Use of X-ray film: technical discussion with example images

It's sharp enough for contact printing. Yes, it's due to emulsion on both sides. My carbon prints look very nice. I've never tried to enlarge with it and I don't entend to.
I don't understand how a formalin pre-soak would work as a hardener. Wouldn't the film have to be dried first so that the formalin can "harden" the emulsion?

Also, placing a sheet of glass in the developer tray is a good idea, but my trays are flat bottomed and smooth, so not necessary. The key is to use minimal, gentle agitation. I tried the ziplock bag method, and it worked very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

It's sharp enough for contact printing. Yes, it's due to emulsion on both sides. My carbon prints look very nice. I've never tried to enlarge with it and I don't entend to.
I don't understand how a formalin pre-soak would work as a hardener. Wouldn't the film have to be dried first so that the formalin can "harden" the emulsion?

Also, placing a sheet of glass in the developer tray is a good idea, but my trays are flat bottomed and smooth, so not necessary. The key is to use minimal, gentle agitation. I tried the ziplock bag method, and it worked very well.

---

I was thinking that if you could run the film in the formalin pre-soak before processing it would make it easier to handle the film without scratches. But it might not work as the formalin could render the emulsion useless so I just wondering if anyone had actually tried a pre-soak. Maybe this has already been answered but the thread is very long.

Sandy

As I understand it, the formalin presoak is primarily for "tropical" or high temperature development, and prevents the emulsion from swelling. I have no idea if this would help with xray film.

Regarding the (lack of) sharpness, only on rare occasions do I see the sort of bleeding highlights I would expect from the second emulsion causing halation. Rather the emulsion (for lack of a better adjective) seems thin--lacking body and depth--which often means that the "razor" sharp edges are absent. Of course, this is largely irrelevant with most alt processes. I do notice however that when I use studio strobes or in contrasty and directional outdoor light, the film is notably sharper than when I with diffuse light.

And I imagine the type of light used in the exposure system would have an effect on sharpness. A point source system like halogen perhaps would be slighty sharper than a a bank of uv flourescent tubes.

Today I developed a sheet of x-ray film in a zip lock bag but this time I inflated the bag with air after I poured in 2 litres of developer. It was then placed in an 11x14, flat-bottomed tray. Why did I inflate the bag? This way the top side of the bag won't touch the film and makes agitation a lot easier. Because I blew in air from my mouth, the temperature of developer after development rose from 20C to 21C. I now know that I am full of hot air...
A bit of water in the same tray set to 20C should control the temperature.
Film is scratch free.
Sandy, if you read this I'll bet you could develop a 20x24 sheet in a black plastic 20x24 photo paper bag.

Andrew
What developer and why so much?
Please and thankyou
And Jason , don't forget the stripping of one emulsion side technique- that should tell us if it's the diffusion due to the base or the emulsion- my WAG is that a slow ortho emulsion should/would/could be pretty sharp on its own.
But NO GUESSING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdWorkman

...And Jason , don't forget the stripping of one emulsion side technique- that should tell us if it's the diffusion due to the base or the emulsion- ...

---

Somewhere earlier on this thread someone reported stripping one side of the emulsion, and as I recall, the difference in sharpness did not appear significant.

I tried a goofy thing a while back just for fun. I added 4 grams of glycin to D76 and it knocks the contrast on identical sheets back about 1 stop.. It's easy to do and I just ordered some 11x14 x-ray film to play with so can contribute more once I have exposed and developed some...Evan Clarke

I just finished developing a sheet of Blue in a ziplock bag. Pyrocat HD in glycol .75-.75-100 oz. 15 min 68 degress agitate by flipping the bag 3 cyles , 15 sec per minute. I poured 16 oz in the bag and inserted the film. This amount let the film sit just above the level of liquid [ 10 '' horizontal, 8'' vert] until turned it flat.
NO SCRATCHES as reported,
but
a strip of high density along one edge- could possibly be not procedure related, but that edge was nearest the bottom of the bag, hmmmm.
Bad news- I did a presoak in a different bag and transferred the wet neg to the develope bag, leving my prints in the middle of the top long edge of the neg, sigh.
Neg try will be presoak in the bag and pour the developer onto the film. As pyro is so dilute I fear/expect Mackie lines, i hope the presoak will solve that. But I have to think on this more before I jump in again. The neg is still wet, so no conclusions about how it will print on VC- I think I might increase develope time a bit. As I struggled to get the neg into the bag, I pulled it out and trayed it in TF-4 fixer.
If I just had several more thumbs.

I decided to check out this films response to long exposures. Someone earlier said that this film is not affected by reciprocity effect. Not true.
Please see attachment of curves for 1, 10, and 100 second curves. The 1/8s curve is my reference curve. You can see that there is considerable speed loss even at 1 second.
I also carried out a tonal/colour response comparison with conventional b/w film. I'll upload later.

I forgot to mention that the film was Green Latitude type and was exposed under my enlarger with a 31 Stouffer step tablet. ND filters were used rather than stopping the lens down. Developed in Rodinol 1+50. Tray.

FWIW, I made some ~10s exposures on CXS green latitude, tungsten light, side-by-side with some Fomapan 100, and found the Green latitude substantially faster than the Fomapan 100 at those conditions. The fomapan shots were unusable; the xray film shots were thin but usable. Of course Fomapan 100 has really poor reciprocity characteristics as many have found, but CXS green latitude was better.

Fomapan 100 must be pretty bad then. Out of all the films that I have used, the x-ray film has the worst reciprocity characteristics.

I would be very grateful if any x-ray green latitude film users the next time you're out shooting, if you could apply my reciprocity effect data to your exposure. Works for me, but curious to know if it would work for you. Thankyou. :)

Here is a rough tonal/colour sensitivity comparison between X-ray and TMY-2.
Green does appear slightly lighter and yellow and beyond, darker.
I do not have a film scanner, so please excuse the poor quality.

You guys got me!. I received a 100 sheet box of 11x14 green latitude Kodak film today. At least it's only $.50 a pop!!..Evan Clarke

Hello, could artificial light from clasic mirror lightbulbs cause strong underexposure when used with green sensitive film? I have done some portraits with these bulbs, and the film is allmost clear. (face is in zone 2?) When i prolonged the time for maybe 3EV it looks much better. Thank you...

May I ask why you placed the face on zone II?

Indeed. Zone II plus 3EV would still be about a stop under, at least it seems to me.

As I said above, I have shot some still lifes with this film, lit with plain tungsten lightbulbs. Despite the tunsten color balance working against it, it was faster when shot this way, than Foma 100 which I shot side-by-side with xray. So I'd say that it works fine under tungsten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

May I ask why you placed the face on zone II?

---

No, the face FALL in zone II :) I want only to say, that there is only very minor texture on the negative. Sorry, i wrote it maybe wrong. (my English is weak) I have used exposure from incident light. And everything was underexposed... So, when the film is not sensitive to reds and the light from the bulbs is also reddish - this is maybe the problem...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

Does the lack of sharpness come from the coating on both sides? And is all of the xray film coated on both sides? Jim Fitzgerald is using this stuff for carbon transfer printing, which is a very sharp process, (with ULF negatives at that) and I can not imagine that he would be using the stuff if it did not give sharp results.

Sandy King

---

Well, everyone I'm back. Sorry for the delay. Computer problems and life events in the way.
I have gotten great results using the green sensitive film for my carbon work. The film is very sharp (in my opinion). I've used old and new lenses and love what I get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

I would be very grateful if any x-ray green latitude film users the next time you're out shooting, if you could apply my reciprocity effect data to your exposure. Works for me, but curious to know if it would work for you. Thankyou. :)

---

Andrew, thanks for this info. Next time I'm out I'll give it a try. In the past I've not used any reciprocity factors in my exposure and have been very satisfied with the results. So i'll see what happens.

Jim

Jim, how long are your exposures usually?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Jim, how long are your exposures usually?

---

Andrew, they can generally run from about 20 seconds to a couple of minutes or more.

Jim

I read this whole series of posts only because x-ray film comes on a thicker base than the arista ortho I usually use. I was afraid the thin base arista ortho would sag or buckle in 8X10. I was turned off by the scratch problems 'till I read about the zip-loc bag process, which sounds so promising I'm going to have to try it.

and be very careful loading your film holders.

The scratches are really bothersome. I definately do not enjoy them on my film. Had an idea to throw a sheet through my Durst print processor to see what happens. Then decided I didn't want emulsion stuck to all of my rollers........

But for the hell of it, I just gave Dektol (1:2, 18C) a go on two frames I shot and it works great. Zero scratches on the second sheet in the minute they were in the trays. Cutting back that time in there, cuts back on the risks of scratching.

Bottom sheet scratched up some on the bottom of the tray. And it was just laid there. Stand developed for the duration. So I'm thinking there isn't any way around those scratches. Though it does look like that one sheet on bottom protects the next sheet from becoming scratched up. Like I said, zero scratches.

Negatives look great but are still drying. I'll try to do some prints tommorow to really see how good it worked.

Could you keep a sheet of fixed out film to place on the bottom and protect the sheet being developed?

Guys, 8x10 in hangers in tanks. Zero scratches.

Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by venchka

Could you keep a sheet of fixed out film to place on the bottom and protect the sheet being developed?

---

Yes, it works very well. I have used this method for 11x14 and 8x10 before I got hangers and scratches were pretty much eliminated. The film does have to be flipped so each side is evenly developed but if the film on the bottom of the tray is larger than the sheet you're developing, it's easy.

Doing a marathon print session in my darkroom late last night and had a last-minute urge to grab an exposed sheet and feed it into my Durst processor before I shut her down. Worked very well but I did end up with minor scratches (not deep into the emulsion) where it came into contact with something. They're very uniform lines so I'll see if I can track down what caused it and see if it's something that can be remedied.

Hangers definately would be the best remedy. But I haven't found any shops these days carrying any........Plenty of tanks. No hangers to go with them.

Quote:

---

The scratches are really bothersome. I definately do not enjoy them on my film. Had an idea to throw a sheet through my Durst print processor to see what happens. Then decided I didn't want emulsion stuck to all of my rollers........

---

I prefer to use a ziplock bag with developer poured inside. The bag combo is placed in a flat bottom tray. Puff a bit of air inside the bag, seal, and Bob's yer uncle. You won't need as much solution as you would with the hanger/tank method.
I'm currently working on some xray green latitude film and pyrocat-hd curves using 1+1+200 and 1+1+100 dilution. I also have curves for Rodinol. works very well with this developer. A few months ago I generated some reciprocity data that has been serving me well. I do believe I posted it here somewhere.

When developing large prints in the darkroom, I place a sheet of glass in the tray the same size as the bottom of the tray. This has eliminated scratches on the prints. Would the same thing work for x-ray film?

Question: The X-ray film I am looking at comes in 1. Medium speed green; 2. Half speed blue; 3. Full speed blue and 4. High speed green. I get the difference between the blue and green. Does the speed of the film make much difference in the final image? Is the high speed more contrasty? Anyone know the equivalent EI rating for the medium/half speed films and the high/full speed films?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

I prefer to use a ziplock bag with developer poured inside. The bag combo is placed in a flat bottom tray. Puff a bit of air inside the bag, seal, and Bob's yer uncle. You won't need as much solution as you would with the hanger/tank method.
...

---

Wow, thats a great idea! I think I'll try it tomorrow!

And, for those ULF sizes...

Ziploc® Brand Big Bags are available in three big sizes:
•L equivalent to 3 Gallon (11.4L) 1.25 FT. x 1.25 FT. (38.1cm x 38.1cm) 5ct.
•XL equivalent to 10 Gallon (37.8L) 2 FT. x 1.7 FT. (60cm x 51 cm) 4ct.
•XXL equivalent to 20 Gallon (75.7L) 2 FT. x 2.7 FT. (60cm x 82 cm) 3ct.

Two questions on development. Since x-ray film has an emulsion on both sides, should you use twice the normal amount of developer? (I'm thinking of developer exhaustion.) For replenishment in a deep tank, would you need twice as much replenisher?

Thanks!

[QUOTE=Andrew O'Neill;641882]I prefer to use a ziplock bag with developer poured inside. The bag combo is placed in a flat bottom tray. Puff a bit of air inside the bag, seal, and Bob's yer uncle. You won't need as much solution as you would with the hanger/tank method.

great thanks:) :) :)

[QUOTE=AF-ULF;649920]When developing large prints in the darkroom, I place a sheet of glass in the tray the same size as the bottom of the tray. This has eliminated scratches on the prints.

great idea thanks:) :) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

I prefer to use a ziplock bag with developer poured inside. The bag combo is placed in a flat bottom tray. Puff a bit of air inside the bag, seal, and Bob's yer uncle. You won't need as much solution as you would with the hanger/tank method.
I'm currently working on some xray green latitude film and pyrocat-hd curves using 1+1+200 and 1+1+100 dilution. I also have curves for Rodinol. works very well with this developer. A few months ago I generated some reciprocity data that has been serving me well. I do believe I posted it here somewhere.

---

Andrew, may I ask your agitation routine and pyrocat dilution when developing in ziplock bags?

Sorry but just reading your question now...

Pyrocat-hd is diluted 10ml's part A + 10ml's part B + 1000ml's water. Film gets constant agitation for one minute, then about 5secs every 30 sec for remaining time. My development time is quite long as they are intended for carbon transfer printing.
I have also had success with a much stronger dilution (500ml's water instead of 1000ml's). Development time is cut from 17:00 to 8:00. My normal EI is 125.

Going down to the darkroom now to see what stripping of the emulsion on the backside of the film will do for me...

If you are a carbon printer (or alt printer for that matter), who requires a negatives with long DR's, then stripping the emulsion away from the backside of xray film is not a good idea. I took a negative that had a DR of 2.20, stripped it ending up with a DR of 1.00. So to get more DR, I developed another sheet for twice the time getting a DR of 2.31. Not much of an increase in DR. After stripping the DR was 1.13. The stripped negative also had poorer tonal separation, especially in the highlights (worse for the film that received extended development) than the unstripped negative.
Contact printed, unstripped xray film in carbon looks pretty good. Not as sharp as TMY, but acceptable.
No stripping for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon.oman

Two questions on development. Since x-ray film has an emulsion on both sides, should you use twice the normal amount of developer? (I'm thinking of developer exhaustion.) For replenishment in a deep tank, would you need twice as much replenisher?

Thanks!

---

Does anyone know the answer to these questions?

Yes. You've doubled the surface area to be developed so you need to factor that in for your chemistry.

As for replenisher, is it not based on how much film you have developed? In which case you would replenish sooner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Sorry but just reading your question now...

Pyrocat-hd is diluted 10ml's part A + 10ml's part B + 1000ml's water. Film gets constant agitation for one minute, then about 5secs every 30 sec for remaining time. My development time is quite long as they are intended for carbon transfer printing.
I have also had success with a much stronger dilution (500ml's water instead of 1000ml's). Development time is cut from 17:00 to 8:00. My normal EI is 125.

Going down to the darkroom now to see what stripping of the emulsion on the backside of the film will do for me...

---

Thanks for your reply. Sorry, I dont seem to be subscribed to this thread and only read your answer now.

I have been having trouble with marks in the sky or wherever there is a large area of a paler tone, except with 1:1:200 Pyrocat M.

Anyway I need negs with a density range of +-log 3 so am going back to BTZS tubes and 1:1:50 as sugested in another thread with 12-15 min.

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WayneStevenson

Yes. You've doubled the surface area to be developed so you need to factor that in for your chemistry.

As for replenisher, is it not based on how much film you have developed? In which case you would replenish sooner.

---

Thanks!

Here are few images from X ray film for your to preview. I process them in a 20x24 tray, 4 (8x10 ) sheets at a time. 6 min with D76. Great density for Carbon/ Platinum Print.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3...ystalcove4.jpg

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8...ystalcove3.jpg

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5...ystalcove1.jpg

Tri, very nice. Good to see the other one. easy as can be!

TT, can you offer your type of X-ray film (green...blue?) and the ISO you are using?
Also, your agitation method and dilution in D-76?
I just got a 100 sheet box of the CSX Green sensitive but haven't opened it yet.

Randy, Tri and I shoot green sensitive x-ray film. I'm not sure what agitation he uses but in the tray we were rocking it while talking under the red safelight. I wasn't paying close attention. We were also doing some of my first 14x17 negatives. We both use ISO 80 metering the shadows to Zone IV. I'm not sure of his dilution but I'm sure Tri will chime in. Tray developed and I do mine in tanks in Pyrocat-HD.

Jim and Tri, in the tray, you didn't flip the film during agitation?

Also, was the tray flat on the bottom or did it have ridges? Some have said you must use the flat bottom trays to minimize scratching of the emulsion.