zzmedical previously did not ship internationally, now they do, I have just bought my usual 3 boxes and cut the price plus shipping in half.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Thanks for the tip!
Printable View
zzmedical previously did not ship internationally, now they do, I have just bought my usual 3 boxes and cut the price plus shipping in half.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Thanks for the tip!
I’m glad Australia finally gets a deal on something film related!
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
Hello everyone. If you experience difficulties with buying xray film I think I could help you and ship it worldwide. There is a company in my city that suggests a big variety of medical film: AGFA, Carestream, Ektascan. I have bought Carestream MXBE 13x18cm from them for < $35. This is an example of picture taken on it.
Attachment 179598
That kind of help is always a good thing @alefrei! It may help others to know where you are located. If e.g. you are in the US and buyers want you to ship to Europe, duties and import taxes will have to be paid in addition to shipping costs. I just placed an order with ZZMedical for shipment to Europe and the final costs as delivered to my doorstep are ca. 65% higher than the combined price of the products I ordered. Note that ZZMedical also ships worldwide through a 3PL provider.
Well, I live in european part of Russia and I have sent several items abroad via ebay. I could mark the parcel as gift or reduce the declared value to avoid pricey import taxes. So if anyone is interested, feel free to PM me. I have some free time untill the end of summer.
That's definitely great Todd.Quote:
Originally Posted by profvandegraf
If possible, please let me know extra info, X-ray film type, development and if there is any software manipulation.
Thanks.
Anybody who has experience with double sided X-ray film,
Being with no anti-halation layer, is X-ray film better than the expensive Ortho films for masking? to print difficult negatives?
Regards.
Finally got my Intrepid 8x10 and have been testing some films. I was going to post some taken on Carestream EB/RA where I was quite pleased with the tonality and range at first try, but when I scanned and looked at the negatives at high magnification they are peppered with tiny black dots; not consistently over the surface. I omitted stop bath and used water stop with the last one but get the same. They have been developed in Pyro HD. Any ideas?
The shadow of dust on the film when it was exposed.
Usually during loading, or in the film holder.
If it's dust from loading in the film holder, that's a lot of dust.
I often wonder if X-ray film is not manufactured with the same critical standards as photography film. A couple years ago I had a batch that had tiny circular dots all over it.
I can only suggest trying a sheet from the middle and / or other end of the stack and see if you get the same defect.
Doesn't dust normally show up as white specks?
I had similar issues with a batch of Ektascan I bought 3-5 years ago. I think it’s a quality control issue. It’s still a great film to learn with. As a former chemist, Pyrocat HD, uses sodium or potassium carbonate to get pH high enough for development. Acid stop bath would be more likely than plain water stop bath to create issues in terms of converting the carbonate to carbon dioxide gas and little bubbles. But, I really doubt that’s a real issue. And I really doubt that’s at the root of the issue.
Please post a review of the camera, I saw that and really wanted one! I’m wondering if it’s as nice as the ads.
On a negative they would do , as no light got past the bits to leave an exposure .Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
The sample posted is a scan of the negative then inverted to a positive .
So the white dots on the negative are now black dots on the scan/print .
There's a lot of it to be dust though , so possibly a fault in the emulsion .
I was wondering if it was from the development. I am using a Paterson Orbital unit but Agfa double-sided processed the same, which I thought would be more problematical came out fine and so too sheets of FP4. Here is magnified clip from a different sheet, not just little spots but also broader marks. It does seem to be emulsion related and is not like handling scratches.
Attachment 180514
Maybe try pulling a piece and scan it without any processing at all. If there are visible marks, then try washing it and rescan and see if they go away.
That would help eliminate processing sources. If it's black in scanning, it's got to be there before exposure. If it's black in scan, it's got to be clear on the negative, and the only things I know of that can cause that are either dust and dirt pre-exposure that is then washed away in processing, or missing or scratched emulsion.
The marks are are not from scanning, I placed a negative on a light table and you can these pin holes with a loupe.
I took a piece of unexposed film and inspected that on the light table and that was fine, and after washing to remove the anti-halation layer. Then I processed piece of that as before and then cut that into two further pieces, one stopped with water and the other with an additional stop bath. No holes or marks. I then fixed same pieces and no difference. It is a bit of a mystery as other film processed using the same holders and chemicals have come out fine. I shall just have to try another sheet.
OK, what I have learned is that this film is extremely sensitive to agitation in development. I have been using a Paterson orbital and noticed that there was a circular area in the middle of the negative that was affected most with these black dots (in the positive image). So I observed the movement of the fluid in the processor with the lid off and noticed that there was an area in the middle that was did not experience as much fluid change with the orbital movement.
So, I change the processing technique to a tilt one which you would do with standard tray development. I must add that I have no dark facilities. Well, this just confirmed the agitation variation theory; I was quite aggressive in the agitation frequency as it seems and now I got those marks in a cross pattern corresponding to the opposite corner tilt technique. How, was I to get more consistent agitation? I then remembered that when I got my Jobo CPE2 it came with a print tank extension 2800 so I dug this out of the garage.
I have just developed a test sheet rolling the film into the tank and things are starting to look better. I now have streaks, in the rolling plane, so will have to figure out volume of liquids and make sure it is level (I am hand rolling). The sky area is still the most affected but I noticed that some marks were due to handling; I only have a Harrison Pup tent and it's a bit of a squeeze and although I used gloves it is no possible with these to locate the film edge under the holding slides so had to use bare hands. Another observation is that somewhat similar marks, that is to the finger prints, occur where is seems some tiny particle remains stuck on the emulsion and you get kind of micro trail of dark area from that mark, although I did rotate alternately in both directions.
The other thing that comes to mind is that we are experiencing a heatwave here in the UK and using a changing tent it gets very humid in that enclosed space within the tent so maybe that is factor and development temperatures are up too.
I've got the best results from the Jobo drum in terms of the black dots, agitation problem, but now have to sort out streaking and the other handing type marks. The tonal results from the film are great but with all the issues maybe I should bear the cost of FP4. The Agfa double sided CPG works nicely so I might try and get the mammography version of that film.
Richard
Attachment 180859
This was taken two days ago, agfa green, lc29 1:100 35mins stand, picture vignetted to isolate subject matter and artistic effect. color tinge is a by product of file reduction I think
Ok this is going to be a little long so please excuse. First this is the first Ive posted in several years. Being the frugal type. Meaning I don't have much money to play with. I try to use what I have on hand. I have an abundance of Dektol. I shoot Full blue film. I've spent the last several hours figuring Iso, dev. time and dilutions to use the Dektol as the film developer. I've read that it can be contrasty and grainy. Again trying to be frugal I mixed the 1 gallon bag of Dektol with 1/2 gallon of water to make a concentrate. After the experimenting I came up with an ISO of 150 with a dilution of about 1:17 or 30ml to 500ml of water for 10min. To my feeble eyes the negatives look very good. These where shot in hazy sun down a wooded path. Plenty of shadow detail and high lights very printable. Contrast and grain are not that bad. I have no way of showing these as I do not scan. Not saying this is the definitive for all but this worked for me. Now I have a question. Hypothetical. If you have an ISO of say 200 and you strip the emulsion is that the same as dividing the ISO to 100. For the people that say they get ISOs below 20 are they stripping the emulsion and are they shooting strictly in doors or under very low light. I've tryed using a low ISO and I can't even see thru the negative let alone print thru it. Just some thoughts.
Concerning stripping: I find it's not the same as halving the iso. The side of the film facing the lens during exposure gets more light than the other side. Hence, you loose less than a stop when stripping the backside.
As to your iso of 150: that's pretty high, but if it works for you, that's great. I got something like iso 50-80 with double sided green sensitive film. Note that testing with a shaded scene may throw your calibration off, particularly if it's a low contrast scene.
I have been shooting at 80 or 100 all along but the negs always looked a little to dense for my taste. They printed ok but just never quite liked the look. My developer of choice was always Beutler High Definition but currently I don't have the bulk chemical to make it. Most of what I shoot is either wooded or full sun land scape. Full blue is faster film than green.
If you read the first page of this thread,the recommended speed of full speed blue is iso200 or there abouts, so you would be close
Rodinal 1:100, ISO 100, 8 min tray development.
This recipe works perfectly constant to me, maybe next time I should reduce development time to 7:20-7:30 and it would be the best I can get from the film.
The only drawback is that diluted developer is disposable, but anyway the process is still very cheap and satisfying.
Attachment 181130 Attachment 181131
Perseid Meteor Shower 2018
This picture was shot with a Kodak Master 8x10" view camera and the legendary Super Angulon 165mm lens on Fuji AD-M xray film. The exposure lasted 140 minutes at f/8.
The camera was facing NE towards the rising constellation of Perseus.
It was developed for 30'min in an 11x14 flat bottom tray in 60ml RO9 and 75ml FX37II in a liter of distilled water at 24°C.
The negative is rather thin, but with scanning and post processing, this image emerges.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1800/...6a30159e_b.jpg
Very interesting!
What is FX37II?
I like it, are the straight lines aircraft?
I want to try this one day, er, night...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras
Thodoris, That's really neat. We had clouds all during that Meteor shower, rain actually, much needed. It looks like you caught several flashes plus star trails and airplanes.
Tanks guys!
My setup on Sunday night included a Kodak Master 8x10" with a Super Angulon 165mm and a Rittreck View 5x7" with a Super Angulon 90mm, both set to f/8.
Made 3 exposures with each camera on Fuji AD-M xray film 18x24cm and 13x18cm.
First 2 exposures were for 80'min and the last one was for 140'minutes.
I developed all films by inspection in sequence, and I was adding developers and developing time based on how the first films responded.
I started with RO9 at 1+50 (20ml in 1lt of distilled water), instead of the 1+100 (10mml in 1lt) that is my normal at the moment (with developing times between 8 and 16min depending on the SBR and the way that I exposed the neg).
The first neg (80min exp) came out almost blank after 20min dev time, so I added another 20ml to the used soup for the next, and so on…
The FX39II (not 37 as per my original post, sorry for that) is a compensating developer based on the original Rodinal.
And yes, those are airplanes. We're a bit south of the incoming route for planes approaching Larnaca airport. 7 planes in 140min is low traffic for this time of year.
Tanks = Thanks (obviously...)
For those of you old enough to have senior moments. I was out shooting a waterfall here in Georgia with my 4x5 and blue x-ray. I traveled about 120 mile to this location. Not many people around and a perfect day. The light was overhead and sunny so I thought, I need to bump up the contrast a little so I'll use a yellow filter. Four shots at the falls an later and later four shots at an old barn. All but two with the yellow filter. Now for those of you that think a yellow filter will not work on x-ray film it dose. On the falls I got nice white water and very black everything else. Same with barn. Very white roof everything else black 100 o/o contrast. As I was developing the film and trying to figure out where the image was it hit me. Senior moment
Yep. You cut most of the blue light. I think an orange filter would have been even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeBone75
I always shoot with either a #11 light green or #15 yellow filter, on green latitude. They both work very well, especially the #11 on foliage.
I even knew better than to use a filter. Was not thinking.
Anyone here using Xray film for alternate process??
just curious
thanks, Peter
That's what I use it virtually exclusively for. Mostly salt printing and I need to pick up carbon transfer again. I don't think x-ray is superior for the purpose though. Far from it in fact.
I've had good prints from Ektascan BR/A, Pyrocat HD, and Dr. Mike Ware's New Cyanotype chemistry. You have to like the look of Ortho films. I find it a cost savings I need. Plus, I can work with the lights on, if I don't badly over do it.
I have found it works fine with filters, orange, yellow, I have just bought a red, but haven't used it yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeBone75
I use it for albumen.Quote:
Originally Posted by peter schrager
Scan of a contact print on Ilford MGWT from an 18x24cm negative.
Fujifilm AD-M film developed in 11x14" trays in Adox RO9 (10+1000) @ 24C for 8'min with intermittent agitation.
Shot with an 8x10" viewcamera and a Fujinon W 180 @ f/22 and t1/4"s
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1859/...c16cf376_b.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1892/...087c7177_b.jpg
I have used it for traditional cyanotype formulas - works fine.
Shot on 8X10 green sensitive.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bzz56aer0i...mg622.jpg?dl=1
Late afternoon light.
Captured on Fuji AD-M xray film, with a Kodak Master View 8x10" camera and a Fujinon 180 lens.
Developed in Adox RO9 (10+1000) at 24C, in 11x14" trays, for 8'min with intermittent agitation.
Scan from negative, finished in PS.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1895/...9014c922_b.jpg
I am really late to this thread, and do not want to go over 500 posts , not yet anyways but I have a question
Could someone describe the resulting tonal qualitys on print between x ray negative and lets say ortho neg or pan neg?
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.
Thank you , I have no experience with this film.
Thodoris is using Fuji AD-M xray film which is high-end Mammography film and more expensive than any other X-Ray film. It might be the best Xray film.
I have not used it. It's metric. But ZZ can get it. https://www.zzmedical.com/fuji-ad-m-...-ray-film.html
Compare to Ektascan https://www.zzmedical.com/x-ray-acce...ideo-film.html
14X17 Ektascan seems gone. It was $1K for 500 sheets...
Many here use 2 sided Xray Film as it's the cheapest. Note this 14X36" film. https://www.zzmedical.com/x-ray-acce...-ray-film.html
I currently use Ektascan B/RA; I haven't tried the AD-M film but I suspect it's comparable to the EB/RA. While EB/RA is a quite capable film, it does suffer from very limited latitude - even more so than double sided film due to the lack of an additional layer that seems to help preserve highlight contrast in high-contrast scenes. But double sided film (I have used it, I'd say some 150 8x10 sheets and many of them cut into 4x5) is a royal PITA and not worth the trouble IMO.
Hello,
A portrait with my 8x10 camera : 18x24cm (European size) Fuji ADM MAMO at ISO100, dev HC110 Dil. H 6 mins 20°C.
In shadows under the trees at 11AM
https://www.franck-rondot.com/images...hotographe.jpg
Like!
Quote:
Originally Posted by meditant
Man this is wonderfulQuote:
Originally Posted by meditant
Bob,Quote:
Originally Posted by bob carnie
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
Thodoris, you do beautiful work!