https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7358/...ae6c410b_c.jpg
Berries by James Harr, on Flickr
Speed Graphic + Graflex 135mm f/4,7
Kodak CSG @ 80
f/8 x 1/200
Adonal 1+100 x 4.5min
Printable View
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7358/...ae6c410b_c.jpg
Berries by James Harr, on Flickr
Speed Graphic + Graflex 135mm f/4,7
Kodak CSG @ 80
f/8 x 1/200
Adonal 1+100 x 4.5min
Wow! Thanks for this link. I've been pondering some Kodak 8x10 tanks on eBay, but they require something like 3 gals of chemistry per tank! I've been looking into building some myself with Plexi, which would certainly be quite a bit cheaper than Vinny's tanks, but...maybe worthwhile to go with someone who knows how to handle these materials and to ensure a tank that doesn't leak! :) I'm fairly skilled with my hands, but if the bonding sides of plexi aren't nearly plane smooth ensuring proper flow of the acrylic glue you're gonna have a leak. Not good...Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
Nice pic!
Attachment 141468
Excuse the quality of the digital copy, taken with a tablet, unfortunately no scanner. 10x12 Vageeswari, Ross 3A portrait lens, green xray at F22
Attachment 141500
Once again apologies for the poor copy, tablet repro, in and out of the darkroom, no digital improvements, 10x12 Ross 3a, green xray
Another note on un-safe safelights: I did some shots with film cut under the bike tail light "safelight"and developed them with said light mostly off and definitely far away and most especially not shining directly down into the developer tray and got fine results. I'd been afraid that in addition to massive fog/mottling on development I'd also toasted the film while cutting it.
It was hugely exiting to see proper contrast and detail on these 5x7's. It even picked up a moire pattern from two layers of sheer curtain fabric and other detail of the curtain weave! I'm really looking forward to printing these.
I'd been mislead by the idea that this is a RED led, the film is red blind, therefore it doesn't matter how bright the light is, it does not have the wavelength to fog the film. Did I test this idea before acting on it? No. Is it wrong, yes! When I finally tried testing it the light definitely fogs film and printing paper---I made some photograms---I also looked at the light from it bouncing off a compact disc and it is mostly red but there's definitely yellow and green coming out too. I could not see the dimmer other colors unless I extinguished the regular room lights in the darkroom.
As for details: Brontrager Flash 2 bike tail light runs a very long time on 2AAA batteries. Ektascan B/RA cut to 5x7 and Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 5:30 (approx, Dev by inspection---briefly inspect!) at 76 F for cyanotypes and carbon (someday) though they will print pretty well on Ilford MG too as contact prints.
http://koraks.nl/galleries/8x10_arch...WXRG_153_3.jpg
G-Claron 240/9 at f/45, about 4 seconds.
Green xray, developed in Rodinal 1+100. Attempted minus development by developing for 2 minutes with continuous agitation, then into a water bath for about 3 minutes. Back into the developer for a minute, followed by 2 minutes water bath. Repeated the last cycle once more, so in total about 4 minutes in the developer and 7 minutes in the water bath. I doubt it's as effective as simply using a more diluted developer or less frequent agitation and the negative came out a little thin, but it sort of worked alright for this image.
http://koraks.nl/galleries/8x10_arch...WXRG_153_4.jpg
G-Claron 240/9 at f/16, about 8 seconds.
Green xray, developed in Rodinal 1+100. Continuous agitation for about 5 minutes and another minute or two in a water bath.
Both 8x10 btw.
Both are very nice, koraks...
Thanks jiri! I might try a carbon print of the first one.
That would look great in carbon. So would the second oneQuote:
Originally Posted by koraks
They would if you made the prints ;)
No, practice makes perfect. I've always told students to print, print, print. We learn by our mistakes. Got to do it!Quote:
Originally Posted by koraks
They are both tough to print but you can do it.
Attachment 141640
Speed Graphic 4×5, Optar 135mm, 1/60 at f/8.
Agfa CP G+.
Developed in Ilford MG 1+80 at 22C for 8min on Jobo.
Epson V700 scan, edited in PS.
A couple of questions for those experienced with the Carestream Ektascan film from zzmedical...
I developed my very first sheet of this film in trays today using Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 for 8 1/2 mins at 75F. Agitation method was: north/south/east/west for the first minute, followed by one single n/s/e/w rotation each minute thereafter; stop/fix as normal.
1. The film is blue? I think I may have read that somewhere... If printing in the darkroom, I wouldn't think this color would affect graded paper (which I haven't used in years), but would affect VC paper the way blue light does? That is, more contrast? Thinking along these same lines I also print pt/pd where this blue color may be problematic. Thoughts?
2. I have years of experience developing "normal" film with Pyrocat-HD, but this negative doesn't take on the characteristics that I'm used to seeing; it doesn't have that obvious brownish stain and it looks kind of thin when viewed via transmitted light. Sitting in the white wash tray the density looked pretty normal. Does this film not take on the look of a normal PCat stained negative? Do these negatives look obviously thinner (less dense) than a regular negative (given same development parameters)?
Thank you for any insight/guidance provided.
Best regards,
Alan
Film base is blue for Carestream Ektascan B/RA. I print as cyanotypes with these negatives or straight contact prints as if it's graded paper so I can't say about split grade printing etc.
I use 2:2:100 for 5:30 at 77 Fahrenheit, there's definitely brown stain.
1:1:100 will also yield stain with proper negative exposure in my experience. I rate it 100 speed mid day, earlier or later or tungsten/non daylight balanced lamps and the film will be slower, potentially several (1,2,3,4) stops slower.
Detail should be excellent as is tonal range---I did a 57 of a chandelier focussed on one of the filaments in the light bulb and there was a dark shadow behind a curtain. I've got a tonal range of white paper to darkest navy blue on the print. It's a great film developer combo.
I believe others use 1:100 Rodinal with great success.
Some Foma films had a blue base until recently; I never had issues re: contrast using VC papers with them or with double-sided x-ray film.
R
Thank you Fr. Mark and Ralph for your comments.
It's still very early on with my testing of this film. I will definitely play around with other dilutions and development times, and will report back here once I've settled on a combination that works for me. I also noticed when examining the dry negative that it had a very thin area of darker density all around the image area; this may be because I didn't use a large enough tray. Next trial I will use an 11x14 tray (for 8x10) and see if that resolves this issue.
For whatever it's worth, I've always used 8X10 trays for my 5X7 negatives. My grandfather taught me this in the mid 1940'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan9940
One wonders how you feel about it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene McCluney
In the search for a convenient way to treat an Xray film I tried a simple even if careful handling in development and fixing , with free film in the tray which resulted in some minor but visible scratches scattered in the sheet (17.8 x24 cm).
My set is the following:
A pyrex glass tray of internal dimensions 187 by 285 mm, and two plastic trays of about 250 by 320 mm.
I use the first for development since the developer is the more expensive and delicate liquid, while as stop and fixer I can use the larger ones.
I saw that the development liquid can be stored with minimal degradation if kept in a vessel completely filled, leaving very little air above the liquid.
The degradation seems just a problem if oxidation. The other two solution are not critical.
So I cut a piece of plexigles of 183 by 280 mm 4 mm thick, and glued along the long side four small plexiglas blocks, two per side, at a distance amog the couples of 17.5 cm, slightly lower than the width of the film (17.8 cm) to create an arch high about 1 cm.
I placed the film in this holder, as I did for smaller sizes (up to 9x12 cm) and placed the whole in water to see the behaviour.
Unfortunately when the frame was withdrawn from water the film sticked to the plastic plate on one side, due to the water surface tension, something not observed with smaller sizes.
When immersed the adherence should disappear, but I am afraid that when ilting the tray I could induce a similar effect, with consequence in the surface.
So I looked to another approach, by making four fixtures which should keep the film parallel to the plate at a distance of about 1 cm, to be possibly reduced tu use less solution.
In the next days I will try my device, at least in pure water to observe the hydrodynamic behaviour during agitation and manipulation.
Sure would be nice if one of the moderators would create a sticky post with an x-ray film FAQ. I see the same questions & answers over & over again in this thread: Don't process double-sided in a Jobo or BTZS tubes, Do/do not remove back emulsion, how do I remove back emulsion, where can I buy x-ray film, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by mario errico
Any way we can make that happen?
I know it's been over a year since you posted this, but did you take notes? What was your dilution? Temperature? How long to develop? I tray-developed my 1st test shots of Ektascan yesterday in 1:1:100 Pyrocat-HD at 71.5ºF and was shocked at how short the develpment time was (~3 minutes)!Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
FWIW and I'm still testing... So far, I think I'm pretty close with Pyrocat-HD 1:1:150 at 75F for about 10 - 10 1/2 mins. I develop single-sheet at a time in trays with a n/s/e/w agitation for the first minute, followed by one single n/s/e/w rotation each minute thereafter. The reason I refer to the time as "about" is because I develop by inspection using a red LED light. Therefore, total time is more an approximation.Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
Hope this helps.
Old post, I know. But: I was under the impression the Ektascan was a blue sensitive film, so I must have misread the description at ZZ Medical. Can anyone confirm Premortho's above statement? If I wanted to get a more 'blue x-ray/wet plate' look, what color filter would I need to use? Blue, presumably?Quote:
Originally Posted by premortho
I haven't used any of the variations--blue or green sensitive, green latitude--of film as sold by CXS Online, for example, but having shot several sheets of Ektascan (zzmedical.com) during testing, I believe premortho's statement to be true; it must be the most orthochromatic of any x-ray film as it looks darn close to normal panchromatic film.
I'm sure it will; thank you.Quote:
Hope this helps.
I have just completed and started to test my film holder.
The 18x24 film shet stays not completely flat, but shows an arch which in the center comes at about 5 mm from the plastic, and the situation does not change even after many trials to keep the film flat and in tension.
Probably a device including some elasticity in the clamps could solve the problem, but for the moment I decided to live with it, unless the film will touch the plastic plate when immersed in water in the following tests.
So I put my device in the 20x30 cm pyrex tray and started to add water to see the behaviour of the film.
The film starts to be covered by the solution when tilted at 600 ml, but a good immersion is obtained with a total volume of 1 liter.
I withdrew the device and checked that the film was not touching the plastc, and this is for me a positive test and the device is now ready to be tested under operating condition, with the developer.
About this, I have read somewhere that for this film size about 6 ml of HC110 syrup is necesary.
I have also read that some b/w films were developed in HC110 syrup dilution of 1:250 and 45 minutes of development.
I would like to try a 1:100 dilution (10ml to 1 liter) and 20 minutes of development, or a 1:200 for one hour.
What do you think?
In my former tests I got reasonable results with 1:50 dilution and 10 minutes developement.
At work so going from memory... for tray development (flat-bottomed), I use 5ml of both A and B solutions, in one litre of water at 21C. EI was 80. I believe the development time was 8 minutes... I always give constant agitation for the first 30 seconds, then about 5 sec every minute (lifting tray north/south, east/west). This time worked well for carbon transfer printing. For non-alt processes, the time would probably be around 6-6:30, but that's only a guess.Quote:
I know it's been over a year since you posted this, but did you take notes? What was your dilution? Temperature? How long to develop? I tray-developed my 1st test shots of Ektascan yesterday in 1:1:100 Pyrocat-HD at 71.5ºF and was shocked at how short the develpment time was (~3 minutes)!
I love the sharpness of this film, but I prefer green latitude's look.
Please find here some quick and bad photo of my frame, which however give a clear idea of the device.
In the first of themAttachment 141898 you see a prospectic view of it, while in the second Attachment 141899 you see a detail of the clamp, and you can notice the arcuate surface of the fim.
The third image shows a view from top.Attachment 141900
I hope it could interest someone.
Thanks for the attention.
Is anybody using Xray film for gum printing?
I'm using it sometimes for carbon transfer and kallitype printing. Seems like quite a setup to develop your x-ray film... I have never gotten scratches when I use flat-bottomed trays, in film sizes up to 14x17. Have you developed with your set up yet? It looks like you'll need quite a bit of developer, to cover the film completely, as it's quite elevated.
Probably you have more experience than me in treating delicate films.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
I did not make yet a real film development test, but I simulated it with a pure water bath.
The present set up requires confortably from 800 to 1000 ml of solution.
The distance between the clamp and the plexy sheet is about 1 cm in the present set up, to avoid contact in the middle of the film, due to arching which brings the film to about 4 mm from the sheet.
In a more refined future device, giving some lateral stretch to the film, with a more planar film holding, the clamp to sheet distance can drop to a few millimeters, reducing the quantity of developing solution probably to about 400-600 ml.
In the search of a mount to keep the solution at a minimum, I am considering also the use of a vertical tank, with a width of 5 mm, on which drop the film kept precisely in vertical position.
No agitation will be possible, but I remember that long time ago I used to develop Xray film for crystallographic purposes some vertical vessels without any agitation. For reasonably long development times the simpkle diffusion is probably sufficient.
Given the needed size, say 19 x 25 x 0.5 cm for a 18x24 film the solution volume could reach 237 ml, which I believe is the real minimum.
A lot of trouble to go to as Andrew has said. I use new plastic trays with the grooves on the bottom and the moulding nipples that tend to scratch the negs, I negated the problem by simply using blank cleaned film on the bottom. Haven't had any problems except for unclipped fingernails occasionally. Oh and I moved up a size in trays, if you use the appropriate size the developer laps the sides a bit quick and causes uneven development.
Hey David,Quote:
Originally Posted by davidrcarls
is there some site or page where I can check all your typology shots made so far? I am shooting very similar project for last 3-4 years called "Close Ones - Up Close". I am also planning something very similar with people living in the city where I live now (Shanghai, China) where I would try to do similar project on the street with my Cambo MaxiPortrait 4x5.
I have a very stupid question, but I couldn't find anything about in the web:
Why the substrate of X-ray films is green or blue and not simply clear?
There are technical reasons or commercial?
Thanks.
X-ray film base is blue because it is a transparency, looked at on an illuminated light box along with hundreds more over the course of a long day. The blue tint enhances contrast and soothes eye strain for the radiologist. Blue vs green refers to the sensitivity of the film to light, because it was exposed by blue or green fluorescent screens that converted a relatively few x-ray photons to lot of light photons, thereby reducing the patient's x-ray dose.
R
Thank you for the explanation, but if the goal is to relieve strain, why not simply dim the lamps in the light box?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Weimer
And why not tinting in green the substrate, a wavelength where human eye is more sensitive?
Finally, why blue or green should enhance contrast?
Visibility would suffer too much beyond a certain point, resulting in more strain instead of less.Quote:
Originally Posted by salvatore
My guess is that since blue-sensitive film is less sensitive to green light, the double sided nature of that film would complement less with a green substrate (the 'dark' side would receive less exposure, necessitating higher xray doses for patients to achieve the same contrast). Hence blue seems like a logical color to standardize on. I can also imagine that the availability, stability and cost of dyes plays a role, but you'd have to ask an industrial expert. Another factor that could play a role is the emission spectrum of the CFL light used in light boxes.Quote:
And why not tinting in green the substrate, a wavelength where human eye is more sensitive?
I don't know, honestly.Quote:
Finally, why blue or green should enhance contrast?
Have you tried contacting an industry expert with your questions? They sound a bit specific for a photography community - I'd love to hear the outcome if you found someone capable of asking your questions. Even though they don't seem to be of very high relevance to photographic applications, but like you, I'm curious ;)
As I've continued my testing of Ektascan I'm finding shadow areas to be sorely lacking in detail vs what I'd expect to get with regular panchro-type film; to wit, Zone III areas are very near or total black with Zone IV areas showing very little detail. I've been exposing the film at EI80 and developing in Pyrocat-HD. I'm really curious what other's experience is with this film and shadow detail? Should I expect good detail in Zone IV or should shadow areas where I want good detail be closer to Zone V? In any typical outdoor sunshine scene is the significant amount of blue light in the shadows--especially those open to blue sky--a factor? Or, is this just a very limited dynamic range film? Which, come to think of it, given its usual application a lot of dynamic range probably isn't necessary; I'm no x-ray technician, though. Thoughts?
Thank you for any insight provided.
Are you shooting with a Petzval formula lens?Quote:
Originally Posted by gdi
I use Pyrocat for my regular film developing. It's great stuff. I haven't had as much success with it and x-ray film, though, as the combo lost an excessive amount of speed. (The film was Fuji Green HR-T.) Sergei reported the same thing, and so maybe that's an issue? You might try Rodinal, DS-10....
Hello Peter,
Yep, that's what I'm thinking too. I also have used Pyrocat-HD for many years with all formats from 35mm through 8x10 developing regular film in both my Jobo CPP2 and hand tanks. I've noticed as I've zeroed in on a standard developing time that shadow detail varies quite a bit; that is, longer development reveals more shadow detail while shorter development reveals less. And, I'm not talking wild fluctuations in development times--say, 7.5 vs 8.5 mins! This all leads me to believe that the Ektascan film loses film speed--at least in this developer--VERY quickly. I feel fairly confident in what I'm observing in this regard because two sheets were exposed one after the other under identical daylight conditions (cloudless skies, too.) Longer development to increase speed to reveal better shadow definition is good, but it leads to pretty contrasty negs which could be difficult to print with typical VC papers, even with very low grade filters. Therefore, based on my best derived development regimen it appears that the only option I have is to lower my EI; not something I really would want to do given shooting 8x10 in typical outdoor conditions. Wind is not our friend! :)
I've read on these boards of a couple photographers shooting EFKE 25. In the past, I had a photographer friend who always shot Tech Pan. Personally, I can't even begin to imagine shooting the kinds of scenes I do with an EI25 speed film. Heck, I'd probably find that slow speed problematic with 4x5! But, we're all different and YMMV...
Guess I'll have to give all this some more thought. Maybe try lowering my EI to 40/50 or keep the longer development time and print on a long-scale paper such as Lodima. I'll have to get in the darkroom and see what these various negs give me on different papers. Oh, and I did try Rodinal at 1:200 but got bullet-proof negs. If anyone is developing this film with Rodinal in a Jobo I'd love to get your dilution/time/temp.
These comments surprise me. I have used Pyrocat HD since Sandy first published the formula. I have no problem with a film speed of 100 for Ektascan. I should state that I do not print on VC papers, and very rarely on silver gelatin as I prefer to use any one of several alternative printing processes for my images. Some, but not all, of which require longer scaled negatives.
You have to read the X-Ray threads.
SergeiR did a long series on X-Ray double sided, not single sided where he changed both time and dilution with Rodinal in a JOBO. His work stands out.
Search for his results, they are not in a table. Any of us would also have to search. It's a PITA.
Jim, I found the results surprising as well. I get _three stops_ more speed with DS-10 and Fuji HR-T than with Pyrocat MC.
Wow great contrast!
Jim, I, too, have used Pyrocat in both its HD and HDC variations for many years, as I stated above, but like Peter was very surprised seeing this apparent quick drop in film speed as development time dropped. I say "apparent" because I'm not measuring density via a densitometer; simply 35 years experience shooting large format with regular film. I suspect the reason you're not seeing this anomaly is because you're developing much longer than me for alternative printing. I do print pt/pd on occasion and may just relegate use of this film for that process or long-scale chloro-bromide type paper such as Lodima.
Peter, based on your comment I may have to give DS-10 a try. Thanks!
Randy, do you have a link? I need a mannequin for my lighting tests & was not please with the prices & selections at [giant internet retailer].Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
I got Helen Hair Art # 4314 in barter. I traded some useless TV device.Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
She was very dirty and I had to give Helen a shower. They claim real human hair. She is very sturdy and cleaned up fine.
I also have a store type full body plastic mannequin that looks almost real on a dark night, with wig delivered for $100 from somewhere. You will have to search online or look in dumpsters behind Macy's.
Some here prefer full size skeletons...
I have one of these: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...ilpage_o06_s00 plus a cheap wig. It's fine for lighting tests.