-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
analoguey
Why the sodium carbonate wash?
I reduce the contrast of the negative by cutting the time in the D-23 (using constant agitation) and then transferring the film to the second bath with intermittent agitation. The carbonate keeps the remaining D=23 working but it gets used up quickly in the heavily exposed areas, keeps working in the lighter exposed areas, a classic compensating technique. Some refer to it as a split D-23 but that's really inaccurate as the D-23 still has the alkaline accelerator in it. So far it has been my most successful method for reducing the inherently high contrast of the x-ray film. This negative printed on on Grade 3 paper, which is a good indicator.
Bill
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craig Tuffin
I've been playing around with some x-ray in preparation for some salt prints. This was one that I shot recently and just scanned. Any idea what might be creating the artefacts in the sky area. I develop in a ziplock bag...could these be as a result of holding the bag too close to the safe light when inspecting? It was quite a short development time (5 mins)...could it be too short a development and as a result should I dilute my developer (PMK by the way) to allow for longer development?
Attachment 119718
I have seen a similar pattern, only much worse, when I attempted to stand develop a sheet of X-ray film. Getting even development with X-ray film has been a challenge for me. I don't think I have yet achieved truly even development in large areas of blank sky.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I quickly solved all my developing problems with hangers. No scratching, no uneven-ness, with double-sided film. I use only the Kodak 4a hangers, on which the u-section of the frames are tapered like an open-based V, so that they don't rest or stick against the film except at the very edge, but this still stops some developing nearby if I stand develop, so I agitate at 0,5, and 10 minutes for 15 min developing. I'm using D23 diluted 1:6, which was someone's suggestion early on in the x-ray developing thread, and haven't seen a reason to change. I've been using plastic 1 gallon 5x7 tanks with floating lids, and the developer stays good for at least 2 weeks in these--probably more, but I haven't tried. Four tanks (D76, D23, stop, fix) fit neatly into the plastic boot tray from next to my front door, so any mess is contained, and when it's not in use, I slide it all to the back of the counter, out of the way.
The negs are quite contrasty, but good, and they camera-scan better than regular film (see examples just above) and since I'm gearing up for carbon printing, they're probably going to be just right.
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Now I tend to get up on my soapbox on the subject of orthochromatic film. It is "real film", just different. The only readily available orthochromatic large format film, other than Ortho-plus from Ilford is X-ray film, and process film, like Arista. The problem with Ilford is it is no longer readily available in 5X7, and it is very expensive. Pan film is just orthochromatic emulsion plus red dye to make it react to red light. There are other minor differences, but basically that's it. Now, to make things even more complicated, there are still various degrees of orthochromatism. Blue X-ray film is less orthochromatic than green. Just thank God we have all of these choices. If you like the landscape and/or portrait photography look of the 1880's up to the early1920's, blue x-ray should work best for you. If you like the Weston era (for want of a better name) look, try green. Uh-oh, I haven't mentioned my creds. My grandfather started me developing ortho film in the mid 1940's. I never got used to doing the darkroom work in the dark. I have never used any metheod except tray development. One at a time. When I worked on a newspaper, they used tanks. But if I had one for the rotogravure section in the Sunday supplement section, I'd do it by hand, in a tray. I should add, I used Ansco Plenachrome Film Packs for day work (Hot news). But I always used sheet film, Plenachrome, for rotogravure work.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craig Tuffin
I've been playing around with some x-ray in preparation for some salt prints. This was one that I shot recently and just scanned. Any idea what might be creating the artefacts in the sky area. I develop in a ziplock bag...could these be as a result of holding the bag too close to the safe light when inspecting? It was quite a short development time (5 mins)...could it be too short a development and as a result should I dilute my developer (PMK by the way) to allow for longer development?
Attachment 119718
We used to call those
"Tide Marks" It is an agitation problem. I've never done any kind of LF developing except in trays. One at a time. I do it the old, old fashioned way. Like plate development. Emulsion side up in a dry tray. tilt one end of the tray up a little, then pour 6 or so ounces of soup rapidly, but not hastily along the upper side. If you do it too fast, you may get air bubbles, too slow = different development top to bottom. Once the whole sheet is covered, agitate by raising one edge of the tray, and letting it down for 5 seconds or so, than keep on for the other sides (all four) of the tray. Let it rest for 30 seconds to one minute, repeat. Repeat every minute until negative looks a little over developed. A pretty accurate way to check development progress is when you think it's gone far enough, pull it out of the tray, look at it through the backside at the safelight. If it looks good, rinse it, hypo bath and rinse in at least in 6 changes of water for a total of a half hour or more. You still won't know if it's right until it has dried. Tide marks, when done this way, is usually from in-adequete agitation. Or "dropping" the tray during agitation.
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
I don't think that's true. If you cut the density in half everywhere, you still have the same range of tones, it's just half the density. That's important for alt. process but not traditional silver printing or scanning. Am I wrong?
I disagree about degraded tonalities but that's of course an opinion.
Readings with a densitometre will verify halving of the DR. I did it a few times to verify it. Also, side by side comparisons showed muddy tones and more grain with a stripped negative. No good for alt printing (carbon transfer, kallitype) imo.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Thank you for this! One more question though...how do you avoid uneven development when you have an emulsion side still in contact with the bottom of the tray (double emulsion film) and slow agitation? and how often would you then flip the film?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
premortho
We used to call those
"Tide Marks" It is an agitation problem. I've never done any kind of LF developing except in trays. One at a time. I do it the old, old fashioned way. Like plate development. Emulsion side up in a dry tray. tilt one end of the tray up a little, then pour 6 or so ounces of soup rapidly, but not hastily along the upper side. If you do it too fast, you may get air bubbles, too slow = different development top to bottom. Once the whole sheet is covered, agitate by raising one edge of the tray, and letting it down for 5 seconds or so, than keep on for the other sides (all four) of the tray. Let it rest for 30 seconds to one minute, repeat. Repeat every minute until negative looks a little over developed. A pretty accurate way to check development progress is when you think it's gone far enough, pull it out of the tray, look at it through the backside at the safelight. If it looks good, rinse it, hypo bath and rinse in at least in 6 changes of water for a total of a half hour or more. You still won't know if it's right until it has dried. Tide marks, when done this way, is usually from in-adequete agitation. Or "dropping" the tray during agitation.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
This sounds perfect but I can't find any 11"x14" hangers other than the ones at Wolfe supplies and they won't ship one hanger here to me here in Australia for under $100. Anyone with such a hanger they don't want....I think it's time I put a WTB in the classifieds section...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mdarnton
I quickly solved all my developing problems with hangers. No scratching, no uneven-ness, with double-sided film. I use only the Kodak 4a hangers, on which the u-section of the frames are tapered like an open-based V, so that they don't rest or stick against the film except at the very edge, but this still stops some developing nearby if I stand develop, so I agitate at 0,5, and 10 minutes for 15 min developing. I'm using D23 diluted 1:6, which was someone's suggestion early on in the x-ray developing thread, and haven't seen a reason to change. I've been using plastic 1 gallon 5x7 tanks with floating lids, and the developer stays good for at least 2 weeks in these--probably more, but I haven't tried. Four tanks (D76, D23, stop, fix) fit neatly into the plastic boot tray from next to my front door, so any mess is contained, and when it's not in use, I slide it all to the back of the counter, out of the way.
The negs are quite contrasty, but good, and they camera-scan better than regular film (see examples just above) and since I'm gearing up for carbon printing, they're probably going to be just right.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
blueribbontea
I reduce the contrast of the negative by cutting the time in the D-23 (using constant agitation) and then transferring the film to the second bath with intermittent agitation. The carbonate keeps the remaining D=23 working but it gets used up quickly in the heavily exposed areas, keeps working in the lighter exposed areas, a classic compensating technique. Some refer to it as a split D-23 but that's really inaccurate as the D-23 still has the alkaline accelerator in it. So far it has been my most successful method for reducing the inherently high contrast of the x-ray film. This negative printed on on Grade 3 paper, which is a good indicator.
Bill
So the second bath is basically the carbonate solution, but with whatevr d23 on the negative still being active - is that what you mean?
I havent used any of the D-xx developers, barring Dektol(IIRC, an old D-xx formula?), so I am not familiar with their properties.
Would the negative be printed on a lower grade paper otherwise? (to counter the high-contrast?)
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craig Tuffin
This sounds perfect but I can't find any 11"x14" hangers other than the ones at Wolfe supplies and they won't ship one hanger here to me here in Australia for under $100. Anyone with such a hanger they don't want....I think it's time I put a WTB in the classifieds section...
Use a bunch of clothes hangers, instead, maybe? Usually about that size, arent they?
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Craig Tuffin
Thank you for this! One more question though...how do you avoid uneven development when you have an emulsion side still in contact with the bottom of the tray (double emulsion film) and slow agitation? and how often would you then flip the film?
Well, as everybody who reads these knows (and are sick and tired of hearing about) I use Kodak Ektascan film. For two reasons. It is single sided, and it has an anti-halation backing. I use double sided "blue" film when I want that 1890's landscape look. I don't flip it over, I just pick it up in the tray so as to get developer action on the bottom. I've also tried using print tongs to pick it up and turn it over. But I'm not so skilled at that, and I end up wearing some of the developer. But I found that concentrating on developing just the top, and let the bottom look after itself and then bleaching off the back side, or bottom side works pretty good for me. A little trick I use is I just use a scizzors to "nip" off the upper right corner when I load the sheet film holders. That way I always know where the "up" side (the side that faces the lens) is.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
premortho
Well, as everybody who reads these knows (and are sick and tired of hearing about) I use Kodak Ektascan film. For two reasons. It is single sided, and it has an anti-halation backing. I use double sided "blue" film when I want that 1890's landscape look. I don't flip it over, I just pick it up in the tray so as to get developer action on the bottom. I've also tried using print tongs to pick it up and turn it over. But I'm not so skilled at that, and I end up wearing some of the developer. But I found that concentrating on developing just the top, and let the bottom look after itself and then bleaching off the back side, or bottom side works pretty good for me. A little trick I use is I just use a scizzors to "nip" off the upper right corner when I load the sheet film holders. That way I always know where the "up" side (the side that faces the lens) is.
Well, to add to the above on nipping the corner, always do the upper right corner. If you do it some other way, you'll be apt to make a mistake some day when you load film that has notches. As far as I know, all non-double emulsion film has the code notches in the upper right corner, which you load so that the emulsion faces the lens. We wouldn't want to get into any bad habits, now would we?
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
analoguey
So the second bath is basically the carbonate solution, but with whatevr d23 on the negative still being active - is that what you mean?
I havent used any of the D-xx developers, barring Dektol(IIRC, an old D-xx formula?), so I am not familiar with their properties.
Would the negative be printed on a lower grade paper otherwise? (to counter the high-contrast?)
Yes: The agitation in the second bath is necessary as it does not function as a water bath, but as a developer without its own developing agent (the Metol). I think that is the best way to explain it. The metol is carried over in the film from the D-23 and will of course be depleted in the process, mor quickly in the heavily exposed areas as they demand more metol. I do this to reduce the contrast of the negative and thus I can use a higher contrast paper. The main advantage is that I am protecting the highlights from blocking up. The addition to the water in the second bath could also be sodium metaborate, instead of sodium carbonate; Anschell's "The Darkroom Cookbook" explains the options pretty well. Good luck.
Bill
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
premortho
Where is here, analoguey? It is not "re-badged", it is re-named. In the United States, the name for this kind of marketing is "It's the same old whore, but in a new dress". Crude, but very descriptive. If you read my post #727 and 728, it will give all the info on the film, through the courtesy of Z&Z Medical, where I get the stuff. What I wrote in 727 was a direct quote from Kodak, Rochester's description. Ektascan is an orthochromatic film, which means it does not "see" red light. This affects exposure. It is quite slow in the early morning, and late afternoon. It is fastest between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM at my latitude (44 degrees). You should keep an eye out for a medium yellow filter. I can't reccomend a specific filter, because I'm sure you could never find what I use, which is a Burke&James Ingento 2X yellow filter. 2X means two times the exposure. The fact that this film has an anti-halation backing is a big plus, and, combined with the fact it is a single sided emulsion is why I use it. I would not start using this film with a home brewed developer. You will have to learn it's ideocincracies, so using a common developer simplifies the learning curve. I don't shoot enough film these days to use a short life developer, which is why I use Rodinal. I used to use D-72, 24-1, but it doesn't keep that long. Rodinal keeps for years in the bottle it comes in.
Here would be Bangalore, India -thought I had the location on profile but maybe thats on APUG, not here.
Anyhow, I can buy from the seller on an offline/face-to-face transaction, so it's good
I plan to use Dektol 1:7 or Xtol 1:3/1:4. I have so far had good results with conventional 4x5 film/paper with those combos.
From what I see, the post nos you refer to seem to be someone else's?
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
analoguey
Here would be Bangalore, India -thought I had the location on profile but maybe thats on APUG, not here.
Anyhow, I can buy from the seller on an offline/face-to-face transaction, so it's good
I plan to use Dektol 1:7 or Xtol 1:3/1:4. I have so far had good results with conventional 4x5 film/paper with those combos.
From what I see, the post nos you refer to seem to be someone else's?
I think I referred to the other x-ray folder on here. D-72 (Dectol) is what I used to use when I did more film processing. I had good luck using it at 1-24, usually for 10 minutes or so. I like 8-10 minute development as it builds contrast more slowly, giving more control. I used that 1-24 soup as a one-shot developer. I also use Rodinal (under whatever name) 1-64 or 1-100 because the stuff keeps forever in the original bottles. I've used Rodinal for over 70 years, except when I shot a lot of film every day (newspaper work) then I used D-72.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Two new additions:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5578/...93d85769_c.jpg
Mollie by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5572/...cff56616_c.jpg
Jorge by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)
Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 5 min. in tanks and hangers
8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min., toned in Moersch MT1 Selenium 1:10 2 min.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
This is something I've got up my sleeves for couples:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5560/...a95158f9_c.jpg
Tony & Kayt by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)
Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangers
Double 8x10 Contact Print on:
12"x16" Ilford MGFB Classic Matt, Moersch SE6 Blue 1:10 3 min., toned with Moersch MT1 Selenium 1:10 30 sec.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
My professor gave me a stack of old Kodak X-ray film envelopes. The do look old and making my first two test shots, I wonder how to determine sensitivity, and what to do about the fog I get.
The base here is really foggy, isn't it? On the left I just fixed a strip straight from the envelope, the strip on the right was cut in the dark and souped for 5 min and then fixed to get base fog. The photo on the right was also developed for 5 min. The photo on the left was exposed at 3 stops over 100ISO and developed for 2.5min (all in Refinal).
http://i.imgur.com/QLMwESl.jpg
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I made two more test shots today and would really appreciate an expert opinion.
Since everybody is talking about ISO 100 in this thread I metered as EI 100 and got 1/10 at f22. I made two shots.
- EV 12.6, f22, 1/10, developed for 6 min in Refinal
- EV 12.4, f22, 1s, developed for 2 min in Refinal
http://i.imgur.com/kUu7NLNl.jpg
The lower one was basically shot at EI 10, 3.3 stops "pull". Yet it looks so much better than the top metered at 100. And I held the incident meter in the midst of those flowers, they were not in the shadows. And somehow the table top is blown out in the top version. It got a much too strong contrast. So it can’t be "ISO 100", can it?
The margin has "K O D A°K XDM" imprinted on it.
http://imgur.com/7YBKEfol.jpg
How would I proceed here? I need to know what to meter, and how long to develop.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I haven't done a lot of x-ray film, but I need to shoot at EIs lower than 100 to get any shadow detail. There's an old saying, "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights." The only advice I can give, is increase exposure until you get some detail in the shadows, but not necessarily in the deepest shadows. Then adjust development time until the contrast is where you want it. The exposure and development time you end up might be a good deal different than what others are using or recommending, but if following their times does not give you the results you want, then go your own way.
If your films are old and expired, exposure and development times for fresh films probably won't work anyway.
What looks like base fog might be safelight fog. The X-ray films I use are very sensitive to even a deep red safelight. Try handling and developing a few sheets in total darkness and see if there is less fog.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
desertrat
What looks like base fog might be safelight fog. The X-ray films I use are very sensitive to even a deep red safelight. Try handling and developing a few sheets in total darkness and see if there is less fog.
Thanks for your clues, I have meanwhile made one more exposure series with two ColorCheckers (for the gray wedges and to judge color sensitivity) as EI 10, 12, 25, 50. Will also test souping times, and Rodinal.
The safelight can't be the cause of fog because in the image above, the narrow strip was taken out in the dark, developed in the dark, and fixed in the dark. The level of gray matches with the adjacent picture's holder margins.
Perhaps I should lay out some of the trimmings in the safelight for long periods to see how much fogging appears when.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
towolf
I made two more test shots today and would really appreciate an expert opinion.
Since everybody is talking about ISO 100 in this thread I metered as EI 100 and got 1/10 at f22. I made two shots.
- EV 12.6, f22, 1/10, developed for 6 min in Refinal
- EV 12.4, f22, 1s, developed for 2 min in Refinal
http://i.imgur.com/kUu7NLNl.jpg
The lower one was basically shot at EI 10, 3.3 stops "pull". Yet it looks so much better than the top metered at 100. And I held the incident meter in the midst of those flowers, they were not in the shadows. And somehow the table top is blown out in the top version. It got a much too strong contrast. So it can’t be "ISO 100", can it?
The margin has "K O D A°K XDM" imprinted on it.
http://imgur.com/7YBKEfol.jpg
How would I proceed here? I need to know what to meter, and how long to develop.
How long to develop is relatively easy. As long as you use a ruby red safelight. Or led's of the correct spectrum. Remember that X-ray film is orthochromatic. The amber safelight that many use for papers will cause fogging. I use the same safelight for both. Ruby red. A quick check of your safelight is with a cd. When you hold it up in front of a safelight, and you see anything but red off the cd, either the light is not good enough, or you have light leaks in your darkroom. Now, to develop. The way I've done this (about 70 years with ortho film), is to develop until the image looks over developed in the tray, pull it out and look at the red safelight through the back (non emulsion) side of the negative. When you see some shadow detail through the back side, put in the water tray, and don't agitate for at least 2 minutes, then the hypo, and wash. The reason for using a plain water bath without agitation is this allows more shadow detail to come through, as the developer, which is already exhausted in the high lights, will continue working on the shadows. How long to keep it in the water bath comes with experience. Fortunately or un-fortunately, successful photography is much more an art than it is a science. That is the joy of it, isn't it? New comers to this style of work tend to pull the film out of the developer too soon. That's why you look through the back side.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
now to exposure with a light meter. I use a Weston Master lll light meter, because it's the easiest one to use of the too many different kinds I have owned. To start with, go out and pick a general scene, one that does not have extensive interesting shadows, or blazing high lights,between 11 AM and 3 PM standard time, meter it (reflected light meter) and shoot it. Go inside and develop it the way I said in the above post. If the box says 80, shoot it at 80. Now you have a baseline exposure. Don't decide it is under-exposed until you print it. I exposed some Arista ortho-lith at 25 one time, developed it and the neg looked terribly under exposed, but when I printed it, it was fine. The print took a 45 second exposure, as I recall, but it was fine. I don't have a scanner, so I don't know how it would have looked with one. I had some of my 4X5's scanned by a friend of mine, and they weren't any where near as good as my wet prints. And I am not a great printer. I try to shoot so I can print it straight. OK. Why 11 to 3 for the time of day? Because that's when the sky has the least amount of red light. Earlier and later than that, and you have to extend exposure. Generally, one stop more exposure for every two hours earlier or later. I do not let my film spend a lot of time even exposed to a safelight. It will react even to red light given enough exposure. Hope all of this helps you.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
My old boots - baught them in 1977 - not quite time to throw them out.
CSX Green 8X10 / Reinholds 335mm Wollaston Meniscus
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...62/img353a.jpg
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Thank you for the break-down premortho. If you have 70 years of experience, you started with 15 and are 85? Then you have 5 years more experience than my father.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
premortho
How long to develop is relatively easy. As long as you use a ruby red safelight. Or led's of the correct spectrum. Remember that X-ray film is orthochromatic. The amber safelight that many use for papers will cause fogging. I use the same safelight for both. Ruby red.
I’m using a faint distant (behind the shoulder) darkroom red bulb and a flexible "torch" that I taped a Schott RG 2 filter (1% cut-off 622nm, higher than Kodak GBX-2) in front of, to be able to shine a less faint spot onto the table and move the tray into and out of the spot.
http://i.imgur.com/oIhw7yl.jpg
I’m able to develop by eye to a similar level of global exposure. But I’m still trying to figure out, which EI I should pick. I think 25 is reasonable in terms of practicality. But in my next example I also used EI 6 (far left) and got yet more detail in the shadow.
http://i.imgur.com/I3ryLb1l.jpg
Of course I will keep your method with the shadow detail and the long water stop in mind for the next time. Until now stop bath for me meant a rapid complete stop. Your idea is interesting. Perhaps this will give me that shadow detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by premortho
If the box says 80, shoot it at 80. Now you have a baseline exposure.
That’s my problem. The box doesn’t say anything. There’s no box. Just 138 brown envelopes. So I made a series 6, 10, 25, 50, 100 and developed them by eye to a "normal" global density. How do I pick the best combination? By taste?
Your points about the color of light are interesting. I have a Sekonic digital meter and the manual doesn’t list its spectral sensitivity. I want to shoot indoors and have a fairly daylight looking surface light. But I’m sure it goes towards the red end. Any tips about how much compensation "daylight color" fluorescent lights need? How about tungsten?
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
I picked up some Carestream/Ektascan B/RA this week from a forum member. In the interest of adding to the chorus of exposure and development tests, here is mine. I apologize for the boring photo, but I needed a nearby subject with a wide scene brightness range to see how well I could keep the contrast in check.
Camera: Pacemaker Speed Graphic
Lens: 210mm f/5.5 Hugo Meyer Doppel Anastigmat
Film: Ektascan B/RA
EI: 100
SBR: 6 stops (EV 10 to EV 16)
Meter: Pentax Digital Spot
Exposure: 1/4s @ f/45
Developer: HC-110 1:63 (dil. H) @ 68°F
Time: 4 minutes (rotary)
http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/4x5-EKTAS...03-4MinDev.jpg
Jonathan
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcoldslabs
I picked up some Carestream/Ektascan B/RA this week from a forum member. In the interest of adding to the chorus of exposure and development tests, here is mine. I apologize for the boring photo, but I needed a nearby subject with a wide scene brightness range to see how well I could keep the contrast in check.
Camera: Pacemaker Speed Graphic
Lens: 210mm f/5.5 Hugo Meyer Doppel Anastigmat
Film: Ektascan B/RA
EI: 100
SBR: 6 stops (EV 10 to EV 16)
Meter: Pentax Digital Spot
Exposure: 1/4s @ f/45
Developer: HC-110 1:63 (dil. H) @ 68°F
Time: 4 minutes (rotary)
Jonathan
I think it worked out quite well...
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
djdister
I think it worked out quite well...
It took four sheets worth of tests to get to this point. I am definitely happy with the range of tones. Now it's time to find a suitable subject and shoot some full 8x10 sheets.
J.
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Yeah, nice tones, looking forward to your "real" photos Jonathan! Hope you are doing well.
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Thanks, Bryan. Yeah, I'm OK, just still struggling to find my photo mojo is all. But I'm still lurking around here as much as ever even if my posts are few and far between.
J.
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcoldslabs
Thanks, Bryan. Yeah, I'm OK, just still struggling to find my photo mojo is all. But I'm still lurking around here as much as ever even if my posts are few and far between.
J.
I know the feeling :)
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
premortho
Oh yes, it is now called Kodak Carestream Ektascan B/RA film/4153. I buy mine from Z and Z medical in the USA. They have it in stock. How much the shipping will be, I don't know. I think 80 cents a sheet is a bargain for film with anti-halation backing.
Is this the film they list as "Green"? I can't find B/RA 4153 listed as such on their web site.
Thanks,
Jim
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Jim,
I think this is the stuff, although the photo they show with the listing is incorrect. This is the "blue" variety with a blue-tinted base. I just ordered a couple of 100 sheet boxes:
http://www.zzmedical.com/8x10-in-car...ideo-film.html
Jonathan
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Thanks Jonathan. i will appreciate it if you let me know what you receive.
Jim
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Noel
Thanks Jonathan. i will appreciate it if you let me know what you receive.
Jim
Will do.
J.
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcoldslabs
This is what I shoot and quite like it. :)
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jcoldslabs
I picked up some Carestream/Ektascan B/RA this week from a forum member. In the interest of adding to the chorus of exposure and development tests, here is mine. I apologize for the boring photo, but I needed a nearby subject with a wide scene brightness range to see how well I could keep the contrast in check.
Camera: Pacemaker Speed Graphic
Lens: 210mm f/5.5 Hugo Meyer Doppel Anastigmat
Film: Ektascan B/RA
EI: 100
SBR: 6 stops (EV 10 to EV 16)
Meter: Pentax Digital Spot
Exposure: 1/4s @ f/45
Developer: HC-110 1:63 (dil. H) @ 68°F
Time: 4 minutes (rotary)
http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/4x5-EKTAS...03-4MinDev.jpg
Jonathan
Beautiful exposure. Ektascan is hard to beat. Notice that there is no flare around the high lights. This is because Ektascan has an anti flare backing. So far as I know, Ektascan is the only X-ray film to be so coated.
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
They don't call it green in the sense other X-ray films are. It is even more orthochromatic than the green film. As a hypothisis, I would rate blue film the least orthochromatic, the green more so, and Ektascan the most orthochromatic of the films being currently manufactured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Noel
Is this the film they list as "Green"? I can't find B/RA 4153 listed as such on their web site.
Thanks,
Jim
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Ektascan is also made in 14x17, which I cut down to 11x14. The scrap is used for smaller formats.
I think only 8x10 is common.
I also plan to stock up as I beleive X-Ray film will not be available as long as regular film. Medical users are all switching to digital. Very quickly.
-
Re: X-ray Film example and comparison.
Thanks everyone. I found the listing. The cost is amazing at only $4 per 100 sheets more than the cheapest 8x10 lith film. My order goes in today.
Jim
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
first x-ray
kodak blue, 13x18 cm, iso 100, pyrocat hd on slavich matt, ilford mg developer
Attachment 120533
-
2 Attachment(s)
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
I still reccomend that you check that darkroom with a cd, using it as a prism. I don't know of any light meter that reads spectral sensitivity. If you don't have cd's over there, send me an e-mail with your address and I will send you one. The speed is usually about half as much under plain tungsten light. I use blue photo-floods or blue flash bulbs in order to keep the film speed "normal". No, my grandfather taught me darkroom at age 7, and I am now 76 1/2. For my 8th birthday he gave me his old pre-anniversary Speed Graphic. He had just gotten a 5X7 Speed Graphic, and told me that he didn't need the 4X5 "Speeder" (his name for a Speed Graphic) any more. My grandfather never had an enlarger, he contact printed everything. He started in photography in 1895, so between the two of us, that's almost 120 years. He started on glass plates. As soon as sheet film became easily accessable, he switched to that. I forgot to mention that electronic flash is supposed to be the same as daylight. By the way, when I check exposure, I never use a whole sheet of film. I cut 8X10 film in three strips, load them in three film holders and shoot them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
towolf
Thank you for the break-down premortho. If you have 70 years of experience, you started with 15 and are 85? Then you have 5 years more experience than my father.
I’m using a faint distant (behind the shoulder) darkroom red bulb and a flexible "torch" that I taped a Schott RG 2 filter (1% cut-off 622nm, higher than Kodak GBX-2) in front of, to be able to shine a less faint spot onto the table and move the tray into and out of the spot.
http://i.imgur.com/oIhw7yl.jpg
I’m able to develop by eye to a similar level of global exposure. But I’m still trying to figure out, which EI I should pick. I think 25 is reasonable in terms of practicality. But in my next example I also used EI 6 (far left) and got yet more detail in the shadow.
http://i.imgur.com/I3ryLb1l.jpg
Of course I will keep your method with the shadow detail and the long water stop in mind for the next time. Until now stop bath for me meant a rapid complete stop. Your idea is interesting. Perhaps this will give me that shadow detail.
That’s my problem. The box doesn’t say anything. There’s no box. Just 138 brown envelopes. So I made a series 6, 10, 25, 50, 100 and developed them by eye to a "normal" global density. How do I pick the best combination? By taste?
Your points about the color of light are interesting. I have a Sekonic digital meter and the manual doesn’t list its spectral sensitivity. I want to shoot indoors and have a fairly daylight looking surface light. But I’m sure it goes towards the red end. Any tips about how much compensation "daylight color" fluorescent lights need? How about tungsten?
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Great stuff Randy, Nino.
I tried out some Ektascan b/ra today. Shot it at iso 100 with the Kodak 305 portrait and 8x10 B&J
Developed some for 7 minutes in pyrocat hd 1:1:100 and it looked good visually, but lacked contrast. So it's a bit weaker than my eyes think at that combination.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5559/...b6d0f0c3_b.jpgektascanbra7m-pyrohd by philbrookjason, on Flickr
Developed another sheet at 11 minutes. Looks pretty bold for an xray negative and the contrast is just right for the scan. The bump on the left side of the histogram is the range between clear and film base. It's pretty big compared to normal film but is easy to edit out.
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3910/...6bb13942_b.jpg
ektascanbra-11m-pyrohd by philbrookjason, on Flickr
After a little curve/tone in PS
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3889/...c44c007d_c.jpg
img374 by philbrookjason, on Flickr
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
JP - When you scan the x-ray film select just the image and do your levels adjustments then select the whole image (8x10 frame lines). If you are including the frame lines in your levels adjustment then it will throw off your exposure slightly since it's counting the border as part of the exposed image.
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SergeiR
This looks great. What ISO did you use?
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jp
Great stuff Randy, Nino.
I tried out some Ektascan b/ra today. Shot it at iso 100 with the Kodak 305 portrait and 8x10 B&J
Developed some for 7 minutes in pyrocat hd 1:1:100 and it looked good visually, but lacked contrast. So it's a bit weaker than my eyes think at that combination.
Developed another sheet at 11 minutes. Looks pretty bold for an xray negative and the contrast is just right for the scan. The bump on the left side of the histogram is the range between clear and film base. It's pretty big compared to normal film but is easy to edit out.
After a little curve/tone in PS
It's weird that the histogram from the 7min developed negative is wider than that from the 11min developed one...
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Great idea axs810.
Tom, maybe the narrower histogram for 11 min shows film pushing and I need for exposure and less devel?
-
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ScottPhotoCo
This looks great. What ISO did you use?
Thanks, Tim. 100 as always.
