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.
That's v handy thanks. I have access to 3D printing at my Uni library.Quote:
Originally Posted by wouthazel
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by arri
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.
I use your parameter with R09 1/100
but it does vary with Sun
and I find it dies at 20 minutes
I use RO9 only for years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dimento
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
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!
Cement used by moviemakers to split (glue) together pieces of film after editing should work.Quote:
Originally Posted by landstrykere
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Can
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
14x17 negative?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
Yes, it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippe Grunchec
Nice one AndrewQuote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
Useful info but... For the record. I found it, but Page 637 Post 6369Quote:
Originally Posted by Kino
The page/post numbers have changed for unknown reasons (probably housekeeping issues) several times.
Is that an Agfa-Ansco universal? I have one with the same shape brass front standard brace, you wouldn't by chance know the year range on yours?Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
Nice shots by the way.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...f2dbab6a_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 :)
Working with 14x17 and making a Salt print...
https://youtu.be/rYfTgfKzqPY
14x17 Carbon Transfer from XRAY...
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...a3ff8aba_b.jpgSt. Peter's, Monte Creek, BC by Andrew O'Neill, on Flickr
I read about your research on MIN-R in this thread. thanks for the helpful information about the layers. I also use expired KODAk MIN-R s and Carestream Min-R s (as I understand it, it's the same thing +-). and I would like to knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
how you develop this film?
at some point I realized that I had problems with the evenness of the development (I did tests with evenly exposured of the sheet / different methods of agitation / different developers / vertical development / stand) and still could not completely get rid of the unevenness of densitys.it looks like divorces/waves/turbulence. and changing the type of agitation - changes the "pattern" of unevenness. the film without test exposure is completely transparent after development.
my basic workflow: D-23 1:2 10m 20° flat-bottom tray, I lower the sheet with the primary emulsion up, for the first 30 seconds there is constant agitation, then clockwise N E S W at 5 seconds every 30 seconds.stop.fx.
...Maybe the sheet still needs to be turned over when developing, considering that there is an emulsion on the other side too..
Double-sided X-RAY does need to be flipped over in the developer when using flat-bottomed trays, in my experience.
I also use D23 but diluted 1+3 and with less agitation (first half minute constant and than every 3 minutes a short shake).
You could try to use an oversized tray if you have turbulences. The thinking behind this is that in a narrow tray you have vawes reflecting from the walls of the tray.
Do you pre-soak before developing? I do (in water), it washes off some kind of protective layer (anti-twisting?) with blue dye. If this is not done, the developer will take on a pink tint...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
Upd.
ok, I took a 12x16 tray (my sheets 8x10)with glass (because there is no flat one of that size), pre-soaked sheet in water for 1 m, agitated in dev first 30 seconds and then gently once every 3 minutes. I moved a sheet that had slipped down the glass a couple of times (a horizontal stripe remained from the glass), 12 min in developer D-23 1+2. I slightly increased the contrast in PS. and yes, this is one of the best results, but the “crumpled pillow” effect is still there..
Attachment 255646
I do not presoak. Just slip it in 1+3 (one part developer diluted with 3 parts water) D23, gently but continuosly agitate the first 30 seconds. After that I rock the tray 2-3 times every 3 minutes and I develop very long but at very low temperatures. I also do not use a sheet of glass, just a plastic tray that has no ridges at the bottom. (It is a big white plastic tray, way oversized even for the biggest format I develop, the restaurant that is belov my apartment trow away. Has the advantage as being white and somewhat translucent I can shine red light from below.) I get even development but my intention is to change from tray to frames in a big tank. (I already bought the tank but being a women packed and shipped it, it get shattered in transport. I will try to glue it, will see if it will be usable. She also sent me the frames they did the developing of their X-ray films in their animal clinic but they pinch the film and I don't like that.)
Are you changing the direction of agitation?
Do you get this pattern also with other films?
How was the film stored? Can it be these are pressure marks?
in this session I did not change the direction because during my development, I swing the tray only 3 times (3m, 6m,9m) and swung it weakly by the lower right corner. the drawing changes every time and depends on the agitation, so (it seems to me ??) this is not related to storage...I have three boxes of X-ray films (kodak min-r s 2016exp, carestream min-r s 2022exp, SFM 2029). №3 is symmetrical double-sided film- I get even development in a flat tray, but №1 and №2 have absolutely identical results.I keep them in the refrigerator (not the freezer), how they were stored before me is not exactly known, but they were specialized sellers. and I would have given up this idea with an expired film a long time ago, but the fact that the drawing changes every time from agitation makes me hope that it is still possible to work with this film somehow...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
I will attach below 3 photos from the last test
1. flat-bottomed tray. the first 30 sec - agitation in different directions, every 3 minutes careful swaying by the lower right cornerQuote:
Originally Posted by Medvedev_Dop
2. flat-bottomed tray.everything is the same, but very weak agitation:the first 30 sec - agitation in different directions + turned the sheet over twice, every 3 minutes just shook the tray. I decided to do it, because it is written in the manual of Kodak min-r s that it is impossible to agitate during the development at all! and as I see it, as we approach to the stand-development, the clarity of this "crumpled pillow" increases and the density of the edge is leveled.
3.vertical tank.full stand-dev, only at the beginning shaking the hangers (as in the Kodak manual) in my DIY 3.5L vertical tank, and it is not coping at all.. it clearly lacks volume. ..
contrast increased in Ph.
D-23 1+2 12min 20°C
Attachment 255662
Attachment 255663
Okay, I'll try with an even bigger flat tray.... or even make an exhibition of prints with a "crumpled pillow", in general, it already looks interesting))):cool:;)
agitation must be much more frequent in order to refresh the developer on contact with emulsion as well as to avoid deposit in the emulsion of the byproducts of development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Medvedev_Dop
there is one comment with POTA developed example in this long thread, in 2019:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1499931
last week on travel I bought two packs of Agfa CP-BU blue double-sided in 13x18cm/5x7". Had a flight before yesterday from Genève and there were very long lines, I didn't want to risk to miss the plane so went regular security gates, didn't bother to ask for separated inspection. Rays tunnels were of the small old kind anyway, typically doesn't affect regular film. Back home just to be sure I exposed a sheet. I mixed 300ml POTA with phenidone-A ie. the usual phenidone. As I had in the post phenidone-B (methyl-phenidone) bought in december, I mixed also 300ml POTA with this for another identical exposure. I took a quick shot of some bookshelf home, at iso 100, and developed in tray with a glass plate on bottom, under red light. Took out of POTA bath at 3'10", stop with water under the faucet and regular rapid fixer.
phenidone A and phenidone B:
Attachment 256143
the book cover on the left is dark blue , on the right red:
Attachment 256144
I didn't pay much caution to manipulation, yet tried to avoid scratchs.
These are 13x18 sheets but I shot in 12x16,5cm holder ie. 1/2-plate. So had to cut. I use a template for the 16,5cm cut then a roller cutter for the 12cm. Use regular office paper wrapped around the sheet as a protection. Seems to work. On the first photo let there's one defect, the other is good.
Attachment 256145 Attachment 256148 Attachment 256149 Attachment 256150Attachment 256151
Yes, I always did this, until I discovered that I was getting uneven development directly related to the type and direction of agitation. I started trying different methods...
with active bi-directional agitation I got this:
Attachment 256171
I've been using D-23 for a while now when developing X-RAY film. In a continuation from part 1, I compare D-23 stock, and various dilutions...
https://youtu.be/vQXWfuvPvo0
I make my own developers - Here is one that I reformulated from the "ANSCO-30" developer for X-ray developing machines --- The original was way too strong. If you want a detailed PDF of my experiments with X-ray films - Please send a Private Message. (The PDF is free od any fees and charges.) Film used was Fuji HR-U @ 100 ISO... (I should have exposed these at 50 ISO.) Handheld R.B. Graflex 4X5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Medvedev_Dop
=============
Here is the Ansco-30-JK reformulated “Tank Developer Stock Solution”
Water - at 120 Degrees F. -------------------750ml.
Metol --------------------------------------------------------- 3.0 Grams. (Reduced)
Sodium Sulfite ----------------------------------------- 70.0 G. (Increased)
Hydroquinone ------------------------------------------- 4.0 G. (Reduced)
Sodium Carbonate ------------------------------------ 20.0 G. (Reduced)
Potassium Bromide ------------------------------------- 5.5 G. (Increased)
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)
Attachment 256188
Just opened up a box with two fresh bottles of Rodinal. It just works and I continue to suggest Rodinal for x-ray film, especially for new users. At 1:100 dilution it is as economical as can be.
Thank you so much for sharing your experience! I tried your recipe. Previously, I used developers without antifog agents (d-23, rodinal, x-tol). And I had a hope that it would help me... I did two tests for 6 minutes (agitation every 1min) and 12 minutes (adding 10 ml of 0.1% benzotriazole and reduced agitation every 2min). The unevenness of density is still there, but barely noticeable (slightly increased contrast in Ps). And yes, this is probably the best result for my film so farQuote:
Originally Posted by James R. Kyle
Attachment 256209