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

Jim, the film I have just says "daylight". Perhaps it is blue-sensitive, which would make sense since open shade and out in the sun has a lot of blue light, but under the dense redwood forest, there would be, relative to the total amount of light, less blue light.

I have not really had a chance to experiment with it (with so little time to devote to photography, I tend not to do much extra in terms of experimenting). The film was given to me after the hospital changed brands of X-ray film...I have been keeping it in the fridge. I cut it down in the darkroom using a red safe light.

I have only developed a few sheets myself...I had the hospital develop the first batch. I can't remember what I developed the second batch of negs in...I'll have to check my records.

This X-ray film image is a carbon print, printed "reversed" onto B&S tissue.

http://bostick-sullivan.invisionzone...&req=si&img=70

Vaughn

Thanks, Vaughn for the info. I do remember that shot of the boys and the train. They grow up fast don't they? I guess I need to experiment with my green sensitive 11x14 in some different lighting situations. If this is high contrast stuff may be a cheap way to shoot a lot of 11x14 for carbon.

Jim

Okay, this is not a good example but what the heck. I set up a studio shot with my 11x14 and my big Darlot. This was shot on the green sensitive film. The flower was a deep orange and the leaves a light green. No filter used. I developed the film in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 for 10 minutes. My backdrop fell when I took the lens cap off for the 4 second exposure so that is why there is that funky black at the top. I shot this at about F 5.6. I need to shoot some outside to get a better idea.

Jim

Is that a scan of the negative?
Looks a bit overexposed, but I presume you're exposing for your carbon printing-

Look forward to seeing the outside shots-

Hey Jim!

Just made a couple 8x10 carbons using a X-Ray film negative. These posts got me thinking, so I thought I'd double check my assumptions.

The x-ray film is definitely softer when printed in reverse...at least with my way of printing. Thick pigmented gelatin layer, low pigment concentration, using my double merc vapor light unit, transferred onto fixed out glossy fiber photo paper.

The negative itself has plenty of contrast relative to my usual film. The scene only had 5 zones (EV 7 to 11, and exposed at EV 9 -- f22 at 1/4 sec -- using an ASA of 400). The image is one of my boys standing in front of a redwood on the edge of a meadow -- so lots of blue light.

I gave the neg some pretty hefty development...Ilford Universal PQ Developer at 1:9, 75F for 7 minutes, in a tray (constant agitation). Definitely got more contrast out of the negative than most conventional films -- close to what I use to get with Kodak Copy Film. (comparisons are subjective -- not quantative).

It is still possible that you might get better sharpness with the neg reversed using your vacuum easel and the point light source of your NuArc beasty.

I also printed a neg from my Diana camera -- a precious little 1.75"x1.75" carbon print -- an accidental double exposure on some out-dated Tech Pan film.

I got a 4x5 ready to develop (using up some scraps of tissue I have had around for awhile...left overs from the workshop). So off I go!

Your flower certainly shows the effects of an ortho film! Good luck taking the film outside!

Vaughn

That's very good, Dann. Thanks for sharing.

Here's a contact print of the back yard made with CSX Green 8x10. If you look really close you can see my reflection in the window...ala Eugene Atget.
Film was exposed at EI 50 for 4 seconds f/22.5. Developed in Pyrocat-HD (10ml+10ml+1000ml water) for 10:00, 21 C.
It was a bit breezy outside, so some of the foliage is blurry.
Overall a nice film. Not as sharp as I'd like which I think is due to emulsion on both sides...but Dann's method of removing one side's emulsion with bleach might help.

Hmmm, the uploaded print is slightly darker than the actual print...Should also state that the print is on Foma Variant FB....a paper that I've never used.

I tried lightening it up a bit to match the print...

My first real print from 11x14 green sensitive x-ray film. This is a portrait of my youngest son. I used my 18" Voigtlander Euroscop at F-11 and 1/2 second in open shade. I developed the film in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 in a tray for 12 minutes. The image is printed on some 1976 Azo and is untoned.

Jim

Hey Jim, That's very nice. Nice "ortho" tones, eh?

Andrew, thanks. It should work nicely on the Hollywood style stuff I intend to try. I can change the look if I print this a little lighter.

Jim

Are you going to use this film for carbon printing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Are you going to use this film for carbon printing?

---

Yes, I'll see what it does. I have some images that I need to develop and then I can tell if this is sharp enough for my carbon work.

Jim

That's great Jim. Please keep us updated here as well as over at the carbon printing forum!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannL

I wish I had found this thread before ordering that x-ray film. Oh boy, what fun. But, Z & Z Medical, Cedar Falls was just the ticket. http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/8x1...ilm-p-419.html

The first problem I noticed was that the negatives were really dense, having two exposed sides on a single base material. So, I taped the 8x10 negative to a clean surface using cellophane tape, sealing all four edges to that surface. Then using a soft 1/2" wide artist brush I reduced one side of the negative using common household Clorox bleach. That only takes a minute. A good wash, and now I have a single-sided negative. Of course this experiment is non-scientific and requires more refinement, but it immediately remedied three odvious problems. The double density issue, the bromide drag marks on the back that were caused from drum processing, and scratched emulsion on the back that was also caused by drum processing.

---

out of curiosity, Do you have any scans of the pre-post bleach difference?

Thanks! If only i knew how to read, I would have seen that earlier. :-)
do you feel that the bleached parts of the negative are significantly sharper? They appear so on the scans, but that could be simply because they are lighter due to having less emulsion :-)

There couldn't possibly be an anti-halation layer, as it would defeat the purpose of the double emulsion.

I wonder if, rather than developing both sides and then bleaching one side, it might make more sense to develop one side only. Perhaps this could be achieved through a modified form of your bleaching technique--taping the negative onto the bottom of a tray and then pouring in the developer.

The xray film I am using (green-sensitive CXS) has pretty limited resolution (I am not sure if this is because of the double emulsion or possibly some other reason), however I have not found it to be a problem as I am using the film only for Kallitypy, which doesn't produce high resolution prints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Greenberg Motamedi

I wonder if, rather than developing both sides and then bleaching one side, it might make more sense to develop one side only. Perhaps this could be achieved through a modified form of your bleaching technique--taping the negative onto the bottom of a tray and then pouring in the developer.

---

What about brushing on the developer with a soft brush? I have never done this, so I am acting on hearsay and what have you here. :)

Thanks for your continuing work!
I got Full Blue and Green Latitude yesterday.
Gotta get the new parts for the lens board retainer on the 2D and then I have a spot to make tests: Green lawn, dark green trees, orange brick building , red-orange roof tile, and if the record June gloom will permit , blue sky for sunny-sixteen testing.
regards
Ed

You would, of course, have to fix both sides of the negative after developing just one side.

Also, I don't think the the xrays effect the film directly. Rather, they cause the holders to emit green or blue light (phosphoresce?). So, an anti-halation layer--necessarily on the outside of the emulsion so it can be washed off--would prevent one of the sides from being exposed.

Sure, I will try it when I have time, perhaps this weekend. I guess the question will be how much extra exposure to give it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Greenberg Motamedi

You would, of course, have to fix both sides of the negative after developing just one side.

Also, I don't think the the xrays effect the film directly. Rather, they cause the holders to emit green or blue light (phosphoresce?). So, an anti-halation layer--necessarily on the outside of the emulsion so it can be washed off--would prevent one of the sides from being exposed.

---

You are correct, modern Xray work is done with film cassettes that have phosphor screens on both sides of the sheet of film, and under Xrays they emit blue or green phosphoresence that exposes the film. X-rays do not directly expose the film.

It doesn't look like there is a significant difference, but perhaps the limiting factor might be your lens. Half of a RR at f22 isn't all that sharp...

So much for science- There doesn't seem to be a lot of difference and I hope that is true for contact prints.
my goal is to shoot some 7x17 [after 8x10 experience] so I'd like to see some contact prints anyways- and maybe I can see my own by monday.
Thanks for all the work!

I could be wrong. Always a distinct possibility. Wasn't the double sided emulsion question raised earlier in this discussion? The conclusion, from folks in the know, was that the emulsion on the back of the film wasn't exposed and removed during fixing.

It seems to me that even if there are traces of the second emulsion remaining, it just adds a bit of character to the x-ray film image. Use x-ray film because it looks like x-ray film. Does that make sense?

This is cool as far as testing goes. I have 4 images to develop this weekend of some well lit rocks shot with my 11x14 and some green sensitive film. I used my 15" Ilex process lens and the images were all shot at F-64 or 90. I have some carbon tissue ready to print these on if I have good images. I have a similar image done on Efke-25 from the same area in the same type of light. Nothing scientific but I am confident that I will have a great image to share by the end of the weekend. I don't care about the how or why. If I get a great image and can print it in carbon then I will be happy. If I can only print it in silver then I'll still be happy as I am really shooting my free 11x14 x-ray film. I already have a portrait that I shot of my son and I am completely happy with that so I expect that my 'Sharp" images will be just fine.

Jim

Here is an example of Konica PPB (IIRC) 7x14 cropped from a 7x17 neg. This is just a test, I haven't quite nailed down the exposure yet. Shot at 64 developed in D76 1:1 for 7 minutes. The neg would be perfect for silver printing.

Out of curiosity and some frustration with the occasional scratch I ordered one of the 11x14 hangers from here:
http://www.quickmedical.com/wolf_xra...g_hangers.html
It is well made, although as I suspected, it does pierce the negative in all four corners with a small hole. I will eventually make three dip tanks for the hanger.

This is not the image I was referring to in the earlier post but it will do. I am reprinting this with the negative reversed on the same carbon tissue to see if there is any difference. It seems like in carbon there is some softening of the image. I do not have a problem with this and I think it will be okay for some of my future work.
Eventually I will print this on some Azo to compare but I like the final result of the x-ray film. I developed the negative in a tray in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 for 15 minutes. It gave me a DR of 2.32. The range of contrast in the scene was about 3 stops. The image has some awesome relief. Still some more testing to do and I have to make the hangers for the 11x14 because I did get some scratching but so far I'm very happy.

Jim

Correction. I just printed the reverse of this image and I think I got it wrong to begin with. The image I just printed looks much sharper.
Jim

I was given today several sheets of FOMA Dentix Panoramic Green and Blue film (12,7x30,5cm) and Medix XBU (blue) / XG (green) film 35x43cm: does some know this films? Jiri?

I am in the middle of testing CXS Blue for EI, along with lenscapshutter, filmholders for light leaks, development times, and maximum rise on my 2D.

I shot in mid day daylight using a Fuji 250 f6.7 with a shutter, and tried EI 125 and EI 250. BOth seem to be in the ballpark nicely.

For developing I used Clayton F60 concentrate, cuz I had unopened gallon
I started with 10 oz + 96 oz and got a very faint immage in 6 min, so I added 5 oz and tried 7 min- whooaaa boiler plate
BUt around 5-1/2 at 69 F appears to work pretty well- no contacts yet, just looking thru the neg. In the neg I even got separation of airplane contrails from the high blue sky, and separation of light roof from blue sky

I made a couple of seemingly good negs with a 180 Protar V from eddie gunks.
Like he said it would be- I never ran out of rise, and I need it for the feedmill.
Who knew it could come out so well- if I had known I wouldn't have marked the holder number on the film, in the sky, large, right at the peak of the feedmill roof peak.
Maybe prints tomorrow, then to re-shoot and try by about half.

I got a windowscreenframe hanger made for 8x10- the concept will work, I think, and tomorrow I'll dunk it in the trays to see how it stands up the the chemicals. If it does, I have a jig to assemble 7x17s- today's project is to see if I can finish the filmholder for the Bahnhof No2 7x17 panoramic Poco, that's has had me intimidated for a year or so.
I am verrrrrry slow, but thanks again to you folks who have shown the way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannL

So, I taped the 8x10 negative to a clean surface using cellophane tape, sealing all four edges to that surface. Then using a soft 1/2" wide artist brush I reduced one side of the negative using common household Clorox bleach. That only takes a minute. A good wash, and now I have a single-sided negative.

---

Did you use the bleach full strength? Or did you dilute it at all?

Thanks!

Dann, what a cliff hanger... looking forward to hearing about your results.

Your technique suggests a jobo drum could be used to develop the exposed side and the bleach to remove the backside.

Has anyone tried developing with a Unidrum where chemicals can get in between the drum and the backside of the film?

So, if I don't to be a stripper, I better stay away from the drums. :)

This may have been answered already, but can photographs taken with x-ray film be developed with x-ray developer? The reason I ask this is I work at a hospital that is in the process of going digital and there are literally thousands of unused x-ray film sheets and gallons & gallons of developer and fixer that I have dibs on, as no one else has any use for it. I had at first just been interested in the equipment -safety lights, film safes, etc., but when I read that x-ray film can be used in cameras (something I had wondered about for some time now) the idea getting all that free film along with the equipment is really exciting. Also, on the developer, can it be used on regular B&W film?

David- you the man to tell US about the developer. I have found that the specialty stuff is described in ways foreign to "real" photography- even tho it may be useable. We depend on the kindness of strangers- to try stuff for which info is not available.
Obviously, that usually requires free or reeeeaaaaly cheap stuff for experiments.
So I hope you try it and find it useful. It "Should" work, as the film responds to pictorial use. You may find the developer has special characteristics, such as high contrast or short developing times or ??? , some of which you could counteract by dilution I suppose. Or see if Pat Gainer, who loves to mess about with developers and chemicals, wants to play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdWorkman

I made a couple of seemingly good negs with a 180 Protar V from eddie gunks.
Like he said it would be- I never ran out of rise, and I need it for the feedmill.
Who knew it could come out so well- if I had known I wouldn't have marked the holder number on the film, in the sky, large, right at the peak of the feedmill roof peak.
Maybe prints tomorrow, then to re-shoot and try by about half.

---

show us the shots! you should try that lens on 11x14....:)

Well eddie I DO plan to present one of them, if for no other reason than to show the tones- maybe I'll print in the next day or so......
As for 11x14, I don't have one- got any ideas ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdWorkman

Well eddie I DO plan to present one of them, if for no other reason than to show the tones- maybe I'll print in the next day or so......
As for 11x14, I don't have one- got any ideas ??

---

Ed, build one! It is lots of fun!

Jim

Okay Jim
I'm almost done with Model 1a Poco- had to build an 8x10 spring back and the springs are just about done.
Boy have I learned a LOT about how things really go together- and how they don't.
Still struggling with my 7x17 filmholder- I gotta wait for my son to get his work done so he can cut some parts- springs for the light valves and a revised filmplane shim
If that works 11x14 should be easier cuz perhaps I'll have made most of the mistakes- and perhaps won't repeat some of them.
Thanks for your encouragement!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdWorkman

Okay Jim
I'm almost done with Model 1a Poco- had to build an 8x10 spring back and the springs are just about done.
Boy have I learned a LOT about how things really go together- and how they don't.
Still struggling with my 7x17 filmholder- I gotta wait for my son to get his work done so he can cut some parts- springs for the light valves and a revised filmplane shim
If that works 11x14 should be easier cuz perhaps I'll have made most of the mistakes- and perhaps won't repeat some of them.
Thanks for your encouragement!

---

Ed, you can do it and with the valuable experience you have gained you know it is not as intimidating as the first one you build. I built the 8x20 first and that was fun but it took time. I purposely did not rush because I wanted to do it as good as I could. The camera works fine. The 11x14 was faster to build and I use it more than the 8x20 due to the fact that I have 300 sheets of green x-ray film that I virtually got for free. I am in Ventura and if you need some help just let me know.

Jim

I went to the mamography room at the hospital where I work after posting and the tech told me that she worked with a guy who used to run his B&W film through the x-ray processor she didn't know what results he got, but he did it enough times that she felt they must have been satisfactory at least. So like you said, it being free, it's at least worth experimenting with. I think I'll try the gammit: Run the x-ray film through x-ray developer run B&W film through it and even try developing paper with it -as I've read x-ray film acts much like paper and that 'positive paper' stuff. I will keep you all posted.

Also, for anyone interested I saw that the x-ray film makes for some really interesting positive prints when used in lew of paper and back lit.

I see those sheet X-Ray processors go used some places for only a few hundred (as opposed to a couple thousand. Does anyone know if the times are programmable, for putting our own dev, and fix in , or say for C-41 dev / blix processing?

I am paranoid I am slowly getting poisoned by my chems working in such tight spaces. Heh. I would love to be able to just walk away from the tray developing. :D

For those who haved used both blue and green which did you like better and was it half or full speed. I have only used the green and was wandering how much of a difference between the two as far as contrast control.

It seems LF photographers aren't the only ones using X-ray film for their own ends. See how this sounds to you: http://www.kk.org/streetuse/archives...nd_recor_1.php

Do 8x10" Kodak or Fuji X-ray films fit into normal holders without any adaptation?

Yes Xray 8x10 fits standard holders

Thanks for the quick answer, Ed!