Hi guys! Is there a post already here about printing X-ray film on Silver gelatin paper? I was planning on testing my negs since i have some Foma papers. I just wonder how you guys tame the contrast etc..
Printable View
Hi guys! Is there a post already here about printing X-ray film on Silver gelatin paper? I was planning on testing my negs since i have some Foma papers. I just wonder how you guys tame the contrast etc..
Nice skintone! Itlooks like the Ektascan is not contrasty than other X-ray film (Fuji XRT Green).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott --
OK, you guys are ruining my life. All of this stuff is so beautiful! I just ordered a box of x-ray film to slice up for my 5x7. Another project--just what I needed. . . .
I think you should start off with Kodak Ectascan because it is single sided, so development is easier. Also look for a medium yellow filter, and try with and without. If you remember that it is an orthochromatic film (not sensitive to red light {they print as black}, you'll just do fine). Also, 5X7 is my favorite size. I really like the proportions. And, as my grandfather told me, smallest contact print that looks well hung on a wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
Get a 5x8 Chamonix instead and then it's less cutting :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
Stone, Helpful? Compassionate? Who was just looking for an 11x14 back on-the-cheap? Your photographically gifted and intelligent, try to be helpful too.... the smily face doesn't always make it funny.
But an 8x10 Deardorff would be even less! I have a friend who might lend me one. ..
What did you rate the film? 80 ISO? This looks like a winning combination. Contrast seems better tamed than my workflow with this film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott --
There are other cheaper 5x8's and I was semi-serious, if I were "into" the whole cutting down thing, I would certainly consider it.Quote:
Originally Posted by imagedowser
It wasn't meant to be smug, in fact, I contacted Chamonix to ask them (for this guy I just made the comment to) if they would create or had created an "insert" that could be used so that 5x7 holders could be used in the 5x8 camera, as I think some kind of "spacer" would be handy to just slide into the back or somehow attach to a standard 5x7 to extend the holder, the answer was just that they would make a reducing back to 5x7 which is a lot bulkier than I was thinking.
Anyway the point is it wasn't meant to be a smug comment, on the contrary I was serious (hence the due diligence on the "insert" invention I was thinking about).
Sorry that didn't translate well. But I think the 5x8 idea is pretty great, enables you to have way more options, including Velvia50/100, Provia100f, Ektar100/Portra160/400(without special order) and a number of other B&W films not cut in 5x7 and cutting in half is a LOT easier than cutting in half and then having to cut another side at a different length and hoping both cuts are precise enough not to fall out of the holder.
Sorry again if that wasn't helpful.
As far as my "on the cheap" goes, I have a priority system of what's worth the "big bucks" and what's worth scrounging for. And it comes down to application. I doubt I'll be hiking around with an 11x14 so any camera that will fit in my car is sufficient to me, but the Chamonix 8x10 is light enough to hike with, so I'll save for over a year and spend the big bucks to get one. Same with lenses, the fujinon 600 C is the ultimate for light hiking with any kind of reach, and the IC is incredible, so I'm willing to spend the money to get one (even if I will try and find a deal of possible) but a 1200mm is going to be too heavy in any iteration for me to hike with so if I ever find one cheap I'll snag it but I won't pay a lot for one because I don't see it as a value if it's a brick. This might sound crazy to you but that's just how I see things. So if I'm going to buy any 5x7/5x8 it should be ultra light, and frankly Chamonix is the only game out there, so I suggested it. I think there are some old wooden cameras in 5x8 to be had for a few hundred bucks, but you'll probably still have to buy the Chamonix holders as any other ones are scarce (though I just saw a member here sell 7 of them used so the deals are out there if you are patient!).
Ok I'm going to go play with my new Chamonix now...
Angus, I rate at EI100. But my experience with this stuff is that it's more forgiving on exposure than it is on developing; compared to the arista I usually use, moves in, say, 10% of developing time (rotary) or tweaks in dilution of Adanol have pretty pronounced effects on contrast. For example, I shot this today:
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2914/...339d30e4e9.jpgimg234 by Scott --, on Flickr
I pulled the developing to 6:30 at 20C (a reduction of about 12%) and contrast was usable. At 7:20 it would have been outside the realm of my scanner (4990).
All that said, there are a lot of variables that come together. I'm using an old Petzval that's marked 14", though looks to be more of 16", so the aperture may be f/6, or f/5, or somewhere in between. I'm metering, say, 1/10 at f/5.6, adding a couple stops for estimated bellows factor, guess at how long the Packard is open. The shot of the boys was taken with the Instantaneous setting on the Packard, so about 1/30. But there is a lot of room for slop, and I'm scanning and printing digitally, so the whole process is actually fairly workable.