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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy

It does help - thanks. I will look into the 3" tubes. If you get a chance, perhaps post a picture of your tube assembly some time - or if there is one already posted somewhere, can you direct me to it. Thanks.

---

Randy (and anyone else who might be interested),

Finally took some pictures of the PVC tubes that I mentioned testing.

Top pic from left to right:
18x24cm/8x10" tube (takes one film).
13x18cm/5x7" tube (takes two films).
End cap assembly, glued to a coupling.
Coupling by itself.
Screw cap with its base.

Bottom pics from left to right, looking through:
18x24cm/8x10" tube
13x18cm/5x7" tube (with the "stopper" of the coupling protruding, which helps the two negs stay away from each other)
Coupling

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/873/2...3623aef9_b.jpg

Now, since my last post I developed 10 more sheets of 18x24cm film.
Half of them single-sided mammography film, and half double sided.
8 came out ok.
1 refused to come out for washing (even though after fixing I place the tubes vertically in the sink and fill them with water to reduce friction), resulting in two massive scratches on the back side.
1 came out with streaks of uneven development (no idea why).

Also, I don't have a motorized roller base (had plans of building one if/when I concluded that this developing method works for me), and I can tell you that manually rotating the tubes for 16min for each sheet gets old real fast.

In conclusion, this method might be worth looking into, only if you have a motorized roller base, *and* you shoot a relatively small amount of film.

Scan from a contact print on Ilford MG warmtone paper at grade 1.

More often than not, I make two identical exposures of any scene I deem worthy, so that I get a second chance if processing goes wrong on the first negative.

In this case, the first one came out ok (way back when), so the duplicate was kept aside to be used for testing.

The negative that made this print was developed last week, more than two years after exposure, which speaks volumes for the stability of the latent image on exposed xray films (or at the very least on this particular film, Agfa CPG+).

18x24cm negative (double sided, green sensitive), developed in Ilford MG paper developer (1+50) in a Jobo 2830 drum for 8'min.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/924/4...00b07c51_b.jpg

I had a similar experience with Kodak High Speed Green X-ray film. In 2012 I made four exposures of a scene and developed three of them over the next few days. The fourth sheet stayed in my paper safe for two years before being processed in 2014. The image looked identical the best of the three processed two years earlier. This is significant, because X-ray film is almost always processed immediately after exposure in a professional setting, so the manufacturers don't have any reason to strive for long term latent image quality. I'm guessing latent image preservation goes along with other desirable characteristics that good X-ray film needs to have.

Thodoris, thankyou for sharing your experiences with your tubes, much the same experiences I had with tubes, but you had much better results. Speaking of the electric rollers, I had one, using a mod54 in a Paterson dev tank (3 spool version). The only problem with the electric roller I found was that as the developer is only turning one way I was still getting uneven development, so I got out my spare electric roller to use in the opposite direction. I changed rollers every minute or so and got really good results

Well, sharing our experiences and inspiring each other is what it's all about, right?

Here is a scan from a contact print on Hahnemühle Platinum Rag coated with Mike Ware's Cyanotype formula.

Using the same in-camera negative from which I printed the silver gelatin contact print in my previous post.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/828/4...005220d3_b.jpg

Thanks for posting both prints.

I am wavering on Cyanotype

Which do you prefer?

Randy,

Even though I do like how the cyanotype turned out (also did a darker version, but I like this one better), I'm not the biggest fan of this process in general.

Despite all my experience in silver printing, my only previous experience in "alternative processes" are a handful of prints I did some 20 years ago in a workshop. Still a total newbie, taking my first steps in climbing the proverbial learning curve.

(Having a working knowledge of sensitometry helps immensely though.)

So, before trying out something more challenging, like palladium or carbon transfer, I thought it would be best to try a simpler (and cheaper) process first.

30x40cm negative (double sided, green sensitive), hand development on plastic trays.
D76
1/1
8 min, 20°C
continus agitation
film rated 9 ASA
Base rabbit cages trays are useful, cheap and available in large format dimension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miguel Coquis

30x40cm negative (double sided, green sensitive), hand development on plastic trays.
D76
1/1
8 min, 20°C
continus agitation
film rated 9 ASA
Base rabbit cages trays are useful, cheap and available in large format dimension.

---

Nice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Randy,

Even though I do like how the cyanotype turned out (also did a darker version, but I like this one better), I'm not the biggest fan of this process in general.

Despite all my experience in silver printing, my only previous experience in "alternative processes" are a handful of prints I did some 20 years ago in a workshop. Still a total newbie, taking my first steps in climbing the proverbial learning curve.

(Having a working knowledge of sensitometry helps immensely though.)

So, before trying out something more challenging, like palladium or carbon transfer, I thought it would be best to try a simpler (and cheaper) process first.

---

Very good idea that I should follow!