Printable View
Excellent HoodOne
But from your last response I infer it to be a scan of the neg
So I would have not thought to use a contrast increasing filter, but let the blue light get into all the crannies
Any highlight blocking you did get is unnoticed in the overall . Very Cool
Scan details?? or you may keep it a trade secret
regards
Ed
https://www.superbrightleds.com/more.../attributes/13Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Randy - I have read your post about these bulbs several times and meant to order one. So last week I did. It is unbelievable the difference it has made in loading film into holders and also loading film into developing drums without scratching up the rear facing emulsion.
This seems such a simple revelation - that being able to see what you are doing, rather than fumbling around in the dark, would be beneficial. But I put it off for so long and now I wished that I hadn't. Few things have made such an impact on me, for less than $10....
So thank you for posting about your results and the product link. I now feel comfortable to try and cut down the x-ray film to 5x7 and 4x5 sizes.
Harold
No trade secrets here.Quote:
Originally Posted by EdWorkman
The Negative is scanned on a Epson v750 with Vuescan. And although I normally scan in 16bit grey. This image was scanned as 48bit color negative, and saved as 16bit grey. The reason for this change in scanning, was the top-left corner. In 16bit this corner was getting dense black with no detail. The scanning as a color negative gave enough shadow detail.
Imported the image in Lightroom, and only did some minor adjustments. Exported the image directly from LR to Flickr
ps. I also tried the scanning as color negative and converting the green channel to 16bit grey. but this gave a little bit less shadow detail to work with.
Speaking of DR values, has anyone tried taking a 4x5 negative scan, enlarging it and printing out a digital transparency to use for alternate printing processes?Quote:
Originally Posted by koraks
Surely the Densities can be adjusted to suit?? Or is there a thread on this topic?
There are numerous threads about it and it's actually the way e.g. Sandy King makes most of his carbon prints at the moment. I've done it as well, but grew dissatisfied with the covering power and pixelation of my inkjet system (Epson 3880 with initially Epson inks and currently Jon Cone inks), although Sandy said recently that inkjet with stock inks should be capable of excellent results. I've made many quite nice cyanotypes and carbon transfers this way. The big advantage is that you can manipulate digitally, which is generally a quicker route to optimal results for most contemporary users, and the ability to use custom curves that exactly suit the process you're doing while producing repeatable and predictable results. Search for "digital negatives for alternative processes" on this forum and on Google in general; you'll find a plethora of manuals, tools, user experiences, example images and even specialized suppliers offering inks, printer conversions and software to facilitate this approach. The concept has been in use for years and can be considered proven technology by now. I personally found it (in hindsight) a smooth entry into alt process printing for people who've done a lot of their work in digital space. For me, though, it also paved the way to a virtually exclusive analog workflow - but that's a different story and should be regarded as as signal that digital negatives are suboptimal.
Thanks Koraks for that info. For my gallery prints I scanned all of my xray negatives on my v800 and sent them to Melbourne for printing, as the local guy could not match the quality of the print. I think I would contact a commercial printer of that calibre to make my transparencies. Anyway, that is in the future when I start trying some of the alternate processes, have to get up to speed with xray first
You may want to contact bob carnie on this forum. He makes silver-based digital negatives (Lambda) all the time.
Wyatt and da boys at the Fort Worth Stockyard.
Prior to this I tried an experiment that didn't work at all. After shooting around the yard I tried divided pyrocat: 12 blue x-ray 4x5's in the Jobo 600 ml total solution, 1:40 sol A for 5 min, 1:40 sol B for 10. . . and got absolutely nothing on the negatives, just pretty blue sheets. So, I went back to using 600 ml of 1:1: 100 for only 4 4x5's for this one. Six minutes in the Jobo, Super D, Gundlach Petzval , half speed blue x-ray rated at 25. Negative scan desaturated a little and sharpened.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2889/3...dff465c7_b.jpg
I'd really like to figure out how to process more negatives at a time, but I'm afraid simply increasing concentrations will make the contrast hard to control.
I like that shot too, bit of selenium toner, or use the NIK collection silver effect pro. I am still learning, but find xray very tolerant, to think I use half speed blue at iso100-ish and you are able to get good results at 25?
Its' great you can get 100 out of this! I only tried one test shot at 100 and couldn't salvage anything usable but will have to try again. My SOP is to use an incident light reading when shooting, measure the bright and dark areas and average, usually tending toward overexposure.
I just stuck with the recommended speed and it turned out ok for portraits. Although I am not using the same dev concentration as I was, at that time when I started using xray film I used the recommended concentrations of dev, what a waste! I have switched to green now and use that at iso 80, dev is about 1:180-ish
Good information Andrew. I've been afraid to cut back on developer figuring I've now got twice as much emulsion per sheet to develop. Lots of things yet to try. You got it right on the platinum, I toned re-worked it with platinum tone in Topaz and it looks quiet nice.
I took advice from Sergei who frequents the thread, he does all of his developing the same way including film. I have used the same ratio for 13x16 inch negs and found it gives me lot more time to check the neg to see were development is at in trays. In rotary I also follow Sergei to the letter and do rotary for 12 mins. You should check his site http://sergeirodionov.com/. I'm not trying to teach you to suck eggs, but it helped me. Anyways...glad I could help.
Thanks,
I'll re-read Sergei's advice. I've always enjoyed his work! But he does stat he only use the green sensitive film which most folks rate at 80-100, not the half speed blue sensitive I've been playing with.
I use digital negatives for carbon transfer and kallitype printing, often. My older Epson 4000, cheap Chinese ink, and QTR do a great job. I've made them from scanning in 35mm up to 8x10.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
Thanks Andrew, I'm going to have a bash at carbon transfer during winter and was not sure if the print quality would be sufficient. Makes it a lot easier enlarging a 4x5 neg rather then lugging around my 10x12 vageeswari
You're welcome, Andrew. I do most of my carbon printing during the winter here...your summer, there. I was able to squeek out a few carbons last summer as it was a cooler one than usual. Another nice thing about the digital negative is that it allows you to build in your dodge/burns, etc.
I'm back with more info. Started filling my dev tank nearly to the top and I'm getting much more consistent results with EB/RA. Much more solid results, a few artifacts or aberrations aside. I'll post more UV results later.
Hi Andrew, I see you do Kallitypes as well..I think the Kallitypes are pretty stupendous, looking at the examples through google search. They seem so intense and sharp, I have just bought some chems, but after looking at half a dozen recipes they are all so different and ambiguous. Hopefully getting my hands on a copy of "the book of alternate photographical processes"Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
Attachment 164395
Attachment 164396
Here's some UV. You can tell it's UV by the contrast and depth of shadows, the faintness of the designs on the sweater, and the blotching on the skin. The blotching is the patches of melanin that connect her freckles reflecting the UV light.
When I first saw my results, I double checked the transmission curve for the B+W 403 filter I'm using, and I was quite surprised to see that I am not getting anything beyond maybe a tiny bit past 400nm in the visible. It looks so much like visible light, shadows and skin aside. The only thing that has stood out to me so far is the slightly different pattern of contrast across varying surfaces (paint, glass, metal, greenery, etc.), in the same vein -though not as stark- as IR.
Mostly what you're seeing is the upper part of UV-A (350-400nm), which is pretty close to visible light. I have a plastic lens in the mail that can transmit all the way down to UV-C (not that I could capture any, it's mostly filtered out by the ozone layer). Should just about cover 4x5.
Sandy Hook, NJ. Overcast. Half speed blue, rated at 125. HC-110 B for 7 minutes.
Attachment 164425
For fun, comparison to FP4+ at 100% 2400 dpi V700 scan:
Attachment 164426
anything over 1 sec add a stop, i have experimented with this up to 1 hour and the exposure was dead onQuote:
Originally Posted by senderoaburrido
That explains why instead of adding the recommended 5 stops for UV, I've been getting better results with 6. I've got more UV photos on the way. Have to develop them tomorrow and then I'll print on thurs.
This I shot at iso 400 on an overcast day, developed in 1+4 dektol for 5 minutes... Ektascan B/RA
I thought I had tmy2 in the holder but was wrong. Discovered what I had when I pulled the film out and felt the rounded corners in the dark.
It made a nice looking negative with useful midtones and the highlights and shadows are not extreme.
It's in the tree image sharing thread but it's nice results for Xray film worth me noting to try again.
Attachment 165014
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4158/3...0f5c86fa96.jpg
img695 by Jason Philbrook, on Flickr
JP that is a great effect with that unusual bokeh in the background, very 3d, what lens were you using, kind of reminds me of my Sigmar
It's the Kodak 305 portrait. It's crazy in the woods. I have a sigmar too, but it's longer and I needed something wider for my woods work.
Chewed through thread from where I left off a few years ago. Really nice images in here.
I made a spreadsheet culled from APUG, here, blogs, flickr, and google searches. It is a few years out of date. Meant to share this a long time ago but life gets in the way sometimes.
Find on my google docs - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
It is set to anyone can edit.
EDIT:
It contains 4 tabs
1) name, EI/ISO ratings, sensitivity types, light exposed under (when given or obvious), and development info.
2) Film names, types, and box thumbs in an "equivalent" table. Discontinued films are also included
3) Notes, DIY developers with credit, Andrew O'Neil's X-Ray Film Reciprocity Effect chart (2010)
4) ANSI standard cut film sizes. in, mm, min/nom/max for 2" x 3" to 12" x 20" and 9cm x 12cm to 24cm x 30cm
Thanks! This is super useful!Quote:
Originally Posted by michael_wi
Tri,
Looks like another great image. t is nice to occasionally see the location in which an image was made. Thanks for this. I assume this is in your back yard. What a great place for a photographer. I'm envious of both the garden and the image.
Jim Noel
Very nice. I added a URL link to a specific forum post for a convenient option.Quote:
Originally Posted by michael_wi
Very cool thanks !
That spreadsheet is great.
I found one I haven't seen in the thread (not that I've read everything).
It's Flow dental film. 5"x12", full speed green, in a box of 50 sheets. I would assume it's made by one of the other big companies and is the same as some of the other full speed greens, but they claim to have their own factory in the US?
I haven't tried x-ray before, but I've been using ortho film for testing and inexpensive camera development, exhibition test shots etc. I am hoping x-ray will be less of a pain.
So far I like the Flow quite a bit. I cut it on a paper cutter into 3 4x5 sheets.
It's a nice film base, seems like polyester, with a noticeable blue tint. Rounded corners.
I shot three quickie tests at 50, 100 and 200 ISO in my Speed Graphic under strobes. The box actually claims it is "Full Speed, 400". I don't know if the 400 is supposed to be ISO or some other rating?
Anyway, it looks pretty good at 100 in 1:100 Rodinal, dunk tank developed for 7 minutes. Densities are right on the money, about .25 in the shadows up to 1.35 in the highlights (and 1.5 or so in the speculars).
Definitely very orthochromatic. The blown glass candleholder immediately on the right is green, the one on the left is red. The top right one is blue. It's very green and blue sensitive, not a surprise, but some people have said their greens seemed
more blue than green sensitive, and that's not the case here.
I dropped the damned neg putting it into the scanner so it's filthy, my apologies.
Attachment 165084
Great result to my old eyes, I think a decent scanner is a must for xray film, scratches and dust are the downside and after spending a few days on a 4x5 neg, removing scratches and dust from the digital scan. IT soon taught me to take great care loading and unloading film and finding an acceptable way to develop to avoid uneven development. I even do as Ansell Adams suggests and vacuum my film holders before loading.
I know inkjet printers are a great way to produce an enlarged negative for alternate printing methods, but in my small town the printing outlet only uses laser printers. Has anyone had any joy producing laser negs on transparencies?? I have great reference material from Dan Burkholder for inkjet printers, but very limited info on laser printers.
The only experience I have with laser prints is when making circuit boards. There used to be a spray on light sensitive resist, can't find it any more. I now use silk screen light sensitive mask. Dichromate in a "paint". Black and white prints and the black needs some touchup every time.
What is your source for FlowDental Film? I have a 5x12 camera and like to have a variety of films to work with.
My experience with laser printers is with older, well used ones, mostly. The pictures look grainy in an odd sort of way, but aren't totally unacceptable particularly to non-photographers. I've used them as gifts.
Thanks for the reply, the one they are using is the latest and greatest apparently, so I will see what the outcome is. I purchased the downloads from Dan Burkholder, which are really helpful and have supplied a copy for the printshop to have a look at, hopefully that can transfer over to laser. Will let the thread know the outcome, it may be helpful to some.
I am using negatives made with a laser printer with reasonable satisfaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
I make both black and white and color prints in A5, A4 sizes.
The larger the print the better, since the negatives are somewhat grainy, but this adds a sort of "artistic" taste to the print.
The negatives are made on translucent paper. If polyester sheets are used the toner in some cases does not adhere perfectly and also static discharge effects appear sometimes.
Use also the blackest toner (original HP in my case, not compatible cheaper toners.
Thanks Salvatore, I'm using the emulsion coated transparency film for Laser and inkjet, yet to see the results. I have just found some toner density spray that can be used, if the density is not sufficient you just spray on another coat (Could be snake oil). I feel like its going off topic, but the basis is still the xray negative.
I just tried divided pyrocat with Fuji Green and got no usable results. The staining was terribly uneven to the point of looking like every image had been double exposed with a lava lamp. Also lost a couple of stops of speed.
What I tried was: ISO 100 incident meter reading, 3 min pre wash , 5 minutes A 1:15 (with foto flow), 5 minutes B 1:15 after draining A for extra 30 sec., then stopped and fixed normally. This was done in a Jobo, 12 exposures in the drum @ 75F. I've had good luck with divided HD before with Pan F, HP5 and FP4 in sheets and 120 using this technique, but this time it was a complete waste of a day's shooting. If someone else has tried divided cat on X-ray with success I'd love to hear the details as this would be an elegant solution to the high contrast of these films.
I did it once, but on 8x10 in a tray, with a small amount (I think 100ml) of 1:10 and I think 5 minutes per bath. The results seemed quite usable indeed, but I found it a bit wasteful and not all that superior to regular 1+100 and similar dilutions in terms of contrast control. I gave up after that experiment just because I didn't really find it worthwhile.
What format was this, in which drum and how much solution did you use? Btw, I didn't use a surfactant; never sw the need for that and from what I read, it seems to cause more problems than it solves.
Hi Guys,
I was given a couple of hundred, plus, sheets of green 10x8 x-ray film from the guy I bought my Wilderness V camera from.
I would prefer to develop in my Jobo drum with Catlabs CL81, as I don't have a dark room, and use Ilford ID-11 as I have all this to hand. I appreciate that this info might be buried in the previous 480 pages of this thread but if someone could steer me on the right track it would be great.
I'm looking for development times, temperatures, dilution rates etc.
Thanks ...Sweep
HI koraks,
This was 4x5 used a Jobo 2551 tank with 600 ml of solution (1:15) with baffles. I've used this set up with other films as noted with only an occasional minor issue. Perhaps the two sided emulsion makes turbulence a bigger issue.
I don't have anywhere to tray develop so daylight tanks is my only option. Given the recommendation from Sandy King that you should have at least 70 ml of 1:100 per 4x5 sheet, I've been developing only 4 sheets per 600 ml of 1:100 with good success. This was an attempt to use the full capacity of the tank and control contrast. So I'm back to the old ways for now. Maybe next I'll try 2:100 and 8 sheets.
Thanks,
Sweep
I've had good luck (until now) with Pyrocat HD though I've not shot a lot of the x-ray yet. I like the fact it is a hardening developer since the X-ray film is more prone to scratches. When I was getting started with HP5 I also used ID-11 in the Jobo, as I recall the development time was about the same as the pyrocat.
Check the massive development chart for "Fuji HR/RX". You'll see several entries for xray film. Fuji HR-S is a green film. http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
I've developed many sheets of Fuji HR-S in a CL-81. It does tend to scratch the edges, but if you're careful you won't scratch the image itself.
I'd love to have one of the CL81 thingies, but haven't bitten the bullet yet on the costs for the holder and the appropriate tank...
Alan, the double sided nature of the film may be the issue in combination with the baffles. I haven't used the baffles, but I use a 2500 tank and the 6 film reel. With xray, I do 4 sheets in 300ml at 2+2+100 and 12 minutes for salted paper prints (ie. insane contrast). 1+1+100 at 10 to 15 minutes is about out right for Van Dyke prints; for silver gelatin, it would probably have to be somewhere around 8 minutes, but I don't do that with xray. Since the film is double sided I usually only develop 4 sheets at once as that equates 8 sheets of regular film, which is already stretching the limits of developer depletion at this volume. I arrived at this through trial and error and it may be far from optimal still, so I may do it differently in the future. However, so far, the results are very usable; good control of contrast and plenty of room to match the negatives for whatever printing process, and development is perfectly even as far as I can tell. I always load the film onto the reel with the side that was facing the lens towards the center of the reel. I'm not sure if that is necessary, it's more a matter of superstition.
Thanks Koraks, since I scan everything I've used 6 minutes with 1:1: 100 with good success but that's with 4 double sided films in 600 ml. I got in trouble by trying to rush.
Divided pyrocat works very well in a tray.Quote:
Originally Posted by alanbutler57
Thanks for your guidance guys but I think I've just goofed as I misread the Massive Chart and just ordered a load of Rodinal. Now as I was just about to post thanks, and re-reading the posts, I notice that the green stuff is Fuji HR-S which calls for X-tol :(
Is Rodinal something I can make work or should I return?
Please find a couple of photos of my specific film.
thanks ...Sweep
Attachment 165657
Attachment 165658