung The Seattle Guy

---

Honestly, I just put the negative directly on the glass and scanned. No special sauce or adjustments. I had to use the Epson software as the Silverfast limited the size of the scanning area for some reason.

Happy to help further if I can be of assistance.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

]I have a couple of questions for the x-ray shooters...

Where do you usually get your x-ray film from?

Google "x-ray film" and take your choice.

Does it have an ISO rating like color/bw film?

NO. But it seems most people are getting around 100, plus or minus a stop for medium speed green anyway.


Can I use my regular b/w chemicals to develope it?
Yes

I'm assuming you have to cut it down to 4x5 or what ever size you want to shoot.


It doesn't come in 4x5 so if that's the size you need, yes

I have a close friend who I'v take images of her daughters. She runs an OBGYN clinic. I may be able to obtain film there.

If it hasn't gone digital. And why not just order it online? Its dirt cheap.

Quote:

---

I wonder if someone can write an x-ray film article for the LF homepage? I might be willing to actually, or contribute. I'm not the best writer.

---

I wrote an article for a talk that I gave a while back. It's based on my personal experience/workflow. If anyone's interested, I could post it tomorrow. I too am not the best writer!

I always say never stop a volunteer.

Have at it. It is long overdue.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

I wrote an article for a talk that I gave a while back. It's based on my personal experience/workflow. If anyone's interested, I could post it tomorrow. I too am not the best writer!

---

Well, I tried but I haven't a clue how to go about getting the article on this site. Ken Lee suggested that I ask all the moderators. I tried QT Luong, but his message box is full.

On this page you can contact all mods at once.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...rules_faq_item

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Well, I tried but I haven't a clue how to go about getting the article on this site. Ken Lee suggested that I ask all the moderators. I tried QT Luong, but his message box is full.

---

Thanks. I got the info from Ken. I soon heard from Ralph Barker.

So, will it be posted? :)

I think there is a need so we can direct people to it, as it seems many are unwilling to read the complete existing threads.

btw, I have read all I can find here and elsewhere.

And I am still working with it. Very affordable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Thanks. I got the info from Ken. I soon heard from Ralph Barker.

---