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

I don't have a time v temp feel for it, now that I develop by inspection. Now that it's winter and I'm developing by inspection my temps have gone down, and my times up.

Current times run around 10 minutes. Agitation is very little, every two minutes. Hangers in tanks, I bump them back and forth a couple of times, then gently lift them out once, drop them back in gently, and bump them back and forth a couple of times. That takes about 15 seconds. I don't believe that much if any is really necessary. Traditionally, xray films are developed by hanging them in the dev, walking away for a while and then coming back and pulling them out---no agitation at all. This does work, but it makes me feel guilty.

I don't have any concrete figures on density. If I were printing them on Polycontrast, I think they would want about a (non-existent) 00 filter at their contrastiest, and would print with a 2 at the flattest. Because I'm scanning, not printing, I develop until I like how the shadows have built up, and let the highlights go where they will. With scanning this attitude works just fine. However, with the first batch the highlights go up quite a bit, and by the last batch, when the shadows are good the highlights look sort of normal. The exhaustion is rapid and obvious, and I would never do this with Tri-X, for instance. The results would be too unpredictable, and the film wouldn't stand for it. The interesting thing to me about the xray film is that it doesn't block up at all. No matter how badly I mess up, you can't see it in the final results, and scanning and printing are just as easy. It must have a straight line curve that reaches to the moon, the way it acts.

I guess it would be easy enough to run some faux-densitometer tests with my lightmeter; I just am not much into that kind of thinking. If you are into the zone system mindset, well. . . . I'm a 35mm, meterless, hip-shooting retro-Leica, don't-need-no-stinkin'-zones barbarian and all of that stuff doesn't mean much to me. I hadn't even owned a meter for the last 30 years until I started using strobes in the studio two years ago, and bought a meter for testing lighting ratios. Now it's back not being used again.

What I would really like to do is get consistently flatter negs, which is why I'm considering more dilution. The current effects could be bromide build-up, but it could easily be exhaustion. I say this because once I pushed too far, and nothing was coming out at all---I mixed a new batch of D23 right there in the dark and continued on. So obviously the previous run was right at the end of its life.

I can be very controlled in my processes if I want to, but I'm doing this for fun, experimentally, and having a lot of fun seeing how far I can push the materials. The one thing that isn't varying at all in this is my exposures which have settled down to EI 50.

Thanks Michael,
That is a better, more complete answer than I think I deserve! Neat! I'm not much of a zonie, but I've got a superstitious dread of blocked highlights. Which, from everything you've told me is a total non issue for scanning, which would be the one place I'd be really worried about it. Awesome!

One more question - what kind of light are you shooting in, that you are rating it at iso 50? I keep reading about the wildly different isos people use depending on time if day, or forest shade vs other kinds.

Ortho and blue sensitive films are very susceptible to color temperature changes. Daylight is very blue; with lots of blue, blue sensitive films act like they're fast. Tungsten lights can look bright, but with hardly any blue they don't write on xray film all that aggressively, and so the film acts like it's slow. I'm guessing that EI 50 in daylight might translate to EI 12-20 in tungsten. Likewise for time of day--bluest at noon, blueless at sunset, in between in between. It's not an inscrutable problem: it's simply a function of how blue the light is vs being yellow-red.

I'm using mostly strobes--that's functionally daylight. When I'm shooting under primitive hot lights--100W bulbs or similar--I open up a stop or two from what I normally would.

Yeah, scanning is a dream. One of the things you can do with regular film is drag out shadows and pop their contrast, and do the same in the other direction with highlights, pull them down and snap them up, so you can get a succulent dynamic range that is simply impossible with silver printing from film, without a whole lot of work. I love it. I can pull a solid 16+ -stop dynamic range out of a 35mm Tri-X neg--that's like a sunlit outside wall and under a table in a dark interior in the same photo--and make the resulting print look totally normal.

With the inherently high contrast of xray film, this ability is even more valuable.

I'm a good silver printer and spent a lot of my early life working as a custom printer in a series of labs, but there's no way you could drag me back into the darkroom for printing now. It would be like forcing me to eat with a toothpick. Silver is so dead. . . :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdarnton

I'm a 35mm, meterless, hip-shooting retro-Leica, don't-need-no-stinkin'-zones barbarian and all of that stuff doesn't mean much to me

---

The thought of correcting your working EI from 80 to 50 while refusing to use a light meter is intriguing. :-)

Michael, for lower contrast with x-ray, have you tried rating the film at, say, 25, and developing by inspection until you see the shadows that you like? I used to do a fair amount of Lith printing, ala Tim Rudman. I got the best results right on the edge of developer exhaustion, but that was with printing. When the developer would go over the edge, all that was lost was one sheet of printing paper. With film development, though, something would be lost permanently when the developer gets too far gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael E

The thought of correcting your working EI from 80 to 50 while refusing to use a light meter is intriguing. :-)

---

When I got the strobes, I couldn't find a way to put up my finger to measure strobelight so for a brief period I did actually use the meter correctly until I understood the lights. Remember, I've been shooting film seriously since around 1961, but studio strobes were completly new, so give me a break. :-) Now that I have a feel for them, though, I change my exposures from my base according to the old way, as everyone did pre flash meters. How many feet away is it, how big is the source, is there anything coming off the walls, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt

Michael, for lower contrast with x-ray, have you tried rating the film at, say, 25, and developing by inspection until you see the shadows that you like?

---

With the developer as it now is, when things start happening, they happen too quickly for me to feel comfy ripping the film out. (Thinking about uneven developing, here.) I'm hoping that diluting the dev will slow down the short major activity period when everything is happening. The film acts a lot like old, pre-developer-incorporation photo paper, in that it sits there for about eight minutes, and then a lot happens suddenly, then after that it gradually matures. You'd want to be ripping it out during the phase when things are changing fast.

Thanks for the confirmation about the possible effects of exhaustion. Maybe diluting it, and then adding some potassium bromide (thanks, Will!) might do what I want. That's certainly easy enough to try.

I've always liked the look of old film and am a huge http://shorpy.com fan, so discovering xray film and trying to make it work is very exciting to me. The =1975 film price doesn't hurt any, too.

A little bit of hydro-quinol will stretch out your development. Metol alone is a slow, very much nothing, then suddenly, bingo developer. That is why they developed a M-Q developer.

Thanks. Maybe I should try hyper-dilute D76 instead of D23? What do you think of that idea? Or would that be too much hydroquinone and I could make a hybrid? I'm open to anything that I can mix up myself.

I use D-23 undiluted with Ektascan RA film in a tray with limited agitation.. It produces a beautiful long scaled image for palladium or salt printing.

For me, the problem with D-76 is too much Metol. I would just try adding a little Metol to D-23. D-23 has a fantastic tonal range. I wouldn't want to give up that tonal range to get an easier development regimen. Bye the way, another way to slow down D-23 is to develop at a lower temperature. 65 degrees works for me.

Oops, I meant D-76 has too much hydro-quinol. So just add a little hydro-quinol to D-23. Or try reducing developer temperature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by premortho

For me, the problem with D-76 is too much Metol. I would just try adding a little Metol to D-23. D-23 has a fantastic tonal range. I wouldn't want to give up that tonal range to get an easier development regimen. Bye the way, another way to slow down D-23 is to develop at a lower temperature. 65 degrees works for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stiganas

Surprise:

In the box is AGFA MAMORAY HDR-C Plus - Made in in Belgium.

I think it it the same film, made by Agfa or Foma:

---

In spring of last year I wanted to buy Foma Medix Xray, but the only source I have found in the web was the polnish guy in Norway.

I emailed Foma directly because oft some questions around the Medix, and surprisingly they told me that they quitted the production of Medix Xray.

Maybe the same with this Mammo film?
Agfa sounds good, I have to do some research, but unfortunately, normally the mammo film in germany is max. available in 24x30cm, way too small for my 30x40cm camera.

Ritchie

In Romania Medix is still available, expiration date 09.2017.

Attachment 146052

I've done some more test and discovered that my red light is fogging the film. I've bought some red LED and is fogging the film big time so for now I am back to the old red bulb (I just change the position to dim the light).

I've done some test with all x-ray film I have and for sure the Agfa Mamo have some problems, again with the naked eyes is halfway between regular film and ortho litho film, all the other xray films are very similar and closer to regular film. Nothing to show for now because of the fogging. I use one year old FOMADON EXCEL W27 in trays. First try was with Foma R09 in rotating drum.

I just checked and Kodak (Carestream) have 3 mamo film in Romania (Europe): Min-R S, Min-R 2000, Min-R EV only in 18x24 and 24x30cm. Maybe I'll try a box of Min film, the distributor is near me and very friendly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plaubel

In spring of last year I wanted to buy Foma Medix Xray, but the only source I have found in the web was the polnish guy in Norway.

I emailed Foma directly because oft some questions around the Medix, and surprisingly they told me that they quitted the production of Medix Xray.

Maybe the same with this Mammo film?
Agfa sounds good, I have to do some research, but unfortunately, normally the mammo film in germany is max. available in 24x30cm, way too small for my 30x40cm camera.

Ritchie

---

Petra Tou Romiou, from last week.

Looking east, a few minutes before sunset.

18x24cm Agfa CP-G+
Fujinon W 250
Developed by inspection in MG 1+100
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1639/...d6a3ff6f_b.jpg

Eastman 2D
Nikkor 300mm f/9
Fuji HR film. Rodinal 1:100 7 min

Attachment 146072

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Petra Tou Romiou, from last week.

Looking east, a few minutes before sunset.

18x24cm Agfa CP-G+
Fujinon W 250
Developed by inspection in MG 1+100
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1639/...d6a3ff6f_b.jpg

---

How did the negative look prior to PP in PS? This image looks like it has a nice tonal range which is hard to do with contrasty X-ray film, I assume you made some adjustments using curves or gamma? What is your strategy in PP? You have great results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angusparker

How did the negative look prior to PP in PS? This image looks like it has a nice tonal range which is hard to do with contrasty X-ray film, I assume you made some adjustments using curves or gamma? What is your strategy in PP? You have great results.

---

Angus,

It's hard to fully appreciate a negative without holding it in your hands, or better yet doing your own darkroom printing or scanning, with it.

As far as my PP goes I was already a darkroom printer before discovering PS, so I'm using multiple layers with masks in PS in a similar way that I use a sequence of exposures at different grades (while masking parts of the image during each exposure) in the darkroom. PS's preview, undo, and history functions are major advantages over darkroom working for me. It's not a one way street though. I've taken the concept of layer masks from PS back to the darkroom, using x-ray and ortho-litho films to create burning masks for complex shapes.

Regarding this particular picture.

This is the scan as it came out of the V700, unedited – though the scanner itself, the software, and my technique are still in play, even in the raw scan:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1471/...bd577824_b.jpg

This is a picture of the negative held above the scanner, shot with a digital camera – only editing done was desaturation:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1477/...dfccbfc5_b.jpg

And this is a picture of the set-up at the scene, with my phone:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1618/...3767ca8c_b.jpg

By the way, the notion that x-ray film has very high contrast, period, is a misconception.
That is, it has extremely high contrast when developed in certain developers/dilutions/temperatures. BUT, it's VERY responsive to changes in development. I base what I'm saying in extensive testing of Agfa CP-G+, a green sensitive film with no anti-halation backing. However, looking at the published data for most other films mentioned in this thread, I feel confident that it holds across the board. Actually, x-ray film can even give very flat negatives. Negatives that need grade 5 to produce satisfactory prints.

One advise I can share with anyone interested, is this.
If you're consistently getting high contrast, make multiple exposures of the same scene (film is cheap) and then develop the first five negatives in a sequence for 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 minutes in your favorite developer at a high dilution. (No need to make fresh developer each time yet; this is just to get in the ballpark). You'll notice that each negative looks very different to the next. Say that the shadows start kicking-in in the negative developed for 6min, but the highlights are already too dense. Dilute your developer further (fresh batch) and develop three negatives in sequence for 6,8, and 10 minutes. Let's say that this time the shadows start kicking-in in the negative developed for 8min, and the highlights are still too dense. You continue this process until you get a negative that you like. There is a limit in how much you can dilute a developer. If you reach that limit before you get a negative you like, then you need to change developers. Alternatively, you could add a restrainer to your favorite developer, and keep on testing.

Now, I do not consider myself an expert on, or claim to have completely tame, x-ray film. I still straggle with it and some of the issues I encounter I can't even pinpoint their source, let alone solve them (yet). More to this point, I only post here the pictures I deem worthy. Out of the 40 or so pictures I shot last month, only 5 or 6 will find their way here. Just to give you some perspective.

Hope that something in the above was helpful.

Cheers,
Thodoris

Very helpful, well written and documented. :)

I have 'toyed' too long and am setting up for better experiments.

I will now incorporate your methods.

Thank you

I fooled around with a lot of different developers since starting with x-ray film but today I went back to good ol' Rodinal, 1:100, for 7-8 minutes in trays (mostly due to temperature, it's really cold in my darkroom right now).

I think I should just stick with that formula because it works great. Shot at ISO 100, which makes a slightly thin negative that scans really well. First time shooting x-ray in a long time.

http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/...4_stitchss.jpg

Looks great, Bryan.

Bryan, that looks gorgeous. And your processing and results seem to match with my experience. Rodinal 1+100 to 1+200 works great for xray.

i am currently testing xray , i will try a test image on fuji rx and kodak tmat 13x18 today in the jobo 3010, lets see what i get ,
i was using mamography film till now, only single layer , so i am excited ... hope it works ....

Thank you Peter and koraks. For years I was stubborn and refused to do tray processing but I admit it is pretty easy. I use the tray that came with my 4x5 BTZS tubes since it's not ribbed and just the right size to use for 8x10, but I'm still too chicken to do more than one sheet at a time, especially with this delicate film.

I shot the same image on an extra sheet of Delta 100 to compare, scanning that now, might post comparison crops on my blog. Kind of blew the highlights on the Delta though.

Peter and I shot back to back Ektascan and Delta 100 with exact same setup & Rodinol Gas Burst developing. Maybe I will post them. Need to consult with Peter first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Thank you Peter and koraks. For years I was stubborn and refused to do tray processing but I admit it is pretty easy. I use the tray that came with my 4x5 BTZS tubes since it's not ribbed and just the right size to use for 8x10, but I'm still too chicken to do more than one sheet at a time, especially with this delicate film.

I shot the same image on an extra sheet of Delta 100 to compare, scanning that now, might post comparison crops on my blog. Kind of blew the highlights on the Delta though.

---

I'd definitely like to see that. I just posted my shots and comparison on my blog. The differences amount mostly to my ISO and development on the Delta 100, so, definitely not a definitive test but might be interesting anyway. Also I posted 100% crops (scan was 2000 DPI).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

I'd definitely like to see that. I just posted my shots and comparison on my blog. The differences amount mostly to my ISO and development on the Delta 100, so, definitely not a definitive test but might be interesting anyway. Also I posted 100% crops (scan was 2000 DPI).

---

I cannot post yet,and we also missed the ISO on the X-Ray as we shot all at 100. My poor decision.

I think these X-Ray to 'normal' film posts are a great idea.

Straight out of scanner. No Photoshop, Picasa resize to LFPF 750 pixel standards.

Really bad scans, but they show the exposure mistake I made by rating Ektsacan at 100 ISO instead of 50 ISO, but I wanted same same. My decision, not Peter's. It was my ball.

Both 8X10 Ektascan and Delta 100 were shot at 100 ISO, same lens 480mm Ronar Deardorff 11x14 with 8x10 back, shutter speed 1/100 fstop 32, one studio flash and reflector. Same development. Rodinol 1/100 10 minutes gas burst, water stop, TF5 fix gas burst. Another set coming after lunch. I cannot explain the big differences between sitters.

Attachment 146273Attachment 146274Attachment 146275Attachment 146276

Randy, mind mentioning which is which film on each of these?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Randy, mind mentioning which is which film on each of these?

---

I thought I would make you guess!

I know #3 is Ektascan as you can see the notch. That makes # 4 Delta.

I can't see the notches on 1&2, but on my light table the Ektascan has higher contrast, so it's # 2 and obviously #1 is Delta.

4 more coming same system but a SF lens on different camera.

In number 4, there is a light leak?

Same session. same films as last post. 8X10 Ektascan and Delta 100.

Linhof 8x10 camera with 360mm Imagon H5.8 holes open, so softest setting. Packard shutter and DIY flash sync to same single strobe and reflector. Notice I shot the beauty dish.

Same processing, same scanning etc.

Guess first and then we will figure the order out.


Attachment 146277Attachment 146278Attachment 146279Attachment 146280

Really look at them, I may have confused which lens was used for which group, but I know that each were all shot with same lens...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon.oman

In number 4, there is a light leak?

---

Could be, the bellows are all good, but there are other ways...

Thanks, I was guessing on the first round but I was wrong. Interesting results. This of course reaffirms how important the scan process is in this. Wet prints will of course be a whole different animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Thanks, I was guessing on the first round but I was wrong. Interesting results. This of course reaffirms how important the scan process is in this. Wet prints will of course be a whole different animal.

---

My goal is always wet prints. I scan just to show others, like you at a distance.

8x10 Xray Kodak CSG, 1:100 R09 (Adonal), 12 m rotary

Colored in scan, dorking around with lith processing, seeing as am fresh out of lith developer and not going to get new one in near future :(

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1718/...a8220096_b.jpgOn the road by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SergeiR

8x10 Xray Kodak CSG, 1:100 R09 (Adonal), 12 m rotary

Colored in scan, dorking around with lith processing, seeing as am fresh out of lith developer and not going to get new one in near future :(

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1718/...a8220096_b.jpgOn the road by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

---

Sergei, your examples never fail to make me smile. Well done, sir!

Looking West, a few minutes before sunset.

18x24cm Agfa CP-G+
Fujinon W 250
Developed by inspection in MG 1+100
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1525/...4133bbfa_b.jpg

Lovely!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Looking West, a few minutes before sunset.

18x24cm Agfa CP-G+
Fujinon W 250
Developed by inspection in MG 1+100
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1525/...4133bbfa_b.jpg

---

Ektascan cut to 4x5 f22 30 seconds first as scanned then tweaked. First night shots ever. I looked at the negs and almost tossed them as they were so clear. But decided to scan anyway.

I meant to expose more at 1 to 5 stops longer, but it was dark, cold and in a very lonely place. I got nervous. I shot 2, the other is the same but f32 60 seconds. Almost point and shoot as I set up real fast, focused barely, forgot the cable release, so pushed shutter gently and counted.

edit, after looking at the images posted, they look the same here, but different on my monitor...

Attachment 146356Attachment 146357

Also Ektascan cut to 4x5. All negs I post today were batch developed 16 at once with gas burst Rodinol, 1/100, 10 minutes, 1 minutes tap water still stop, 5 minutes TF5 gas burst. 10 minute tap wash, all temps 70F.

This is Plastica. A very good sitter.

12 total negs shot of Plastica last night. This is the pearl set. 2 shot with 360mm Sironar-N Copal 3 shutter used, 1/30th at f8 and f16 equalized main light and 2 with 360mm Imagon both at H5.8 holes open, Packard shutter with sync only 1 stop light diff. Focus was on closest lower eyelid white paint. 3 more sets in a bit.

As scanned no PS, sized to LFPF 750 in Picasa.

Attachment 146361Attachment 146362Attachment 146363Attachment 146364

This will be 2 posts. 6 images Imagon 360 with all 3 hole plates. 2 more Sironar 360mm. See if you can tell them apart. Not easy with small scans reduced to LFPF 750.

First 4. Before the pearls showed up. No PS.

Attachment 146369Attachment 146370Attachment 146371Attachment 146372

And 4 more first 2 Imagon, second 2 Sironar.

Attachment 146374Attachment 146375Attachment 146376Attachment 146377

I think they look really similar, but they are 2 different lenses, that use very different bellows extension. The Imagon needs about 3 more inches than a Sironar-N for the exact same proportion. The tripod and subject never moved, only rear standard. Lighting was bumped up and down for different apertures. The Sironar used a good Copal 3 at 1/30th for flash sync and the Packhard shutter sync on this setup I think matches well. That was a test goal.

While no Imagon pics were shot with holes closed, I did focus with them closed and changed focus set for each set of holes. Much sharper without holes and I can see the change of softness on GG when I switch.

And I think Ektascan is working well at ISO 50 with the PCB studio strobes.

Now where is that live model...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

Ektascan cut to 4x5 f22 30 seconds first as scanned then tweaked. First night shots ever. I looked at the negs and almost tossed them as they were so clear. But decided to scan anyway.

I meant to expose more at 1 to 5 stops longer, but it was dark, cold and in a very lonely place. I got nervous. I shot 2, the other is the same but f32 60 seconds. Almost point and shoot as I set up real fast, focused barely, forgot the cable release, so pushed shutter gently and counted.

edit, after looking at the images posted, they look the same here, but different on my monitor...

Attachment 146356Attachment 146357

---

I see a very slight difference in the shadows whichis all I would expect at these exposures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Noel

I see a very slight difference in the shadows whichis all I would expect at these exposures.

---

Yes, next time I bracket widely.

First time.

Following up on a line from a couple of pages back, suggesting I should add some hydroquinone to my D23, I ran some film last night in D76 diluted 1:7 = 8. Twenty minutes at 70 degrees, and the result was a very nice, normal contrast neg, just a bit thinner than I like but with a very nice tonality like I usually get with Tri-X in D76 but not in D23 , so I will continue to test along that line.

I had always thought that the reason to throw away one-shot developers was because they would go bad, but my 1:7 D23 was lasting for months. So I think what I am going to do is mix up a batch of less dilute D76, maybe like 1:3 = 4, and try keeping it, with replenishment. I do want to spin out the development time a bit, but twenty minutes seems a bit much.

Randy, how's the gas working, anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdarnton

Following up on a line from a couple of page back, suggesting I should add some hydroquinone to my D23, I ran some film last night in D76 diluted 1:7 = 8. Twenty minutes at 70 degrees, and the result was a very nice, normal contrast neg, just a bit thinner than I like but with a very nice tonality like I usually get with Tri-X in D76 but not in D23 , so I will continue to test along that line.

I had always thought that the reason to throw away one-shot developers was because they would go bad, but my 1:7 D23 was lasting for months. So I think what I am going to do is mix up a batch of less dilute D76, maybe like 1:3 = 4, and try keeping it, with replenishment. I do want to spin out the development time a bit, but twenty minutes seems a bit much.

Randy, how's the gas working, anyway?

---

The gas is working perfectly. I am getting far more consistent results.

Next will be small round gas burst tanks for roll film.

Long term is big tanks for ULF for gas burst.

I find gas burst with light tight covers very relaxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

edit, after looking at the images posted, they look the same here, but different on my monitor...

Attachment 146356Attachment 146357

---

2nd looks slightly darker to me.