Fuji HR-T is all I have used.
It is double-sided.
Rodinal 1:100 for 6-7 minutes is my standard development time - nowadays, in trays, carefully, so as not to scratch the emulsion.
Printable View
Fuji HR-T is all I have used.
It is double-sided.
Rodinal 1:100 for 6-7 minutes is my standard development time - nowadays, in trays, carefully, so as not to scratch the emulsion.
Double-sided? :( I was hoping to avoid that. How are you dealing with this? Are you bleaching one side?
Just be careful with it. Most of the times, I don't get scratches.Quote:
Originally Posted by LF_Alex
I used to, but it's a pain in the butt and takes a while, so now if I shoot x-ray film I develop it in tray carefully so as to avoid scratching.Quote:
Originally Posted by LF_Alex
Does the second emulsion interfere with printing? Contact or enlarger prints on B&W paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
Supposedly slightly less sharp than "one-sided" due to having that layer, but unnoticeable in general use IMO, at least in the 8x10 film I've printed from. Still, don't expect it to resolve or look like "real" film.
YMMV, but I find double-sided film noticeably less sharp than single sided. The scratching issue is what eventually turned me off double-sided film altogether; I'm not wasting money on it anymore. Too much hassle with very little benefit in return, if any at all.
X-Ray of any type is excellent for learning how to load film holders.
Make the many mistakes everybody does at first on the cheap 2 sided.
If it’s too expensive cut it down to 4x5.
2X is great for learning how to process film.
It is real film!
When ready switch to 1X or any ‘better’ film with confidence.
All film was much cheaper in the past.
X-Ray is much closer in image quality to any film 100 years oid and glass plates.
Some like old emulsion qualities.
I have read and I think, I have understood how the X-ray film works. I will mention what I know hoping that someone may correct me if I am wrong. Regular current film is panchromatic and has light sensitive silver emulsion on one side. They also place another emulsion (anti-halation) in the reverse. This is the layer that many remove by washing the film prior to development.
The X-ray film does not need to be panchromatic, so it is orthochromatic (like the old original films). They (Kodak and Fuji) place a light sensitive silver emulsion on one side, and maybe an anti-halation emulsion in the other side. However, the x-rays do not produce light to impress the sensitive emulsion. That is when the manufacturers, place another emulsion on the back of the film that react to the x-rays by ignition producing light during the reaction. That light is the one that is going to create the image on the silver emulsion. My thought is that that emulsion that reacts with the x-rays to produce light is also mixed with anti-halation. I am not sure if this emulsion gets washed with the pre-washed, it may be. I am pre-washing for 5 minutes the x-ray film. I have heard that some photographers scrap or remove the not needed emulsion. The problem for me would be identifying which one is the side holding the image. Any comments or enlightenment?
AS i have stated previously,I learned photography using ortho films. I developed in a tray with a red safe light to guide me. X-ray film is so similar to many films of the 30's I even use the same developers,fixers, etc. on occasion. The most important thing to me is the scale of the negative, and x-ray films meet that need.
I like the x-ray film because it is orthochromatic, because its slow speed is good for lens cap exposures, and because it is cheap.
The double sided is a nuisance, but manageable. I always treat these like single sided sheet film, so the side of the film that faces the lens is treated as the emulsion side and is kept up in throughout development. You could notch it, but if you are used to darkroom work it should be simple to keep track since that side always stays up. As I learned from this thread, but worth repeating once in a while, develop in smooth bottomed trays - no ribs or troughs of any kind. Lift the film a few times during development to avoid blotchiness in the backside emulsion. If you have the space, you can run two developer trays side by side to speed things up. I've done three developer trays at a time with 11x14, but that was a handful.
I believe these are just two identical emulsions; the sides aren't marked and you can put it in the holder either way. As has been explained in this thread, the blue and green designations refer to the way x-rays are exposed, but for our purpose it is just an indicator of the color sensitivity, with green being most like traditional orho film, and what most people use as far as I know. Somebody had posted links to charts of color sensitivity at one point.
I'm not an expert, but I don't think that's right. The film is not exposed directly by x-rays. X-rays get emitted, pass through what they're imaging, and then hit a screen that glows in proportion to the x-rays that hit it. This screen either glows with green light or blue light, and that's what corresponds to the x-ray film being blue or green labelled. It's the glow from the screen that exposes the x-ray film. Both emulsions on a two sided x-ray film are the same, and they both respond to visible light, either blue or green (and perhaps more.) X-ray film is two sided since that leads to double the density, which is important when looking for flaws in bones.Quote:
Originally Posted by pepeguitarra
Peter is right. There is no magic emulsion on xray film. It's just a very basic blue-sensitive or orthochromatic emulsion with a very flimsy topcoat. Mammography film has only one emulsion side and a water-soluble dye-based anti-halation coating on the backside, while regular double sided film just has two normal emulsion layers, one on each side.
No conversion of xray to visible light occurs in the film itself and there is no appreciable capture of xray in the photographic emulsion or even the entire film itself.
Thank you Peter. That sounds more logical. Here is the film I am using, which is single coated: X-ray FilmQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
This is the film that is single coated with antihalation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepeguitarra
Argh, wish I saw that earlier! Now I'm stuck with 100 sheets of double-sided green Fuji HR-U :)Quote:
Originally Posted by pepeguitarra
I've learned about how X-Ray film works from this Instructable, interesting read:
https://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Xray-Machine/
In the book THE IMMORTAL LIFE OF HENRIETTA LACKS, I learned that Mrs. Curie used to bring pieces of Radium in her pocket. She came from Europe in the plane with a bunch of rocks in the pocket. Then, they cut the patient open and place a piece of rock inside the body, close to the tumor. Months later, they open again remove the rock and check the reduction of the cancer tumor. That is how radiation started. She died of cancer, presumably caused by the handling of radioactive material in a really ignorante way.
So I'm planning on using Rodinol for my Fuji HR-U developing. What should I use as fixer? Some people here mentioned using hardening fixer. Is that what everyone is using?
Use whatever fixer you have.
I use TF5 mixed with distilled water, but fixer only must be fresh enough, meaning not exhausted.
Save exposed but not processed scraps of X-ray for testing 'clearing time'.
Yes single sided is sharper, but you can't see that unless you do side by side comparisons. Personally I feel the double sided green is an excellent x-ray film. I'm not sure why you cannot process without scratches. How were you processing it?Quote:
Originally Posted by koraks
My qualm with sharpness is/was mostly with processes like salt prints, where I use an exposure box with uv tubes; this is a diffuse light source, which I think is an important factor. I also like to make fairly small prints, so fine detail is important to me.
I've tried just about any development approach within my reach. I either got uneven development, scratches, or both. Plastic trays, plastic trays with a sheet of glass on the bottom, glass trays, oven baking trays - you name it, I probably tried it at some point. Continuous agitation, with or without flipping the sheet, intermittent...no luck. The best results I got with a non-stick oven baking tray with at least 500ml of developer, but even then, I used to get small scratches in the corners of the film.
With Ektascan BR/A, no scratches at all. Frankly, because single sided film (xray or eg Foma) is still within reach, I just don't see the point in trying to make an in my view inferior alternative work. I've gone through 2-3 100 sheet boxes, most of them cut to 4x5, trying to find a dependable and reproducible method. I guess I'm just clumsy!
It's okay though, I learned a lot doing this. And anyone who insists on the beauty of double sided film has my blessing, honestly. It's just not for me.
In a clinical setting, the x-rays pass thru the film and excite pixels on a phosphorescent screen (an "intensifier screen"). The phosphors emit visible light of a wavelength that matches the sensitivity of the silver halides on the film and exposes both layers. 2 layers = double film sensitivity; increased sensitivity reduces the patient's exposure to hard radiation. Conventional (double-emulsion) x-ray film has no anti-halation layer.Quote:
Originally Posted by pepeguitarra
The big exception is dental x-rays. A much higher dose of x-rays is needed because no one has invented a tiny fluorescing screen that could go in a patient's mouth.
The x-ray film I've used has rounded corners. Since I cut each sheet into 4 negatives there's always a rounded corner that acts as the film notch for me. Always place it the same way and Bob's your uncle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Crabtree
No sweat. It's cheap and it's a great way to learn. The main things is to handle it carefully. Your cutting area needs to be very clean; lay down an old, but laundered, cotton sheet under your guillotine cutter to keep the film from dropping onto an abrasive surface. Wipe down the cutter itself before using. Wear exam gloves while working with the film. Once the film is wet it becomes very soft; that's when most scratches occur. The other times are when loading / unloading the holders and during processing. A sheet of glass in the bottom of your tray may help. If the film gets stuck to the tray bottom slide a piece of scrap film under it and gently pry it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by LF_Alex
I've used TF-4 and Kodafix. Plan to use TF-5 when I run out of TF-4. Supposedly acid-based fixers (Kodafix) can bleach staining developers, e.g., Pyro, but since you're using Rodinal it won't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
I have to agree that single-sided is sharper. I've used both & it's pretty clear from my results.Quote:
Originally Posted by koraks
Perhaps Ray parallelism or lack thereof creates unsharp as the 2 emulsions are a distance apart.
In actual X-Ray usage of X-Ray films the light emitting conversion plate would act as a 1 to 1 contact print. Both emulsions would be sharp and identical. Backup as it were. A safety factor built into X-Ray 2X films to lessen any scratches.
Using large sheets of X-Ray film pictorially with a small lens would create a spreading cone of light rays and non identical imaging.
Ektascan 1X was made for 1 to 1 copying of CRT screens, developed for data storage. Common still at 8X10", but was available as 14X17".
Long ago I used a special Polaroid camera to capture fleeting oscilloscope images.
Data acquisition has come a long way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
THAT is very informative. I am worried now about my dentist and his insistence to take x-rays every time I go there. My dentist now uses digital sensor for the x-rays. Do you know if the amount of x-rays used is less than before? I hope it is less. Thanks, Pepe.Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
I printed (digitally) one 8x10 double-sided x-ray negative to 40x32 and it was plenty sharp. Mostly I just contact print 8x10 though, and IMO anyone shooting 8x10 for contact prints should be plenty happy with the results, if they develop it well and don't scratch it of course. The most noticeable thing to me about Fuji HR-T x-ray film is the lack of anti-halation layer, making things have a slight "bloom" depending on the light and contrast. I do agree it's less sharp, I just don't think it matters.
I may be going back to x-ray for a bit for 8x10 shooting. I have been shooting up my remaining normal films and forget that x-ray is a fine alternative, with some carefulness.
In fact, I just remembered I shot side-by-side a sheet of Fuji HR-T and Ilford Delta 100 years ago. You can easily tell which is which from the highlights blooming. Sharpness is obviously more on the Delta, but not significantly. I ended up liking the "bloom" and printed the x-ray image, not the Delta image. Here's a crop from each:
http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/pho...yvsilford0.jpg
http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/pho...yvsilford1.jpg
And Kodak/Carestream X-Ray films are T-Grain just as Delta and TMax.
Carestream T-Grain® emulsion that delivers high visibility of details without sacrificing speed.
The glow is a plus!
Perhaps I will finally give the single-sided a try - if it results in less scratching then that's a win overall. I see Carestream Green is $58 for 100 sheets at zzmedical (or buy 2 boxes and it's $55 each). Anywhere cheaper? I hadn't priced Ilford Delta in a while since I had a few boxes in the freezer but I see at B&H it's $120 for 25 sheets...
Edit: oops! I guess that Carestream film is double-sided from what I read elsewhere. I'm not that up on the single-sided stuff.
That link is to 2X. I tried correcting Pepe's link yesterday.
This is 1X https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-r...ideo-film.html
All X-Ray is up in price. The one you linked to was once under $40.
I find ZZ the best and cheapest source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
Thanks Randy! I used to always order from CXS but they don't carry single-sided it seems. Yes, everything has gone up...
But, $1 a sheet is still not bad, and about 1/5 the price of Delta 100. Let's not even discuss Kodak...
PS: Have you ever requested a "quote" instead of just purchasing from ZZ? One supplier I work with (A/V gear) gives about 20-40% off almost everything in their shop if you just request a quote. They want the business.
No, but I bought a 500 sheet case of 1X 14X17 and was given a 10% discount as first time buyer. I had to ask for it.
I actually was not first time and they knew that, as I had bought smaller amounts of 2X for a big order they gave it.
ZZ is a small Iowa Biz run by 2 very nice people. Call them.
When I bought the case, they had to find it, and that was 4 years ago.
I also bought 500 case of 1X 8X10. at less than current prices.
I may buy more, by the case.
Because it ships inside an outer box and survives shipping better.
The clock is ticking on all X-Ray film...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
That's good to know, Randy. I'm going to see if they have a 500 sheet case of 8x10 1-sided. I like this a bit better than the aerial film, as it wouldn't have to be cut down. I'm going to try to take a lot of 8x10 portraits this summer, as I'm not sure how much longer I can afford the studio. My class load has been cut (again) for next year.
Peter - if there's a big discount let us know. I wouldn't mind splitting a case with someone(s). Randy, were the cases individually packaged in 100-sheet boxes? I assume so.
Yes, 5- 100 sheet boxes. It's 100 sheets per box packed in one tear away bag. A thin single box which loads from one end.
The 8X10 ships in 1, 2 or 3 boxes OK.
The 14X17 is heavier and needs the case box.
I bought one box of 14X17 and it darn near came out of the flimsy box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
I'll call next week and post what I find out.
I have just bought four 100 sheet boxes of 8x10 agfa green from Chicago Medical Supply, US$44.99 A BOX. For overseas posting, four boxes fit into a US Postal Service Medium Flat Rate Priority Box $US 85 for one to four boxes.
Cheap shipping to Australia.
I gave up trying to ship there.
Why? may I ask? dont you like third world countries??
My daughter was just in Sydney.
I wish I could have joined her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
Do you know if it has emulsion on both sides or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
Yes, both sides, a couple of minor scratches don't bother me too much, I have a hybrid workflow and remove scratches and dust after scanning. I find agfa grain a lot more subtle than carestream, personal taste.
For people who are removing extra emulsion with bleach - when is the best time to do it? Before or after you expose and/or develop it?
There is no reason to do it before. Plus you may have scratches on one side or the other. And loading a few sheets of film will just become a massive chore.
Regardless, I highly suggest you simply carefully develop in trays and don't worry about it. I bleached many, many 8x10 sheets and it was mostly a big waste of time and absolutely made the entire process not fun. Just develop it right the first time.
I used to be a big proponent of bleaching one side...I rescind all of that :).
Proud to say I never bleached!
I find I can develop 14X34" 2X X-Ray easily in a 11X14" tray with a 2" of Rodinol.
I put film clips on each end, use Red safelight and simply rock a loop of it into the solutions. No scratches, just don't let it touch the bottom. No need to get crazy, just slow even dipping motions.
These were enlarged positives.
I once lay down four 14X17" sheets of 2X and made a big positive I put in a window with backlight for night viewing.
Ok, I'm going to give it a try as-is, no bleaching :)
There is no need to mess with removing the emulsion. This is a double sided x-ray image. 8x10 Carbon transfer print.