Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tenderobject
Good idea! Please keep us updated! I'm very curious with this since the images i made using Yellow filter with Green latitude film is a bit different from the one without. Maybe the light and the scene are a big factor? I hope someone could chime in and show their X-ray shots with filters!
I'm going to try this with the ektascan, I've used AGFA green x-ray film and it's nice but I feel like because I'm using a drum to develop, it's better to use single side emulsions, and as far as I know the ektascan is the only x-ray film that's single sided?
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I think there are few more X-ray film with single sided emulsion. I've been seeing these type lately. But it would be very expensive than the normal films? How much for 100sheets / 1 box ektascan? I wish all green latitude film from different manufacturers are all the same in quality. I'm running out of film so i need a new box soon but it would be hard for me to find Fuji films here in Iran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
StoneNYC
I'm going to try this with the ektascan, I've used AGFA green x-ray film and it's nice but I feel like because I'm using a drum to develop, it's better to use single side emulsions, and as far as I know the ektascan is the only x-ray film that's single sided?
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tenderobject
I'm running out of film so i need a new box soon but it would be hard for me to find Fuji films here in Iran.
i wonder if you can have a local hospital order it for you when they order?
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
You really think that excessive contrast is a characteristic of orthochromatic film? Hmmm, ever look at the early work of Edward Weston, or Edourd Steichen, and hundreds of others? Excessive contrast comes from too much exposure, or too much development, or both. This used to be called "soot and whitewash". One of ortho's biggest advantages, from a use standpoint, is development by inspection. Under a ruby red light. If you use too powerful a developer, the neg will flash up so fast you can't control it. Dectol at 1 to 1,or 2 to 1, Rodinal at 25 or 50 to 1. When I use dectol, I use it at 25 to 1. Or Rodinal at 100 or 200 to 1. This takes 8 to 15 minutes to fully develop. I try to get it closer to just less than 10 minutes by strengthining the soup. Now filters. Ortho film is very, but not completely, blind to red light. It is extremely sensitive to ultra-violet, or in other words, skylight. When you use a 2X yellow filter, it holds back the u-v light in the sky, permitting a longer exposure. This allows cloud detail, and more shadow quality. Now I can't tell you which Wratten filters are which, because I use Burke & James "Ideal Ray Filters" If you can find them (on e-bay) they come in 2X, 3X, 4X, and 5X. The last two are almost never seen, so if you can find a 2X and a 3X, you're in business. I suppose everyone knows (or, as a Russian friend of mine says "as every hedgehog knows") That the "X" tells you how many times to multiply the exposure. I've heard that a green filter will work too, but I don't know if it will because I've never had one. Now, I'm sure some of you are staring at this little epistle, and thinking, "Gee, if I would just step up to the pump and pay five or so times more for pan film, my troubles would be over". You think so, right? The answer is, if all you want to take is snapshots, yes. You really should use a light blue filter on pan film to darken the reds. They put an excessive amount of red dye in pan film because it gooses the speed way up there. In conclusion, use ortho film for it's superior qualities, and pan when you have too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tenderobject
To minimise the contrast? That's what i've been told. So far it does help or maybe i'm just hallucinating? :D
Look at these images..
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tender...57636179160823
No Yellow filter
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tender...57636179160823
With Yellow filter..
I think the Yellow filter slightly affects the X-Ray film? Look at the trees.. There is a noticeble difference with the two photos. What do you think? Maybe some people can confirm this? Those pictures was taken from the same place and almost the same time..
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Very appealing film. Is this the high speed or medium speed HRT?
Thanks,
Jim
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Colour rendition test I did a few years ago with green latitude.
2 Attachment(s)
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
... and a filter test (written filers). Letters represent colour of objects. O=orange; B=black; LR=light red, etc... sorry but cannot find unfiltered image. I also have reciprocity data.
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tenderobject
I think there are few more X-ray film with single sided emulsion. I've been seeing these type lately. But it would be very expensive than the normal films? How much for 100sheets / 1 box ektascan? I wish all green latitude film from different manufacturers are all the same in quality. I'm running out of film so i need a new box soon but it would be hard for me to find Fuji films here in Iran.
It's still cheaper than regular film, example
8x10 - Ilford FP4+/Delta100/HP5+ = $108 (25 sheets).
8x10 - Kodak Ektascan = $80 (100 sheets).
That's over 4 times as cheap.
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
premortho
You really think that excessive contrast is a characteristic of orthochromatic film? Hmmm, ever look at the early work of Edward Weston, or Edourd Steichen, and hundreds of others? Excessive contrast comes from too much exposure, or too much development, or both. This used to be called "soot and whitewash". One of ortho's biggest advantages, from a use standpoint, is development by inspection. Under a ruby red light. If you use too powerful a developer, the neg will flash up so fast you can't control it. Dectol at 1 to 1,or 2 to 1, Rodinal at 25 or 50 to 1. When I use dectol, I use it at 25 to 1. Or Rodinal at 100 or 200 to 1. This takes 8 to 15 minutes to fully develop. I try to get it closer to just less than 10 minutes by strengthining the soup. Now filters. Ortho film is very, but not completely, blind to red light. It is extremely sensitive to ultra-violet, or in other words, skylight. When you use a 2X yellow filter, it holds back the u-v light in the sky, permitting a longer exposure. This allows cloud detail, and more shadow quality. Now I can't tell you which Wratten filters are which, because I use Burke & James "Ideal Ray Filters" If you can find them (on e-bay) they come in 2X, 3X, 4X, and 5X. The last two are almost never seen, so if you can find a 2X and a 3X, you're in business. I suppose everyone knows (or, as a Russian friend of mine says "as every hedgehog knows") That the "X" tells you how many times to multiply the exposure. I've heard that a green filter will work too, but I don't know if it will because I've never had one. Now, I'm sure some of you are staring at this little epistle, and thinking, "Gee, if I would just step up to the pump and pay five or so times more for pan film, my troubles would be over". You think so, right? The answer is, if all you want to take is snapshots, yes. You really should use a light blue filter on pan film to darken the reds. They put an excessive amount of red dye in pan film because it gooses the speed way up there. In conclusion, use ortho film for it's superior qualities, and pan when you have too.
You forgot one other advantage, the one which has always kept ortho film loaded into a few of my holders - it does a great job opening up the shadows.
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I will have to try. My inlaws run a hospital here but they're not using X-ray film anymore. They're more into digital side now..
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Randy
i wonder if you can have a local hospital order it for you when they order?
