Printable View
For me, the problem with D-76 is too much Metol. I would just try adding a little Metol to D-23. D-23 has a fantastic tonal range. I wouldn't want to give up that tonal range to get an easier development regimen. Bye the way, another way to slow down D-23 is to develop at a lower temperature. 65 degrees works for me.
Oops, I meant D-76 has too much hydro-quinol. So just add a little hydro-quinol to D-23. Or try reducing developer temperature.Quote:
Originally Posted by premortho
In spring of last year I wanted to buy Foma Medix Xray, but the only source I have found in the web was the polnish guy in Norway.Quote:
Originally Posted by stiganas
I emailed Foma directly because oft some questions around the Medix, and surprisingly they told me that they quitted the production of Medix Xray.
Maybe the same with this Mammo film?
Agfa sounds good, I have to do some research, but unfortunately, normally the mammo film in germany is max. available in 24x30cm, way too small for my 30x40cm camera.
Ritchie
In Romania Medix is still available, expiration date 09.2017.
Attachment 146052
I've done some more test and discovered that my red light is fogging the film. I've bought some red LED and is fogging the film big time so for now I am back to the old red bulb (I just change the position to dim the light).
I've done some test with all x-ray film I have and for sure the Agfa Mamo have some problems, again with the naked eyes is halfway between regular film and ortho litho film, all the other xray films are very similar and closer to regular film. Nothing to show for now because of the fogging. I use one year old FOMADON EXCEL W27 in trays. First try was with Foma R09 in rotating drum.
I just checked and Kodak (Carestream) have 3 mamo film in Romania (Europe): Min-R S, Min-R 2000, Min-R EV only in 18x24 and 24x30cm. Maybe I'll try a box of Min film, the distributor is near me and very friendly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plaubel
Petra Tou Romiou, from last week.
Looking east, a few minutes before sunset.
18x24cm Agfa CP-G+
Fujinon W 250
Developed by inspection in MG 1+100
Scan from negative, finished in PS.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1639/...d6a3ff6f_b.jpg
Eastman 2D
Nikkor 300mm f/9
Fuji HR film. Rodinal 1:100 7 min
Attachment 146072
How did the negative look prior to PP in PS? This image looks like it has a nice tonal range which is hard to do with contrasty X-ray film, I assume you made some adjustments using curves or gamma? What is your strategy in PP? You have great results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras
Angus,Quote:
Originally Posted by angusparker
It's hard to fully appreciate a negative without holding it in your hands, or better yet doing your own darkroom printing or scanning, with it.
As far as my PP goes I was already a darkroom printer before discovering PS, so I'm using multiple layers with masks in PS in a similar way that I use a sequence of exposures at different grades (while masking parts of the image during each exposure) in the darkroom. PS's preview, undo, and history functions are major advantages over darkroom working for me. It's not a one way street though. I've taken the concept of layer masks from PS back to the darkroom, using x-ray and ortho-litho films to create burning masks for complex shapes.
Regarding this particular picture.
This is the scan as it came out of the V700, unedited – though the scanner itself, the software, and my technique are still in play, even in the raw scan:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1471/...bd577824_b.jpg
This is a picture of the negative held above the scanner, shot with a digital camera – only editing done was desaturation:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1477/...dfccbfc5_b.jpg
And this is a picture of the set-up at the scene, with my phone:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1618/...3767ca8c_b.jpg
By the way, the notion that x-ray film has very high contrast, period, is a misconception.
That is, it has extremely high contrast when developed in certain developers/dilutions/temperatures. BUT, it's VERY responsive to changes in development. I base what I'm saying in extensive testing of Agfa CP-G+, a green sensitive film with no anti-halation backing. However, looking at the published data for most other films mentioned in this thread, I feel confident that it holds across the board. Actually, x-ray film can even give very flat negatives. Negatives that need grade 5 to produce satisfactory prints.
One advise I can share with anyone interested, is this.
If you're consistently getting high contrast, make multiple exposures of the same scene (film is cheap) and then develop the first five negatives in a sequence for 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 minutes in your favorite developer at a high dilution. (No need to make fresh developer each time yet; this is just to get in the ballpark). You'll notice that each negative looks very different to the next. Say that the shadows start kicking-in in the negative developed for 6min, but the highlights are already too dense. Dilute your developer further (fresh batch) and develop three negatives in sequence for 6,8, and 10 minutes. Let's say that this time the shadows start kicking-in in the negative developed for 8min, and the highlights are still too dense. You continue this process until you get a negative that you like. There is a limit in how much you can dilute a developer. If you reach that limit before you get a negative you like, then you need to change developers. Alternatively, you could add a restrainer to your favorite developer, and keep on testing.
Now, I do not consider myself an expert on, or claim to have completely tame, x-ray film. I still straggle with it and some of the issues I encounter I can't even pinpoint their source, let alone solve them (yet). More to this point, I only post here the pictures I deem worthy. Out of the 40 or so pictures I shot last month, only 5 or 6 will find their way here. Just to give you some perspective.
Hope that something in the above was helpful.
Cheers,
Thodoris
Very helpful, well written and documented. :)
I have 'toyed' too long and am setting up for better experiments.
I will now incorporate your methods.
Thank you
I fooled around with a lot of different developers since starting with x-ray film but today I went back to good ol' Rodinal, 1:100, for 7-8 minutes in trays (mostly due to temperature, it's really cold in my darkroom right now).
I think I should just stick with that formula because it works great. Shot at ISO 100, which makes a slightly thin negative that scans really well. First time shooting x-ray in a long time.
http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/...4_stitchss.jpg