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

I use only Kodak X-Ray and there is no perf, but a ribbed section you are supposed to cut or tear through the middle of, not below it. I still screw it up after 4 boxes, but Kodak has enough 'bag' even cutting below the right spot to fold it up and slide it into the top load box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

Wondered that myself...

Also, stupid question, I've only shot 4x5 but picked up some 11x14 cheap and I'm trying understand THE BOX it's AGFA and is perforated and right there on the ripped perf is the film in a plastic black bag, I know they are light resistant but not PROOF as far as I understood?

Anyway shouldn't it come in a normal 3 part light trap box?

Seems strange?... Or is this how all ULF is?

---

11x14 Xray? If so, then yes. That is how it comes. Don't worry, it's pretty safe. I've even got a box of 14x17 and have had no problems with light leaks. Are you going to shoot it as is or cut down to 4x5?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl J

Hi Tim,

I've been using rating my single-sided Kodak B/RA at 50iso and processing for 6 minutes in Rodinal 1:100. Unicolor drums. Approx. 2 min. presoak in the drum. YMMV.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

I've developed single-sided Kodak B/RA in BTZS tubes. Works very well. Pyrocat-HD and Obsidian Aqua. I don't bother with a presoak.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndg

I use the Jobo 3005 expert drum, green film with emulsion on both sides and Rodinal. Develop 4(four) 8x10 sheets at a time. 4 cc of Rodinal per 8x10 sheet. That gives me 16cc of rodinal. I mix that to give me 800 cc of devloper (so 1:50). 10 cc of Rodinal per 8x10 sheet is the eecommendation but 4 cc works for me. I tried 2 cc of Rodinal per 8x10 sheet and did not like my results. Jobo recommends 800 cc of developer for 4 sheets in the 3005. I do not presoak but develop for 6 min. I like the images I get.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SergeiR

thats how i process mine. Not in jobo though. Dont like stripping.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

I use only Kodak X-Ray and there is no perf, but a ribbed section you are supposed to cut or tear through the middle of, not below it. I still screw it up after 4 boxes, but Kodak has enough 'bag' even cutting below the right spot to fold it up and slide it into the top load box.

---

Thanks all for the feedback. Are you all using continuous agitation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lipi

George!
It is possible you are misswrote the receipt? Or it's an 1:1000 dilution?
My stoeckler D-23 receipt is same as you wrote but in grams instead milligrams...
Thanks!

---

Triple ugh. Yes. grams, not milligrams.
I've been thinking too much of millimeters. :)

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottPhotoCo

Thanks all for the feedback. Are you all using continuous agitation?

---

Yes, I use the lowest setting my Jobo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

SergeiR and ndg, you both get consistent, even development? How on earth does developer get to the backside evenly? I've only done rotary with BTZS tubes and I have no experience with Jobo. In the BTZS tube, the film sits very loosely, developer never gets back there to do its job evenly. Usually end up with a mottled mess.

---

Andrew, it was actually Sergei's work that sold me on the idea of trying Xray film in the Jobo. I'd be lying if I said I knew why I didn't get a scratched and mottled mess of 8x10 sheets. I don't and I'm happy with that. I might try and figure it out when I have more time on my hands. If you have a Jobo, give it a shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

I use only Kodak X-Ray and there is no perf, but a ribbed section you are supposed to cut or tear through the middle of, not below it. I still screw it up after 4 boxes, but Kodak has enough 'bag' even cutting below the right spot to fold it up and slide it into the top load box.

---

Ribbed/perforated, it tears...

So the black bag in it's own is enough to protect from light? Even if my box is next to a window?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

11x14 Xray? If so, then yes. That is how it comes. Don't worry, it's pretty safe. I've even got a box of 14x17 and have had no problems with light leaks. Are you going to shoot it as is or cut down to 4x5?

---

Depends on if I can get an 11x14 holder.

Looking for a CHEAP 8x10 and 11x14. Starting there, and going up when I can find a lens that is for ULF and also isn't as much as my car... (And my car has 240,000 miles on it, and the company (saab) went out of business) so that tells you how much it's worth.... Right now it's just an experiment with a rudimentary "box camera"

The 8x10 hasn't arrived yet.

BTW... WHY is X-ray film so cheap? It had double emulsion, shouldn't it have twice the cost?

I suppose because not as much goes into it compared to panchro film... sensitizing dyes, anti-halation layer, and probably other layers for this and that.
ndg, I don't have a jobo as I like to keep things simple/primitive. There must be something unique about jobo drums, I guess.
On another note, I've been using both single and double-sided films, and I prefer the double-sided green stuff, as far as tones go, but not as sharp as single-sided. It's razor sharp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

I suppose because not as much goes into it compared to panchro film... sensitizing dyes, anti-halation layer, and probably other layers for this and that.
ndg, I don't have a jobo as I like to keep things simple/primitive. There must be something unique about jobo drums, I guess.
On another note, I've been using both single and double-sided films, and I prefer the double-sided green stuff, as far as tones go, but not as sharp as single-sided. It's razor sharp.

---

What's the single sided called?

http://u1.ipernity.com/36/25/11/3004...152.640.jpg?r1

This is a contact print from an X-Ray negative I made this month with the new Fuji 240mm Lens for my 8x10.

8x10 Contact Print - Dektol 1+1 - Ilford MGIV FB Paper - Omega B66 enlarger

Wow love that contrast!

Yes that's a lovely picture, can't wait to be able to contact print :)

The only single side I have tried and liked is http://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ra...ideo-film.html

Some say it is a waste of money, I tray process all Kodak X-Ray 1/100 Rodinal 10 minutes easy agit.

But I defer to Sergei and he has posted plenty of tips on all aspects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

What's the single sided called?

---

Thanks! I spent a good amount of time learning to contact print the x-ray, but the results speak for themselves. Randy is right about the film. follow his link. There are a million ways to dev x-ray I prefer dektol, dilution depends on how you rate the film. I expose at 50 and dev in 1+10 dektol for one minute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

The only single side I have tried and liked is http://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ra...ideo-film.html

Some say it is a waste of money, I tray process all Kodak X-Ray 1/100 Rodinal 10 minutes easy agit.

But I defer to Sergei and he has posted plenty of tips on all aspects.

---

Thanks! It IS expensive, especially for $80, how many sheets per box? I can't find the sheet count, but for $100 I can get a new ilford film (25 sheets) so if it's 50 or 100 sheets like other x-ray, sure it's worth it, but it's blue, so it's 400 speed?

Hmm, thanks, I'll consider it, appreciate the info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Holdenrichards

Thanks! I spent a good amount of time learning to contact print the x-ray, but the results speak for themselves. Randy is right about the film. follow his link. There are a million ways to dev x-ray I prefer dektol, dilution depends on how you rate the film. I expose at 50 and dev in 1+10 dektol for one minute.

---

Thanks.

100 sheets.

I use 80 iso strobes.

So, last question, reciprocity...

AGFA Curix Ultra UV-G Plus

Anyone have a good reciprocity rule for this film?

I'm sure it's been covered but this thread is... Quite long...

Going to try pinhole tomorrow if possible...

Thanks.

~Stone .

First photo from my diy 8x10 camera.
I don't have longer lens yet, so I stick with half of the negative which is almost 13x18cm. Still big enough to have a fun.
Green sensitive x-ray film, developed in caffenol.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5532/1...b4b39b46_o.jpg

Very nice, can you share your camera details? How you managed a DIY 8x10.

I'll try to make some photos tonight. It's very simple, monorail design made in 90% of plywood.
Still not finished, needs blackening of the interior, I have to add focusing gear, etc.

Thank you, I am also exploring options to make a DIY 8x10 as I also want to shoot X-ray film which is cheap and easily available here, and then contact print since I don't have an 8x10 or for that matter a 4x5 enlarger. That is the reason I want to move away from 4x5 for the moment. Thank you for sharing.

That's what I wanted LF camera for: making kallitypes straight from negative. I'll try do test tonight to see how it works from real negative, not digital one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raffay

Very nice, can you share your camera details? How you managed a DIY 8x10.

---

there is number of threads on DIY LF cameras in section of forum that is about DIY btw

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5478/1...ac935661_b.jpg
12Dag_Xray_f16_2.5_020214 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr

Doing some testing of Kodak X-Ray Film Ektascan B/RA. Metered at 80 iso.
Jobo 3005 + Continuous agitation (6m @ 68) + Rodinal 40mL/1L

What do you think? Do you like the results?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottPhotoCo

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5478/1...ac935661_b.jpg
12Dag_Xray_f16_2.5_020214 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr

Doing some testing of Kodak X-Ray Film Ektascan B/RA. Metered at 80 iso.
Jobo 3005 + Continuous agitation (6m @ 68) + Rodinal 40mL/1L

---

Scott, I like the concept. The image is a bit contrasty, though. I think it needed a tad more exposure. Did you shoot under natural light? Was bellows ext. required? Reciprocity? That is one of the films that I use, and I shoot it at 80 outdoors. I've not tried it indoors.

A little underexposed, perhaps? I've had pretty good results at 50iso. I'll also still usually rate it at 50iso even outdoors, where I think it tends to be somewhat faster. At any rate, it's cheap enough I can shoot an extra sheet if I'm in doubt (but I usually don't bother). I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight. That's my eventual plan for 11x14 (just waiting for the camera to come back from upgrades).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndg

What do you think? Do you like the results?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Scott, I like the concept. The image is a bit contrasty, though. I think it needed a tad more exposure. Did you shoot under natural light? Was bellows ext. required? Reciprocity? That is one of the films that I use, and I shoot it at 80 outdoors. I've not tried it indoors.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl J

A little underexposed, perhaps? I've had pretty good results at 50iso. I'll also still usually rate it at 50iso even outdoors, where I think it tends to be somewhat faster. At any rate, it's cheap enough I can shoot an extra sheet if I'm in doubt (but I usually don't bother). I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight. That's my eventual plan for 11x14 (just waiting for the camera to come back from upgrades).

---

Thanks for the comments. Here are the details and my thoughts:

This was shot indoors with natural back light. It was a really difficult light to meter for and that's why I wanted to try it. I metered for the shadows on the inside of the typewriter as I just wanted to see detail where the arms sit at rest. If you look closely, it's there. There was approximately a 7-8 stop difference (guessing) between the black typewriter and the open window behind. I was hoping to save some detail on the top of the cabinet. If you look closely you can just see wood grain on the cabinet on the right. But, not enough. I may try this shot again this weekend, shoot it the same way (2.5 seconds at f16) and modify my Rodinal mix to 25mL to 1L of water and process for the same 6 minutes to see if the concentrate of developer was a bit too strong. I am processing 4 sheets at a time so this is 6.25mL of developer per sheet. Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Scott, I like the concept. The image is a bit contrasty, though. I think it needed a tad more exposure. Did you shoot under natural light? Was bellows ext. required? Reciprocity? That is one of the films that I use, and I shoot it at 80 outdoors. I've not tried it indoors.

---

Here's where I get really confused. Ektascan has the same insane density as the double-sided stuff, so how does increasing exposure cut down on the contrast? I've shot Ektascan at ISO 200 (studio lights), and only get something approaching controlability with a 2-bath d23 mix; pulling the neg only after the highs start to show up in bath-A.

Ugh. It's really hard stuff to shoot (Ektascan).

Incidently, I found that a yellow filter really helps tame the density.

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbogatko

Here's where I get really confused. Ektascan has the same insane density as the double-sided stuff, so how does increasing exposure cut down on the contrast? I've shot Ektascan at ISO 200 (studio lights), and only get something approaching controlability with a 2-bath d23 mix; pulling the neg only after the highs start to show up in bath-A.

Ugh. It's really hard stuff to shoot (Ektascan).

Incidently, I found that a yellow filter really helps tame the density.

George

---

I would suggest longer exposure but shorter development time. I think that's what he means as well.

ALSO I would suggest longer exposure and trying something like Rodinal 1:150 1 hour stand.(usually I do 1:100 but the amount of highlight here I would dilute even further.

Just a suggestion, what do I know?

You mean people are developing this ortho film in the dark? One of the great things about ortho film is developing by inspection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl J

A little underexposed, perhaps? I've had pretty good results at 50iso. I'll also still usually rate it at 50iso even outdoors, where I think it tends to be somewhat faster. At any rate, it's cheap enough I can shoot an extra sheet if I'm in doubt (but I usually don't bother). I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight. That's my eventual plan for 11x14 (just waiting for the camera to come back from upgrades).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by premortho

You mean people are developing this ortho film in the dark? One of the great things about ortho film is developing by inspection.

---

Not everyone has a darkroom...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottPhotoCo

Thoughts?

---

Tim, if i may... Dont try to solve this with development. shorter.. longer.. Dillutions.. Ugh.

Just use white sheet of paper next time, to throw back some light onto subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

Not everyone has a darkroom...

---

Yes. No darkroom here, either. I'm using Unicolor drums for now, which is easy enough with single-sided Kodak BR/A. Did try 11x14 in a Beseler drum but left a couple of oddly shaped blotches (not related to the ribs inside the drum itself) where the developer didn't fully come into contact with the emulsion against the side of the drum. Happened twice. Then tried a Unicolor drum, which was better, but instead got more pronounced marks from the ribs inside the drum where the developer didn't reach the emulsion evenly. I did in fact bleach one negative which looked good -- until I dropped the wet negative on the floor and scratched the negative. Self-inflicted. ;)

Safe to say, I'm looking forward to trying trays and inspection next, which I think will be the ticket once the bathroom/darkroom is set.... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl J

Yes. No darkroom here, either. I'm using Unicolor drums for now, which is easy enough with single-sided Kodak BR/A. Did try 11x14 in a Beseler drum but left a couple of oddly shaped blotches (not related to the ribs inside the drum itself) where the developer didn't fully come into contact with the emulsion against the side of the drum. Happened twice. Then tried a Unicolor drum, which was better, but instead got more pronounced marks from the ribs inside the drum where the developer didn't reach the emulsion evenly. I did in fact bleach one negative which looked good -- until I dropped the wet negative on the floor and scratched the negative. Self-inflicted. ;)

Safe to say, I'm looking forward to trying trays and inspection next, which I think will be the ticket once the bathroom/darkroom is set.... ;)

---

Same here, 12x16 cibichrome drum and beseler rotary base fits 11x14 sheets. Right now I'm scanning in 4 parts and stitching but hope to do some contact prints once I have a nice lens to shoot with instead of pinhole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SergeiR

Tim, if i may... Dont try to solve this with development. shorter.. longer.. Dillutions.. Ugh.

Just use white sheet of paper next time, to throw back some light onto subject.

---

Not a bad thought Sergi, thanks. This really was just a test shot though to see how the high contrast would play out. As I used the Rodinal/Adinal at a much higher dilution than the 1:100 that I normally do (wanted to use the 10mL per 8x10 sheet as recommended by Rodinal/Adinal) I think it may also be affecting the highlights. That's why I might try using more of a dilution just to see what I get. :) I just want to know what I can and can't do with this particular film so I can use it to get what I see in my head later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

Same here, 12x16 cibichrome drum and beseler rotary base fits 11x14 sheets. Right now I'm scanning in 4 parts and stitching but hope to do some contact prints once I have a nice lens to shoot with instead of pinhole.

---

Tried a quick test scanning 11x14 on the v750 and it was more trouble than it was worth. Just a test so no harm done, but not something I'd want to do with a negative I cared about. Never used actual stitching software, what do you recommend?

Half-assed screen shot of the individual scans overlapping each other:

Attachment 109887

11x14 Fuji Green HR/U? 15" f/9 Ilex Process Lens, yellow filter, not stripped, iso50, rodinal 6 min

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl J

Tried a quick test scanning 11x14 on the v750 and it was more trouble than it was worth. Just a test so no harm done, but not something I'd want to do with a negative I cared about. Never used actual stitching software, what do you recommend?

Half-assed screen shot of the individual scans overlapping each other:

Attachment 109887

11x14 Fuji Green HR/U? 15" f/9 Ilex Process Lens, yellow filter, not stripped, iso50, rodinal 6 min

---

Well, when I scanned them with the essence software, the only thing that I make sure that I write down the black, white, and neutral number information that show up in the chart area, so that each scan will match up identically in terms of contrast and exposure level, I generally let the system automatically shoot it for me, but I do purposefully selected area first that I've chosen as my spot meter exposure area when shooting and notate that for later.

Anyway, once I have them all scanned, I had to Google it to figure it out, but you simply open up Photoshop, I happened to have CS6 even though I have only used it a few times, I got a great deal on it when upgrading the light room and said what the heck let me get it just in case.

Anyway you simply open up all the files at once I mean within Photoshop you open them they show up as Tabs. Then you go to the top of the screen and I believe it's under the file, you then scroll down to select the automate option, and there is some kind of selection or stitching, but it's not called stitching it's called something else, and of course the word escaped my mind at this time, but it's obvious, like "combine" or something, anyway I select auto and it just figures it out for me, I don't have to collage it or anything. It uses pattern recognition.

Best of luck! The file is huge and I usually saved it as TIFF but I've just learned from an ULF photographer about a "large document" option, I'll try that next time.

Hope that helped

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl J

I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight.

---

Not orange -- that'll cause fogging. Use a red safelight instead.

Thanks, Stone. I may look into this further. Problem is the Epson scanner cover comes in contact with the 11x14 negative when closed so I don't really consider the v750 a viable option but I'd still like to know how to stitch. I also recently discovered we have a Microtek scanner at work that I think will cover 11x14. Software support is getting sketchy for these older scanners but it may be fun to try before they consider putting it out to pasture.

FWIW, I have yet to try contact printing any of the x-ray negatives (in any size) but, like dev. by inspection (no darkroom), that's another thing high on my agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

Well, when I scanned them with the essence software, the only thing that I make sure that I write down the black, white, and neutral number information that show up in the chart area, so that each scan will match up identically in terms of contrast and exposure level, I generally let the system automatically shoot it for me, but I do purposefully selected area first that I've chosen as my spot meter exposure area when shooting and notate that for later.

Anyway, once I have them all scanned, I had to Google it to figure it out, but you simply open up Photoshop, I happened to have CS6 even though I have only used it a few times, I got a great deal on it when upgrading the light room and said what the heck let me get it just in case.

Anyway you simply open up all the files at once I mean within Photoshop you open them they show up as Tabs. Then you go to the top of the screen and I believe it's under the file, you then scroll down to select the automate option, and there is some kind of selection or stitching, but it's not called stitching it's called something else, and of course the word escaped my mind at this time, but it's obvious, like "combine" or something, anyway I select auto and it just figures it out for me, I don't have to collage it or anything. It uses pattern recognition.

Best of luck! The file is huge and I usually saved it as TIFF but I've just learned from an ULF photographer about a "large document" option, I'll try that next time.

Hope that helped

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carl J

Thanks, Stone. I may look into this further. Problem is the Epson scanner cover comes in contact with the 11x14 negative when closed so I don't really consider the v750 a viable option but I'd still like to know how to stitch. I also recently discovered we have a Microtek scanner at work that I think will cover 11x14. Software support is getting sketchy for these older scanners but it may be fun to try before they consider putting it out to pasture.

FWIW, I have yet to try contact printing any of the x-ray negatives (in any size) but, like dev. by inspection (no darkroom), that's another thing high on my agenda.

---

Welcome, I'm told that both Viewscan and SilverFast support a lot of old model scanners (even some with SCSI ports for cables) so if ever Epson or anyone else fails to support an OS upgrade, I think it's still a safe bet to use those other programs for many years.

However at the quality if my iPhone camera, I've wondered if designing a simpler system where you deposit your phone into a machine and it "docks" with it and using that can scan hah! Not this generation but soon I think. Scary.

The phone scanner has been done some time ago, but it's crap. Look here for the DIY DSLR scanner thread, very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

Welcome, I'm told that both Viewscan and SilverFast support a lot of old model scanners (even some with SCSI ports for cables) so if ever Epson or anyone else fails to support an OS upgrade, I think it's still a safe bet to use those other programs for many years.

However at the quality if my iPhone camera, I've wondered if designing a simpler system where you deposit your phone into a machine and it "docks" with it and using that can scan hah! Not this generation but soon I think. Scary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

Anyway, once I have them all scanned, I had to Google it to figure it out, but you simply open up Photoshop, I happened to have CS6 even though I have only used it a few times, I got a great deal on it when upgrading the light room and said what the heck let me get it just in case.

Anyway you simply open up all the files at once I mean within Photoshop you open them they show up as Tabs. Then you go to the top of the screen and I believe it's under the file, you then scroll down to select the automate option, and there is some kind of selection or stitching, but it's not called stitching it's called something else, and of course the word escaped my mind at this time, but it's obvious, like "combine" or something, anyway I select auto and it just figures it out for me, I don't have to collage it or anything. It uses pattern recognition.

---

The option is called "Photomerge" in Photoshop. Another way to get that to work is if you launch Adobe Bridge CS (comes with Photoshop CS) and select the scanned portions of the image (file_001.tif, file_002.tif, etc) by holding down the control key and clicking on each one then in the tools menu select Photoshop, then PhotoMerge, it will launch a dialog box showing your selected scanned images. Just hit OK on that dialog box and it will bring in each scanned portion of the image and place it on it's own layer. Then from the Layers menu select "Merge Visible" then "Flatten Image" and save the fully merged image to disk. You can then go back to the window that has Adobe Bridge open and delete the individual scanned portions of the image since you no longer need those files.

Quote:

---

Ektascan has the same insane density as the double-sided stuff, so how does increasing exposure cut down on the contrast?

---

More exposure, less development. One could also pre-expose the film. That's a great way to cut contrast.

I find many people who are using X-ray film, are not compensating for reciprocity effect.

Finally had a chance to continue my testing. Here are my four latest shots with details. All were processed in a Jobo tank with continuous agitation for 7m using Adinol (25mL:1L) at 68 degrees. No presoak.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3727/1...d5b3379f_b.jpg
XRay_Test_Jobo_ScottPhotoCo_0214-4_WM by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Camera: Deardorff v8
Lens: 16.5" Goerz Artar
Film: Kodak Ektascan B/RA (metered at 80iso)
Exposure: 1s at f16

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7404/1...293f995f_b.jpg
XRay_Test_Jobo_ScottPhotoCo_0214-2_WM by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Camera: Deardorff v8
Lens: 16.5" Goerz Artar
Film: Kodak Ektascan B/RA (metered at 80iso)
Exposure: 1s at f22

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3807/1...5f605dd5_b.jpg
XRay_Test_Jobo_ScottPhotoCo_0214-3_WM by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Camera: Deardorff v8
Lens: 15x12 Ross
Film: Kodak Ektascan B/RA (metered at 80iso)
Exposure: 1/20s at f8

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2830/1...e2c14d17_b.jpg
XRay_Test_Jobo_ScottPhotoCo_0214-1_WM by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Camera: Deardorff v8
Lens: 15x12 Ross
Film: Kodak Ektascan B/RA (metered at 80iso)
Exposure: 1.2s at f8

These were only shot for testing and not for content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

I find many people who are using X-ray film, are not compensating for reciprocity effect.

---

I found I didn't have to worry much about it with Fuji down to 20 seconds or so, but with Agfa it seems different. I haven't done any formal testing, just with exposures in the 5min or more range, I give it a lot more than the Fuji.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg Obst

The option is called "Photomerge" in Photoshop. Another way to get that to work is if you launch Adobe Bridge CS (comes with Photoshop CS) and select the scanned portions of the image (file_001.tif, file_002.tif, etc) by holding down the control key and clicking on each one then in the tools menu select Photoshop, then PhotoMerge, it will launch a dialog box showing your selected scanned images. Just hit OK on that dialog box and it will bring in each scanned portion of the image and place it on it's own layer. Then from the Layers menu select "Merge Visible" then "Flatten Image" and save the fully merged image to disk. You can then go back to the window that has Adobe Bridge open and delete the individual scanned portions of the image since you no longer need those files.

---

Thanks all for the Photomerge info. I don't have Photoshop (have been using Pixelmator) but can probably get my hands on a copy....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

More exposure, less development. One could also pre-expose the film. That's a great way to cut contrast.

---

Ah. Beware of mottling. One can under develop too much.