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

I have to say I was disappointed when they combined the pictures and technical threads on Xray, there was a lot of overlap, but it made it slightly easier to find the tech data you need the old way. Don't forget that all Xray is Blue or Blue and Green sensitive. It's not very red sensitive at all, kind of like printing paper in that regard. Consequently, the reds you photograph are rendered v. dark in prints. And, it is also time of day/color of light dependent on its response. Photos from early or late in the day need a lot more exposure, typically, and likewise under incandescent lights. Your light meter will likely tell you to under expose your Xray film under incandescent/early/late light unless you make corrections. Some recommend as much as a stop per hour outside of 10 a.m.-3p.m. I've also seen some quality issues with Ektascan B/RA. The 14x17 is gone? That's sad, that was one of my justifications in planning to make 14x17 camera! I'd not do double sided Xray again without film hangers and dip/dunk approach to developing. YMMV. Double sided is a lot more common/lower cost.

I am considering using a different film than what I use right now Ortho 25 Ilford, I get it in rolls and run it on my Lambda (cannot run sheet film).

This film is stupid expensive and I am trying to find a suitable replacement .. I only make black and white separation negatives and the conversion to black and white is done well in advance to the spectral response is not important, having a film I can work in red safelight is actually a benefit. Lately with phone conference with Durst Lambda Techs I have concluded that as long as the film can see the lasers the techs have a way of walking me through the calibration steps and adjusting the laser power to the film sensitivity itself. These techs are way beyond my skill set and a blessing for long term ..

I am looking at con tone film solutions with graphic arts backgrounds so if any suggestions I am all ears. These films are 1/10th the price of same roll size Ilford films. Not saying they are gouging me but since what I am doing is such an obscure, niche application I need to work with vendors supplying a larger market which allows for a better buy .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

Bob, in my experience so far: rather poor in general, but with great care it's not too bad. The main issue of xray film is its limited latitude which makes tonality quite harsh if both exposure and development are not controlled very carefully. The thin and soft emulsions also make for development issues (uneveness) to manifest themselves where they would not be an issue with regular film. With great care, very decent results can be had as eg Thodoris illustrates very well above, but personally, I am still struggling (after 3 years) to consistently get usable results. If everything goes well, a good print from a single-sided xray neg is almost indistinguishable from a regular film print. Scanning and digital editing offer more flexibility in adjusting the results, but of course, the darkroom is less forgiving.

---

The only real issue with x-ray film is if double sided utmost care must be used in handling. I have use both single and double sided for more than 10 years. I began when my supply of Tri-X Ortho ran out. I use the same processing procedure with it as I have with Tri-X and Ilford Ortho films. It does have some small limitations in latitude, but not in scale. With proper handling the scale is as long as most panchromatic emulsions, but being orthochromatic it has a different scale. Since it does not "See" red the resultant print is different from one made with panchromatic film. I prefer the scale perhaps because I originally learned with orthochromatic films in the '30's. The only real difference between today's X-ray emulsions and those of general use ortho ones of the past is the softness of the surface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Bob,
I conducted the tests below for my own purposes, but I thought that they might provide a better answer your question than my words.

4 pieces of Fuji AD-M mammography film received identical exposures from an xray sensitometer's green light.
They were processed together in 11x14" flat bottomed trays, with intermittent agitation.
They received a 2'min prewash, developed in Adox RO9 20+1000ml at 24C (which happens to be my room temperature, and I have stopped trying to fight it in open trays), with each film pulled from the developer at 4', 5.5', 8', and 11' minutes.
There was a 30"sec rinse, a 5'min fix, and a 10'min wash.
They were then contact printed on Ilford MGWT RC paper, including a Stouffer scale for comparison, at grades 00, 2, and 5.
The exposures were made with a Durst L-1200 and an Ilford 500 head (the one with Green/Blue lights), controlled by an Analyser 500. I exposed for a little more than minimum exposure for maximum black.
The densities were also measured with a black-and-white densitometer and the readings were plotted with the (free to download) FilmTestEvaluation.xls file.

As a side-note/disclaimer, almost all of my equipment is second hand (to say the least), and my digitizing/post-processing equipment are not exactly "calibrated".
But if you were to compare what you see on your screen to actual contact prints of your own of a Stouffer scale on the corresponding grades, it should give you a pretty good idea of what the actual prints look like.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1897/...6e4ab209_k.jpg

---

Though helpful to the more serious workers in sensitometry could you walk me through what you see with these results, I am not seeing anywhere a real linear 21 step printout that I require and get with my current film. I need to be able to record exact L readings from monitor to film, or within a few points from L 4 to L 96 or in greyscale %4 - % 96 - I do not work with RGB numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Noel

The only real issue with x-ray film is if double sided utmost care must be used in handling. I have use both single and double sided for more than 10 years. I began when my supply of Tri-X Ortho ran out. I use the same processing procedure with it as I have with Tri-X and Ilford Ortho films. It does have some small limitations in latitude, but not in scale. With proper handling the scale is as long as most panchromatic emulsions, but being orthochromatic it has a different scale. Since it does not "See" red the resultant print is different from one made with panchromatic film. I prefer the scale perhaps because I originally learned with orthochromatic films in the '30's. The only real difference between today's X-ray emulsions and those of general use ortho ones of the past is the softness of the surface.

---

Thats interesting and helpful Jim, do you have a name or product code for the film itself so I can see if I can get my hands on this, as well which developer do you use.. For the Ortho ILford 25 I am using a concoction of HC110 that seems to work for me.

Thodoris,
Thank you for your very well done development experiment. It provides a lot of sound basic information for knowledgeable and experienced workers. I am wondering what differences would be evident if working with film exposed through a lens in a camera.

Bob,
Currently I am using single sided Carestream EB/RA in 8x10, and Double sided Carestream T-MAT G/RA in 5x12 and 7x17.
I vary developers too often but my base to which I always seem to return is Pyrocat which I mix from chemicals. I sometimes use HC110H, but have to account for the loss of film speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Noel

Bob,
Currently I am using single sided Carestream EB/RA in 8x10, and Double sided Carestream T-MAT G/RA in 5x12 and 7x17.
I vary developers too often but my base to which I always seem to return is Pyrocat which I mix from chemicals. I sometimes use HC110H, but have to account for the loss of film speed.

---

thanks Jim - in a typical day I run about 40 ft of film so I need a developer that can be replenished , I love Pyro but it would not be practical for this application.

Bob, will you be running it through your Lamda? I've only seen XRAY in small rolls, like 14 inch wide (forgot length...maybe 200ft?). Not sure if it's single or double-sided. Single sided would be more desirable, as the double-sided is slightly softer, due to two exposed emulsions. I love it though, for alt printing. I have also made copy negatives with it from 35mm negatives blown up to 14x17.

Bob,
Xray films were developed to produce high contrast images as shown below by the published data from the manufacturer – in this case, Fuji AD-M mammography film.

But, they are very responsive in changes to their development.

The family of curves in my previous post resulted from processing the films in 1000ml of distilled water containing 20ml of Adox RO9 concentrate (1+50).

The family of curves on the bottom here shows the densities produced when the same test was conducted, using 10ml of Adox RO9 concentrate (1+100).

I'm fairly sure that on a technical level this film could produce the results you're after, but it would require A LOT of testing on your part.

What I'm not sure that you'll be able to overcome is the fragility of this film, since you want to use it in a roller transport system.

Even after several hundred negatives processed, and developing one sheet at a time in flat bottomed trays, I still get the occasional mini scratch.

Maybe the addition of a hardener in the developer could help with this, but I have no experience with it.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1864/...23543fea_b.jpg