Printable View
That are all sound practices. Still I am interested in what I asked, how hardening in the developing stage works.
Also let not forget, all these practices of manipulating X-ray film like a raw egg is nonexistent in the industry these films were intended. I doubt the nurse developing dozens to hundreds of sheets daily even know about scratches. So procedures must have been in place that did not rely in the person doing the developing.
Hi Eugen,Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
as far as I know you cannot harden before developing the film. There might be a developer which has a hardening agent added though.
Usually this film will be developed in machines. Once in the machine you will not touch it until it is finished.
As far as I know this film is not made for hand developing.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Martin
P.S. You can cut the film without any problems with normal paper cutter. I did this all the time. The scratches appear during developing when the film is wet and the emulsion very soft.
Hardening can be done at any point in the process (or before processing). The type of hardener depends on which part of the process, but what it does is toughen the gelatin (the hardener causes the gelatin molecules to cross-link) which makes a previously unhardened emulsion somewhat more resistant to mechanical damage while it is wet. The processing chemicals can still penetrate the emulsion, though processing times may require adjustment. In pre-hardeners or hardening developers the hardening chemical is typically an aldehyde compound (formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde), while in acid stop baths and fixers the hardening compounds are alums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
Hello, and apologies that these following shots weren't taken with an LF camera (I don't have one and I'm using Mamiya C330 with a single exposure back), but this seems to be the place with a solid discussion of x-ray film. I've started using Fujifilm UM-MA film. Having read about the fast development times of x-ray films, I started using D76H (homebrew variant on D76) at a dilution of 1:5 at 21°C and exposing at ISO 64. I've also tried the dilution at room temperature, which is probably around 27°C and the time was probably around 9 minutes with a denser neg but I seemed to get more spots on the negative. The best result that I've had so far was doing a 1 minute pre-soak in filtered water and then development in D76H 1:4 at 21°C but the time to develop was probably 16 to 20 minutes.
Are there any Fujifilm UM-MA users here and if so, what dilution and temperature would you recommend with a D76 type developer? My thoughts are to try a dilution of 1:2 @ 21°C after a pre-soak but I'd be keen to hear what others are doing with this film.
Here are two of my better results digitised with a DSLR and tidied up in Darktable - the first (mango tree leaves) was with a 1:5 dilution and no pre-soak and the second (hat) was with a 1:4 dilution and pre-soak:
All the best,
Iain
Hello Ian,Quote:
Originally Posted by surdo
these look fantastic and thanks for sharing.
Cheers,
Martin
Hi Iain,
The examples that you posted are lovely.
I'm using UM-MA, but only with the RO9 version of Rodinal.
If you need any pointers for that combination, let me know.
Thanks a lot Thodoris (and Martin). Yes, please send. I still have some "Agfa forumula" Rodinal that I bought online from an independent seller. I think that's the same as RO9, or at least similar. If you have any tips with fixing please send too. I tested an off-cut of UM-MA in Kodak Rapid fixer and it cleared in 15 seconds. So I've been fixing for just 1'30"Quote:
Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras
While I'm here. I'll paste a few links to more photos. The last was interesting. I'd lost patience in the darkroom and left the negative extremely thin (so thin that I couldn't tell which side was the emulsion side when I digitised it - and judging by the lighting, it was upside down), but the result has an almost wet-plate look.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/xicara...eposted-public
https://www.flickr.com/photos/xicara...eposted-public
https://www.flickr.com/photos/xicara...eposted-public
Cheers,
Iain
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...873515cb_o.jpgMakiflex 150 Xenar HRU D23 Octobox 150 by Nokton48, on Flickr
Plaubel Makiflex 150mm Schneider barrel Xenar 4x5 Fuji HRU XRAY D23 1:1 8x10 Aristo #2 RC Omega DII laser aligned. Dektol 1:2 Broncolor Octobox 150 with frosted bulb and Octobox Supplemental Diffusion. Backround by David Maheu "Tim Kelly Classic".
I like this one.
==========Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Unkefer
WOW! Very good. In fact, excellent.
Hi Iain,
The examples in your links show good shadow detail and tamed highlights, so you might as well keep doing what you're doing.
--
Here is my approach, for negatives that proof well at grade2 (minimum exposure for maximum black) on Ilford MG papers.
I use my Sekonic 508 at 1 degree spot, set at 16ASA, underexposing by three stops from the reading in the shadows which I want to have some minor texture. This leads to shadows with about 0.15 density above base and fog.
As a starting point for your own testing I would suggest 5ml of Rodinal/RO9 concentrate in 1lt of water (1+200 dilution) for 8min at 22.5C (you can adapt time and temperature for your initial tests to fit your working conditions using a time/temp compensation table).
I use a 5min pre-wash in water at same temp as the developer, and for pre-wash, developer, fixer, and photo-flo I only use distilled water.
For most of my processing in the past few years I've been using a Jobo 3005 drum loaded with 5 sheets which I manually roll on a diy roller, but for single sheets, and even more so for pieces of cut-off film, I use a Cesco flat bottomed tray.
I used to lay out a line of flat bottomed trays, one for each solution, but I found that the act of lifting the film from tray to tray introduced some degree of mechanical damage, so I switched to what is referred to as the "single tray method".
In this method, you prepare your solutions in wide mouthed measuring jugs, and you pour them in and out of a single tray. This way, you never handle the film, until it's time for washing.
When you lift the tray to pour the previous solution back into its jug, the film "sticks" to the bottom of the tray because of surface tension, but once you start pouring the next solution into the tray it gets "unstuck" and allows you to resume agitation.
By the way, I would suggest to keep away from "minimal agitation". It does not work.
We are severely under-developing these films in order to create continues tone negatives, and constant and vigorous agitation is our only safeguard against issues with uniformity of development.
On this subject, I would suggest at least one, but better yet two, sizes larger tray than the film you're developing. This protects you from "hot edges". Each time you lift one side of the tray for agitation, the developing solution hits the opposite wall and comes back. The smaller the tray, the faster this "coming back" is. The periphery of the film receives a higher degree of fresh developer than the middle, and you end up with over-developed edges.
As far as fixers go, I use an Agfa rapid fixer with hardener, which has a clearing time of about 25sec, and I fix my films for 4min. After fixing I use Kodak HCA for 2min.
To prevent pinholes and similar issues, try to keep all solutions as close you can in terms of temperature, including the final wash.
As a side note, regarding Rodinal/RO9:
Both Agfa and most users claim that you must have at least 3-5ml of concentrate per 8x10" film.
My findings show that this is not true.
I regularly develop 5 sheets of 18x24cm UM-MA in 1lt solution containing only 5ml of concentrate, without any signs of developer exhaustion.
BUT
Working solution of Rodinal/RO9 oxidizes quickly.
Never reuse this developer for a second, consecutive, development.
Always throw it out and make fresh.
Developing five sheets at once, and developing them one after the other in the span of 1 hour, is not the same thing.
--
Please note that all the above are personal findings and the way that "I do it".
Take it with a grain of salt, run your own tests, and find your own way.
Best of luck.
Thank you James R. Kyle :)Quote:
Originally Posted by James R. Kyle
Lots of great advice here Thodoris. Thanks very much. Interesting that you expose at ISO 16. Even my "good" negatives have been very thin. I thought perhaps my very long development times (and thin negatives despite this) were due to dilution issues, but 2 stops more exposure should help. I'll try ISO 16. Have mixed a fresh batch of D76H and will try again a dilution of 1:4 before upping the strength.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras
The hardener in the fixer makes a lot of sense for this film! I didn't think of that. I've never used hardener, but have a bottle that came with the Kodak rapid fixer, so I'll prepare another solution.
Since I'm an interloper here on the large format forum, using approximately 6x9cm film sheets, I've been using 500ml glass beakers to develop and fix the film with stainless steel clips that dentists use to process those small x-ray films of theirs (I use a 1000ml beaker to wash under running filtered water). The clips hook onto the lip of the beaker and with the emulsion side facing the centre of the beaker, I don't think there's much risk of mechanical damage (I'll attach a photo).
The advice on trays is great. Part of my reasoning for trying x-ray film on medium format, is to see if I like the processes and results. The idea being to eventually move to larger format photography and using trays makes a lot more sense there.
I use a plain sodium sulphite solution as HCA for fibre-based paper, but I'll get hold of some sodium bisulphite, which I gather is safer to use with film.
Once I'm satisfied with D76H processing of UM-MA, I'll give the Rodinal a try!
All the best,
Iain
Attachment 250611
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6e218e1d_b.jpg1000mm F16 Apo Ronar Test HRU XRAY D23 Octobox by Nokton48, on Flickr
First Fuji 8x10 HRU XRAY film 1000mm F16 Rodenstock Apo Ronar. D23 tray developed with four Xray clips, One in each corner to keep it off the bottom of the 11x14 Cesco Tray. Lens set to F32, actual exposure F64 with two stops bellows draw. Exposure appears sharp, next test with be some panchromatic film. This was fun to do. Eighteen pops of the Octobox 1600J Primo were required.
Time day matters
and latitude
I mostly shoot inside with strobes
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...bd85fa49_b.jpgFirst Test of NPL 8x10 HRU 1000mm F32 18 pops Octobox by Nokton48, on Flickr
First test of Negative Lab Pro, a program which converts large format negatives (small ones too) into nice looking positives. This is 8x10 Fuji HRU XRAY Film, D23 replenished. Neg copied with Sony Nex-7 (36mp) with 50mm Zeiss F2.8 Touit, an AWESOME optic. Big learning curve ahead :)
Would somebody do me a favor and lick his finger for touching a sheet of Kodak/Carestream Min-R (anywhich subtype of the series) on both sides?
It is the Carestream/Kodak mammography line of films, but from the data sheets I have avaible I can not decide if the base is coated one bot faces or only on one. Carestream writes about double coating but at the same times mention they coated with a fine grain coat and a coarse grain. So it is not clear to me what they mean by double coated.
I already wrote Carestream twice but they dont care to answer.
I can't do a lick test for you but I think MIN-R is both double emulsion and with two different (dual) emulsions on one side. I will try to find the brochure that shows this. I think it was for the RS version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
I'm shooting some 18x24cm Min-R today, and even under my safelights I can see a distinct base and emulsion side. Plus it is notched so you are sure of the emulsion side. Right now I'm trying processing in my venerable 8x10 Black Unicolor Unidrum II Print Drums. So far it looks very clean, no flow marks I can detect. Seems to fit tightly in the 8x10 slots meant for 8x10 enlarging paper. I kind like running a sheet a time, I'm working on a good neg with straight D23 Replenished, my current soup of choice. So far I have reduced the development time to 4 3/4 minutes (on a Unicolor Uniroller) and each neg looks better with each try. Zeroing in on what I want, maybe more exposure and even less development? Will try that maybe tomorrow. It is fun to be back in the darkroom, I'm enjoying it.
Prolly has two layers on the emulsion side? So far no defects from running Min-R in my four Unidrums (poor man's JOBO) :)
In the meantime I found, well hidden and not from the Carestream official website, a Spanish commercial brochure where they show the layers in the film:
https://healthstore.cl/pdf/Film-Min-RS.pdf
And here the poor quality English version: https://www.ti-ba.com/wp-content/upl...nal-5-5-08.pdf
I am wondering if this both side coating is true only for Min-R S or all the other versions.
Would like to find out what the differences are:
- I found Min-R EV described as the premium product. A slightly higher price supports this. From the 2014 sales brochure, for boxes of 100 sheets:
EV: 18 x 24 100 892 5356 £216.53 / 24 x 30 £368.03
2000 Plus: 18 x 24 £206.33 / 24 x 30 £351.28
- Min-R 2000 is normal quality, Min-R 2000 Plus being a 2011 higher density reformulation with a deeper blue tint. (C. claims radiologists prefer more blue. We surely not.) https://www.itnonline.com/content/ne...ewer-artifacts and https://www.auntminnie.com/clinical-...ted-mammo-film, etc.
- I am not sure where Min-R and Min R S fits in the product line.
- I do not know what Min-R L is.
I thought/hoped mammography film to be always single side coated. In the meantime I have the feeling that all Min-R variants are coated on both sides but intended to be used in casettes with only single (green) emitting intensifiying screen.
Would have been nice to know before I ordered a life supply of boxes with the Min-R EV.
So, the film is notched - this means is asymmetrical - the normal X-ray film is symmetric, no orientation mark. From the brochure is clear it has two different senzitive layers one on one side and one on the other side and also have the extra antihalo layer (not present in normal X-ray film).
So it looks like a hybrid film - something between the simple X-ray and the (almost) photographic mammography X-ray with the emulsion on one side and antihalo on the back.
When loading cut down 4x5, I put the rounded corner where the notches would normally go. For 8x10 I use scissors to cut one rounded corner flat and use that like notches.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...eac495ff_b.jpg18x24 Mammo Shortie Sawed Off Norma by Nokton48, on Flickr
This is a test shot (my Shorty Norma) French Kodak 18x24cm Mammo Film, processed in D23 1:1. Taking camera is my new Annie/Avedon inspired 8x10 Norma. I applied 30 degrees of front and rear swing, the Norma original recessed lensboard is sharp all the way across the field. I like how the DOF drops off with the 360mm f5.6 Norma Symmar. There appears to be highlight blooming, which I find kind of attractive. Best thing about this film was that it was not at all expensive. And I have a lot of it
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...881ae3bc_b.jpgAshton Pond Norma Handy HRU Mic-X 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr
Ashton Pond Columbus Ohio Sinar Norma Handy 4x5 Fuji HR-U XRay 65mm F8 at F22 Schneider CF + Sinar Norma Dark Yellow 103mm Glass Disk 1 sec at F22 Legacy Mic-X replenished stock in tray 18 mins at 62F Arista #2 RC 4x 8x10 Multigrade dev
=============Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Unkefer
Very good.
I particularly like the Blacks of this. Nice exposure.
Only one suggestion =
Get A Frame = Hang it. ;-)
Thanks James R. Kyle :) The Norma Handy is indeed Uber Handy. I still have eclipse peacock 4x5 HP5+ to develop. I used my StarD l light weight Tiltall type tripod which is very portable and not too much to carry around. Does work good with HRU and the Handy.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...cf434139_b.jpgAshton Pond Norma Handy HRU Mic-X by Nokton48, on Flickr
Ashton Pond Columbus Ohio Sinar Norma Handy 4x5 Fuji HR-U XRay 65mm F8 at F22 Schneider CF + Sinar Norma Dark Yellow 103mm Glass Disk 1 sec at F22 Legacy Mic-X replenished stock in tray 18 mins at 62F Arista #2 RC 4x 8x10 Multigrade dev
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...27099208_b.jpgHRU Filter test 4 Yellow Dark 103mm Norma by Nokton48, on Flickr
Sinar Norma Handy tripod mounted, 65mm F8 Super Angulon with Schneider 65mm F8 Center Filter. Fuji HRU XRay film 8x10 cut down to 4x5 in Graphmatic back. EV 8 1/3 ZIII Sinar Norma 103mm Yellow Green Glass Disc. F22 1/3 at 1 second EI 50. Tray developed by inspection under red safelight straight Microdol-X 12 minutes at 68F. Arista 8x10 RC print Omega DII Omegalite Diffusion Head Multigrade develope
============Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Unkefer
I have used a "Reformulation" of the X-ray Developer "ANSCO-30". The original was WAY too strong - and is for a "developing machine". Here is what I could best for my development for Fuji HR-U Film. This is for TANK DEVELOPMENT. A total of 12 negatives in a "Yankee Tank" for 4X5 sheet films.
(So IF you have the raw chemicals, you might give this a try):
-------------
Here is the Ansco-30-JK reformulated “Tank Developer Solution”.
Water - at 120 Degrees F. -------------------750ml.
Metol --------------------------------------------------------- 3.0 Grams.
Sodium Sulfite ------------------------------------------- 70.0 G.
Hydroquinone ---------------------------------------------- 4.0 G.
Sodium Carbonate -------------------------------------- 20.0 G.
Potassium Bromide --------------------------------------- 5.5 G.
Cold water to make a Full 1 liter of Solution. (STOCK solution.)
For a working solution --
Take One Part of this Stock to 24 Parts of Water. That is a 1:25 Ratio. (i.e.= 1 Oz. stock to 24 Oz. Water)
The times will vary with the temperature of the working solution, anywhere from four to seven minutes.
(20 Degrees C. = 6 minutes)
----------
If I can choose, should I buy the X-ray film with more contrast and density or with less?
I can buy Carestream-R EV or Carestream-R 2000 plus.
From the technical data sheets:
EV has: sensivity 150, contrast 4,5 or 4,7 (depending of the X-ray developing machine used), D-max >4.5
2000 plus: sensivity 150, contrast 3,9 or 4,1, D-max 4.0
Attachment 251149
Attachment 251150
X-Ray film is very
Needed
For Industrial uses
nothing can replacement it
Very expensive
Japan is selling lots of INSTAX
It is real film also
With less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
I wonder why they can not use the same digital equipment for nondestructive testing that is used for medical applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Can
Are you sure Instax is film and not a stamp? My problem with it is the size. Come on Fuji, at least make it the size of packfilm. Also would not hurt to make it the size of the 4x5" packfilm.
Too late, I now bought EV. But when I scratch together some money I will buy 2000 also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
Been reading through this gigantic thread. One question, where did all the sample images go? Have they been archived somewhere on the forum, or just removed by the original posters- would love to see some examples of the different films/subjects. Cheers, D
There was a major purge years ago when the backend had some issue, with local files. Others, I assume folks have website changes or refreshes and they disappear.
Here's one I shot last weekend. Fuji HR-T, EI of 80, developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 6:30 at 70F:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.co...perd-4312s.jpg
Love it
Thanks for posting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Can
Which is safer and easier to use, the Dahle 12e Vantage Paper Trimmer or the Dahle 507 Personal Rotary Trimmer? Is the Dahle 12e good enough? :rolleyes:
- https://www.amazon.com/Dahle-Automat.../dp/B000W1QOS4
- https://www.amazon.com/Dahle-Persona.../dp/B083FBYHXR
Hello guys! I'm a new user. I need some advice. I received a few years ago some Fujifilm di-al expired in 2012. I know this could be a problem. today I tried to develop them but the plates are transparent even after exposure to the sun. I used rodinal 1+50 at 28 degrees celsius for 4 minutes. Is there any special procedure for these films? they might not work anymore, I would be very sorry.
https://shop.mxrimaging.com/fuji-di-...pl-imager.html
It says to use laser energy to develop the latent image. I'm curious now, perhaps that "film" is non-reactive to chemicals? I have no idea, but kind of interesting (sorry I know that's not helpful). If you aren't getting any development from Rodinal after fully exposing the sheet to daylight......
As far as i know medical dry imaging film isn’t sensitised in the photographic sense so you can’t use it in camera. It’s dedicated to the dry imaging laser technology (whatever that actually is) so no surprise it doesn’t work.
Intend to buy red LEDs. Which color temperature would you recommend?
I can get 550 nm, 630 nm, 650 nm, 670 nm, 700 nm, 740 nm, 770 nm. Which would you recommend for green sensitive X-ray film manipulating in the darkroom and developing by sight?
I don't know about developing by inspection, but the longer the wavelength the less likely you are to fog the film, everything else being equal. That said, most light sources aren't just one wavelength. LED's may be better about a narrow band of wavelengths than the fluorescent tubes, but I've not seen the spectra to be sure about it. BTW, 550 nm light is green, so not a good choice, at least I don't think so. I believe I read once that human vision is most sensitive in green light, but I still think it would be a bad idea. 630, 700, 740 should all be red. 770 is generally outside "visible" and into "infra-red" so not a good choice for inspection of film because you wouldn't see anything at all. I hope someone in our group who develops by inspection can guide you better than I can. I've thought about the using IR night vision gear to be able to see in the darkroom especially for making my own film one day. That's far in the future for me right now though.
Yes, in theory the further in the red, the less chance to fog the film. But I am interested in practical experience, the theory we know it all. I am not convinced that going as far as possible into the deepest red will hit the sweet spot between securely excluding fogging and still being able to comfortabely see the image developing.
550 nm was a typo, I meant 570-590.
What I see are red LEDs offered as: red and deep red. The reds are around 600 nm, maybe up to 630 nm. (So it is more orange in my opinion.) The deep reds are above 630 nm, typically 660-670 nm. And then some producers offer far red (although sometimes they refer with this to just what I presented before, different producers, different naming schemes) going up to 700 and a bit beyond. (And then ofcourse come the IR LEDs, these are not what I am interested in.)
So what practical knowledge did you guys aquired in this regard?
Here is the Spectral Absorption chart for the GBX-2 Red filter we use with regular incandescent bulbs.
Kodak recommends this filter for most blue and green sensitive xray film. No fogging issues after 17 minute safe light test with our fastest film.
I would think that if you have access to your LED Spectral Output chart and it fits in the shaded area you would be safe.
Attachment 252537
There's over 660 pages on this thread and looking for information is kinda hard, and search engine not that great. Sorry if I am repeating a question, honest I looked for it.
There was someone, maybe it was on this thread? Maybe it was a web page? I don't remember
But it went something like:
@ISO, generally do speed/fstop combination, because it doesn't read the same stuff as a normal light meter.
Does anyone remember reading this? I took a shot a couple weeks ago, and I managed to shot it at 200, and I metered on like a grey chair. Turned out okay but that was when I remembered someone had it written down. Maybe my question is, can I use a reflective light meter the same way on a subject with xray film? I see most people are rating Fuji xray film from 50-100.
I rate it at 50, otherwise you don't get enough shadow detail, then I develop with gentle D23, sort of let the highlights take care of themselves, since I'm scanning, not printing. Know that since the film is not sensitive to red, i.e. warm colors, it won't "see" tungsten light as very strong at all. I don't know by how much. Adding two or even three stops might be a good idea.
This is my first xray shot. https://www.flickr.com/photos/michae...in/dateposted/ There's a complete explanation of what I did underneath. Eventually I switched to some very mild agitation about once a minute, that's the only change. I use hangers for development--you will find that the stuff has about the scratch-resistance of jello when it's wet. That particular photo was "scanned" by holding the hanger up to the sky and shooting the neg with my phone camera then running it through Photoshop.
Almost all of the photos in that particular Flickr group are shot on xray film.
Good info! Rate at 50 and meter like I would if it was a regular film? Sort of around that middle grey area, plus 1 or 2 if I want whites to be whiter, that sort ot normal film stuff?Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
sorry slow reply. Like the image, thanks for postingQuote:
Originally Posted by Corran
lovely tonality in this shot. Hard to get 8x10 mammo film in EU, looks like I'll have to buy a couple of 18x24 holders :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Unkefer
In Europe I know only the Fujifilm UM-MA and it is available only in 18x24cm and 24x30cm.Quote:
Originally Posted by dimento
I spend a lot of time to find single coated xray film in 8x10" but end of the day it ends with the 18x24cm size.
The different is not realy large but the filmholders are more rare than the 8x10" versions.
The film itself is excellent, it has a very high silver content and a speed of ISO 50-160 in relation to the colour of the light.
I buy the films in Germany here: roentgenexpress.de
I guess they deliver it to Irland as well.
A sample? Here it is:
18x24cm Fuji UM-MA, Kodak HC110 1+79
Schneider G-Claron 9/210mm
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...b0b3ce76_h.jpg
Nice work. Yes the filmholders seem pricey alright. I'll keep an eye out. I know a fairly skilled woodworker who might be able to modify an old wooden 8x10 holder for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by arri