Using PC-512 to develop x-ray, for Alt printing...
https://youtu.be/kFYH9mV5rCg?si=VB4L7rE67woO8YJ6
Printable View
Using PC-512 to develop x-ray, for Alt printing...
https://youtu.be/kFYH9mV5rCg?si=VB4L7rE67woO8YJ6
Test matrix: Fui HR-E vs UM-MA, Heliar 24cm vs Symmar-S 240mm. Surprised by minute differences.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...3&d=1750671873
Attachment 260403Attachment 260404Attachment 260405Attachment 260406
- Can't find any info on Fu[j]i HR-E , could this be a typo, e.g; HR-U?Quote:
Originally Posted by towolf
- Which is which, 1,2 "Fui HR-E" 3,4 UM-MA correct?
- Some info on development, please
- Very nice tonality, could be regular film
- "minute differences": the last two have lower contrast, is that what we were supposed to notice?
HR-E exist. I have some, but not used so far. I also found no data sheets of it. In fact I never could get HR-U but HR-E seems to be pretty common where I buy, the German used market.
Thanks for your interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernard_L
- The HR-E was bought some 10 years ago (for 31.50 EUR), and expired in 2016. And last week I bought a box of UM-MA to obtain the advantage of the single emulsion (expires end of July this year and I paid 44 EUR):
Attachment 260491
- 1 and 3 are UM-MA and 2 and 4 are HR-E. 1 and 2 are using the Schneider lens, and 3 and 4 are the old Voigtlaender lens.
- So, the cool thing about 18x24 film is, that I can slice it into 4 sheets of 9x12cm. And I have a lot of 9x12 gear. Lots of holders and a stainless steel development cage, that I can dunk into lock&lock tanks to develop. And for that, a developer that keeps longer is useful. Usually I use Rodinal, but I still had a pack of Agfa Refinal, that keeps longer when mixed. I should have diluted it more because these only took 3 minutes, with 2 minutes extra in the "stop bath" in plain water. This is too short for me.
- Also surprised by the tonality considering this is only by second try this time around after a 10 year hiatus.
- I think the reduced contrast could be due to 1. Some fogging or plaque or whatever on the lens elements of the Heliar, or 2. my manual shutter speeds were bad outdoors. I only have a Zettar shutter in front of the barrel lens, and need to actuate the shutter on B with the cable release. I think that was supposed to be 1/4s.
I expected a much larger difference between the two types of x-ray film. In the past I had odd blurry high-density blotches from the backside. But this time, it only seems like a slightly defocussed haze from behind. So, maybe the old film was not so bad after all. Or maybe I overexposed it last time.
Some pictures from last time: https://imgur.com/a/XeCEme7
Thank you for your detailed reply. I started experimenting after buying a box of 100 24x30cm Carestream MIN-R EV for a good price (4O€ maybe) but had not done my homework. Seems that this film has an especially high contrast, and more to the point, short dynamic range, among X-Ray films. I need to experiment a bit more before I give up on that and rush to buy another film. The price for fresh UM-MA is ~120€. Where did you buy yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by towolf
I'm afraid I got the last box from that supplier in Luxemburg. But they have Agfa HDR-C mammography film for 80 EUR, which I would've gotten otherwise.
Attachment 260517
Did you try reducing the development times, diluting more to achieve more compensating effect, with your current film?
It always hurts my heart when big formats are chopped down to lesser formats. I always think it is easier to buy tiny formats at the same time big formats become rare rapidly and it is true you can cut down, but you can not glue together. Ofcourse I do not wrote this to teach you what you have to do with your own property, just a simple observation of the type SCNR.Quote:
Originally Posted by towolf
Is this actually an image obtained with X-ray film? The scene contrast seems challenging already for conventional film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
@Corran can you please provide details: film, development time? Any digital post-processing?
[I know this post is almost 3 years old...]
Hi Bernard, yes it was Fuji HR-T. Rodinal 1:100, I almost always do 6-7 minutes at around 70F.
Even better, here is a comparison I wrote up on my old blog, compared with Delta 100:
https://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/20...-feb-2016.html
" So, the cool thing about 18x24 film is, that I can slice it into 4 sheets of 9x12cm. And I have a lot of 9x12 gear. Lots of holders and a stainless steel development cage, that I can dunk into lock&lock tanks to develop. And for that, a developer that keeps longer is useful."
YES!! I do exactly the same thing, I have many metric sized holders, for my European cameras. Easy Peasy to cut 18x24cm to four 9x12cm, and no film waste.
I have both the 240 Symmars and 240 Heliars. I prefer your photo #1 myself as the image is very sharp, as I expect with Symmars. But for landscapes and focus with bokeh evident, I much prefer the Heliar, like my Xenars they are a pinch smoother in rendering, very pleasing to my eye. So IMO both are good to have!
Where can you buy X-ray film in 9x12cm or 4x5" format? In 18x24cm or 24x30cm X-ray film is still plentiful and much cheaper than regular film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
At the same places you buy the bigger formats. 15x30 and 13x18 should even need less cuts.
I've never seen 4x5 xray film for sale, but I was given a few boxes of 5x7 one time. Last year I bought 1000 sheets of 8x10 and have been cutting them down to 4x5, for a total cost of $0.11 per sheet. Rodinal at 1:100 is very economical. I use 1200 mL for 12 sheets, or 1 mL Rodinal each, so about $0.03 per sheet for developer. Under 15 cents per shot all in!
Shooting with my RB Graflex I've shot 36 sheets in a day. $5.40 for 36 shots is cheaper than 35mm film these days...
So I have this box of 24x30cm Carestream MIN-R EV mammo film, that I grabbed because it was cheap (33€ IIRC). After the purchase, I realized that it has emulsion on both sides, and nobody else uses this for photography as far as I know. And I saw what, e.g., Corran could do with Fuji HR-T. But maybe MIN-R EV is OK; only poor craftsmen blame their tools.
As a first step to make the best use of my MIN-R EV, I made dev tests following exposure through a Stouffer step wedge (31x0.1D). These seem to be popular among participants on this forum.
- D-23 1+3 10' 23°C
- Ansco 30 1+20 21°C
- Rodinal 1+100 20°C
The Ansco 30 and Rodinal devs appear to provide a dynamic range of ~1.4 in logE, just short of 5 stops. The density span of ~1.2 is ok for approx grade 2 silver printing. The D-23 dev is too contrasty and has a strange behavior near Dmax; needs to be iterated.
Question to experienced practitioners. Is this close to the best one can expect from X-ray film? Or, could I obtain significantly better dynamic range --suitable for outdoors scenes on a sunny day-- from another film, Fuji HR-T or UM-MA?
Attachment 260564
Mammo films have emulsion on one side only, as far as I know!
Not all of them. Carestream declares Min-R 2000 Plus as Mamography film. Still if you look at the datasheet, it specifies coating on both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippe Grunchec
The funny part is, I bought my Carestream films knowing that they are double coated (The reason I looked in the data sheets was that in their commercial advertisments they mention coating with two emulsions, coarse and fine, but not if these are applied onto the same side of the support.) and only later found out Carestream sells some of them as Mamo film. I am wondering why. Can it be they just stopped production of Mamo film, or never purchased it from Kodak, and simply sell double side coated lying about how it is super high resolution?
Using an orange filter on green-latitude x-ray...
https://youtu.be/irqWY-Ce1V0
About the cutting. I have (multiple) life time supply of X-ray film, mamo and regular. The smallest size is 13x18 cm - X-ay is about 1:1 image so regular film is big (I don't know about the x-ray dental film) so is ideal for big camera starting from 5x7 and up.
In the process of testing developers (and being stingy) I didn't like wasting a whole sheet just for an exposure test so I started chopping off the film and the easiest thing to do - chop it to medium format (120 film). I t worked so well that now I am using it everywhere. After the medium format I discovered that I can easily use it on long dead format from Kodak (116, 122, 127, etc) so now I have bunch of "dead" cameras coming alive. Of course I can cut for any kind of portable plate camera 9x12, 10x15 (Trona, Ideal, Avus)
For now I settled on Pyro-501 (home made 4 years ago). 0.2ml/75ml water - 30 minutes rotary
https://www.flickr.com/photos/114856...posted-public/
Attachment 260586
This is from a Zeiss Box Tengor
I'm looking forward to going through this series of videos, thanks for making them! I liked the overall look of the green filter example best. I like how you use cyanotypes. I like them very much and I like how they are relatively inexpensive, too, being based on iron, not silver (or platinum!).
Also, about cutting film, I had some 8x10 that I cut to 5x7 and that left me with strips of 1" film that I made work with a 35mm camera and found that I could enlarge it to 5x7 with plenty of detail, without getting all grainy like I was thinking it would. I suspect I could go a lot larger but haven't tried yet. No darkroom presently. I once had some tech pan in 35mm and found 11x14 to be possible if everything worked out well. Point is, don't neglect the 35mm cameras with the off-cuts, even if you have to load/unload in the darkroom and only get 5 frames. Also, be a little careful winding the film, Xray's on a much thicker plastic base.
Fuji UM-MA cut to 9x12cm, ISO 80 in Wehner Developer (Jobo Alpha)
Pinhole camera 75mm f/200, 16 Sec.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3cdbdfb8_b.jpg