you lucky.. i been getting them even with ANR glass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy
Printable View
you lucky.. i been getting them even with ANR glass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy
ditto
Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
More work from this weekend shot at the Great Falls of the Potomac on 18x24 Fuji AD-M mammography film. I shot these at EI 3 (!) and developed for 4 minutes in 1:4:200 Pyrocat HD at 70 C in a Jobo rotary processor. It may be the very short developing time, but it looks like I'm seeing some uneven development on the last image. My last batch was developed for 5 minutes and I didn't see any issues, so that may be the limit for this concentration of Pyrocat. The negatives look good with nice tonality and density--I believe they'll print just fine on silver gelatin paper. I'll be moving on to some low contrast developers next--Pyrocat HD is workable, but I could use a little more speed and some longer developing times.
http://imageshack.us/a/img547/4657/g...ls2fujiadm.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img442/4053/g...ls1fujiadm.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img21/1473/gr...ls3fujiadm.jpg
Got it, thanks-----RdeQuote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
I like these, but that film is way higher priced than CSG, unless you can point to a cheaper supplier.
I do like the fact it is SS, has anti-hal and a protective backside coating.
I'm just cheap.
I assume at that speed, you do not need ND filter to make long exposure.
[QUOTE=BarryS;1026003]More work from this weekend shot at the Great Falls of the Potomac on 18x24 Fuji AD-M mammography film. I shot these at EI 3 (!) and developed for 4 minutes in 1:4:200 Pyrocat HD at 70 C in a Jobo rotary processor. It may be the very short developing time, but it looks like I'm seeing some uneven development on the last image. My last batch was developed for 5 minutes and I didn't see any issues, so that may be the limit for this concentration of Pyrocat. The negatives look good with nice tonality and density--I believe they'll print just fine on silver gelatin paper. I'll be moving on to some low contrast developers next--Pyrocat HD is workable, but I could use a little more speed and some longer developing times.
I bought a bunch on ebay for 10-25 cents/sheet. As the shift continues to digital x-ray systems, there's going to be plenty of cheap film--it just takes a little extra work to hunt it down. You don't need a ND filter--or a shutter for that matter, at my current speed. I think I can squeeze out a couple more stops with a different developer, but it'll still be slow. If you need extra density for any alt-process--salt printing, carbon, Pt/Pd, etc.--it's trivial to get up to any desired density. The base fog is low and it's very fine-grained. If it weren't for the sloooow speed, it would be as nice as real film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Hard to escape eBay, i will look.
Is it fitting 8X10 holdrs or are you using 18X24?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryS
I found some 18x24 holders that fit standard 8x10 cameras. You could also use some double-sided tape to fit to an 8x10 holder. If double-sided x-ray film is working for you, I'd hesitate before getting into mammo film.
Standard x-ray film
Pros
Cheap, easily available
Lots of standard sizes
Reasonable film speed
Use standard developer
Cons
Two-sided coating makes film easy to scratch during processing
No notch
No anti-halo backing
Mammo film
Pros
Inexpensive from secondary sources
Single-sided coating prevents processing damage
Notched
Anti-halo backing
Cons
Expensive from normal retail channels
Non-standard sizes prevalent (18x24, 24x30)
Very slow speed
Contrasty, needs low-contrast developer
Thanks Barry, all very good info.
I have been taping the standard doubled side into a big copy camera. Next up for me is taping 11x14 into it. It's a clunker but it is fine for 1 to 1 portraits.
If I find some cheap mammo, I will buy it.
I look forward to your further adventures!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryS
The cheap 8x10 stuff fits in 8x10 film holders with no problem, not tape or anything, right?