Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craig Tuffin
Thank you for this! One more question though...how do you avoid uneven development when you have an emulsion side still in contact with the bottom of the tray (double emulsion film) and slow agitation? and how often would you then flip the film?
Well, as everybody who reads these knows (and are sick and tired of hearing about) I use Kodak Ektascan film. For two reasons. It is single sided, and it has an anti-halation backing. I use double sided "blue" film when I want that 1890's landscape look. I don't flip it over, I just pick it up in the tray so as to get developer action on the bottom. I've also tried using print tongs to pick it up and turn it over. But I'm not so skilled at that, and I end up wearing some of the developer. But I found that concentrating on developing just the top, and let the bottom look after itself and then bleaching off the back side, or bottom side works pretty good for me. A little trick I use is I just use a scizzors to "nip" off the upper right corner when I load the sheet film holders. That way I always know where the "up" side (the side that faces the lens) is.
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
premortho
Well, as everybody who reads these knows (and are sick and tired of hearing about) I use Kodak Ektascan film. For two reasons. It is single sided, and it has an anti-halation backing. I use double sided "blue" film when I want that 1890's landscape look. I don't flip it over, I just pick it up in the tray so as to get developer action on the bottom. I've also tried using print tongs to pick it up and turn it over. But I'm not so skilled at that, and I end up wearing some of the developer. But I found that concentrating on developing just the top, and let the bottom look after itself and then bleaching off the back side, or bottom side works pretty good for me. A little trick I use is I just use a scizzors to "nip" off the upper right corner when I load the sheet film holders. That way I always know where the "up" side (the side that faces the lens) is.
Well, to add to the above on nipping the corner, always do the upper right corner. If you do it some other way, you'll be apt to make a mistake some day when you load film that has notches. As far as I know, all non-double emulsion film has the code notches in the upper right corner, which you load so that the emulsion faces the lens. We wouldn't want to get into any bad habits, now would we?
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
analoguey
So the second bath is basically the carbonate solution, but with whatevr d23 on the negative still being active - is that what you mean?
I havent used any of the D-xx developers, barring Dektol(IIRC, an old D-xx formula?), so I am not familiar with their properties.
Would the negative be printed on a lower grade paper otherwise? (to counter the high-contrast?)
Yes: The agitation in the second bath is necessary as it does not function as a water bath, but as a developer without its own developing agent (the Metol). I think that is the best way to explain it. The metol is carried over in the film from the D-23 and will of course be depleted in the process, mor quickly in the heavily exposed areas as they demand more metol. I do this to reduce the contrast of the negative and thus I can use a higher contrast paper. The main advantage is that I am protecting the highlights from blocking up. The addition to the water in the second bath could also be sodium metaborate, instead of sodium carbonate; Anschell's "The Darkroom Cookbook" explains the options pretty well. Good luck.
Bill
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
premortho
Where is here, analoguey? It is not "re-badged", it is re-named. In the United States, the name for this kind of marketing is "It's the same old whore, but in a new dress". Crude, but very descriptive. If you read my post #727 and 728, it will give all the info on the film, through the courtesy of Z&Z Medical, where I get the stuff. What I wrote in 727 was a direct quote from Kodak, Rochester's description. Ektascan is an orthochromatic film, which means it does not "see" red light. This affects exposure. It is quite slow in the early morning, and late afternoon. It is fastest between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM at my latitude (44 degrees). You should keep an eye out for a medium yellow filter. I can't reccomend a specific filter, because I'm sure you could never find what I use, which is a Burke&James Ingento 2X yellow filter. 2X means two times the exposure. The fact that this film has an anti-halation backing is a big plus, and, combined with the fact it is a single sided emulsion is why I use it. I would not start using this film with a home brewed developer. You will have to learn it's ideocincracies, so using a common developer simplifies the learning curve. I don't shoot enough film these days to use a short life developer, which is why I use Rodinal. I used to use D-72, 24-1, but it doesn't keep that long. Rodinal keeps for years in the bottle it comes in.
Here would be Bangalore, India -thought I had the location on profile but maybe thats on APUG, not here.
Anyhow, I can buy from the seller on an offline/face-to-face transaction, so it's good
I plan to use Dektol 1:7 or Xtol 1:3/1:4. I have so far had good results with conventional 4x5 film/paper with those combos.
From what I see, the post nos you refer to seem to be someone else's?
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
analoguey
Here would be Bangalore, India -thought I had the location on profile but maybe thats on APUG, not here.
Anyhow, I can buy from the seller on an offline/face-to-face transaction, so it's good
I plan to use Dektol 1:7 or Xtol 1:3/1:4. I have so far had good results with conventional 4x5 film/paper with those combos.
From what I see, the post nos you refer to seem to be someone else's?
I think I referred to the other x-ray folder on here. D-72 (Dectol) is what I used to use when I did more film processing. I had good luck using it at 1-24, usually for 10 minutes or so. I like 8-10 minute development as it builds contrast more slowly, giving more control. I used that 1-24 soup as a one-shot developer. I also use Rodinal (under whatever name) 1-64 or 1-100 because the stuff keeps forever in the original bottles. I've used Rodinal for over 70 years, except when I shot a lot of film every day (newspaper work) then I used D-72.
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Two new additions:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5578/...93d85769_c.jpg
Mollie by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5572/...cff56616_c.jpg
Jorge by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)
Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 5 min. in tanks and hangers
8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min., toned in Moersch MT1 Selenium 1:10 2 min.
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
This is something I've got up my sleeves for couples:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5560/...a95158f9_c.jpg
Tony & Kayt by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)
Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangers
Double 8x10 Contact Print on:
12"x16" Ilford MGFB Classic Matt, Moersch SE6 Blue 1:10 3 min., toned with Moersch MT1 Selenium 1:10 30 sec.
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
My professor gave me a stack of old Kodak X-ray film envelopes. The do look old and making my first two test shots, I wonder how to determine sensitivity, and what to do about the fog I get.
The base here is really foggy, isn't it? On the left I just fixed a strip straight from the envelope, the strip on the right was cut in the dark and souped for 5 min and then fixed to get base fog. The photo on the right was also developed for 5 min. The photo on the left was exposed at 3 stops over 100ISO and developed for 2.5min (all in Refinal).
http://i.imgur.com/QLMwESl.jpg
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I made two more test shots today and would really appreciate an expert opinion.
Since everybody is talking about ISO 100 in this thread I metered as EI 100 and got 1/10 at f22. I made two shots.
- EV 12.6, f22, 1/10, developed for 6 min in Refinal
- EV 12.4, f22, 1s, developed for 2 min in Refinal
http://i.imgur.com/kUu7NLNl.jpg
The lower one was basically shot at EI 10, 3.3 stops "pull". Yet it looks so much better than the top metered at 100. And I held the incident meter in the midst of those flowers, they were not in the shadows. And somehow the table top is blown out in the top version. It got a much too strong contrast. So it can’t be "ISO 100", can it?
The margin has "K O D A°K XDM" imprinted on it.
http://imgur.com/7YBKEfol.jpg
How would I proceed here? I need to know what to meter, and how long to develop.
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I haven't done a lot of x-ray film, but I need to shoot at EIs lower than 100 to get any shadow detail. There's an old saying, "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights." The only advice I can give, is increase exposure until you get some detail in the shadows, but not necessarily in the deepest shadows. Then adjust development time until the contrast is where you want it. The exposure and development time you end up might be a good deal different than what others are using or recommending, but if following their times does not give you the results you want, then go your own way.
If your films are old and expired, exposure and development times for fresh films probably won't work anyway.
What looks like base fog might be safelight fog. The X-ray films I use are very sensitive to even a deep red safelight. Try handling and developing a few sheets in total darkness and see if there is less fog.
