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

Has anyone tried using orange filters to darken skies with this film? I was looking at the spectral transmission graphs for some of B+W's green,yellow and orange filters, and there are a few orange ones that reduce transmission below mid-green.

I want to darken skies, because my outdoor shots look like they were taken during supernova. Evaluating my options and wondering if any of you guys have maybe tried colour filters with these films.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by senderoaburrido

Has anyone tried using orange filters to darken skies with this film? I was looking at the spectral transmission graphs for some of B+W's green,yellow and orange filters, and there are a few orange ones that reduce transmission below mid-green.

I want to darken skies, because my outdoor shots look like they were taken during supernova. Evaluating my options and wondering if any of you guys have maybe tried colour filters with these films.

---

My guess is that you'd have a seriously underexposed negative. Since the film doesn't see to the orange part of the spectrum, and the filter you propose lets that part of the spectrum through while blocking what the film does see, you'd have a close to black image.

Having said that, x-ray film is cheap. Why not try it and report back?

Use a yellow filter. Seems to work okay with x-ray. Also, depending on situation, a polarizer can be helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Use a yellow filter. Seems to work okay with x-ray. Also, depending on situation, a polarizer can be helpful.

---

I agree with Bryan - yellow. I tried an orange a couple years ago with the green sensitive x-ray film I had and the negs were severely under exposed.

Well I never gave up on the Mod54. I snipped off the fingers that protrude to hold the film in place, after feedback it seemed these were more of a hindrance than anything else. There is still a little groove there for the film to sit in but it does not interfere with the flow or cause unwanted marks in development because of them.
What I did do was load it up with film and marked where the film crossed the wings at each end. I t hen drilled small holes in the wings at the ends of the spool and injected gasket goo? through them to cause a small nipple that would prevent the film from slipping out. I have only tried two 4x5 at a time so far and it works a treat. The wings at each end can be pulled out slightly to allow placement of the film and then closed to hold the film in place.
Attachment 159956

Huh, what do you know, that looks perfect! Can you post a picture of the modifications to the MOD54?

Attachment 159957 unfortunately it doesn't stop scratches cause by cutting up 8x10 size film and loading. I used sergei's amounts for R09 and it has been pretty much spot on I think, thanks Sergei

All you really need to do for the Mod54 is feel where the film sits and feel the edges. If you can feel anything slightly "sharp" just file it down lightly. Doing that with gentle agitation makes the Mod54 a breeze to use.


I like your results andrewch59 but the sky looks a bit uneven. I'm mainly looking at the top right portion of the sky (yes I'm also accounting for where the sun is by looking at the shadows)

Hi AXS810, it was a real test run taking that photo. I had just finished grinding down the GG on my Shen Hao hzx45 iia, to try and get it a little more light sensitive, I then put a an old graflex Fresnel behind it and was trying it out for focussing. I also had my new to me super angulon 90mm f8 lens on, and a circular polarizing filter, which was the first time I had tried it. It seems that there is a change up in the filter that I need to be aware of, if not you get that uneven sky tone. I also didn't allow a couple of stops for the filter.
As far as the mod54 goes, my film would slip out of the holder during rotation, others mentioned that the longer "fingers??" disrupted the flow and left tell tale marks well into their negs. I did notice a couple of scratches on another neg I developed which seems to be from me not rounding of the fingers well enough. Hey! it was just a test to see if I could get it functioning, its not a cheap bit of plastic to buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seezee

My guess is that you'd have a seriously underexposed negative. Since the film doesn't see to the orange part of the spectrum, and the filter you propose lets that part of the spectrum through while blocking what the film does see, you'd have a close to black image.

Having said that, x-ray film is cheap. Why not try it and report back?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

Use a yellow filter. Seems to work okay with x-ray. Also, depending on situation, a polarizer can be helpful.

---

I think that's the idea, though. Bump up exposures significantly, at least in landscape shots, to get a more balanced exposure. If you take a look at the Carestream EB/RA sensitivity graph, it's actually more sensitive to high green than it is to blue, by a smidge. Taking a second look at the B+W filter transmission graphshttp://www.ars-imago.com/productinfo...onCurves_e.pdf, I can see that yellow would probably make a hell of a difference. It's interesting to see that even though true yellow light is supposed to start around 580nm, above the cutoff for my film's sensitivity, the filter still transmits light well below that mark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewch59

Hi AXS810, it was a real test run taking that photo. I had just finished grinding down the GG on my Shen Hao hzx45 iia, to try and get it a little more light sensitive, I then put a an old graflex Fresnel behind it and was trying it out for focussing. I also had my new to me super angulon 90mm f8 lens on, and a circular polarizing filter, which was the first time I had tried it. It seems that there is a change up in the filter that I need to be aware of, if not you get that uneven sky tone. I also didn't allow a couple of stops for the filter.
As far as the mod54 goes, my film would slip out of the holder during rotation, others mentioned that the longer "fingers??" disrupted the flow and left tell tale marks well into their negs. I did notice a couple of scratches on another neg I developed which seems to be from me not rounding of the fingers well enough. Hey! it was just a test to see if I could get it functioning, its not a cheap bit of plastic to buy.

---

Ahh I understand now. The use of the polarizing filter would explain what I'm seeing :)

Can't wait to see your future results with this set up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

Huh, what do you know, that looks perfect! Can you post a picture of the modifications to the MOD54?

---

+1

I've been trying different developing combinations over the last month for 8x10 x-ray film, and finally, after about a couple dozen over-developed, fogged, or badly scratched negatives, I've found a method that works consistently for me. I tried using a gallon size mason jar, but it leaked and was messy to use, I tried the unicolor 8x10 tube, but it scratched the negative, I tried a cibachrome tank, but it scratched the negative. I tried using a red fluorescent light that was supposed to be safe for x-ray film, but it was fogging the film. I tried developing in the Stearman Press developer that came with the SP-445, but it caused millions of tiny black spots to cover the negative, I tried developing in HC-110, but the film was very grainy and lost lots of detail.

I am now doing tray developing with a sheet of glass on the bottom in total darkness and developing by inspection using an old Eyeclops night vision toy with half strength Acufine developer. I'm still trying to learn how properly developed x-ray film looks under infrared light, but my negatives are now consistently properly developed with almost no scratches.

I think the skies are a bit mottled, because I'm not getting consistent development on the top and bottom emulsion, but I think it gives an interesting look.

Here is an example of one of my first photos with the new process:

Attachment 160158

and here is another that I had posted to the Cemeteries thread:

Attachment 160159

Nice results. I flip my negatives over every minute or so developing in tanks, which might help your mottling problem? I've never seen that on my negatives, anyway.

Acufine is a great developer! I've used it diluted a couple of times but never with x-ray, very cool.

Dito, although I flip the sheets over even more frequently - about every 15 seconds. This prevents hot edges, which seems to be caused by developer replenishing the bottom side of the film along the edges, but not in the center of the sheets. Continuous agitation and frequent turning of the film so far has been the only way I get reasonably good negatives.

I'm sure I'm getting the mottling because I'm mainly keeping the film flat on the glass and not moving it much to keep it from getting smudged or scratched. The glass I'm using is 8 x 10 from a picture frame and still has sharp edges. I might try getting some larger glass, so the film can be moved and flipped more without being scratched. Half strength Acufine only gives me about 3 minutes of developing time, so I might try 1/4 strength and see if I have more time to flip the film.

Very first negative. I didn't put much effort into avoiding scratches. I'm cutting 11x14 down to 5x7 and I don't yet have a good cutting system. Once I have that in place, things will look significantly better (and I'll make more effort to be careful about dust, which there's also plenty of).

Still, I'm pleased. I expected the contrast to be more difficult to handle. Lot's of potential here, but I'm going to need a lot more practice! Developed with Caffenol and fixed with TF-5:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]160191[/ATTACH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

Dito, although I flip the sheets over even more frequently - about every 15 seconds. This prevents hot edges, which seems to be caused by developer replenishing the bottom side of the film along the edges, but not in the center of the sheets. Continuous agitation and frequent turning of the film so far has been the only way I get reasonably good negatives.

---

I was going to ask how folk handled developing the back-side of the double-emulsion film when tray developing. Both to avoid scratches and to get even development on front and back. I haven't tried the sheet of glass trick yet, but plan to soon.

Since I'm semi-stand developing, I wonder how often I should be flipping if I go back to trays with the double-sided stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Westerman

I tried using a red fluorescent light that was supposed to be safe for x-ray film, but it was fogging the film.

---

Many of those on this thread, including myself, had had good luck with this lamp. This base allows you to double your output when used with a standard spring-clip shop light. As long as you point the fixture toward the ceiling or walls, away from your trays, you shouldn't fog film. It's okay to shine directly for a short time for inspection. I have left film sitting in trays for an hour under those conditions with no noticeable harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seezee

I was going to ask how folk handled developing the back-side of the double-emulsion film when tray developing. Both to avoid scratches and to get even development on front and back. I haven't tried the sheet of glass trick yet, but plan to soon.

Since I'm semi-stand developing, I wonder how often I should be flipping if I go back to trays with the double-sided stuff.

---

I use Cesco trays which are extremely smooth and do not scratch the film. They are one standard size larger than the film size. I agitate almost constantly and flip the film every minute. No scratches and nice even development,

Yeah, I use a non-stick oven tray that is very smooth as well. I suppose as glass tray would work too. I don't have much hope for getting even development with semi-stand due to the underside of the film being unevenly affected by fresh developer seeping underneath the film along the edges. It should work fine if you just use one side and strip the backside. I tried stripping one side and it works fine (with chlorox), but it's a little messy and there's the risk of chlorox getting to the image side if you don't tape the negative down properly. Due to the loss of density, I haven't pursued this route yet, but it seems feasible - although it's a bit of extra work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seezee

I was going to ask how folk handled developing the back-side of the double-emulsion film when tray developing. Both to avoid scratches and to get even development on front and back.
...I wonder how often I should be flipping if I go back to trays with the double-sided stuff.

---

Feel free to have a look at post 4534 where I described the effects of nonflipping longer than 30 seconds in my trays.
A little hint for protecting the emulsion is hidden in this post, too :-)

If the developer doesn't reach the emulsion in a good way, you will get two densities in one negative, in the best case.

Ritchie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seezee

Many of those on this thread, including myself, had had good luck with this lamp. This base allows you to double your output when used with a standard spring-clip shop light. As long as you point the fixture toward the ceiling or walls, away from your trays, you shouldn't fog film. It's okay to shine directly for a short time for inspection. I have left film sitting in trays for an hour under those conditions with no noticeable harm.

---

I had no idea! I bought a 40$ CAD darkroom light when I could have bought that instead. Dang. Thanks for bringing it up again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Noel

I use Cesco trays which are extremely smooth and do not scratch the film. They are one standard size larger than the film size. I agitate almost constantly and flip the film every minute. No scratches and nice even development,

---

This is really good information. I've been experimenting with pushing night shots a little bit, and every time I push, I do it in trays so I can observe the development. All my negatives from tray development come out scratched in patterns like the flurried flight path of moths beneath a street lamp. The communal dark room I use has some worn, old trays. I'll try these Cesco trays and see if it makes a difference.

When you agitate, do you gently move the tray laterally, in a swaying motion, or do you rock it up and down?

Those bulbs are so freaking bright I can't imagine why you'd need two of them in one location. One bulb illuminates my 24 foot wet darkroom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Noel

I use Cesco trays which are extremely smooth and do not scratch the film. They are one standard size larger than the film size. I agitate almost constantly and flip the film every minute. No scratches and nice even development,

---

I've managed to scratch film even in the Cesco trays (I don't own any plastic trays).

If you are scratching this film you have to pay attention. Be aware of loading and unloading your film. Be gentile and not in a hurry. It should be easy as you are working in the red light. Go over how you load and unload. Something you are doing is wrong. I've never scratched any of this film all the way up to 14x17.

I recently started using x-ray film, double sided Kodak green sensitive. The only trays big enough that I had are cat litter trays which I use satisfactorily for paper. They have a dimple in the bottom which I knew would be a problem, and it was - scratches all over the place, both sides, since I tried to give each side the same development. I'm wondering why people are talking about a piece of glass on the bottom of the tray? To me, this is an immediate source of frustration, as the sheet sticking to the glass would make flipping the film difficult, and itself a source of possible scratching from frustrated fingers. Why not conventional fluted trays, which allow some movement of developer underneath and allow easier flipping?

Because the 'flutes' will also leave scratches.

Yeah, I'm almost completely sure that the scratching is not coming from my loading and unloading. While I could be more delicate in doing both, my drum-developed 4x5's never have scratches. It has to be the tray and possibly the way I agitate. I was getting scratches on my tray developed fomapan,too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by senderoaburrido

Yeah, I'm almost completely sure that the scratching is not coming from my loading and unloading. While I could be more delicate in doing both, my drum-developed 4x5's never have scratches. It has to be the tray and possibly the way I agitate. I was getting scratches on my tray developed fomapan,too.

---

Make sure you have plenty of chemical in the tray. This may help. I tray develop 14x17 and have never had a problem. Cesco tray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

Because the 'flutes' will also leave scratches.

---

They've been said to cause uneven development on double-emulsion film, in earlier posts, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plaubel

Feel free to have a look at post 4534 where I described the effects of nonflipping longer than 30 seconds in my trays.
A little hint for protecting the emulsion is hidden in this post, too :-)

If the developer doesn't reach the emulsion in a good way, you will get two densities in one negative, in the best case.

Ritchie

---

Thanks, I had forgotten that one. So are you stand developing, but also flipping every 30 seconds? You mention stand developing at the end of the post. Or perhaps that was in tanks.

Someone inquired about filters. I tested this several years ago and posted results here. You'll have to go back and search. I prefer to use #8 or #15 yellow Wratten filters, as well as the light green #11, on double-sided green latitude.
Also, if you really want to play with double-sided x-ray and minimal agitation, you really should stay away from trays. But, flipping the film each time it is agitated is smart. And.... flat-bottomed trays are the best. Just my personal opinion! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Someone inquired about filters. I tested this several years ago and posted results here. You'll have to go back and search. I prefer to use #8 or #15 yellow Wratten filters, as well as the light green #11, on double-sided green latitude.
Also, if you really want to play with double-sided x-ray and minimal agitation, you really should stay away from trays. But, flipping the film each time it is agitated is smart. And.... flat-bottomed trays are the best. Just my personal opinion! :)

---

Thanks for the advice. For 4×5, I probably will. When I get my Century Universal in working order, I will be tray developing. So I will probably not be stand developing those negatives.

I have some 8x10 hangers and fashioned a plexi-glass tank so that I could do full on stand in very dilute Pyrocat-HD. I think I posted results somewhere in this long thread...

I only tray developed as I had no tanks. Agitate too fast and you get flow marks and dark edging, develop too slow and you get mottling. I would try to avoid doing pics with lots of sky, as it really showed the flaws. I did control it by using very weak developer mix and agitating longer.
My best result so far was using rotary, yes with xray one slip and you just have a negative full of scratches, but wow, when it all goes correctly there is less dust marks, scratches and mottling. If tray developing use a tray a lot bigger than your film size, to prevent the developer splashing back off the side of your tray and avoid any tray that has grooves in the bottom, this causes an area of faster flow too! Thrift shops and the like always have old pyrex dishes going cheap. Perfect developing trays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayne

Those bulbs are so freaking bright I can't imagine why you'd need two of them in one location. One bulb illuminates my 24 foot wet darkroom

---

I have them pointed away from my work area, into a corner of my bathroom. White ceiling, seafoam green walls. Reflected, indirect light. So 2 bulbs better than 1.

Attachment 160317

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Someone inquired about filters. I tested this several years ago and posted results here. You'll have to go back and search. I prefer to use #8 or #15 yellow Wratten filters, as well as the light green #11, on double-sided green latitude.
Also, if you really want to play with double-sided x-ray and minimal agitation, you really should stay away from trays. But, flipping the film each time it is agitated is smart. And.... flat-bottomed trays are the best. Just my personal opinion! :)

---

I took a look and it was very helpful. You've convinced me to give yellow a try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seezee

So are you stand developing, but also flipping every 30 seconds?

---

No - I would call this technique flippdeveloping instead of stand developing:-)

What I have seen in my trays is that 45 to 60 seconds without flipping the negative will result in uneven development.
But maybe I have to mention that I use Rodinal, which exhausts quick, especially in dilutions of 1:100 and weaker.

The layer on the tray bottom has less access to fresh developer than the layer on top, and once exhausted, Rodinal becomes lazy as a slowt.


Stand development in a tank for me has the advantage of totally advoiding any scratches and further gives identical development on both sides of the film, without burning the highlights.
I have to look forward to the other advantages of stand development, concerning the shadows...

Ritchie

Used yellow filter in mail, and this weekend I'm finally picking up all the stuff from my PO box, including the UV stuff. I'm eager to share the results with you guys.

I got a 135mm chrome-barrel EL-Nikkor, which hasn't been as extensively tested as the shorter focal length EL-Nikkor's for UV transmission. Should cover 4x5, and at 30$, it was worth a try. Gonna' slap a B+W 403 filter in front and see what I can get using Ektascan B/RA film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Kirsten

I recently started using x-ray film, double sided Kodak green sensitive. The only trays big enough that I had are cat litter trays which I use satisfactorily for paper. They have a dimple in the bottom which I knew would be a problem, and it was - scratches all over the place, both sides, since I tried to give each side the same development. I'm wondering why people are talking about a piece of glass on the bottom of the tray? To me, this is an immediate source of frustration, as the sheet sticking to the glass would make flipping the film difficult, and itself a source of possible scratching from frustrated fingers. Why not conventional fluted trays, which allow some movement of developer underneath and allow easier flipping?

---

Barry The sheet of glass placed in a 8x10 tray eliminated three dense lines in a traditional tray, no scratches and I rock the tray side to side then switch to rocking end to end.
The film does not stick to the glass,as a aid to pick up the film I cut all corners at 45deg which enable quite easy removing the neg from the developer.
I use Fuji HRT 1:100 rodinal as a developer.
I have been testing some Kodak R-Min x-Ray and this develops quite nicely in Rodinal 1:100 and LC 29 13mm +1000 which is giving a slightly denser neg Dev times 6-8 Minutes
Bazz with a Croweaters greeting

Attachment 160537

A few years ago I bought some Ektascan BR/A X-ray film for my 8x10 camera. The film was a little slow for my needs so I didn't end up shooting too much, but looking back at images I took years ago I am wondering what caused these lines in the photo attached. I did a pre-soak and then tray developed in HC110 1:31 but forgot what development times I used.

Could these lines be caused from too strong of a developer dilution + short development time? I'm wondering if I should have used a more diluted developer to prolong to development time in hopes of a more evenly developed negative with less density.


Any thoughts or suggestion is much appreciated! :)


BTW, has Ektascan BR/A 8x10 gone up in price over the past 2 years?

You mean the extra density along the lower edge and in the top left corner? That looks like a light leak or a non-safe darkroom light. Local overdevelopment mat play a role as well, but it mostly looks like fogging.

I'm mainly talking about the lines seen across the middle of the image. Best seen on the dress

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...8&d=1485765728

The fogging was taken care of.


edit/ added crop photo

It's really very hard to see what you mean, but I think I can see it. It looks more like mottling than like straight lines, can this be the case? If so, it would suggest uneven development.

For me this "lines" show the same structures (grass, trees) as in the negative themselves , but with a shift to the right side, somehow looking like a double exposure - and I have no idea why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seezee

Many of those on this thread, including myself, had had good luck with this lamp. This base allows you to double your output when used with a standard spring-clip shop light. As long as you point the fixture toward the ceiling or walls, away from your trays, you shouldn't fog film. It's okay to shine directly for a short time for inspection. I have left film sitting in trays for an hour under those conditions with no noticeable harm.

---

I have used that exact bulb with great results, however, be warned that the globe is held on with hot-melt glue. If you screw it into a socket that is still warm from a different bulb, the globe falls off. Mine still works fine without a globe, but might be dangerous, but I still use it. It's very bright and safe.

On the first example you show it is definitely a light leak. With my old wooden film holders I would get the same kind of result, probably the same reason for the light left side. For my 10x12 I had a big light tight sock made to cover the entire holder. I put the film holder straight into the sock and then slide it into the back of my vageeswari with the sock still on. no light leaks! With the normal regal type 4x5 holders I have taken up the practice of covering the slit the septum comes out of with a light tight material to prevent light entering

Yes the light leaks were an obvious problem which I fixed shortly after. The thing I am confused about is the artifacts that look like flickering luminosity similar to what you would see with CFL bulbs or CRT tv. I'm assuming it's a development problem since I was using HC110 dil B (dev time I forgot)


Not sure if it was because my tray is slightly bigger than 8x10...maybe I need to use an 11x14 tray? Or could it have been from just developing it like normal film and not using a sheet of glass in the tray? Maybe the dilution was too strong and my dev time was too short? I don't know about the last one but I'm not ruling it out. I was using the same LED bulb from superbrightled and bounced it off the ceiling so I doubt it was the safelight. I did do a pre-soak before development...not sure if that has any effect on ektascan br/a film.


If you look at the second photo I posted. Her hip area and mid thigh show the darker "banding" and then the top left tree branch shows the luminosity banding too.