There's a famous quote from actress Tallulah Bankhead: "They used to photograph Shirley Temple through gauze. They shouldQuote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
photograph me through linoleum."
Printable View
There's a famous quote from actress Tallulah Bankhead: "They used to photograph Shirley Temple through gauze. They shouldQuote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
photograph me through linoleum."
;););)
Thank you. You have been very clear and I agree completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Actually I am trying to define a standard procedure to get a large negative from the sources available to me , which are b/w 24x36 and 6x6 negatives, 24x36 slides, 24x36 colour negatives, and finally digital images.
Considering for the moment the 24x36 b/w negatives I intend to use x ray film for duplicating/reversing a b/w 24x36 film, stripping the opposite emulsion and enlarging on a normal xray film, to get a negative to be used for gum or carbon printing.
For the 24x36 slides I see the only possibility in enlarging them on an orthocromatic film, unless I don't care about red blindness of xray film.
I have no plan for the 24x36 color negative, so I keep them apart for the moment, even if I have a lot of them.
I hope to use the digital images by projecting them on a 18x24 cm xray film by means of a rudimental camera/optical bench I made.
Outdoor Test: Olympia WA
Shen-Hao 5 x 7 with Fuji 210 WS. Fuji film RX-N Blue developed in Pyrocat-HD. Cropped and toned.
Attachment 131307
Hi, can someone tell me the difference between green and blue sensitive?
Has anyone tried Fuji HR-U? (not hr-u30)
if I'm not mistaken, is orthochromatic, I could use with red light?
many thanks
There's no difference, I've had a further talk with my X-Ray tech friend, he explained that the green and blue have to do with the "screens" they use, in X-Ray world, the screen has a phosphorous layer facing the film that is sensitive to X-Ray waves and luminesces when it is bombarded with X-Rays, the screen labeled blue or green and is placed in a holder with blue or green film, now I guess you can mix and match the screens (use a blue screen with a green film) and that will for example HALF the speed of the film, but all films for X-Ray with the screens are considered 400 speed films. It's the screens that are used that change the speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by principiante
That said he and I do not know if the green and blue are actually more sensitive to green or blue light, or if the phosphorous in the blue screens luminesces more blue and the green screens luminesces more green, not sure.
So I have to apologize for my statement that green films are 400 speed, because that's all dependent on the screen used.
Which in normal photography we don't use a screen at all.
He works at Yale and hasn't used film in probably ten years since they obviously have very modern digital equipment, so he couldn't experiment for me or anything.
We did have a laugh when I mentioned the film being "Ortho" film as to him, that meant orthopedic, haha, but again he only studied with film in school but as soon as he started working it was all digital.
I find it all fascinating.
Suffice to say he did say that he was able to read the details and recommend certain films to me that might be inherently more contrasty or inherently less contrasty depending on certain factors and we'll sit down at some point to go over all that in person.
Also, as far as I know all X-Ray film is Orthochromatic, so yes you can use a red/amber light, some of it is more or less sensitive but just test it out, I can say that AGFA CURIX UV-G and Kodak EKTASCAN are both just fine under an amber Thomas' Deluxe safelight.
Wrong. Having the sensitization centered on a certain spectrum of color can make a big difference on the resultant image. Yes, they are both "ortho" and not sensitive to red light, but being blue or green sensitive is still important - for instance, blue will be much more sensitive to the sky and shadow colors, hence why many people adjust their ISO depending on the time of day when using this film. Also it is why foliage shows up so bright when I use green sensitive film.
Here's a spectral sensitivity chart I found for some green film. You can see how it drops off after hitting a peak in the green area, not the blue.
This explains why the blue/green screens give half/full speed. But you really shouldn't tell a newbie they are the "same."
Attachment 131532
I would also suggest not using an amber safelight w/o testing. Red is safe in my experience but I initially had a lot of fogged film that seemed to trace to an amber safelight. And, I really question the idea of the X-ray film being 400 speed in the usual film sense. Lots of people using film meters find it rates around 64-80 speed in mid-day daylight and speed reduces a lot as the day is earlier or later due to the change in the color of the light out doors. Indoors color temperature matters for exposure too: incandescent or "warm" lights (lower color temperature) is a lot slower (?a couple stops?) than your meter will indicate when compared to daylight (higher color temp bulbs).
"Ortho" is a Greek derived prefix relating to position as used in Organic chemistry. Generally it means "right" as in correct, straight etc. hence for Orthopedic straight bones. Not sure how it was applied to film originally. But it seems to mean now B/W film that is sensitive to more of the visible spectrum than daguerreotype or typical wet plate or most home made dry plates which are sensitive to UV and Blue. Certain dyes extend the spectral sensitivity of the emulsion. Initially to the green region (orthochromatic film) and eventually to red (panchromatic or all sensitive, the Greek "pan" = all in English)
Based on examples seen here, to my eyes, blue x-ray looks more like daguerreotype or tintypes whereas green or Ortho film prints look different and pan films (artista edu, Tmax, tri-x, ilford etc) look different again.
Ymmv
My Navy fleet hospital (500 beds in a tent with expandable ISO containers) was initially supplied with green-flashing intensifying screens and blue sensitive film. The two are entirely incompatible, and half-speed doesn't begin to describe the huge increase of radiation needed to produce even a grossly under exposed radiogram. The various films are mated to their proper screens for optimal performance. A mismatch results in a terrible failure radiographically.
Pictorially, the films respond differently to objects of different colors in different ways, like wet plate and panchrome b/w films do. Film speed has been addressed in this thread several times already.
R
Good post, Fr. Mark. I use only a red safelight, actually a LED safelight, and I even gave that lite the CD prism test. All orthochromatic films are blind to red light. I use blue sensitve X-ray film when I want that pre 1900 look, and Ektascan when I want the true ortho look. Green X-ray film is a milder orthochromatic film than Ektascan, maybe, but Ektascan is backed with an anti-halation layer which comes off during development. Don't be surprised by this variation of various films to light. Pan film also is. There used to be 3 different Pan films in their recording of light. Pan-A, B, C. Now there is only one Type A pan film - Fuji Acros. Everything else is Type C which is really over-corrected for red light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr. Mark
Wouod you be willing to post more about this in the "x-ray images and examples" thread which is more for discussion as opposed to this one that's about image sharing? Or create a new thread about the various pan films, this is interesting and I would be interested to learn more. I always knew that Acros was sensitive somehow differently than other pan films which is why I try and use it exclusively for my landscape work, but also for modeling work sometimes, has a different look I like a lot. Anyway if you wouldn't mind posting more info about this elsewhere that would be awesome!Quote:
Originally Posted by premortho
Be well,
~Stone
good stuff looks a very workable unit ,good contacted prints
Bazz8
Shot of Adelaides medical research centre after finally sorting some light leaks with my Kodak2D.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7649/...4f022126_c.jpgScan-150313-0002 by barsus2001, on Flickr
This shot was a 19min35sec exposure at f16 on the G-Claron 270mm lens
Scan of fibre contact print FomabronIII
behind the cranes on the top right is the flightpath to Adelaide airport hence the line and intermittent flashes.
one shot today with an 8x10 pinhole,
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7648/...3d06c2b9_z.jpgold cemetry blue ridge ga. by goldenimageworks65, on Flickr
8x10 Ektascan b/ra in old dektol. Kodak 305 portrait lens in the wood of birch point beach state park.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7619/...6477d7b1_c.jpgimg916 by philbrookjason, on Flickr
Jason, just wanted to say that I have really enjoyed your entire series of soft-focus trees in snow. You have found really nice images in an area I suspect I might have hiked through without even taking the camera out of the backpack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazz8
Great Job!!
that is a cool looking cameraQuote:
Originally Posted by lipi
Thanks Peter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Lewin
I live nearby and visit there regularly for the past five or so years, but just found this spot in the fall of last year. There's some thick woods (and deep snow) hiding the beauty from those in a hurry.
Lipi
I like the dimension marks which would aid the focusing, I have a set of oak timber set to
build a camera but got lazy as I was pursuing a UNI degree which took up all my time.
I bought all the components from Jon Shui and put the Kodak 2D together, 100 sheets of
film later I am getting this x-ray film to a almost expected result rather than wonder what I will
get with this shot.I have 100 sheets of 11X14 in the freezer so a camera of this size may be on the drawing board.
Bazz 8
Thanks
I was especially glad that the camera with no covers and car headlights hitting it for a lot of the exposure had no light leaks what so ever
Bazz8
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2848/...4f58b97b_b.jpgScan-140111-0001 by barsus2001, on Flickr
Scan of contact print foma speed 311
The famous tree is situated somewhere on Kangaroo Island South Australia, I took this shot 2 years ago and found on the island
to get a tree and composition that is not surrounded by Aussie brush is harder than one might think.
I got the exposure not quite right and spend 2 days without success looking for the tree.HM my 2D does not have Geo tagging!
I wanted the top to be a little better rendered in camera for a book I am working on.
So Google earth located a plausible spot which I did not visit, in 10 days on the island chasing light and shooting I covered 3000 km.:)
Bazz8
May I ask, what EI?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp
Bazz8, roughly what part of KI was this tree ? Been a few years since I've been down but I loved KI so much. Remarkable Rocks and Hampton Bay, well pretty well all of the Island really. Next time down will spend more time in Flinders Chase
Probably around 100-160; The negative ended up denser than I like for scanning, but it worked fine. I'd recommend a little less exposure, but my shutter goes no quicker than 1/50 which is probably not even that fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Fred L it was down the Sth Western end on the way to Remarkable Rocks. I did not get the exact name or location which was frustrating to say the least,Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred L
the Whole island is wonderful in regards to photo graphical opportunities and remains fairly untouched in comparison to the mainland.
The chase is great and my wife and I did 6 stops in the chase at least over the 10 days,the canopy of gums over the brush attracts me and If i lived near a redwood forest in
America i would be in there almost forever.:)
Doctor who?
Only if Doctor Who's gotta go number two.
J.
Here they are used alike.
I once saw some guys tip one over door side down with a friend? inside. Then they ran away...
Good lord! Nobody needs that. This one actually blew over during a heavy windstorm and that was bad enough. Those two pieces of rebar you can see in the photo are part of a workman's makeshift attempt to secure it more firmly in place.
J.
It's a visual I cannot erase. Happened in a large crowd of people very quickly.
This is really nice. The puffy bokeh in the sky complements the bark texture really nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp
8x10 Kodak CSG, 8x10 Gundach Radar @4.5
1:125 R09, 12m rotary development
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8775/...c7dde07f_c.jpgTenth gate: Conversations on the edge of forever by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8692/...93e73f2a_c.jpgTenth gate: Gardener by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8778/...7d7c9148_c.jpgTenth gate: Trip planning by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
:).
[IMG]https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8749/...f5045397_z.jpgTools of a champion by bc50099, on Flickr[/IMG]
Fujifilm HR-T, Rodinal 1+100 10 minutes (first sheet of X-ray film!)
Woodman 45
Schenider Symmar 90mm lens
8x10 Kodak CSG, 1:125 Rodinal (yay! fresh batch from digital truth arrived, so i poured old half-dead brown one away), rotary development 12 min.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7585/...02815cf2_b.jpg2015-04-12-0004www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
btw, that is 300mm convertible Symmar with yellow-green filter on overcast day
Great pic!
Why did you think the Rodinal was dead? I've made it at home and it starts out pale and gets dark but still works. N-oxides of aromatic compounds like p-amino phenol (rodinal's main ingredient) tend to be highly colored so you may still have 95+% of the Rodinal despite the dark color. Diluted for user think most consider it a one shot developer.
Like picture. Didn't get the skeleton stuff.
Yea, Sergei, that Rodinal wasn't bad, it always goes brown after a while, it has easily a 20 year shelf life even opened... At least it was cheap so you didn't waste too much money.
Of course that much Rodinal is a lot for the water plant processing to handle in one shot, but that's another story for the environmentalists.
It wasn't much.. just leftovers on old bottle. and had some crap slowly accumulating on the bottom of the bottle.
I know about shelf life and such. However , b/c i am one limited crowd of people who do development to full exhaustion and thus its important to me that certain volume of chemicals i pour in rotary processor would be active, and not just 50% active. I ruined previous batch of shots b.c it started to go funny, so i felt like being on safe side ;)
One of the first few shots through my 8x10, on Fuji HR-U a friend gave me. I think I'll be sticking to HP5+ despite the cost.
http://i.imgur.com/EpO63Iq.jpg
Beautiful, Sergei!!
Pretty hard to beat HP5! Nice image, even with the nasty scratches.Quote:
One of the first few shots through my 8x10, on Fuji HR-U a friend gave me. I think I'll be sticking to HP5+ despite the cost.
I'm going to humbly revise my comment about Rodinal lasting to eternity. I made a bunch of batches a year ago. I've been using one 800 ml bottle 50-100 mL's at a time at 4-10 week intervals and only had 50-100mL's in bottle, the rest was air. I had two sheets of 8x10 xray come out super thin 1:100 after 20 minutes, and I thought it could be an exposure error. One is a really nice photo of my wife. Then I tried to develop a 4x5 film that I know was 4-5 stops over exposed because I forgot to stop down. It came out super thin. At that point I opened a new lightly colored bottle that'd been tightly closed and tried it with some 4x5's and they came out much more like what I thought I should expect at 1:100 10 min 65 deg.
Point is yes, it gets dark with exposure to air, dramatically so, and still works, but there is a limit.
Given my highly sporadic darkroom time at this point in my life I either need to get an argon cylinder and purge everything everytime I open a bottle of photo chemicals (even powders for the ocd folks) or I need to make up one shot developers from dry chemicals.
I really wish the big portrait of my wife came out better. Maybe with grade 5 paper...
Don't know about Rodinal, but HC-110 concentrate will last for years after being opened. When I wasn't doing much processing I had a partial bottle probably last 5-6 years...never had to compensate development times when ever I mixed up a batch of working solution.
They are practically the same, Rodinal might actually last longer than HC-110 but they are both pretty much impervious to time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy
I cracked the lid on my Rodinal once and the bottle sat unused and literally open to the air in my basement for 6 months and still worked fine to the last drop.
Crystallization is normal with Rodinal and you just shake it a bit and the crystals re-mix with the solution.
I can't speak for home made Rodinal I'm talking the official stuff by AGFA/ADOX that's the official formula. The R09 stuff is similar but I still stick to the official ADOX Rodinal (Adonal for you non-USA residence) as it's the latest AGFA formula before they shut down.
There's tons of info on it, anyway, to each their own.
I usually toss my Rodinal when the bottle gets down to 5% or so and the crystals are getting really bad.
The more crystals the sharper yet less grainy my images seem to be, I now always dump the new stock into the crystals of the old stock, my images keep getting better and better :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
Not joking, I compared development of old 5% full bottle to a full new one, the new clear bottle came out grainy and soft (I mean in terms of close magnification) and the old bottle was much sharper, this test came because I couldn't figure out why my new images weren't as sharp as the old ones till I made the correlation that I had started a fresh bottle, I then compared a few different bottles of Rodinal I had including an unopened actual AGFA Rodinal bottle, my results tell me that Rodinal is like a fine wine and gets better with age, also I like my wine like my Rodinal, dark and strong ;)
Just don't mistake one for the other!!
For that to be true something has to be changing in the chemical composition (or it's a placebo). But you may be seeing something. After cracking open a new bottle (as I reported in that Rodinal thread months ago) the fresh solution acted totally differently than what I was used to. For me that's a big red flag and I am definitely moving away from Rodinal. Acufine seems to be better in every way anyway, and some of the other newer developers I am using blow Rodinal out of the water for certain films. That said Rodinal and Pan F+ are still a match made in heaven. Not that it matters for LF since it's not made in sheets.