Neil 1:50 Rodinal may be too strong, too. Different films but I had better results with 1:100.
Printable View
Neil 1:50 Rodinal may be too strong, too. Different films but I had better results with 1:100.
Mark, I found 100:1 too thin. I posted some other 50:1 developed shots upthread on the eighth of June.
Neil
Attachment 153236
Wollensak Rochester Voltas F8 lens (1912), Improved Seneca View Camera (1906), 5x7, AGFA X-ray, Blue film, I shot as ISO 100, (f5.6, 1/25) then I run it through a tray of X-ray film T2 developer (diluted 3 times) for just one minutes. The film was transferred to the water tray and after fix for 5 min. After fixation film was washed for 10-15 minutes in running water.
Jim:
Did you ever get a reply from ZZ or find additional sheets with the line in your box?
Thanks.
Nice work Gene!
I have been messing with green sensitive x-ray film
http://hautavis.net/146/o.png
Yes, I did get a reply from them right away. They were very concerned. It seems like there was something in the bellows of the camera from the move. I told them and they said if I had any further problems to let them know. Great C/S. It was the owner that I spoke with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Jones
This is probably obvious to people with more experience: everything else being equal and never mind that it never is, if when developing film the water temperature goes up and you try to compensate with decreased development time, is it likely that grain will increase and contrast too? It seems like that's what's been going on. Water is around 83 F right now (later summer here) and my Ektscan development times drop to about 5 minutes and it seems like grain and contrast are going up. Can't measure either one, but it seems like it. Been using pyrocat HD either 2:2:100 or 1:1:100.
Perseids 2016
210mm lens at f5.6
1 hour exposure on 13x18cm Agfa X-Ray film
Tray developed by inspection
Scan, finished in PS
This lens, on this format, produces a field of view that is a bit too tight for this particular purpose.
I saw at least 5 rather big meteors right outside the confines of this frame.
A wider lens would have caught them for sure.
Next time.
Yet, if you look closely, you can see a couple of tiny dust particles burning upon entering the atmosphere.
https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8112/2...3cbccd0f_b.jpg
nice foreground anchor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras
I think I see an airplane, too. 13x18cm is around 5x7 and on 5x7 150mm and 90mm start to get pretty wide. I'd wanted to see the Perseid shower of meteors but we got endless cloudy nights and rain showers. I need to find a hill with a commanding view and try this even w/o meteors.
Wonderful! It actually looks like a normal shot for me with all my scratch marks!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126027782@N03/28242733493
Attachment 154260
Korona Camera (1932), Bausch and Lomb Unicum shutter and lens (1897), 8x10, AGFA X-ray, Blue film, I shot as ISO 100, (f5.6, 1/15) then I run it through a tray of X-ray film T2 developer (diluted 3 times) for just one minutes. The film was transferred to the water tray and after fix for 5 min. After fixation film was washed for 10-15 minutes in running water. Scan Epson V500, merge all images in CS4.
Congratulations on the birth and great photo. well done!
I'm trying to source EU store where to order X-ray film from (which would provide shipping to Finland at reasonable cost) and I come empty handed... Where can one find 18x24cm film in EU these days? Mammography film would be preferred but not required :)
Thanks guys!
(stawastawa, Fr. Mark, andrewch59)
Mark,
astronomy was my gateway to photography as a teenager. Stargazing still gives me more pleasure than most things. But it's rather hard to get to a nice dark sky with all the light pollution we're creating.
andrewch59,
even though I've been using x-ray film for a long time, one of the main problems I never managed to fix to my satisfaction were the scratches.
That is, until I found this thread.
I used to buy 15x30cm film and cut it down to 4x5", which required four successive cuts (I was removing all the round edges). In addition to the too much handling for the cutting part, and because the process was tedious and time consuming, I also used to do it in batches.
Mistake number two.
All those sharp edged 4x5" sheets stored in film envelopes, inevitably scratched each other.
So, after reading some very helpful comments in this thread, I decided to build a camera set-up around a film size available to me locally, instead of trying to make the film fit my 4x5" camera/holders.
For the past few months I've been using 18x24cm film, which I use either un-cut, or I cut once to 13x18cm.
In addition to the format change, I now cut, load, unload, and develop each individual sheet separately, instead of storing them all together in film bags (either un-exposed or exposed).
This way of working, plus the glass bottomed processing trays, seem to have solved the problem of scratches for me.
ValoPeikko,
Someone mentioned the following site some time ago:
http://www.bema-kg.de/navi.php?a=150786&lang=eng
I haven't used them yet though, so cannot comment on how good they are.
Bema doesn't seem to want to ship anywhere other then germany and austria.. Oh well, search continues. I used to purchase my film from local vet, but since they've all gone digital there's no source for me anymore.
Try contacting AGFA I think the are in Belgium?
Ok newbie questions here on X ray film
Please do not ask me to look at over 500 posts to get this answer- yes I am lazy.
I am trying to figure out if this film could work as an Interneg film?? for large scale digital silver negatives .
How would xray film compare to normal ortho film ??
what approx ISO would I be dealing with this film?
Do you think it would work in a laser exposure unit?
It should, but I have no experience in this particular area.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob carnie
Probably quite similar, but it is very fragile (regular, contemporary ortho film probably has a tougher top coat) and the spectral sensitivity might differ from whatever ortho film you compare it to. Note also the difference between green-sensitive and blue-sensitive x-ray film. The former comes closets to regular ortho film.Quote:
How would xray film compare to normal ortho film ??
Generally between 50 and 100, with 80 being a good starting point for further testing.Quote:
what approx ISO would I be dealing with this film?
Yes, I think so, but you may run into trouble with the double-sided film, as it generally suffers a bit from scattering, which will possibly degrade the recorded detail. You'll have to test it to see if it works and if the results are up to the standards you require.Quote:
Do you think it would work in a laser exposure unit?
Your best (safest) bet is probably Ektascan BR/A, which is a single-sided, green-sensitive ('ortho') film with an anti-halation coating on the backside. I think it only comes in 8x10" though. There may be alternatives that share similar properties (single-sided, with anti-halation backing) that come in more sizes, but I'm not familiar with them.
thank You koraks- very nice response
I will see if the Ektascan BR/A can be purchased in 20 inch or 30inch roll, its got to be cut from a master roll.
Bob,
for your task, it may be of some interest that the carrier of the film is couloured, instead of transparent.
I don't believe in a generally classic orthographic sensitivity, because depending on the Xray product, and their excist a lot, the sensivity differ.
So in my opinion, "The" Xray film doesn't excist.
Best thing may be to study some data sheets and to buy a cheep pack in smaller size, for doing some experiments.
Ritchie
ZZ medical sells 14x17 Ektascan but you have to buy 500 sheets at a time for about $2/sheet.
Internegative: I thought I would make a positive on the way to an internegative. I got massive over exposure with the shortest times and smallest f stop on my enlarger. YMMV.
The base of the Ektascan is blue as is most XRay film. There is a spectral response curve on the Ektascan data sheet. It is not v red sensitive but super bright LEDs are not 100% red and even so they will fog the film if you make the darkroom too bright.
I'm tempted to buy more but also tempted to make my own emulsions. I guess it is a former chemist who wants to play in the lab thing. The 8x10 fits directly into typical 8x10 film holders. It is notched in one corner but the two sides are obvious under dim red light.
I imagine that the moderators thought they did us a favor combining the XRay film threads but for a new person reading 4382 posts has to be intimidating. Maybe we need a summary of what we've learned on the main page?
People have talked about a summary for awhile.... Just get some and jump in.
I'm still trying to figure developing times in H -110 to tame the contrast!
Try HC 110, 1+100, 6-8 minutes @ 75 degrees, in a tray with light agitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis-F-S
It's amazing how many posts there are to my original post on X-ray film, these many years ago. This is quite a popular topic!
Gene, nice to know what you started a long time ago has taken on a life of it's own. A lot of information here.
Yesterday we developed four sheets of 14x17 single sided x-ray film. I have a workshop student staying with me. I built Matt's 14x17 camera for him and we never got to test it out before we moved north. So we shot some x-ray film and developed it in 1:1:150 Pyrocat HD for about 12 minutes and have some wonderful negatives. I've also used Rodinal 1:100 for 9 minutes with great success. The Pyrocat tames the contrast very well. Now for me because I print carbon transfer I'm not to concerned about to much contrast. Never a problem as there are many controls. I'll go over all of these with Matt when we expose, develop and print some 8x10 negatives. He should leave with a good understanding of the entire process.
X-ray film is a great teaching tool. It is inexpensive so you can shoot many images, easy to develop because you can see it develop and it prints well when doing carbon transfer.
So again Gene, thanks for turning us on to x-ray film.
+10
May I third that motion. I started with xray as a cheap alternative to bring an old camera back to life. This thread has been a valuable source of information, cant see myself using any other kind of film now. Thanks Gene
If you're getting too much contrast, you might try one or more of the following:
1) Expose more and develop less,
2) Use a softer developer. For example, if you like Pyrocat, try the two bath technique.
3) Use David Kachel's SLIMT technique,
4) Pre-expose the film to zone 0, i.e. 1 stop below zone 1,
5) Strip one side with bleach, if using two sided film,
6) Make a contrast reducing mask,
7) Switch from silver gelatin printing to one of the alternatives that likes negatives with a high density range,
8) Add fill light.
Peter thanks for these ideas!
May I tentatively add, keep the developer water a sensible temp in the summer with some water from fridge to avoid over development? I've not tried it since I realized it might be the cause of some of my problems because I suddenly got busy.
Olive Harvest 2015
135mm lens
4x5" Agfa green X-Ray film
Rotary processing
Scan from film, finished in PS
https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8292/2...c3d48621_b.jpg
Huh. It looks like you got some true solarization in the sun. Is that a possible artifact of X-ray film?
Jim, I process in 1 Gal tanks with the film in hangers. Will try some sheets tomorrow at 1:100 HC-110 at 68 F with light agitation. Thanks, LQuote:
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
Excellent photograph, Thodoris. Good job holding all that detail in the sky. Steve, that is possible with conventional B/W film, too. AA talked about it in one of his books.
Though x-ray film is capable of capturing true solarisation, the effect is somewhat subtle.Quote:
Originally Posted by scheinfluger_77
For a more pronounced effect (the sun disc turning black) I use direct positive paper.
There are a couple of examples of that on my flickr page.
Thanks Andrew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
Heads up.
ZZMedical of Iowa has a sale price today only, of 5% off all X-Ray film.
https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-r...-ray-film.html
I have no connection with ZZ, but have bought from them.
Great! I just ordered 2 more boxes of CSHB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
POLL: Do you use blue or green sensitive x-ray film? Do you have a preference? WHY?
I use half-speed blue for a couple of reasons: I want a spectral sensitivity that mimics older ortho or even colorblind films, and I need the slower speed because I'm using a barrel lens with a Packard shutter & need to deal with longer exposures due the mechanical constraints of my setup.
I use Ektascan and cut it 11x14, I use the same exact stuff in 8x10. https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-r...ideo-film.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by seezee
I also use Kodak Carestream CSG1 – Green in various sizes. This stuff https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-r...-ray-film.html
Never tried the blue. I really know nothing about it. Why is it 1/2 speed? What does that mean to us? Why is the above link to CSB1 – "Full Speed Blue".
Why do you think blue is so different? CSG Green IS also blue base tint. I think it all X-Ray is blue as it's easier on Doctor's eyes on a light table. They stare at this stuff for hours...Maybe I'm wrong. I started with Kodak CSG Green and it works well for me.
Since I am happy with how my 2 chosen by chance X-Ray works for me, I am not testing any other brand or type.
Tell us more about your reasoning.
I used some CXS green but did not like the halation nor dealing with two emulsions even with hangers and the too narrow tanks I made I still got scratches. I do not like the look of blue only films/emulsions so I picked the green. I prefer Ektascan B/RA for its Ortho sensitization, single emulsion and anti halation layer. It fits 8x10 holders well. I've cut it for 4x5 and 5x7. I've even put left over strips of it from making 5x7 into 35mm cameras.
It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that green/blue refer to the spectral sensitivity of the emulsion, not the color of the substrate. AFAIK, all x-ray film uses the same base: blue tinted polyester.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
I find the blue stuff is even more prone to halation than the double sided green stuff, which is the only kind I can get here at reasonable costs. I also don't particularly like the spectral response of the blue film. I only use green now.
I'm not young nor wealthy enough to test all iterations of X-Ray. When I was wandering in the Red light (dark) a few years to. I closel listened to Jim Fitzgerald whom I think said just pick one, they are similar for our purposes. So being the Kodak 'Hater' (kidding!). I am from anger, I chose Kodak CSG 2X and later Ektascan for its single coating, despite many very good practioners of X-Ray, such as Sergei Rodonov saying it was a waste of money and cheapest Realn X-works just fine. Sergei certainly produces results that I can only admire and I doubt eve approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
My advice is Jim's and Sergei's, buy the cheapest X-Ray possible and shoot it like clay pigeons. Meaning use a whole box of 100 sheets, ASAP you will know what it is.
Randy is right. Don't over analyze it. Int is cheap so shoot a lot and you will learn what you like. For 8x10 buy some single sided stuff and some blue and green. You will be out less than 200 and have 300 sheets of film. Man you can experiment like crazy and you will learn a lot. I do not give it any extra exposure for reciprocity and it works fine. Develop in Pyrocat HD or Rodinal and enjoy. I have this stuff in 11x14 green and blue and all three in 14x17. What is not to like!
Yep. Spectral responses.. Special magic doohickies..
Seriously - buy film, shoot it, then work on refining things.
Little to no knowledge actually required to deal with that (or any other in fact) film, if you possess basic developing skills and have little discipline to figure out sensitivity & etc.
Its fraction of the cost of any other large format film, specially if you go with double sided versions. Now where you will take it after you got film working for you - entirely different matter, but that is where actual photography starts.
7x17 Fuji green X-ray developed in Rodinol 1:100 for 6 mins. Attachment 154699
I use both single and double-sided. For the double-sided it's green latitude. I prefer the double-sided's look. Lovely stuff when using light green or light yellow filters. I also shoot the green lat in 14x17. Because I like full, luminous shadows, I apply reciprocity compensation.
thank you for reminder! I kept thinking i want to try something and yes - it was green-yellow filters again!Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
We having awesome clouds lately, of course by time i get into field everything will be gone, but i can hope, right? :)
I've only used films that are available locally. Which means, Agfa only (Kodak closed its distribution center here about a decade ago).
I used green sensitive Agfa CP-G+ for a long time. It has no AH backing, and it has rather pronounced halation where highlights meet with shadows—or even mid-tones for that matter.
Now, I'm using green sensitive Agfa HDR. It's single sided and it has AH layer.
In a comparison with the CP-G+ (shot the same scene with both emulsions), I found HDR to have better definition. This is more of interest for enlargements. In contact prints, examined from a normal viewing distance, it's hard to spot the difference.
Fr. Mark was kind enough to send me some Ektascan B/RA to test, but the past few months have been crazy busy (with a literary project) so, I haven't found the time to do some comparative shooting between it and the HDR.