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

[QUOTE=mohmadkhatab;1545883]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

Haven't tried it I think, but it should work just like with any other film.
But in your opinion, what is the available x-ray film size that fits the (5x7) camera? From your point of view?

---

I don't think 5x7" xray film is available, but you can get 18x24cm or 8x10" film and cut it down to fit 5x7" holders. Of course there will be some waste.

Quote:

---

And will this camera accept that this 4x5 film stand be installed assuming that we will find it individually one way or another depending on luck or the like?

---

That depends on the camera. You may need to modify the camera and/or the reducing back in order to make things fit. Also, a reducing back generally adds a bit to the distance between the lens and the film, which means there can be problems with focus and movements when short lenses (90mm and shorter) are used. With longer lenses it's usually not a problem. But again, it depends on the specific equipment involved.

Quote:

---

- Regarding my question about converting the X-ray film to positive transparency, I mean that is done directly.

---

Yes, that can be done, just as with any other type of B&W film. You'll have to figure out the processing chemistry and parameters yourself, but that's just a matter of systematic testing, with which I think you are already familiar.

Quote:

---

- The file with attachments, and of course the photographic researcher designed this process on the basis of identification with the original process (AGFAscala)Attachment 202365, but with great regret, he erred in that he designed everything on the basis that it is intended to work on a machine (JOBO) only, and with a capacity (260 ml) Only ml.
Therefore, if you want to prepare one liter, you will fall into the trap of complicated calculations that I failed to calculate, because if you prepare 4 packages, each one is a capacity of (260 ml), and you add them in one container, then the result will become an increase in the concentrations of chemical elements by 300% of the original process design, so I am very confused in this regard.[/B]

---

Converting to roughly 1 liter doesn't have to be complicated. Just multiply everything in the pdf by 4. This way you end up with 1040ml, which is close enough to 1 liter for any application. If you need exactly 1000ml, just discard the excess 40ml.

[QUOTE=koraks;1546012]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mohmadkhatab

I don't think 5x7" xray film is available, but you can get 18x24cm or 8x10" film and cut it down to fit 5x7" holders. Of course there will be some waste.


That depends on the camera. You may need to modify the camera and/or the reducing back in order to make things fit. Also, a reducing back generally adds a bit to the distance between the lens and the film, which means there can be problems with focus and movements when short lenses (90mm and shorter) are used. With longer lenses it's usually not a problem. But again, it depends on the specific equipment involved.


Yes, that can be done, just as with any other type of B&W film. You'll have to figure out the processing chemistry and parameters yourself, but that's just a matter of systematic testing, with which I think you are already familiar.


Converting to roughly 1 liter doesn't have to be complicated. Just multiply everything in the pdf by 4. This way you end up with 1040ml, which is close enough to 1 liter for any application. If you need exactly 1000ml, just discard the excess 40ml.

---

God bless you, thank you for the response.
I am concerned about increasing concentrations, I feel that the calculation of atomic weight and mass will vary. I don't know, a seasoned chemist needs to be consulted, and unfortunately, the great Ron Mawry is dead.
Well, we'll see how it goes. Initially, I have to finish adapting the films on the camera first. Then we can think of other ideas.

[QUOTE=mohmadkhatab;1546062]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

God bless you, thank you for the response.
I am concerned about increasing concentrations, I feel that the calculation of atomic weight and mass will vary. I don't know, a seasoned chemist needs to be consulted, and unfortunately, the great Ron Mawry is dead.
Well, we'll see how it goes. Initially, I have to finish adapting the films on the camera first. Then we can think of other ideas.

---

This isn't pharmaceutical chemistry. Close enough is fine, anything within 5% . with most formulas tolerance is even greater than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mohmadkhatab

What is the problem in blue?

What is the purpose of obtaining a positive image?
I will answer the question with a question.
- What is the goal of obtaining a negative image?

My last question: Have you ever tried and tested this strange idea?

---

There is no problem with blue, I was just curious.

As for what is the goal of obtaining a negative, so that I can make an enlargement. The final print is the goal to me, the negative is the road to that goal.

You can cut X ray under a dim red light, typically. If you do it right 8x10 --> 2 sheets 5x7's and a 1" strip which fits into a 35mm camera. I've made a few tiny format images that way. The image window is 24x36 mm and 1" = 25.4mm it just barely fits the image window, not the sprockets. Don't expect film advance to work well, the film is way too stiff. But it's not complete waste. It can also be used to test fixer.

[QUOTE=Jim Noel;1546076]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mohmadkhatab

This isn't pharmaceutical chemistry. Close enough is fine, anything within 5% . with most formulas tolerance is even greater than that.

---

Your view is correct and logical in theory ,,
But in reality I have some frustrating experiences regarding the reverse process. Is it a very sensitive and very complicated process, so I wanted to be very careful about everything about that process ,,
I am tired of wasting chemical raw materials.
I want to have some successes. I am fed up with failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue4130

There is no problem with blue, I was just curious.

As for what is the goal of obtaining a negative, so that I can make an enlargement. The final print is the goal to me, the negative is the road to that goal.

---

I'm sorry, it seems that my weak language did not make me able to explain my point accurately.
- I mean, if you get a positive film sheet, measuring (8x10) inches, you will not need to print.
- Why do we print the negative ,,?
First, because negativity cannot be seen, nor can we distinguish its features from being negative.
Second: In order to obtain a larger size (suitable for commenting on the walls as a final image, it is also suitable for participating in art exhibitions)
After you get this measurement as a positive image, you now do not need to print the image on paper. I'm done where a sheet of paper can be put into a stool and frame and make a white sheet as the background of the slide.
I don’t know if I could explain that strange point of view or failed again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr. Mark

You can cut X ray under a dim red light, typically. If you do it right 8x10 --> 2 sheets 5x7's and a 1" strip which fits into a 35mm camera. I've made a few tiny format images that way. The image window is 24x36 mm and 1" = 25.4mm it just barely fits the image window, not the sprockets. Don't expect film advance to work well, the film is way too stiff. But it's not complete waste. It can also be used to test fixer.

---

Thank you very much, Mr. Mark, may God bless you.
I am very impressed by your insistence on detailing a slide for the 35mm camera - this enthusiasm deserves respect and appreciation.
I really like you, man.
But, is it worth it?
- I had two inquiries, Mr Mark. I hope that your chest will expand for me.
First: Is there one of the forum colleagues who tested these films with the developer (HC110)? May I see the results?
Second: Did anyone from the experience of those films for development use the original developer for which they were specially prepared ?,
Here I do not want to use any of the photographic formulas (which are designed for photography), I am talking about the original form of X-ray acids that are sold with the films and in the hospitals accompanied by the films in the X-ray room,
- Actually, I'm thinking of some of those powerful formulas.
I prepare and sell them to hospitals and x-ray centers attached to hospitals.
- Does anyone want these tests,?
I am ready to publish some formats, not the original Fuji format cinema.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mohmadkhatab

Thank you very much, Mr. Mark, may God bless you.
First: Is there one of the forum colleagues who tested these films with the developer (HC110)? May I see the results?
Second: Did anyone from the experience of those films for development use the original developer for which they were specially prepared ?

---

The developers used by hospitals are intended for use in their rapid development machines. I don't think you'd get the same result by, say, tray developing or developing in a daylight tank meant for home use.

Off the top of my head, I think people on this forum have used every common photographic developer. Pyrocat HD and Rodinal (=Adox Adinol) are particularly popular, but I've seen mention of HC-110, Diafine, and many others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seezee

The developers used by hospitals are intended for use in their rapid development machines. I don't think you'd get the same result by, say, tray developing or developing in a daylight tank meant for home use.

Off the top of my head, I think people on this forum have used every common photographic developer. Pyrocat HD and Rodinal (=Adox Adinol) are particularly popular, but I've seen mention of HC-110, Diafine, and many others.

---

There are two types of developers that can be used in hospitals.
There is a type called (automatic) which is used by an acidizing device. And it is really very fast.
There is another type called (manual), and it is still used manually in poor hospitals that do not have this automatic acid developing device.
The second type is slow and depends on the expertise of the radiologist in developing x-rays. He develops under the red light and knows when it was developed and finishes the process.
I think this type is very important if it is lightened by a large percentage perhaps giving us another vision that we did not know.