Printable View
are you looking for more or less contrast? I have now played with Green, Blue, and "Green Latitude" and it seems to me that the "Green Latitude" has much richer/expanded midtones than the regular Green or Blue films.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeBone75
I have only shot them in Homemade 8x10 Pinholes however so YMMV.
BTW I see you are in Erie, I live down in Corry, nice to meet you
"BTW I see you are in Erie, I live down in Corry, nice to meet you"
Hi. I'm asking cause I just bought a case, very cheap, of the full speed blue. I've seen the work of some that have used it and it looked pretty good. As with any film it takes some learning and tweeking to get it nailed down. I have not gotten the film yet but I'm pumped. I have about 150 sheets of the green and like it. I was telling someone yesterday that I like photography in that you can always find some sort of nitch. I shoot 8X10 and that is a nitch. I shoot 8X10 with X-ray film and that is a nitch in a nitch He shoots macro digital stereo. A nitch.
well the nice thing about X-Ray film is that it is so cheap that even if you don't like it you are not out much.
The blue film renders green foliage very dark, so right now in summer I prefer the Green Latitude, however once the leaves drop and the snow begins to fly the blue film we become my goto film
Is it possible to develop the blue film under red safelight?
According to Mortenson's 1939 book "The Negative", blue-sensitive and orthochromatic films should spend at least the first half of their development cycle in darkness; after that the emulsion becomes less sensitive to light and you can turn on a red safelight to view density buildup. Of course, YMMV; test first before you try it on your "Moonrise Over Hernandez"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippe Grunchec
I do it with both the green and the red using Red LED lights. I have not noticed any foggingQuote:
Originally Posted by Philippe Grunchec
This is some timely info. I have some sheets of green x-ray 8x10 film to develop and I'm glad I did not get rid of that red safelight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallace_Billingham
Wallace what kind of change do you see in the winter with the blue sensitive film and also has anyone used filters with this stuff. I need to do some testing to see the effect of filters on x-ray film.
Jim
I would be carefull with a regular red safelight. My guess is you will be fine, but I know that some of them that use a regular light bulb behind a red filter can make other wavelengths of light as well. With the LEDs they only emit red light so you have no issues. This is a link to the blubs I useQuote:
Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald
http://www.superbrightleds.com/cgi-b...t=MR16#E27-x24
Someone else from this foum posted a link to it a few weeks ago. I use the "wide" red bulb. And it lights up my bathroom/darkroom pretty good.
I have not used the Blue yet in winter conditions. I plan on using it because there will not be any leaves on the trees then and I don't like the way that the Blue film renders the green foliage so dark, and I much prefer the green latitude for the way it seperates the values in the leaves. As I understand it the medical use for the green latitude film is for things like chest X-Rays of your lungs so you get better seperation of the midtones.
Around here in the heart of the Lake Erie Snow Belts we get tons and tons of snow, and have it on the ground pretty much all winter so my thinking is the blue film will work great and it is a bit faster which is nice for low winter light levels
also I should mention that I found a webpage online from a google search
http://www.andrewsanderson.com/docs/X-rayfilm.pdf
This guy does a lot of urban night photography and found that the orange light from sodium street lighting did not expose X-Ray film either. On a whim I loaded up 2 sheets of the green film using some spillover light shining in the window from the street lamp outside my house in my downstairs bathroom. No other lights were on in my house and it was otherwise dark outside. The light did not directly hit the film but bounced off the white walls so that I could see once my eyes adjusted to the dark. That film also turned out fine.
While not a full replacement for regular panchromatic B&W film, its ability to be used under red led safelight, and to not to be seemingly effected by a little spillover light from a street lamp, could come in pretty handy on trips when you need to change/load film in holders in things like a Motel bathroom.
It was also quite interesting to try develop sheet film using a safelight, where you can see what is going on. I developed 6 sheets of it over the weekend in Diafine (which works great with X-Ray film BTW) and when I dropped the film into solution B after soaking in solution A, it very rapidly developed into an image after only about 5 seconds. I am sure development continued after that in the shadows and I left it in for the full 3 minutes but I am pretty certain that about 95% of the development happens in the first 5 seconds
Wallace thanks for the link on the red LED lights. In the past and still today when I develop my regular film I develop by inspection using Pyrocat-HD with a green safelight. The light is turned on and the film is checked when development is about 80% complete. I'll try a test sheet using the red safelight I have and this procedure to see what happens until the LED light arrives. Nice to know that in dim light you can develop x-ray film and I agree that this makes it great for those times when you develop in a motel. Heck I wonder if you could develop by campfire light? I can see it now trays on the table at the campsite!
Jim
I am going to do some experiments with this film to nail down exposure sensitivity, and
find development times for a standard (such as xtol, HC-110b, ID-11, etc).
Once I find the speeds and development times, I'll do comparitive photos of green sensitive, green latitude, blue, and half-speed blue for everyone so that I think everyone's questions will be answered.
Should have this all taken care of within a week's time hopefully.
Going to probably start with T-Max. Have litres of this junk I've been meaning to dump down the drain (shhhhh). I'm not a fan of it. Best to actually use it for anything I suppose. See what HC-110b will do to it as well.
Anyone tried either of those?
I appreciated the test of the scanned negative that had one emulsion removed. It looked like there wasn't much difference.
I test I would like to see now would be a double-sided contact print and a one-emulsion contact print. It almost seems like if the sharp side of the film was placed down, the back would act as a kind of "unsharp mask".
Very interesting. Thank you for the test.
It seems that very little sharpness is lost by the double-sidedness in a contact print. It could be that the xray film is less sharp than "real" film, but it looks like if it is, it's because of the emulsion itself and not due to the doublesidedness. The example images in the parent post of this thread do seem to show that the xray film is less sharp, although this could be development too.
I'm still not sure what to think of the increased density that would seem to result from a double-sided negative and how that would effect silver printing--I mean I don't know what "good" Xray negative should look like. It almost seems like if you underexpose enough to bring the overall density down to normal-looking levels, you would end up pushing the shadows out onto the toe. Then again, even twice the density is only a difference of .3 density.
I just received a box of the CXS house-brand 8"x10" green-sensitive film, and did a little experimenting last night. It's also orange-sensitive, so my first safelight exposure came out fully exposed - oops. It seems to expose about ASA 100 (similar to my Efke 100) but develops faster in D76, and since it's double sided has a much deeper black. The emulsion is very fragile when wet, but solid when dry, as others have noted. It also has a bluish tint to the base, similar to 1/4 blue or CTB gels. After bleaching off one side of the emulsion, the x-ray and Efke stocks were approximately similar. I found the sharpness of the film to be certainly sharp enough for contact printing - there's no antihalation layer of course, so some highlights may bloom. YMMV.
I expect that this film (with double sided emulsion) will work very well for the use I intend to make of it; contact print to cyanotype and other alternate print techniques. Over the next few weeks I'll be building a rough-and-ready 8x10 camera out of an old Wollensak lens and junk lumber, then see how it works.
BetterSense - I don't think underexposure is the solution to the x-ray film density issue. You may get less density overall, but you will lose shadow detail. You could try for extreme underdevelopment or water bath development for highlight control, but you may risk uneven processing then (I didn't try water bath). A spritz of Clorox on one side of the film is quick and very effective - but you risk leak through if there are any pinholes in the negative base (I noticed one on the sheet I bleached).
Are you even taping the edges of the negative down, then? You make it sound like you have discovered a good system for bleaching one side.Quote:
A spritz of Clorox on one side of the film is quick and very effective - but you risk leak through if there are any pinholes in the negative base (I noticed one on the sheet I bleached).
Okay, here is an update on some recent 8x10 shots that I did. I use Pyrocat-HD to develop my negatives. For the x-ray film I use the 1:1:200 dilution. I developed the 8x10's in a tank and tried minimal agitation. I must say that hangers are the way to go with this film as there are no scratches at all and the Pyro hardens the emulsion. My times were 17 1/2 minutes and I got some good negatives. I shot the film at 100 and some of the scenes were low contrast and some high. 10 zones or more. I did develop a couple of sheets for 12 1/2 minutes and they were very thin.I have a foot switch that I use and I plugged it into my red safe light and checked development with no fogging that I can see. I just switched it on about 3/4 of the way through development.
I am going to try to develop some sheets next time using my standard agitation technique and watch development because I see no benefit to the minimal agitation at least for the x-ray film. Nothing scientific going on here but I'm going to re-shoot the scenes and then develop with a different approach. If I get some higher contrast all the better as I print alternative process carbon transfer.
I have not noticed a huge difference in sharpness when printing both sides. I print in carbon and I did do an 11x14 negative of the same scene printed both ways. You can see the sharpness difference when the negative is reversed. Could be that the negative is so big that it shows more. The high contrast of this film and the cost are a couple of great factors to consider for the alt. process printer.
Jim
Jim
Thanks for the update. I have a day or so to go before I finish 3 tanks. The scratches from tray developing are daunting. I have tested a window-screen-frame film hanger by dunking it in the chemicals and, for very limited tests, see no corrosion issues.
The width of these hangers is extreme compared to "real" hangers, so the tank tests should reveal edge turbulence issues- glad to see a semi-stand approach is also viable.
Shoot I'm waay behind
regards
Ed
Ed it is a matter of time isn't it? I still have to finish the 11x14 film hangers. I have the tanks but I've been immersed in carbon transfer printing and I need to get the hangers done. My 8x10 negatives are scratch free. I still need to test normal development with the film in tanks. With my red safelight I can easily judge when to pull the negative to get the required density for carbon printing. The Pyrocat-HD works great at controlling the highlights. Normally I use 1:1:150 for minimal agitation with great results. I think I'll try this dilution and normal agitation to see what I get. The developer is cheap as I mix it from scratch and the film is.... what can I say. I have 300 sheets of 11x14 which I got for almost free. Maybe .03 cents a sheet. Carbon transfer printing is cheap and my results are outstanding. Life is GOOD!Quote:
Originally Posted by EdWorkman
Jim
Just thought I would post an example of the CXS Brand Green Latitude film. I am pretty sure it is made by Kodak. This was shot in my homeade 8x10 Pinhole which I made just for this film. As you can see the green foliage gets very light with this film almost like an IR shot
Wallace, thanks for posting this example. I think we all need to post some visuals of what we are doing with this film so we can see what it is all about. Very nice pinhole by the way.
Jim
Thanks Jim, I am really enjoying using this fiilm. I am not sure what to really rate it at. I only have four 8x10 holders so I did a series of 8 test shots each one stop apart. This shot was done for 8 minutes at around f/420 in cloudy light, that I metered at 1/100th at f/8 with 200 speed film. The 4 minute exposure was thin but would have been printable, and the 16 minute exposure was very dense and would have been hard to print.
Wallace, pinhole is a perfect use for this film. I might try that myself. What size pinhole are you using? You might try a slightly larger pinhole to reduce diffraction. Are you involved with the f/295 pinhole group? edit - I see you are - I'm looking at your "dreamy tree" photo over there right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallace_Billingham
oops, dbl post.
Okay, I might get some Agfa Curix Ortho ht-g X-ray film. Now I wonder hwo to exposure that, what is ASA value of the film, does enybody know? Also developer suggestions would be nice, I have Rodinal, Pyrocat HD, Ilfotec DD-X
There is no ASA or ISO cuz it's not pictorial film
So that means you are on your own- sort of
If I had a box of it, from some limited experience with brandX, I'd try EI 100-200
Then I'd use your Rodinal 1:50 in the time range as for a "real" film in that speed range. I've done my testing with Clayton F60- not a mainstream developer, but sufficiently similar to vanilla. I'll probly have to re-test, but Xray film is CHEAP so I'm not worried. The main concern has been scratching of the emulsion on the "otherside", so my next shots will be developed on hangers- hey maybe this afternoon, if my good intentions pave a road to the feed mill
Others have reported their results, but I don't recal that any were for your specifics, but certainly everyone has been very helpful to me.
Okay, Thanks for this. All now is needed, is to win bid :) As you said, itīs cheap, 100pcs 30x40cm about 22$Quote:
Originally Posted by EdWorkman
I thought it would be a good idea to post a recent shot done on the green sensitive x-ray film so that everyone can see how it handles skin tone. This image is posted in the portrait section also but since it is on x-ray film I thought some follow up here appropriate. The image had a 3 stop range when metered and was shot in natural daylight in the shade with a silver reflector to bounce a small amount of light back on her. I shot this at ISO 100 and developed in Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1.5:100 in an 8x10 tank on hangers with standard agitation for 10 minutes. When I read the density it came in at 2.20 DR. I printed this in carbon transfer and was a test image and the crop of the 8x10 is due to some compositional issues and some areas of the tissue that pulled during development. I will print this on some Azo when I get a chance and do some comparisons. I am very happy with the green x-ray film and for me and my carbon printing it fits the bill. It does build density quickly and I used my standard red safe light to monitor development.
Jim
To the guy who was wondering about xraying the film in shipping, he shouldn't worry. my dad is a doctor and told me xray film isn't sensitive to xrays. they put rare earth sheets in front of it, which light up when xrays hit them. the light from the rare earth sheet is what exposes the film.
now i just need to buy some.
I must be "the guy": thanks!
Thanks for the photo and explanation, Jim. I've got some of this stuff also, about to try it out in a home-made camera I'm building this month. Did you bleach off the 2nd side of emulsion, or develop with the intention of keeping both emulsions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald
Robert, thanks. I did not bleach this image at all. I have printed both sides of a negative before and I have noticed some differences in sharpness. I know that the key for me at least, is developing the film in hangers in tanks. The Pyrocat works great with x-ray film and the developer hardens the emulsion. No scratching at all and with the red safe light I can control the density range of the negative for my printing process. I still have some negatives to print that are landscape images where I used filters and I am curious to see the effect. I'll post them when I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Hughes
Jim
...resurrecting a thread from last month...
Here is a recent picture I shot on green-sensitive x-ray film, in some light shade. I actually made 3 exposures and this one was metered at 100 and developed in Diafine diluted 1:1 in a Jobo roller tank (so the actual speed of the film was probably around 50 or so). This is my first exposure with the green-sensitive film; all my prior work was done with blue-sensitive. I expected the foliage to look different, but the grass surprised me here.
Shen Hao, 210mm Sironar-N
http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/191...img_760+sm.jpg
I've been testing CXS "green latitude" film. It works, and looks fairly normal, that is, more normal than paper negatives. I just can't seem to avoid scratching it, processing individually in trays. It seems to scratch if you look at it funny. It seems to be about 100 speed, but I admit I haven't been very scientific about exposing or developing it. I can easily handle and develop it under my LED safelight.
I had few if any problems with the CXS blue film scratching, but this CXS green seems to have a much softer emulsion. I have several more sheets already cut to load into holders, but I have been waiting until I got a few tests done, so it looks like I can continue. I bought an LED safelight that had a cutoff well outside the sensitivity range for the blue film and used it for all my darkroom work - - for developing prints too. I wasn't sure the green film would be OK, but it seems to be.
I shoot the green sensitive film in 8x10 and 11x14 and I find that it is sensitive to scratching even more so than my Efke. I use 8x10 tanks and hangers and use dilute Pyrocat-HD to develop and the neg's come out great. Still working on some 11x14 hanger designs.
Westley, nice image and it looks like the highlights and shadows are well under control. Can't beat the price of this stuff and I agree that I was surprised with the foliage color.
Jim
I'm only 4 sheets into a box of 100, and each sheet becomes 4 4x5s, so I have a long way to go, but If I cannot find a way to deal with the soft emulsion, I'm going back to the blue sensitive film. Even though I like the way the foliage looks on the green, it requires too much touching up in Photoshop and it would be impossible to contact print - - which is really why I do 4x5. I have some nice contact 4x5 contact prints from the blue film.
What Jim said
I have 8x10 hangers & am about done building tanks to hang them in- leak tests are all I lack . I have my Pyrocat HD. I just could not avoid horrid scratches in the trays.
80 sheets of blue and 100 sheets of green await exposure
I just got some film hangers coming in the mail; maybe using tank processing will help my scratching. It's good to know that the blue sensitive film is tougher, although I also like the look of the green.
Hey Guys,
This X-Ray stiff is fun! I have 500 sheet of Agfa Blue. I had 50 sheets green and here are a few images... CHEAP! and looks like pushed Plus X to me ... I have `12 more of the Kodak blue to do tonite ... Dip & dunk ... Dip & Dunk ....
Steve
Off topic ... I also shot the same fellow in Liquid light ... ASA 1 !
Yes, dip n' dunk is the way to go with this stuff. Nice high contrast images Steve.
Jim
Perhaps I am mistaken... I often am (my wife says that I may be wrong, but I'm never in doubt!)...Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterSense
But it seems to me that, at least in my case, the scratches are probably coming from the cutting process and not from the developing process. I develop it in the Jobo 2509 reels and I would have thought that if it were there, I would have seen it in other films... there just isn't much room in the development process for scratching to come into the process. However, cutting 8x10 down to 4x5 provides plenty of chance for that. I think, in fact, that since the top of my work surface on which I do the cutting is plywood, I think that simply having it fall onto the surface from the paper cutter and then the process of picking it up probably introduces scratches. I should put a piece of glass or something under the paper cutter.
I was an x-ray technician for about 9 years back in the 1970s and we processed all our film on hangers in narrow dip & dunk tanks... I could get about 6 hangers into a single tank about 3.5 inches wide with no scratching - - and the film was generally a mix of 3 different sizes. I could see how the shuffling process of tray development might introduce scratches, but not hangers and not the 2509 reel.
The insides of the x-ray cassettes were very smooth - - much smoother than the inside of a 4x5 film holder. The film glided over the surface of the phosphorous sides. If a holder has any rough spots in it and you are using regular film, it may not be enough of an issue unless it gouges the film base - - but it could probably do a real number on emulsion. I am currently using my oldest 4x5 holders for fooling around with the x-ray film - - perhaps I should buy a few newer ones instead.
Hey everyone,
So last night at 2:30 am I was doing some scanns for proof & couldn't help myself. The scans are lame, but there may be potential ....
A friend that's also a shooter. He did portraits at Burning Man and this is a gallery showing of the images. But he used FP4+ ... how 1998's is that!!!! Ha
I'm using the CXS green-sensitive film and developing in trays. I do have to be easy with this stuff and try not to abrade the surface while agitating (usually not a problem with regular film), but when I get the hang of it I can hold the scratches down to a retouchable, minimal level. And the images are fun to work with! 8x10 has a whole different feel, I've never experienced it before.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2568/...2c63bd1b_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2615/...373220d1_o.jpg
Couple pics on green film. Note scratching (and dark-colored brick)
I think the cutting process is a problem with x-ray film. You need to be very careful when loading the film holders and unloading them. If you do this and use hangers you should be okay. Use a pyro based developer for its hardening ability and you should be good to go.
Jim
Jim,
I have been playing with D-76 1:1 at around 8 min in Tanks or trays. What Pyro mix are you using and what times & ASA's ?
Thanks ... just trying to get a head start & save some materials and time,
Steve
Steve, I'm using Pyrocat-HD 1:1:200 in tanks for about 10-14 minutes. I am developing my negatives for carbon transfer printing and I try to get the DR up to about 2.00-2.40. I can build density nicely with this combo and the Pyro hardens and helps tame the highlights and the carbon printing takes care of the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveKarr
I use my red safe light during the development process to inspect the negatives. Very easy to do with the red safe light. No scratches at all this way.
Jim
Hey Jim,
Thanks I have the same soup... What agitation do you use or stand? And 100 asa ...?
Steve
Hi X-Ray'ers,
Just a note on Film choices. I just bought & tested Agfa Cronex 10T half speed blue. I got 500 sheets 810 for $50 shipped.
But after 4 rounds of film testing this film is a little higher contrast than the Kodak T-Mat HRA green by a zone or so in the highlights... no big deal... BUT is 12 ASA under daylight unlike the Kodak Green that is a solid 100 Asa.
So just a heads-up if you are thinking of buying 1/2 speed XRay... it is really 3 stops slower.
Didn't someone mention Diafine? X-Ray has such a thin emulsion coating, but maybe is worth a test.
FWIW...
Steve