You can make a 3d print from this site: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6666371
I haven't use it yet, but i'm planning to do.
Printable View
You can make a 3d print from this site: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6666371
I haven't use it yet, but i'm planning to do.
The sample you posted shows good shadow detail, but could you please provide some data in support of your 160asa claim for the UM-MA?
Preferably sensitometric data of your development, along with the average subject brightness range of the subjects you are shooting at 160asa?
Alternatively, a picture of a negative exposed at 160asa (shot on a light table or a backlit window), along with a picture of the actual scene taken with a cell phone?
The reason for this request is that my own testing with RO9 (1+200) for a gamma of ~0.65 rates UM-MA at 16asa.
I find it hard to believe that HC110 (1+79) could give a 3+ stop speed boost, but I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.
Sorry, I cannot find it. Possibly the numbering has changed somehow?
it's easy to make inserts from paper..... I do that for whatever sizes.
18x24 sheet inside 8x10 holder:
https://i.imgur.com/GkFCwae.jpg
left and top edges is a L insert made with a regular office paper (~ 80g) and canson ~170g (could be some more) glued over it. The edges of the underlaying regular paper slides into the holder, the thicker canson is stiffer and holds the film sheet. I put a matching mask on the focusing glass.
In the case of 18x24-8x10 I keep couple holders with the insert on all time, because insertion must be done carefully slowly.
here it shows better. It's a 6x9 adapter for 4x5 holders. When I want for instance to test a developer or a lens with few shots only, and don't want to waste 4x5 sheets, I cut chunks of 120 roll in 6x9 and insert them in a 4x5:
https://i.imgur.com/Z0euEgc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ngwRH1a.jpg
the trick is in the gluing, I'd have probably to provide shots to show how. Simple but have to be careful:. do it with a developed sheet of film in place, and a glue stick, not liquid glue. The point is that the glue must be linear all along without gaps nor overflood, Regular office glue stick will bind the paper but has bad adherence on plastic, so you pull carefully the sheet of film.
I would make the underlying paper also black to avoid reflecting scattered light back into the film.
Will the L/U made of the thicker paper not put the film slightly out of focus? (By its thickness.)
9x12 and 13x18 cm holders are plenty and cheap in Europe. 18x24 are expensive but a bit cheaper than 8x10".
Still what you showed here gave me a good idea. It is how I will now, if you tell me it does not put the film out of the focus plane, use the panoramic dental film I have. (It comes in the European size 15x30 cm and the US size 5x7".) I intended to buid casettes for it, but making an insert as yours is the easier way.
Consider the stack up of allowable variation
It is more than you think
I will not post the plus/minus tolerances
it also varies by film size
holders bend
notice in the picture of the 18x24 insert that there is no underlayer, just the L-shaped insert itself. The reason for the underlying sheet shown for the 6x9 insert to 4x5 cassette, is twofold: easy to slide the insert in/out and I use these only for testings cuts of 120, and the norm for 120 roll film that I cut into 6x9 for theses is different: it's thinner than sheet film. If it was for permanent use, with small 2x3 sheets still produced by FOMA and ADOX, and not cuts of 120 roll I would not use the underlying paper. I have the norms somewhere but I think they are floating in the open web anyway.
First tries when I tough of these way I used regular white paper, then I made with black, but for illustration here I picked one with white.
That said, 120 or sheet, there may be a significant variation, ORWO sheets for instance were on the thick side of the norm's tolerance. But that's not the case of current film nor x-ray.
In case of aerial like Aviphot, it´s the other way around: an underlayer is required because very thin film. Actually I cut aerial to the adhoc size of the holder I will use, and I insert same sized cut of office paper under.
yes, until not very long ago 18x24 were cheap but it seems Central European and German cellars and lofts have become emptier and now it's very expensive, for my taste.Quote:
9x12 and 13x18 cm holders are plenty and cheap in Europe. 18x24 are expensive but a bit cheaper than 8x10".
Still what you showed here gave me a good idea. It is how I will now, if you tell me it does not put the film out of the focus plane, use the panoramic dental film I have. (It comes in the European size 15x30 cm and the US size 5x7".) I intended to buid casettes for it, but making an insert as yours is the easier way.
Canson-type paper works well in my hack. I tried with cuts of developed sheet film but gluing is a problem.
Happy tinkering!
I would like to ask, is there any significant difference between Agfa HDR-C Plus and Fuji UM-MA HC?
They are both single-sided mammography films available to me in the 30x40 format, Fuji is a little more expensive.
Thanks.
In the past 5 years, the Agfa prices for mammography films have increased incrementally, while the Fuji prices have almost tripled…
It used to be that the Fuji was the cheaper choice…
However, I just checked roentgenexpress.de and saw that the UM-MA went 55% up since the beginning of August (this August!)…
In any case, I have used both of them with the RO9 version of Rodinal (though I did use the older HDR version of the Agfa), and they are comparable, both in speed and in achievable gammas.
I did have some issues with pinholes with the HDR, but that was years ago, and it could have more to do with my processing (at the time) rather than the film, but I thought it's worth mentioning…
Also, the blue tint of the base comes out slightly duller/darker with the HDR, but that is not an issue, and it might have more to do with the specific developer…
By the way, I didn't know that it came in 30x40cm.
Would you consider sharing your source?
Thanks a lot for the info. Rodinal is my favorite developer, can I ask what speed you usually work with?
I noticed the increase in prices, I last searched before the summer, I should have ordered then.
ANd sorry, I was confused about the dimensions. I also looked at blue Agfa film in 30x40.
I usually cut large X-Ray down
to any size I want
I once cut a square sheet for Hasselblad
I had the special bits and a tiny Hasselblad film holder
Very sharp neg and print
of course
I buy from eBay...
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...+film&_sacat=0
I have been "rolling" strips of X-ray film (Fuji ED-U) from the 14"X36" TRI-FOLD box of 25 sheets. I get 5 Spools of 120 and One 35mm strips from one sheet. I then roll these strips onto spools with Black Plastic "Leaders" taped to the ends. This works well in a medium format camera that has a Mechanical Counter,,,, However - NOT the older ones with a "little Red Window" on the back. For that, I have kept the Backing Papers from true films I have used / with the spools of course. Works well for me. Using ISO-50 to 100, Depending on the light given. (I use the 35mm "leftover" in a Kodak Bantum 828 camera. It will not work well in a SLR 35mm camera.)
I have an account long time
The are hiding it
They don't export
I don't export
I have enough for another life
Good Luck and Goodnight
14x36 in. Full Length Fuji X-Ray Film - Green HR-U
Be the first to review this product
$76.00
Ships in 24-48 Hours
SKU 14x36 Fuji Full Length
Disclaimer for Non-Returnable Options
Note that this film is Full Length and not Tri-Fold. This is a non-returnable item.
Qty
1
Add to Cart
Add to Quote
Add to Compare Share by email
14x36 Full Length Fuji Medical X-Ray film only available in Green Sensitive. 25 sheets per box.
Fuji Reference Number: 47410 13015
HR-U Medium Speed Green Film
Skip to the end of the images gallery
Skip to the beginning of the images gallery
We Recommend
14x17 double-sided, green latitude. Developed in XTol-R.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...76bdf6e3_h.jpgTree Canopy by Andrew O'Neill, on Flickr