http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7313/8...4d1b7089_c.jpg
1903 Eastman View No. 1 - Agfa Repromaster 185mm - f/45 - Kodak Blue X-Ray - 8x10 Film - Unaltered Negative Scan
Printable View
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7313/8...4d1b7089_c.jpg
1903 Eastman View No. 1 - Agfa Repromaster 185mm - f/45 - Kodak Blue X-Ray - 8x10 Film - Unaltered Negative Scan
That's really beautiful, tonality is very nice for a blue sensitive film. That repromaster looks very sharp, have you mounted it in a shutter or do you use it with a Packard or lens cap instead?
Thanks! This is just a lenscap at f/64 with a filter the times are around a second or 1/2 second so its doable. the film is "CRT" film, like mammography film so a little different than standard blue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Greenhalgh
Wow! That's just plain gorgeous! Great exposure. What filter did you use?Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdenrichards
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdenrichards
Interesting work
Great looking image. Can you tell me what the development spec's. Developer and dilution, Developer temp. and total time in developer. I'm just getting into this, and before I open my new bottle of developer. I want to have a handle on as many of the spec's as possible. Thanks again, Seattle man....Rde
Just one more question. Seeing how scanning is also a new thing for me. I have a v700 still in the box. How did you go about getting sutch a great looking view? I have an older 8x10 that I'm currently restoring, so 8x10 is where I would like to go. Thanks....Seattle man. Rde
Wonderful image! Everything just seems to fit......Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdenrichards
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdelung
Room temp Dektol. 1+10 for one minute thats at ASA 50.
cheers,
h.
8x10 Kodak CSG, 1+200 Rodinal, 1 hour
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8548/8...9d7998fc_b.jpg
Rose garden - 1 by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
processed and shot according to Mortensen's teaching.
Just plain lovely. Amazing how much Mortenson knew, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
Yes, you are right. This reminds us that the artist's eye for composition and lighting, and knowing what the film's characteristics are are most important.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon.oman
Well, that's fantastic, Sergei,Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
I'm really impressed by how 'clean' the background is. That's the Wollensak 12" f4.5 soft focus lens?
Will
Thanks, A standard yellow 8 filter.Quote:
Originally Posted by premortho
Thank you, yes, thats the one. Got it off fleabay, cleaned, lubed.. still need to CLA shutter better, but even as it is - seem to be nice addition to me arsenalQuote:
Originally Posted by Will Frostmill
I can't believe I read the whhhoooooooolllllle thing....
Oh my aching head....25 pages...of an image thread....on DIAL UP! Took me 3 days. There should be some sort of award for this. Hurray for me..<pats self on back>.
Sergei (and anyone else using Rodinal 1:100 or 1:200 with xray) what agitation are you using? I noticed developing times are all over the map, from 5 to 60 minutes. I presume/pray some of this is stand development? I have lots and lots of Rodinal. Now I need to get me some xray film.
Nothing I do turns out like Sergei, but right now I am doing R09 1/100 10 min with easy agit 1 min and then 5 secs every min.
Gentle is the key, as it scratches very easily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne
I am not sure what is going on, it's the same safelight but I don't know why these sheets seemed exposed before taking of the shot. I think it was a pretty good image ruined once again. Shot at f8 1sec speed 80. Developed in D23 1:4 for 19 mins at 22 deg.
Attachment 95473
Cheers
Raffay
Raffay, I've thought all along your problem is fogging, and your safelight is the prime suspect. Try loading film and doing development in total darkness. Once you are sure the safelight is not the cause of the fog, you then have to look at other possible causes.
Barry.
Another one on Kodak Industrex MX125. Souped in Ornano ST20 diluted 1:10 until completion.
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20...quareWEB_2.jpg
How can cut in the dark?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Kirsten
What are you using for a safelight??Quote:
Originally Posted by Raffay
Look back through this thread where several people have described their methods for cutting film.
I don't cut film at the moment, but if I did, in the light of past experience I'd get myself a rotary trimmer and tape guides to the base in the right positions for exact cuts. You would have to do this twice, for length and width, and this would require the film to be boxed temporarily whilst you change the guide position. However you only have to do the cutting in the dark IF your safelight is not safe. First thing you have do is a safelight check. I think someone described how in this thread recently.
Barry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raffay
While I'm here, does anyone know where to source x-ray film in Australia? I believe eBay sources won't ship to AU, and suppliers in Australia that I've canvased seem only to supply professional/commercial accounts. Thanks.
Barry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne
Its unidrum motorized base for me. So i would imagine "continuous".. :) I just dont have careful enough fingers to do tray.
Reason why i wanted to go to 60 minutes it so i can prove a point that been made once by Mortensen, regarding "normal" developers.
"You could not overdevelop properly exposed negative by leaving it for 25-40 minutes more". It doesnt work with every single developer (i do apologize to people who are in search of silver bullet with HC110/Pyro/whatnot), of course, but Rodinal "until exhaustion" is working absolutely fine. In fact this was probably the least dense set yet, for fully and properly exposed shots that i had with xray in forever.
Unfortunately i will not be able to do any more experiments for about 6 weeks.. Got to stick with regular film while travelling due a TSA & etc scans.
Great images Sergei, and great information, thanks to everyone posting their logs here-Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
I presume you suspect that your X-ray film will be fogged through scanning, even in carry on luggage? I'm about to start using X-ray film, and I was hoping it would survive hand baggage scans-
Anyone have any experience of this?
Thank you...
Well i didn't want to risk it. Ideally i should have done some experiment with few sheets for a future..Quote:
Originally Posted by jb7
I cannot see why it would be different than any other film.
Perhaps you could carry a few small test samples in light proof bags...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
It should be affected no more than regular films. It's not X-ray sensitive per se, special film holders are used in hospitals that emit light in X-rays. The light from the holder exposes the film, not X-rays directly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jb7
Thank you, yes that's what I would expect...Quote:
Originally Posted by ndrs
Well.. dammit.. i wish i knew it beforehand.. Might've swayed me completely into bringing 8x10.. but then even 4x5 ended up pushing limits of weight allowance ;( Of course it makes a good fun when you go through whole weight discussion and then do the usual "ok, then i shall take my camera out, since its not included in weight limits, as per your regulations"... Used to be more fun with Technika than with Chamonix but still.. eyes gouged, veins popping...
Lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by sergeir
From a old X-Ray Tech. Back in the day, we used cardborad holders. It gave you greate views, but at a cost of increased X-ray exposure. The film hasn't changed much, but when "green or Blue " emiting screens came along. The exposure came down, and the picture quolity stayed the same. So X-ray will effect the film, it just determined by how much. Seattle man...Rde
To cut in the dark, try this. If you use 8x10 film, use a paper cutter set at 5 inches. Then cut at 4 inches. I would make it so you could feel the inch mark settings in the dark ( you might make a cardboard templet ). For other sizes, you might try making up a device that will pre-measure the un-cut film at a desired size. Just somethng to try. Seattle man..Rde
I have cut down 7X17 into 14-2x3 pieces for processing experiments. I bought the 7X17 for a 7X11 camera and will have 5x7 left over. I seem to prefer the more rectangular formats.
I use Rde's methods.
Now I am waiting on 11x14 X-Ray Woo-Hoo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdelung
Aha.. Thanks for chiming in, Randy. Like i said then - should have brought couple of test sheets.. That would clear questions up.Quote:
Originally Posted by rdelung
Woo-Hoo. UPS just delivered Kodak CSG 11x14 $77.75, 100 sheets 3 days, order to door. They are quick.
Now I need to find my scotch tape and tape a couple sheets in my 2 converted Process camera holders.
1 to 1 head shots, coming up!
Is that Kodak CSG single sided, Randy?
I am trying to work out processing in the Beseler drum and base - but scratches are killing me! I can still strip the back, but it is yet another pain... Maybe I'll go back to trays.
Here is an overexposed Fuji HRT shot, processed in the Drum - AFTER I cloned some of the scratches...
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5322/8...f7f96348_o.jpg
And another:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3750/8...129697ba_o.jpg
doubled sided, I don't strip and I will be doing 11X14 gently in trays.
I am setting up 8X10 tanks and hangers for normal film and X-ray, as soon as the tanks get here.
I only last week started using 4X5 tank and hanger, what a pleasure.
I have drums, but think they may be a bad choice. I have not tried them.
Did you know Garry Winogrand was known to just dunk 35mm into buckets, loose, and let the scratches happen...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdi
I have been using a Unidrum for prints to develop my 5 X7 negs. So far no scratches on the negs. The unidrum for prints doesn't have internal ribs for the neg. to rub against.
Got this information from You Tube and then tryed it myself and it works.
If you have tanks use them and if you have drums scratch and strip! Good luck!
Has it been mentioned anywhere WHY x-ray film scratches so easily? If so I don't recall the reason after reading 50 pages about xray film this week.
2 sides of emulsion, nowhere to hide
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne
Just a thought, try checking out Wilhelm Rontgen's picture of his wife's hand. He used X-Ray and film. It looked bad,Quote:
Originally Posted by ndrs
but it worked. Seattle man....Rde
The emulsion is about 0.0005 inch thick. It's on both sides of a flexable transparent base, so it can be easily scratched. I hope this helpsQuote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
from the Seattle man...Rde
I use drum. Rarely scratching. Out of couple hundreds of shot film sheets (so far) i stripped like 4.. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald
However - depends on drums. If i were to use jobo ones i'd be doomed (tried).
Are you putting this Mammo film into your holder the right way? The emulsions on Min-R are not symmetrical. The top emulsion has "regular" sensitivity and response s curve, the bottom emulsion is very very slow, practically no response until you get up to the top of the front emulsion s response curve. At least that is how I interpret the film data. The bottom also has an anti halation layer, so you probably could not expose backward.... In any case, how does the exposure look on the back side? I would guess it's mainly clear on the negative?Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryS
I haven't gotten it together to use it myself.... Hence the ???
Unusual portrait, really good. Do their bodys stand out a little more from the background on a wet print? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe