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

I second that scan vs print business. I know digital repair is very easy compared to an picture of reality, meaning print.

Perhaps we should be using digital cameras to shoot prints so at least we have exif data to somewhat prove provenance, but even that does not prevent digital magic.

I was surprised how nicely my D7000 captured something web worthy of an 11X14 Kodak X-Ray sitting on a light table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald

I don't think the manufacturer you use makes much difference. I have used 3M, Fuji, Kodak, Minolta etc. Looks and acts the same for me.

Ian, scan or print? Nice image btw. It would be nice if we let people know if it is a scan or print. You can do a lot with a scan when posting, for that matter a print as well. Curious people wish to know.

---

maybe someone could start a thread or write a brief post or article describing the various x-ray films and their qualities, relative speed, tonality, contrast, best use (obviously subjective but that's OK) top help out those thinking of trying it. I'm interested in trying x-ray but even at the low prices I can't afford one of each. Every time I think I've decided I see something that undecides me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald

I don't think the manufacturer you use makes much difference. I have used 3M, Fuji, Kodak, Minolta etc. Looks and acts the same for me.

Ian, scan or print? Nice image btw. It would be nice if we let people know if it is a scan or print. You can do a lot with a scan when posting, for that matter a print as well. Curious people wish to know.

---

Hi Jim

Sorry, forgot to mention that. it's a scan with my worn out old Epson Perfection 3200. I played with the curves a little and sharpened it. I wish I still had a darkroom to make 'proper' prints!

I made a mix-up with the negatives, the shot I posted is actually 12 secs with no filter. I also shot 1, 2 and 4 min exposures with an ND4 filter, as I don't know for sure the reprocity failure for his Kodak Industrex MX125. The 4 min exposure with the filter was the best, but the one without the filter is sharper as there is more motion blur on the foliage in the 4 min shot.

Here's the 4 mins one, I think this is much better, particularly in shadow detail.

http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20...nsND4WEB_1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayne

maybe someone could start a thread or write a brief post or article describing the various x-ray films and their qualities, relative speed, tonality, contrast, best use (obviously subjective but that's OK) top help out those thinking of trying it. I'm interested in trying x-ray but even at the low prices I can't afford one of each. Every time I think I've decided I see something that undecides me.

---

I really like the Fuji HR-A for my portraits.

I'm shooting 8x10 in the studio.
ISO 160
Green sensitive.
Yellow filter.
Developed Rodinal 1:50 for 4 min in tray or tank and hangars.

I'm contact printing the images on Fomabrom 111 with a #1 filter in Dektol.

Ive been preparing for a solo exhibition of around 60 student portraits that will open in two weeks. I'll be scanning more of the prints soon to make my invitation cards. I don't think regular film would have te same "edge" that these xray portraits have. I just got my 7x17 F&S with modifications from Richard Ritter so I might try the 7x17 xray film. That was the original plan before I fell in love with FP4+. Might do me some artsy flower pics with 7x17 xray.

Fuji Xray Film on Kodak Eastman 2d and Dallmeyer Petzval

Attachment 96697

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luke79

Fuji Xray Film on Kodak Eastman 2d and Dallmeyer Petzval

Attachment 96697

---

Wonderful image!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luke79

Fuji Xray Film
Attachment 96697

---

Which Fuji Xray film

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayne

Which Fuji Xray film

---

Beautiful! Print or scan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald

Print or scan?

---

That too. But do you really want to know?