-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Randy Moe
Sergei, now I remember, I forget a lot, put a microswitch on it. Bingo!
My camera has rear rack and pinion, and front screw focus with a rear crank. It's a really nice 11x14 Process camera, simply gorgeous wood and huge square leather bellows. I got lucky, I saved t from becoming a coffee table!
I have pics in DIY.
Thanks! :)
Ah, yes, i was following you there :) I just want to have camera i can take outside of home :) So huge rolling bed like that is not an option (plus i dont have bits for it). I have some spare things from old cameras though, so i might reuse certain parts, however all the knobs and focusing rails - will have to make those. I am thinking about following Chamonix(Hugo's) idea of just using central rod to do fine focusing and then use friction bit on main rail to do general focusing. Have old Linhof 45s cardan to sacrifice ;)
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I have a spare 8x10 Linhof Color Kardan frame I will use for my lens board adaptor. it is big enough and strong enough to let me mount any lens to my studio camera, and I have adapters from that down to the small Linhof boards or Sinar.
Actually those old Linhof Color Kardans are HD enough to size up quite a bit, they make a Horseman 8x10 seem tinkertoy. I got some ideas there also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SergeiR
Ah, yes, i was following you there :) I just want to have camera i can take outside of home :) So huge rolling bed like that is not an option (plus i dont have bits for it). I have some spare things from old cameras though, so i might reuse certain parts, however all the knobs and focusing rails - will have to make those. I am thinking about following Chamonix(Hugo's) idea of just using central rod to do fine focusing and then use friction bit on main rail to do general focusing. Have old Linhof 45s cardan to sacrifice ;)
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
From yesterday's shoot and straight out of the darkroom today:
Still getting nasty scratches. Processing seems okay except for the top far right corner in Pyro PMK:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5479/9...7f1d8875_b.jpg
Dalsung Swamp #01 by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
7x17 Folmer & Shwing, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray), Pyro PMK 1:2:200 - 15 min in trays
Double Stitched Epson v750 negative in Photoshop
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
certainly getting better :)
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SergeiR
certainly getting better :)
Actually not. Looks like it wasn't the film with problems (except for the spots I was getting - because I don't have those). The problem is me. I just cannot master this tray processing thing! The Rodinal 1:100 images I processed today are looking bad - more unevenness. This is really quite frustrating.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
XTOL seems to agree a bit better with me, about the same as Pyro PMK, except I'm getting glove prints and scratches on my PMK.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7349/9...208f781b_b.jpg
Dalsung Swamp #09 by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7398/9...85de7208_b.jpg
Dalsung Swamp #07 by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7293/9...707b091e_b.jpg
Dalsung Swamp #03 by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
7x17 Folmer & Shwing, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray), XTOL 1:1, 3 min
Observations: The edges are a bit hot. But something to work towards improving. At this point, I'm not liking ULF and Rodinal in trays.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
photoevangelist
Perhaps you could try less agitation?
I've only done one batch, and my setup was pretty crude in a makeshift darkroom, so I'm not without scratches either.
However, I believe I'm on the right track, for trays at least. Jim's process, using deep tanks, seems the most sensible for this film...
I don't know what agitation regime you're using, but here's what I've been doing for 11x17.
4 liters of solution, I have been using D76, 1:3 and 1:5, but have run out of that, and will be trying HC 110 5 litres, 1:100 next. No pre-soak, agitation for the first 20 seconds, then stand for the remainder of the first three minutes. Gently lift film from bottom of the tray (smooth bottomed) and turn over and repeat. This is for a process time of 12 minutes, so I was flipping the film over three times.
For the next batch, HC110, I plan on only having to flip once, but I need to determine the overall time first, then flip on the halfway point.
Do you think that the extra density around the edges might be to do with increased development? This semi-stand method might help with that, since the film is lying on the bottom of the tray for long periods, minimizing the effect of fresh developer ingress to the underside.
I should be doing another batch soon, need to repurpose some space. (Tidy up)
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I also have some 510 Pyro to try, but I think that might be tempting fate just a little too far, without deep tanks...
Will give it a go when I've shot some fresh tests.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
photoevangelist
7x17 Folmer & Shwing, 12" Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray),
Do you mean Fuji HR-HA? HR-A doesn't seem to exist in Google.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jb7
Perhaps you could try less agitation?
I've only done one batch, and my setup was pretty crude in a makeshift darkroom, so I'm not without scratches either.
However, I believe I'm on the right track, for trays at least. Jim's process, using deep tanks, seems the most sensible for this film...
I don't know what agitation regime you're using, but here's what I've been doing for 11x17.
4 liters of solution, I have been using D76, 1:3 and 1:5, but have run out of that, and will be trying HC 110 5 litres, 1:100 next. No pre-soak, agitation for the first 20 seconds, then stand for the remainder of the first three minutes. Gently lift film from bottom of the tray (smooth bottomed) and turn over and repeat. This is for a process time of 12 minutes, so I was flipping the film over three times.
For the next batch, HC110, I plan on only having to flip once, but I need to determine the overall time first, then flip on the halfway point.
Do you think that the extra density around the edges might be to do with increased development? This semi-stand method might help with that, since the film is lying on the bottom of the tray for long periods, minimizing the effect of fresh developer ingress to the underside.
I should be doing another batch soon, need to repurpose some space. (Tidy up)
ANYTHING I do with Rodinal: 1:50, 1:100, 1:200 - stand, semi-stand, vigorous agitation- all seem to be failures for me with 7x17 in trays. I had it down packed with 8x10 in trays and tanks - same film, different size.
I don't know what the problem is. I was also using 4 liters.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wayne
Do you mean Fuji HR-HA? HR-A doesn't seem to exist in Google.
It is indeed: Fuji HR-A. I was clueless too. I can only find it offered in South Korea. Supposedly it's the same stuff as HR-U but less silver so its cheaper? I don't know. That's what I think the lady told me. Korean isn't my first language.
Perhaps they're testing it here first before releasing it to other parts of the world?
I've seen beautiful stuff on this thread with HR-T, but its not offered here in Korea.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I can't help you because you are way outside my area of knowledge, but these are looking very pretty though Lee!
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Noel
Trays for 7x17 are far cheaper than are those for 16x20 paper. Buy the green seed starting trays from Park Seed, be sure you get the ones without holes.. Three will cost you around $10-15, if I remember correctly. These are 10x20" trays.
http://parkseed.com/large-perma-nest...domes/p/v1590/
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
"Do you think that the extra density around the edges might be to do with increased development? This semi-stand method might help with that, since the film is lying on the bottom of the tray for long periods, minimizing the effect of fresh developer ingress to the underside."
How large are your trays? A tray which is too close to the same dimensions as the film can cause over-agitation as the developer sloshes against the the edge of the tray. I use 10x20" trays for 7x17" film and agitate rather gently in order to prevent this.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Noel
"Do you think that the extra density around the edges might be to do with increased development? This semi-stand method might help with that, since the film is lying on the bottom of the tray for long periods, minimizing the effect of fresh developer ingress to the underside."
How large are your trays? A tray which is too close to the same dimensions as the film can cause over-agitation as the developer sloshes against the the edge of the tray. I use 10x20" trays for 7x17" film and agitate rather gently in order to prevent this.
Well I don't actually have that problem, at least I don't think so, I haven't scanned or printed my negs yet. I'm aware of the tray size issue, however, x-ray film is further complicated due to the double sided emulsion. If a negative has a short development time there is more chance of uneven development, particularly on the lower surface in contact with the smooth bottomed tray. There might be more chance of finding fresher developer around the edges of the underside, rather than towards the centre.
I use 16x20 trays for 11x17...
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Randy Moe
I now have a 14x17 film holder and will be making my 14x17 extension back. I am curious what lenses people are shooting 14x17 with.
The basis for my lens kit for 14x17 and 12x20 are the 355mm G-Claron, 450 M-Nikkor and a 270mm Computar. I also have a 600mm Apo-Ronar which seems to be ideal. Also have a 500mm Wollaston from Reinhold. There are some other older, fuzzier lenses, too, but that's the core kit.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
I am curious what lenses people are shooting 14x17 with.
My 300M Nikkor, 355G-Claron, 450M Nikkor, 600C Fujinon all cover my Rickety1417.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Will Whitaker
This and other plant supply stores won't ship internationally unfortunately. Apparently these trays are a thing of the past in Korea too. Any flower store I visit in Korea doesn't carry these. I can't find them online in Korea either.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
photoevangelist
Actually not. Looks like it wasn't the film with problems (except for the spots I was getting - because I don't have those). The problem is me. I just cannot master this tray processing thing! The Rodinal 1:100 images I processed today are looking bad - more unevenness. This is really quite frustrating.
Possible agitation and developer problems aside, you're getting better skies, though. Which filter, again? I'm using a #12 (medium yellow) but still seems to be luck if I get much in the way of clouds but it does make something of a difference, at least.
3 min. in XTOL 1:1 seems pretty short, however (not that it doesn't seem to be working), considered trying 1:2 or 1:3?
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Noel
"Do you think that the extra density around the edges might be to do with increased development? This semi-stand method might help with that, since the film is lying on the bottom of the tray for long periods, minimizing the effect of fresh developer ingress to the underside."
How large are your trays? A tray which is too close to the same dimensions as the film can cause over-agitation as the developer sloshes against the the edge of the tray. I use 10x20" trays for 7x17" film and agitate rather gently in order to prevent this.
My tray with developer is 16x20 for 7x17. It can dance all over the place since there is more room on the left and right sides. I've found however that a medium aggressive agitation gets me the evenness I need. One thing I wasn't doing before I processed with XTOL was long prewashes. I normally did 1:30 min - 2 min prewashes. I read somewhere that 5 min pre washes are necessary for even skies. I changed both developer and prewashing times at the same time so I can't be sure if the prewash or XTOL was the cure. For the film edges that are getting too hot, I think they could be cropped or perhaps try a more dilute mix for longer times. 3 min was never too short for my 8x10 in Rodinal 1:50. 7x17 is proving to be another demon on its own. I can't just look at my negative and tell there is a problem going on, so I've been using my scanner to preview before I try the next experiment. I'm very grateful I can do these scans in two parts. If I was doing any larger negative it may very well be impossible and would have to go all kinds of contact prints and would take me longer to figure this all out. I'm definitely more excited that XTOL and PMK are giving me results I can work with. I'd love to try Sandy King's Pyrocat HD. Freestyle didn't have it at the time, so I bought PMK instead. I'd mix it myself, but when I asked the chemical supply store, one of the ingredients had to be imported and it was looking mighty expensive. The premix would be cheaper for me even with the shipping fees.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Same exact film?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
photoevangelist
ANYTHING I do with Rodinal: 1:50, 1:100, 1:200 - stand, semi-stand, vigorous agitation- all seem to be failures for me with 7x17 in trays. I had it down packed with 8x10 in trays and tanks - same film, different size.
I don't know what the problem is. I was also using 4 liters.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carl J
Possible agitation and developer problems aside, you're getting better skies, though. Which filter, again? I'm using a #12 (medium yellow) but still seems to be luck if I get much in the way of clouds but it does make something of a difference, at least.
3 min. in XTOL 1:1 seems pretty short, however (not that it doesn't seem to be working), considered trying 1:2 or 1:3?
These are with no filter. I tried a Tiffen #12 yellow before on landscapes and wasn't too thrilled. This was way back when I was trying to figure out my film speed on 8x10 though. I liked yellow filter on my portraits however, and green even more (but caused a two stop difference, instead of one with the yellow - so I vouched for the yellow).
I was shooting two exposures on these images. One was no filter and the other exposure was with a circle warming polarizer. I added two stops to my exposure bit they came out thinner than the ones without a filter. I thought a polarizer my help with a sky on xray film like it can with color... no cigar. I'd like to try yellow and green filters again, but I question how much they would actually benefit the image.
It's really fun to go out with a big camera and take a lot of care to compose each image. A whole lot of work goes into it. It really sucks to process the images and there be problems like scratches or uneven development that would most likely not exist if I was shooting conventional film. I've been wondering if I should just be using regular film (I've got two boxes of HP5 now, and one box of FP4 coming in the fall), but when it's gone - it's gone. I'm using xray film because I got amazing results with studio portraits and I've seen stunning landscapes by Bryan, Holden, and others. Perhaps I should load my holders with HP5+ on one side and xray film on the other. That way I get two variations of the same scene and can determine wether this xray film is worth spending all the extra effort to deal with.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Randy Moe
Same exact film?
The first 7x17 film I was using was expired HR-U that I received for free. I switched to a new freshly dated box of HR-A, which is the same emulsion that I was using for my portraits - familiar territory. However development problems were the same. Rodinal just isn't working for me in 7x17.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Without a filter I get no sky detail with single-sided Kodak B/RA.
FWIW, I always go out with both X-ray and conventional film. Personally, I think knowing you've got some 'real' film with results (processing-wise at least) you can be reasonably sure about has always helped with the sometime frustration of dealing with the quirks X-ray film. IOW, I'd want to shoot a little bit, at least, of that Ilford, too. :)
Totally understand your concerns about the limited supply of Ilford 7x17, but maybe you could ask around and locate a bit more if you begin to run out prematurely. Plus, by that time you'll probably have long-since solved the x-ray film problems and can better figure out what works best for which type of subject matter.
Just my very humble .02. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
photoevangelist
These are with no filter. I tried a Tiffen #12 yellow before on landscapes and wasn't too thrilled. This was way back when I was trying to figure out my film speed on 8x10 though. I liked yellow filter on my portraits however, and green even more (but caused a two stop difference, instead of one with the yellow - so I vouched for the yellow).
I was shooting two exposures on these images. One was no filter and the other exposure was with a circle warming polarizer. I added two stops to my exposure bit they came out thinner than the ones without a filter. I thought a polarizer my help with a sky on xray film like it can with color... no cigar. I'd like to try yellow and green filters again, but I question how much they would actually benefit the image.
It's really fun to go out with a big camera and take a lot of care to compose each image. A whole lot of work goes into it. It really sucks to process the images and there be problems like scratches or uneven development that would most likely not exist if I was shooting conventional film. I've been wondering if I should just be using regular film (I've got two boxes of HP5 now, and one box of FP4 coming in the fall), but when it's gone - it's gone. I'm using xray film because I got amazing results with studio portraits and I've seen stunning landscapes by Bryan, Holden, and others. Perhaps I should load my holders with HP5+ on one side and xray film on the other. That way I get two variations of the same scene and can determine wether this xray film is worth spending all the extra effort to deal with.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
and if you REALLY careful...
8x10, Kodak CSG, 1s, Yellow/Green filter, Symmar, 8m in 1:100 R09
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/9...14bafee9_b.jpg
Scan-130721-0004www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Shit happens...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SergeiR
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Just awesome!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sergeir
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SergeiR
8x10 Kodak CSG, Yellow-green filter, Symmar 300/500 @ 300mm
rotary dev, rodinal 1:100, 15:00
What is Kodak CSG?
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7420/9...593728aa_c.jpg
Beppe platinato di Filippo Natali, su Flickr
Platinum/Palladium toned Kallitype, made from 14x17" Kodak Tmat Xray negative developed with Pyrocat-MC, Apo Ronar 600 F/9 (...or maybe Xenar 420mm F/4.5, I don't remember exactly)
Thank you all for the tons of helpful tips in this thread!
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
UlbabraB
Looks gorgeous! Going to follow you on Flickr. Nice work!
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Will Whitaker
What is Kodak CSG?
Its a green sensitive medium speed x-ray film. The better question is, what is Fuji HR-A???
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wayne
Its a green sensitive medium speed x-ray film. The better question is, what is Fuji HR-A???
Haha! Right! I have no idea either! I can show you a picture of a box of my film. I'm not trying to trick anyone. It's the cheapest xray film that's offered in Korea. It's made by Fuji and says its made in Japan. I have no idea if its a special product for Korea only or if its available in other parts of the world too. I'm not Korean and my language skills are only intermediate. I could ask the next time I buy a box to satisfy our curiousity.
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Hi,
Can anyone explain what the 14x36 inch trifold xray film looks like? Is the film able to be folded? Is it perforated so it can be folded? I know what the full length 14x36 version looks like. I cannot find an image of the trifold version to satisfy my curiousity.
Kirk
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
The answer costs $60 you need to buy the film to find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kirkmacatangay
Hi,
Can anyone explain what the 14x36 inch trifold xray film looks like? Is the film able to be folded? Is it perforated so it can be folded? I know what the full length 14x36 version looks like. I cannot find an image of the trifold version to satisfy my curiousity.
Kirk
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Randy,
Actually, with foreign $$$ conversion, shipping and handling costs to Canada, it is more like $120 to find out. And no camera to shoot it with if I did buy it.
Or I can ask and see if someone knows already.
So, does anyone have a clue?
Kirk
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Contact http://www.cxsonline.com/ and ask them. I can't see shooters using folding X-Ray in any size.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
finally got around to do bunch of contact prints from xray film
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7438/9...d3f5736e_b.jpg
Contact print - exposure test: scan by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2807/9...f1aecef0_b.jpg
Contact print: scan by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
For those who cares - it seems that with my typical development i do get them all around same exposure index (kinda knew that from scanning, but still). Used simple chineese 560 flash , mounted on wee light stand, about 60cm above contact frame made out of sheet of plex and plywood :) On minimal power of flash its 3 (or 5 for really dense) exposures. Developed with Dektol-like developer on Ilford multigrade. Certainly looks better than average 8x10 print from printer. Comes out cheaper too :)
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
photoevangelist
Haha! Right! I have no idea either! I can show you a picture of a box of my film. I'm not trying to trick anyone. It's the cheapest xray film that's offered in Korea. It's made by Fuji and says its made in Japan. I have no idea if its a special product for Korea only or if its available in other parts of the world too. I'm not Korean and my language skills are only intermediate. I could ask the next time I buy a box to satisfy our curiousity.
It would be interesting to know, if you can find out. Or maybe if you find out what the other Fuji x-ray films are called in Korea, it will all become clear.
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
This place offers the 14x36 straight film in blue and green sensitive, 25 sheet boxes for $60US. I've seen radiographs made with the trifold and the images were certainly of diagnostic quality, without perfs along the folds, but the film is held under a fair amount of compression in the xray cassettes. I don't think photographic holders would work very well with the trifold. Just my speculation.
http://www.physicalenterprise.com/fg.html
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
And some dorking around with printing techniques and xray film ;)
8x10 Kodak, wide open 360mm Heliar.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3666/9...0eb7ccda_b.jpg
Anna by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Sergie, did you use a Mortensen style texture screen? In any case it's a terrific portrait.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter J. De Smidt
Sergie, did you use a Mortensen style texture screen? In any case it's a terrific portrait.
Thank you. I wish i knew source to get those ready-made :( I just hacked it by printing texture out. I am toying with some ideas here on trying lithography and texture printing.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SergeiR
And some dorking around with printing techniques and xray film ;)
8x10 Kodak, wide open 360mm Heliar.
Wonderful!
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Love both of these portraits, Lee and Sergei!
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I am not familiar with this technique, "printing texture out". What does it mean? Nice portrait...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SergeiR
Thank you. I wish i knew source to get those ready-made :( I just hacked it by printing texture out. I am toying with some ideas here on trying lithography and texture printing.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wayne
I am not familiar with this technique, "printing texture out". What does it mean? Nice portrait...
As in - i printed my own texture out on printer and then used it to sandwich print. I would love to have Mortensen's texture screens but it seems to virtually impossible to get them.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I'm pretty sure I don't know what that means either, which means I'm pretty sure I don't need to know and can't do it anyway. ;-)
Have you tried Texturefects for screens? I don't know if they are in business anymore.
2180 Charing Cross Drive. Lake Havasu City, AZ 86404 Phone: (928) 505-4606.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Finally got back into shooting 8x10 this weekend, so I can actually contribute a photo to this thread!
Shot this twice, and tried developing it in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100. Results weren't great and the film lost some speed, so I developed this shot in my normal Rodinal 1:100, 7 minutes @68F recipe.
Wista 8x10, Gundlach Radar 12" f/4.5 @ f/6.8, 1/2s exposure, Fuji HR-T rated at 64:
http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/...810-1147ss.jpg
I have a few more loaders full of film to develop. Trying different things - right now I'm trying semi-stand development in Pyrocat. Maybe that'll work better.