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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewch59

Attachment 160868
here's something else I'm trying, the biggest probs with mottling and streaking seems to be the film sitting on the bottom of the tray, I cut off the hanger on one of my old stand drop holders. It now keeps the reverse side off the bottom of the tray avoiding scratches and spent developer remaining stationary under the film. A lot easier to flip in the tray and move into the other soups.

---

Andrew, I have tried the same thing recently with an 8X10 film hanger - I cut the "hanger" part off so it would fit my trays, though I guess I could have left it alone and used larger trays. Anyway, the ridge pattern on the bottom of my tray affected the even-ness of the development, even though the film was held above the tray bottom. I am going to try it again with a sheet of glass laying in the bottom of the tray, which should eliminate any pattern. Once (if) I am successful I'll post my procedure.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/560/32...22e3780c_c.jpg

Effort #2 as referenced earlier, seriously overexposed and overdeveloped x-ray stock with a tone curve from hell - looks like the chemical residue paper from a peel apart Polaroid... anyway, by no means representative, just having some fun with the dense neg.

Kodak Commercial Ektar 14"/f6.3 @f6.3, Rodinal 1+100 12:00 Jobo rotation, Retina MOD Green Xray film (Carestream, Rochester, USA) @ISO 80, Sinar p2

No worries, nicer image #3 to follow shortly, looking very good so far...

I don't know if Kodak has released the formulas for Plus-X and Verchrome, or Verichrome Pan. I heard somewhere they have published them, because they consider film to be a dead issue. Hard to understand that film is a dead issue, when Ilford seems to get along alright making the stuff. Kodak was also "gifted" (a phrase more gentlemanly than 'The Fix is In', but means the same thing) Ansco's recipes after the Gov't seized Ansco as an "Enemy Gov't Property", and then let Kodak have all of their formulas. So, Ansco's Supreme might be very had to get the recipe for. Ansco's D-17 is a great developer that seems to work a little better than Kodak's D-76. More like D-72, but not quite as energetic. Money is always the issue. You have to produce these films to sell at the same price as Ilford or Kodak and make enough of a profit to deal with debt and plant modernisation. I don't know if Kodak has junked all of their equipment and plants yet or not. That would be the cheap way to do it. Do it in Rochester, NY. Where the expertise is.

I don't follow. Film is dead according to Kodak, but they're resurrecting Ektachrome and have been selling a variety of b&w and color stocks for still photography and cinema without interruption. How does the formula for Verichrome emulsions relate to x-ray film? And what's the argument concerning Ansco D-17 exactly; is it supposed to be better for developing x-ray film than something else? Have you tried it? If so, what's your experience?

Don't get me wrong; I'm trying to make sense of your post but I feel like I've missed a crucial bit of information - could you fill me in please?

Kodak CSG, 8x10, fresh batch of R09 1:100, rotary 11min.

Scan.

Extra softness comes from prolonged exposure in addition to flash. Played with something ;)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/289/32...761208d4_o.jpgCorrie by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2162/3...c1fa0ae2_c.jpg

a well-crafted cornet made in U.S.A.

Kodak Commercial Ektar 14"/f6.3 @f6.3, Rodinal 1+100 6:30 Jobo print drum, Retina MOD Green Xray film (Carestream, Rochester, USA) @ISO 80, Sinar p2

Quite some streaking from the ribs of the drum, also the film seems overexposed, I can probably go to EI 160 or 200. Also the dilution 1+100 is still quite contrasty in rotary processing, but the liquid volume will just become too much with higher dilution... let's see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy

Andrew, I have tried the same thing recently with an 8X10 film hanger - I cut the "hanger" part off so it would fit my trays, though I guess I could have left it alone and used larger trays. Anyway, the ridge pattern on the bottom of my tray affected the even-ness of the development, even though the film was held above the tray bottom. I am going to try it again with a sheet of glass laying in the bottom of the tray, which should eliminate any pattern. Once (if) I am successful I'll post my procedure.

---

Randy I had the same problem, but put it down to me and my robust technique at the time, as the test was to see if I could avoid scratches and mottling. I kinda gathered I could remove those same marks by using a circular motion instead of just the lapping back and forth I did for the test. I guess part of the aim is to cut down on developer soup as well, I only used 275ml of soup for that, which equated to 2ml (how good is that!) of developer. With that little mix it expires pretty quickly and I wanted the spent developer to be washed away pretty quickly, which the frame achieves.

So I was looking at the graph for EB/RA film (http://www.spectrumxray.com/sites/de...Ektascan-B.pdf) and I noticed that it only lines up roughly with the graph for Wratten 44a (http://www.newportglass.com/kodak/kod44A.gif). I'm going to see if I can find another cyan or blue filter that more closely matches its sensitivity in transmission. Shout out to Andrew (I think), who recommended trying the yellow filter. I've been using it and it makes a hell of a difference.

Also, here's my latest stuff from Toronto: Attachment 161310Attachment 161311

Both are f/11 with flash and 90mm lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mkillmer

Double sided 8x10 Fuji film rotary developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 4:0 minutes
Attachment 160753

---

This looks fantastic! I very much like this portrait.

Kodak T-Mat 100 12x16
hektor 300mm
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170218/pyzidrjf.jpg

nice one, Luke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewch59

Randy I had the same problem, but put it down to me and my robust technique at the time, as the test was to see if I could avoid scratches and mottling. I kinda gathered I could remove those same marks by using a circular motion instead of just the lapping back and forth I did for the test. I guess part of the aim is to cut down on developer soup as well, I only used 275ml of soup for that, which equated to 2ml (how good is that!) of developer. With that little mix it expires pretty quickly and I wanted the spent developer to be washed away pretty quickly, which the frame achieves.

---

After pondering for a while, I noticed the hinged side of the holder which folds over to secure the negative, has no holes in it. This of course forces the developer to be more active as it laps back off this solid surface. I cut slits in the metal to allow the soup to flow through. No more dark developer marks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

Dirk, that's an excellent result - and to know that this is an initial attempt, that's really impressive! How did you agitate?

Andrew, how much developer solution do you use and how large is your tray for 8x10? I currently use 200ml in a 11x15" tray, which seems to be just about the minimum. I'm quite curious how you manage to get even development with intermittent agitation!

---

For stand/semi-stand, I don't use trays. Instead, I use hanger and tank. Standard development is in trays. 500ml of working solution (Pyrocat-HD) in a flat-bottomed, 8x10 tray. Agitation is one tray lift, north/south, east/west, every 30 seconds. I have also extended this to every minute.

Not a big fan of Kodak Ektalure B/RA, but it seems to work okay here. It was mainly an experiment to see how well it would handle semi-stand development. Scan.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2561/3...9df1bd50_b.jpgCoquitlam River by Andrew O'Neill, on Flickr

Love the quietness in this image, Andrew. After playing with it a bit, I realized that I prefer to view it at 5x8 from the bottom. Yeah, good thing we all are not driving a Pinto, eh ?

Les

My friend had a Pinto in high school in '78. I stopped riding in it when I heard about it being a bomb on 4 wheels.

Love it Andrew, quiet solitude.

Great picture, Luke. How do you process?

Thank you guys ,

it was processed in a big tube , with rodinal 1:150 , constant rotation , 6 min , 20*

I just shot my first X-rays this weekend and the negatives came out very dense and hard to scan.
The details looks properly exposed, mayby something went wrong when I developed them?

I used CEA green X-ray film and tray developed in 1:100 R09 for 12 minutes.
Any advice?

That development regime will yield quite dense negatives. They should be about right for Van Dyke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OeT

...very dense and hard to scan...The details looks properly exposed...

---

I am confused by your description of the processed negatives. Do you think you over exposed, over developed, or both? Can you share the lighting conditions, the ISO you used?
Personally, I shoot CSX Green @ ISO 50 and process in Rodinal 1:200 for 6 minutes (in trays). Not sure how that compares to your ISO and developer.

I used ISO 100.
Maybe I overdeveloped since you used half the time and twice the dilution.
I took a photo of the negative with my phone

http://i.imgur.com/SX8Y2Sl.jpg

Does it look alright?
Might it be the filmbase that adds to the darkness?

If it's overdeveloped, depends more on the way you'd like to print this. It looks pretty much on the money for Van Dyke brown, but quite hard for silver gelatin. You may want to check the edges of the film to see if you have fogging and/or uneven development along the edges; I can't tell from the photo, it may be just fine.

I was going to make salt and albumen prints but might give Van Dyke brown a try to.
The problem might be my old HP G4050 scanner, the preview scans look ok but "real" scan gets all blown out.
I did a couple now that came out ok but I had to pull the sliders in scanner software for highlights, shadows and gamma all the way down as far as they went and then adjust even more in Photoshop.

http://i.imgur.com/HiZOLq5.png

http://i.imgur.com/CbviZIH.png

Uneven developing on the first one?
Don't mind the lines it's the scanners fault to.

Yeah, not all scanners will be able to deal with these high-density negatives. I can't complain with my aging Epson 4990; it does quite fine even with the densest negatives I have produced so far. It helps that the Epson software allows to adjust the curves quite well.

Going by how your negatives look, you may just be in the ballpark for albumen printing, although you'd be surprised at how insanely long-scaled negatives need to be for this process and salt printing. Van Dyke requires a bit shorter curve so if you get too much contrast in a Van Dyke brown print, you're at least close for salt printing and albumen.

Both your images in the post above look like they suffer from very uneven development, unless this is also caused by the scanner, but that seems not entirely plausible. I know that some get away with intermittent agitation as with regular film, but I haven't been able to get even development that way. For me, the only way to get even development is by using a large tray (at least one size larger than the film used), frequent flipping of the negative so both sides receive equal development and constant but gentle agitation. Your mileage will vary.

I did use large trays and constant agitation but I didn't flip the negative.
If I remove the backside emulsion might that help a bit?

I tried a saltprint for about 15 minutes but that was probably way too short.

Yeah, you could also consider using only one side of the film and stripping the other side. I personally don't like that approach; it's an extra step, it's messy, the edges of the film never look nice to me and there's the risk of bleach seeping to the image side, partly ruining the image. You would also need to increase development time or concentration significantly to get usable negatives for your purposes. I've done the stripping act a few times and it does work, but I just don't like it.

Developing without flipping the sheet doesn't work for me (I think Andrew O'Neill pointed out it works just fine for him though); the developer has easier access to the underside of the film along the edges than it does towards the center, causing gross unevenness. If you find a way to suspend or float the film in the developer, this shouldn't necessarily happen, but I haven't yet found a way to do this personally.

I do all of my scanning with the 4050, so the scanner isn't the problem--mine does quite a good job. Maybe you could hold a neg up, in a room or outside for surrounding context, and shoot a picture of that to post. That way we could see what you have to deal with. My negs look more dense than I am used to, but not unreasonably so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OeT

Does it look alright?

---

I think the negative image looks about right, as far as density goes. And the tree growing out of her head looks about right also (sorry, couldn't resist :) That old train bridge is fantastic - where was that taken?

B&J Commercial View 5x7/Ilex 90/8
MXR xray film 1/8 sec @f16, (ISO 50)
Rodinal 1+100-8 mins

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2061/3...88ffe5_z_d.jpg

Anyone have any tips for using EB/RA Carestream at night? I'm curious if reciprocity failure occurs at 1m+ exposures for such slow film.

I cannot speak for EB/RA, but the Green Latitude stuff I use has brutal reciprocity characteristics. At night though, it probably doesn't matter. Just go out and shoot.

OeT... your negatives look fine. You won't know for sure until you print them. Don't go the emulsion stripping route. Negative density range will be cut in half, and tones look weak, and grainy, in my experience.

It is a nice old bridge that isn't used any more
It's located in Sweden in small town called Mjölby

Thank you all seems I'm not that far off then
I will go back and take some more pictures with the same setteings and develop in different times and dilutionand see what works best

Just buoght myself a couple of old time heavy duty paper guillotines which makes cutting the film a breeze

http://i.imgur.com/8xcSxsl.jpg

Two strips of tape to line up the sides of the film and then just cut no need to measure and done in a second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OeT

It is a nice old bridge that isn't used any more
It's located in Sweden in small town called Mjölby

---

I keep going back to that first bridge shot, fabulous photo, its a shame about the mottling, would have been a great wall hanger. I imagine it would have made a great carbon transfer print too

OeT, that image reminds me from the early Pink Floyd song title. You know the one: "Careful with that axe, Eugene". Cutting nails and fingers sounds like a breeze as well with those, particularly with the absence of effective protection.

Attachment 162135

Finally got a decent pic using the old Nikon speedlight. Still a little underexposed.

Hence why I would recommend using a rotary trimmer version rather than the ol chopping block.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

OeT, that image reminds me from the early Pink Floyd song title. You know the one: "Careful with that axe, Eugene". Cutting nails and fingers sounds like a breeze as well with those, particularly with the absence of effective protection.

---

either way scratching can be an issue. anyone have any tips for preventing scratches on the negative while cutting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stawastawa

Hence why I would recommend using a rotary trimmer version rather than the ol chopping block.



either way scratching can be an issue. anyone have any tips for preventing scratches on the negative while cutting?

---

I lay a dry, lintless cloth under my guillotine cutter, extending well past the blade side, so the cutoffs fall on it. Wear either cotton antistatic gloves or nitrile exam gloves. Keep the cutter base clean and free of grit. Avoid excessive sliding when handling or positioning for a cut.

Since the question of ISO/EI has appeared numerous times in this discussion throughout the years, I thought I'd chime in on my experience with Carestream HSB (CSHB). Shooting under Paul C. Buff Einsteins (~5600K), I'm rating this film at EI 25. This assumes my normal development regime, which is ~60 minutes semi-stand in Pyrocat-HD using a daylight tank (HP CombiPlan).

I plan to do some outdoor tests soon & will report back once I do.

It's more expensive than Carestream or Fuji, but in case anyone is interested, Amazon has Agfa Radiomat now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seezee

It's more expensive than Carestream or Fuji, but in case anyone is interested, Amazon has Agfa Radiomat now.

---

Is it double-sided emulsion? Anything unique about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by senderoaburrido

Is it double-sided emulsion? Anything unique about it?

---

Amazon has Radiomat Duplicating, which is 1 sided with anti-halation backing, but the bulk of their offerings are double sided. I have not used any Agfa x-ray, and can't really comment on quality.

I have experienced a problem with xray I have not had before. Firstly, I took some xray pics (normal green Agfa at iso 80) of my exhibition setting up. I used a new to me Schneider super angulon 90mm f5.6, 8 second exposure at f22, as the gallery only had led lighting and dimly lit except on the photos.
I went back to my darkroom to develop the first couple, did everything the same and noticed some white specs all over the pic when zooming in. Salt and pepper like, but only problem with white specs. As I use old plastic milk containers I thought perhaps the soup was contaminated with milk residue.
I went back opening night and took a couple more pics, when developing this time I used everything new, including using demineralized water for the developer mixture. The only thing I did different was to use a stop bath. Any ideas on what has caused this? The pics turned out great using the lens, but a bit of a let down zooming in.

Andrew, was this a new box of film or was it an opened box of film you had already used?

I purchased a box of 8X10 green sensitive x-ray film (ebay) several years ago and I probably let it sit for 6-8 months before finally opening it and shot some pics. What I got was tiny circular dots all over each sheet after processing (visible only with a loupe). I figured surely it was my processing but it turned out to be defective film. I even ran tests taking sheets from the center of the stack just to make sure it was not just the end sheets and used fresh everything (chems). Nope, the entire 100 sheet box had what I can only describe as contaminated emulsion.

Mine were tiny dots of increased density in the neg, which translated to small light dots in the prints / scans.

Hi Randy, I have been using this box for a while now, so I don't suspect the film at the moment. The dots are not uniform as such, but they have saturated the shot, which makes me think of contamination. A second hand Paterson paper washer was my first thought, but the film get a good rinse under the tap afterward, the only other thing I have done differently is use a stop bath (after reading Ansel Adams "the negative"). The beauty of large format is the resolution, now all I see is snow!

Perplexing Andrew - I guess you just have to eliminate the possible causes. Start with the stop bath...? I don't use stop - have been processing my own film for many years and haven't used stop since the 80's probably, for any of it, 35mm, 120, large format, X-ray...

A strong stop bath may cause pinholes in the emulsion. I've had this happen with x-ray film as well (at least that's my working hypothesis). X-ray film emulsion is very soft and it damages easily. It makes sense to me that hitting the alkaline-soaked emulsion with a strong acid can cause carbon dioxide bubbles within the emulsion, blowing tiny holes in it. If you insist on using a stop bath, try diluting it to 50% or even 25% of its recommended strength - or be like Randy and don't bother with it at all.

Thanks Koraks, I have only used a stop bath on two occasions, both being somewhat important to me, should have stuck with my old regime. Its a good opportunity to see if a stop bath is actually detrimental to xray film. Will shoot another in the next few days and let you know if that was the fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

A strong stop bath may cause pinholes in the emulsion. I've had this happen with x-ray film as well (at least that's my working hypothesis). X-ray film emulsion is very soft and it damages easily. It makes sense to me that hitting the alkaline-soaked emulsion with a strong acid can cause carbon dioxide bubbles within the emulsion, blowing tiny holes in it. If you insist on using a stop bath, try diluting it to 50% or even 25% of its recommended strength - or be like Randy and don't bother with it at all.

---

Or use a plain water stop bath.