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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barnacle

One thing - is it double sided, and if so, what do you do about it?

---

I don't know the DVG, and Typon doesn't say if doublesided or not in their data sheet, but I believe in double side, which not means a lot.

http://www.typon-roentgen.de/fileadm.../DV-G_ORTH.pdf

I don't like nor need to strip my film, except developing 30x40cm in rotation ( unfortunately no development at the backside).
So, for 30x40cm I switched to tray dev.

13x18cm works fine in rotation, but this depends on my/your tubes; I use an old Photo Union machine.

Ritchie

I have been using X-ray film for close to 10 years, single and double-sided (I prefer double-sided green). I have never had problems developing in flat-bottomed trays with Pyrocat-HD or Rodinal. My development times are 6 to 10 minutes, depending on contrast. I've done rotary, as well as hangers. Very little developer is required for trays. I also did extensive testing stripping double-sided (years ago) and I do not recommend it. The unstripped film looks very nice contact printed as is. This film is also an excellent candidate for carbon transfer printing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SergeiR

eh?

---

"I've never had a problem with pinholes on Foma. It is, however, easy to scratch when it's wet of you don't handle it carefully."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

I have been using X-ray film for close to 10 years, single and double-sided (I prefer double-sided green). I have never had problems developing in flat-bottomed trays with Pyrocat-HD or Rodinal. My development times are 6 to 10 minutes, depending on contrast. I've done rotary, as well as hangers. Very little developer is required for trays. I also did extensive testing stripping double-sided (years ago) and I do not recommend it. The unstripped film looks very nice contact printed as is. This film is also an excellent candidate for carbon transfer printing.

---

Just chiming in here about my own experience. I was always getting crazy amounts of scratches on my negatives during tray development, maybe due to a bit too much agitation. Developing using the taco method, while maybe less efficient chemical wise, was much more successful. The lack of scratches and holes in my emulsion were testament to it.

I'm actually waiting for a jobo 2509n in the mail. We'll see if that provides even development sans opportunity for scratching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barnacle

One thing - is it double sided, and if so, what do you do about it?

---

Unless it is one of the special purpose x-ray films, e.g., meant for mammography, meant for photography of CRTs, it's safe to assume it is double-sided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Does anyone have personal experience with long term storage of (unexposed) x-ray film in the freezer?

Also, that's a good summation Sergei:

---

1) thanks :)

2) Well.. as far as storage - I have X-ray that was sitting in cupboard in garage (TX, so its bloody hot in summer, no AC in garage) and it works fine in 2 years time (I been moving around and 3 of boxes with film just never made it into colder rooms, along with some of 4x5 film till last autumn). 2 years is not 10, but.. :)

Quote:

---

Just chiming in here about my own experience. I was always getting crazy amounts of scratches on my negatives during tray development, maybe due to a bit too much agitation. Developing using the taco method, while maybe less efficient chemical wise, was much more successful. The lack of scratches and holes in my emulsion were testament to it.

I'm actually waiting for a jobo 2509n in the mail. We'll see if that provides even development sans opportunity for scratching.

---

The key is gentle agitation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SergeiR

Well.. as far as storage - I have X-ray that was sitting in cupboard in garage (TX, so its bloody hot in summer, no AC in garage) and it works fine in 2 years time (I been moving around and 3 of boxes with film just never made it into colder rooms, along with some of 4x5 film till last autumn). 2 years is not 10, but.. :)

---

Sergei, it has happened to me too. To forget a half-full box of x-ray film in a drawer in the darkroom for a couple of years.
I didn't run any comparison tests with fresh film to see how much it was affected (fogged etc), but it definitely worked, in terms of producing useable negatives.

But, I was thinking more in terms of stocking up.
After reading Randy Moe's post about China going digital, I thought of investigating the possibility of putting a dozen (or two) boxes in the freezer for when "winter" comes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Sergei, it has happened to me too. To forget a half-full box of x-ray film in a drawer in the darkroom for a couple of years.
I didn't run any comparison tests with fresh film to see how much it was affected (fogged etc), but it definitely worked, in terms of producing useable negatives.

But, I was thinking more in terms of stocking up.
After reading Randy Moe's post about China going digital, I thought of investigating the possibility of putting a dozen (or two) boxes in the freezer for when "winter" comes.

---

I don't think anybody knows how long X-Ray film lasts, frozen or not.

One very good reason is liability. Medical users would be very stupid to store and use outdated X-Ray film. What if the old film didn't show medical conditions? Malpractice. Lawsuit!

The second is, how long have 'normal' photographers used X-Ray? Not that long it seems, as this thread is only 7 years old.

Three, my boxes of X-Ray, and I may have too much, say store at 50-75 F =10-25 C at 30-50 RH. Notice the range is well above freezing.

The only film I have frozen is old sealed color film I got from a freezer and all the opened boxes of that film were destroyed, perhaps by freezer thawing, freezer burn or power outages.

I am not a believer in freezing film, but many are.

And don't freeze Fujiroid, that is known. I have a quantity of 8X10 Polaroid with dried pouches...

Good luck.

At least one person has tried freezing Fuji instant and reported no problems at all as long as it was stored horizontally when frozen. The article is on the net somewhere. It was linked in one of the APUG threads about the discontinuation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Cole

At least one person has tried freezing Fuji instant and reported no problems at all as long as it was stored horizontally when frozen. The article is on the net somewhere. It was linked in one of the APUG threads about the discontinuation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

---

I have Fuji FP series that was frozen, by the Pro that gave it to me. It has been OK. But they don't recommend it. The frozen Polaroid from the same donor is ruined garbage.

The big difference I see is packaging. Fuji seals in metallic foil and Polaroid a sealed paper.

But this thread is about X-Ray and Fujiroid is an entirely different thing.

Moonrise Over Newly Planted Vineyard

I'm still in testing mode with the Agfa HDR film.
But I can only take all the mind-numbing curve-plotting up to a point.
Real life pictures is all that matters, so I just couldn't resist trying out a night exposure.

Speed Graphic with Optar 135 at f8
80min exposure
Agfa HDR mammography film
Tray developed by inspection in Ilford MG 1+100 at 22C for 20min (semi-stand).
Scan from negative, finished in PS.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1668/...461ab02d_b.jpg

I think that's a first like that.

Well done!

Attachment 150020

Posted this in the pinhole thread but since its the first x-ray image I'm even remotely happy with I'll post it here too. If it turns out half as printable as it looks here, it'll be my first decent print from x-ray film but I don't hold my breath.

Fuji 8x10 HR-T X-ray film, f250 @ 8 minutes in Ansco Universal 8x10, with #11 green and #8 yellow filter (why? why not) Rodinal 1:150 7 minutes in tray with only one or three glaring scratches (I put a blank fixed sheet under it and got a lot fewer scratches). Agitated 20 seconds then 1x/minute. Unadulterated straight scan, which I apparently didn't line up to the scanner's liking so one long edge is missing and I'm too lazy to do it over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

I think that's a first like that.

Well done!

---

Thanks Randy!

And another one:

The Eighth Palm Tree

Yesterday was Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day (WPPD).
This was my contribution.

10sec exposure on a very windy Sunday afternoon
18x24cm homemade camera
150mm focal length
0.5mm pinhole
Agfa CP G+ (x-ray film) at 100asa
Tray developed by inspection in Ilford MG 1+100 at 22C for 7min
Scan from negative, finished in PS

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1500/...8d261199_b.jpg

The first of my X-ray film has arrived... As you can see it was the box of dental films. I only ordered it on the 19th April & it came from China a week later!
Can anyone read the script on the box? Just in case there is any information I ought to know...
I don't know who the maker is for certain either.

"Only works on elephants." :p

Neil

If it were elephant size sheets the box would provide a thousand sheets of 4x5.
Seriously: Does anyone know Cantonese, or whatever the script is?
If the packet colours do not follow international standards to denote the speed band I have to look at the packaging.

I sacrificed one piece. The packet (& film) are impressed with a pimple mark in one corner, which shows which side should face the tube.
You wouldn't know which side the emulsion was from the surface appearance.

Is dental X-ray film normally double-sided? That is what it looks like. The pocket had no lead foil inside. The film was enclosed in a fold of black paper.
The emulsion/s, if there are coatings either side are thin enough to see through. You can see light through the film.

I can't read Chinese although I work with a team in China who could probably translate it.
In the mean time I cheated and used my phone to translate from the picture.
The first lines basically says something about medical use X-ray standard dental film and the bottom line is the name of the manufacturer which is...
Tianjin Kang Chinese Health Materials Ltd

Good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Dake

I can't read Chinese although I work with a team in China who could probably translate it.
In the mean time I cheated and used my phone to translate from the picture.
The first lines basically says something about medical use X-ray standard dental film and the bottom line is the name of the manufacturer which is...
Tianjin Kang Chinese Health Materials Ltd

Good luck

---

I was going to reply and say exactly this. Top line just says Dental X-Ray Film and the bottom line is the company of manufacture. No indication of ISO or processing instructions in Chinese.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin Harding

I was going to reply and say exactly this. Top line just says Dental X-Ray Film and the bottom line is the company of manufacture. No indication of ISO or processing instructions in Chinese.

---

Don't expect to see ISO information. It's not photographic film; why would it have a speed rating using a standard applicable only to photography?

As to the packaging, the Carestream products available in the US & Europe come in a pasteboard box with a thick, opaque, plastic inner bag. Certainly no lead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seezee

Don't expect to see ISO information. It's not photographic film; why would it have a speed rating using a standard applicable only to photography?

---

I used incorrect terminology but was merely attempting to respond to the original question of "If the packet colours do not follow international standards to denote the speed band I have to look at the packaging." Should have stated speed band, I suppose.

For medical purposes I believe the correct exposure is given thus: Anode voltage & current flow in the X ray tube + time.
Where sensitivity to X radiation is concerned the difference between bands D and F is that F is only 60% faster. For my purposes the differences are probably meaningless.
I have put films in two 35mm cameras and I will expose one at 50 ASA and the other at 25, developing in Rodinal 1:100 for 7 min and look at the highlights & mids before making a change.
That is unless anyone here believes I ought to try a different dilution/time combination.

I would expose two extra frames, and develop by inspection. Under a red lamp. That way you will learn if your developer concentration is useful to you. When I try a new to me film, I adjust the concentration of Rodinal to water until I get good results at around 10 minutes. Any time will work, but going for longer times means you will have better control over contrast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neil Purling

For medical purposes I believe the correct exposure is given thus: Anode voltage & current flow in the X ray tube + time.
Where sensitivity to X radiation is concerned the difference between bands D and F is that F is only 60% faster. For my purposes the differences are probably meaningless.
I have put films in two 35mm cameras and I will expose one at 50 ASA and the other at 25, developing in Rodinal 1:100 for 7 min and look at the highlights & mids before making a change.
That is unless anyone here believes I ought to try a different dilution/time combination.

---

I second the develop by inspection idea. I fought through a lot of trial and error initially that would have been rapidly resolved if I'd had the red light in there helping. When I switched developers recently, the whole problem of development got solved in one batch. A red LED bulb only costs about three dollars, and is well worth the expenditure on several different levels.

I received some 4"x4" X-ray film: Crontex MRF 21 Plus & loaded it into some holders. I never heard of the film, so i assume it is double-sided unless a Forum member knows for sure

The person also sent me some Kodak Ultra Speed (D). The stuff is in the same coloured plastic pockets as the Tianjin made stuff I got.
When I referred to lead foil I meant within each individual film pocket. It is behind the film if facing the proper way. The foil bears impressions of zig-zag lines that will be impressed upon the radiograph if the film is exposed the wrong way around.

I haven't trays to develope the film under safelight, yet. I believe that I need trays with a totally smooth bottom or to use an insert.
I am used to my Fink-Roselieve Yanke type tank to develope the 4x4 inch Crontek.
I wonder if food service trays would do for the dental film? As long as the bottom is flat & smooth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neil Purling

I received some 4"x4" X-ray film: Crontex MRF 21 Plus & loaded it into some holders. I never heard of the film, so i assume it is double-sided unless a Forum member knows for sure

The person also sent me some Kodak Ultra Speed (D). The stuff is in the same coloured plastic pockets as the Tianjin made stuff I got.
When I referred to lead foil I meant within each individual film pocket. It is behind the film if facing the proper way. The foil bears impressions of zig-zag lines that will be impressed upon the radiograph if the film is exposed the wrong way around.

I haven't trays to develope the film under safelight, yet. I believe that I need trays with a totally smooth bottom or to use an insert.
I am used to my Fink-Roselieve Yanke type tank to develope the 4x4 inch Crontek.
I wonder if food service trays would do for the dental film? As long as the bottom is flat & smooth.

---

The food service trays will wok if they are plastic, or a high grade stainless steel.

I got two 8x4.2" trays from an electronics emporium.They are meant to be used when etching printed circuit boards and are flat bottomed.
I can tape a bin bag over the window at night and Bob's yer uncle. I have a clockwork timer with a ringing bell in the event my red LED lights aren't as safe as hoped. I will test by developing a blank film I left out for 5 min. That should include loading & unloading a holder and the time in the processing cycle making inspections.
If you are tray developing do you only have the light on to inspect progress & switch off again? I am looking at a time between 7 and 10 min in Rodinal, adjusting dilution as the results suggest. I was going to start at 1:100 and dilute further if needed.

Has anyone heard of that Crontex MRF 21 Plus? The provider mentioned 80 ASA for 3 min in ID11 at 22C in a tray, but I prefer Rodinal.

I've only handled 2 kinds of XRay film a double sided and a single sided. Cxs green a Ektascan B/RA which has an anti halation backing. The developer soluble backing is blackish and the emulsion is pink/light colored. Double sided is pink/light both sides.

Rodinal 1:100 might be a place to start with film exposed mid day as if ASA100. There are dozens of developing schemes in this thread though.

I'm searching here and with google, but I can't find X-ray film in 12x15" in Europe.
Can anyone help me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr. Mark

Rodinal 1:100 might be a place to start with film exposed mid day as if ASA100. There are dozens of developing schemes in this thread though.

---

It would take a very long time to read through four thousand posts to find those that involve Rodinal and X-ray film.
Those posts I have read mention a 1:200 dilution for 6 minutes or 1:100 for 4 min. At 1:200 it would be easier to judge the right moment if developing by inspection. It remains to be seen how the Crontex film & the dental stuff reacts to that developer.

If I wish to develope by inspection, then I need to leave a blank sheet of film out under the red light for ten minutes (half covered). Any fogging warns me I must restrict any lighting. Is that a reasonable practice when wanting to tray develope X-ray film?

I try to read each new post in this thread, as posted, but I can't remember what film we're talking about, but... FWIW, I process Ektascan B/RA in Rodinal 1:100 at 20C for 6 mins in an Expert Drum on my Jobo (slowest speed.) I hope this helps someone extrapolate a useful time for themselves. Though I've never used the Kodak Green sensitive film or any of the double-sided films, it seems development times for these products are quite a bit different vs Ektascan.

I have never done tray developing. If you knew a film took 6 minutes in whatever juice in a tank, then it would be the same or pretty close for a tray? I am assuming that the different agitation regimen will make some difference.

Does there have to be a certain amount of chemistry present to develope a 4x5 sheet. I would have thought this is especially relevant if we were using Rodinal 1:100.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neil Purling

I have never done tray developing. If you knew a film took 6 minutes in whatever juice in a tank, then it would be the same or pretty close for a tray? I am assuming that the different agitation regimen will make some difference.

Does there have to be a certain amount of chemistry present to develope a 4x5 sheet. I would have thought this is especially relevant if we were using Rodinal 1:100.

---

Proper timing for tray development might or might not be the same as continuous agitation such as in a Jobo drum, depending on how you agitate in the tray. If you use continuous agitation in a tray, I'd think the development times between this and something like a Jobo drum would be about the same. If your tray agitation is 10 secs out of each minute, then I'd suspect this will require slightly longer development times. Generally, the difference in development times between intermittent agitation and continuous is usually about 10 - 15%. However, this can vary depending on if you pre-rinse or not.

I seen quite conflicting information regarding the minimal amount of stock Rodinal required to properly develop a sheet of film. For example, with 8x10 (what I shoot) I've seen everything from 3ml to 6ml, minimum, required. In my Jobo drum, I typically use 500 - 1000ml of diluted solution--so, 5 - 10ml stock Rodinal--to develop a couple of sheets to a full drum (5 sheets.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Volkmar

I'm searching here and with google, but I can't find X-ray film in 12x15" in Europe.
Can anyone help me?

---

12x15" = 30x40cm (approximately) - http://www.bema-kg.de/Typon-DV-G-30x40-cm-100-Bl any use? Probably others in there too.

Don't know what the film is like though I am waiting for some to play with.

Neil

X-ray film is orthochromatic and can be handled under red light. Why then does it not render skin tones darker like the ortho film of old? Skin with x-ray film looks closer to pan film than ortho. Mind you, I'm fine with that. I'd just like to understand what's going on. Is it that the ortho of old was less sensitive to a wider range of wavelengths?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt

X-ray film is orthochromatic and can be handled under red light. Why then does it not render skin tones darker like the ortho film of old? Skin with x-ray film looks closer to pan film than ortho. Mind you, I'm fine with that. I'd just like to understand what's going on. Is it that the ortho of old was less sensitive to a wider range of wavelengths?

---

I suspect it mainly due to the emulsion's differing reaction to light. I know...duh. :) Orthochromatic emulsion has a relatively high sensitivity to blue, generally correct sensitivity to green and bright yellow, but has relatively low sensitivity to orange and is nearly insensitive to red. This film doesn't register wavelengths longer than about 560-600 nm. It also has decreased sensitivity in the 500 nm area.

Xray film is generally either green or blue sensitive. I couldn't find any data referencing its wavelength sensitivity range, but I'd guess it differs in key ranges when compared to orthochromatic film. Of course, nothing I've said here answers your question regarding the rendering of skin tones...I'm simply postulating. ;)

In printing it's possible to make people look less "swarthy", so you wouldn't notice that part, but it does render skin darker, shows up red skin defects (which turn out to be all over the place, and does strange wonderful things with blue eyes. I have to do quite a bit of retouching of my portraits of women because of these things, and that's one of the reasons I'm experimenting with soft focus lenses. But it does none of this as extremely as collodion, for instance.

The other effect is that under incandescent lights the speed drops, drops, drops.

How much speed drop under W lighting (that's chemist for Tungsten, sorry).? I tried 3 stops correction and thought it was verging on too much. Ektascan BRA in Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 for UV processes. Printable, but dense for that. Longish exposure times (upto 20 minutes) for the cyanotype prints with a printer that with thin negatives gives me 45 sec. to 6 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barnacle

12x15" = 30x40cm (approximately) - http://www.bema-kg.de/Typon-DV-G-30x40-cm-100-Bl any use? Probably others in there too.

Don't know what the film is like though I am waiting for some to play with.

Neil

---

Thanks Neil, but 30x40cm isn't 12x15". This is 30,5x38cm.
I own a very old and heavy 30x40 which isn't very sturdy, but could get a fine British field camera in 12x15". In Germany I could only get X-Ray film in cm. My hope was to get inch films in the UK, but I couldn't find any. In the USA the films are in inch, but there are a lot of problems to get them for me. Most supplier won't send to Germany, or if the postage is very expansive and the duty may cause trouble because it is a medical product....

Best Peter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr. Mark

How much speed drop under W lighting (that's chemist for Tungsten, sorry).? I tried 3 stops correction and thought it was verging on too much. Ektascan BRA in Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 for UV processes. Printable, but dense for that. Longish exposure times (upto 20 minutes) for the cyanotype prints with a printer that with thin negatives gives me 45 sec. to 6 minutes.

---

I haven't spent a lot of time on it because I don't use a meter anyway, but my sense of it is about 1.5 stops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt

X-ray film is orthochromatic and can be handled under red light. Why then does it not render skin tones darker like the ortho film of old? Skin with x-ray film looks closer to pan film than ortho. Mind you, I'm fine with that. I'd just like to understand what's going on. Is it that the ortho of old was less sensitive to a wider range of wavelengths?

---

I was puzzled with Kodak CSG about that too, to be honest. Not that i complain - i like to have wider range in skin.

Btw, speaking of blue base & etc.

Here is contact print with Vandyke, sorry for crappy iPhone shot.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1600/...76b473f4_c.jpgVandyke print by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Took about 1.5 minutes under sun. Overprinted a bit, but hey.. its first Vandyke i actually like.

I have more of contact prints done with lith and regular process on FB and RC papers around, But it always was bugging me than I never managed to get any UV based print before. So there we go ;) And yes, its my typical dense negative.

If weather allows this weekend - i will try few more, including kalitypes ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Volkmar

Thanks Neil, but 30x40cm isn't 12x15". This is 30,5x38cm.
Best Peter

---

Sorry Peter. I wasn't sure whether 12x15 was an exact inch measure or a metric approximation.

Neil

That's a fine print, Sergei! I find that with high-contrast negatives (and no need to add dichromate to the sensitizer as a result), the tone of the print is more neutral. With selenium toning, I sometimes get a nearly neutral grey tone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

That's a fine print, Sergei! I find that with high-contrast negatives (and no need to add dichromate to the sensitizer as a result), the tone of the print is more neutral. With selenium toning, I sometimes get a nearly neutral grey tone.

---

Thank you. Its pity i threw last of my golden toner out about year ago :( Now if only i can find place in Dallas that sells toners :(

And here is my first kalitype with another X-ray.

Basically - looks like x-ray prints in contact to vandyke, kalitype fantastically well. Now i just need to fine tune process.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1688/...1eced75f_b.jpgKalitype - portrait by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Those look great, Sergei!

Sergei, Love your work. You might enjoy Dr. Mike Ware's new cyanotype.