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

Cut a piece of paper and try it.

I could send you a test sheet, but I don't have a film bag that size.

I could cut one in half and just mail it exposed...

You pay postage, I will send.

But it is simply 7" exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photoevangelist

I might have to bite the bullet and try a box. Wonder if they give samples... hmmmmm 17.78 cm should be okay for my holders.

---

Look at the light leaks here.

http://www.shootingfilm.net/2013/01/...camera-by.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photoevangelist

I'd do it, but the post processing would be a nightmare. I can only really get 20x24 paper here and don't know how I'd be able to contact print it. But you can bet I've been looking at Darren's camera and thinking hard about it.

---

I think that was some of his first works. I read through his blog and I think he solved that issue for the most part. It's all part of the process for me. On my 8x10 scans, I left the scanned tape marks from holding it to the AN glass - it's part of the process to remind the viewer... it's not digital. It used to be we tried to leave all of that stuff out to make our work perfect, now for me I don't mind leaving some of those imperfections in the final print. If I wanted super clean and perfect I might just be shooting digital still.

7 inches exactly... got it. I'll try to hunt down an inches ruler and try cutting it down soon - or just round the metric conversion to 178 mm. I'm anxious to shoot with the 7x17, but don't want to mess up my HP5+ just yet. I'm trying to stay away from cutting down 14x17 inch xray so I can KISS....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

Look at the light leaks here.

---

development, imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photoevangelist

It used to be we tried to leave all of that stuff out to make our work perfect, now for me I don't mind leaving some of those imperfections in the final print.

---

Avedon is credited to be first of commercial photographers to leave in sheet edges in final prints ;) Didnt stop people from loving them , in fact it was (is) replicated as part of "artistic touch" ;)

Actually Darren has solved a lot of his light leak problems and his prints are looking nice. Went to a show of his a couple of month ago and bought one of his prints. 14"x36" is an awesome format.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

I looked into Darren's big camera, and his shots all have lots of light leaks. Too much for me.

Lot's of stuff about it.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/30/t...-pretty-great/

---

I'm not criticizing, but simply observing difficulties of scaling up.

His work, story and execution is fascinating.

Is he the only only person shooting that format?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SergeiR

development, imho.

---

I found these, bought 2, there are 4 left.

I have not yet used 14x17, but thought these may be good when I do.

While looking I found X-Ray hangers for 3.5X17" film, now that's pano! No I didn't see any film that size.



http://www.ebay.com/itm/290912996741...84.m1439.l2649

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Thoms

Actually Darren has solved a lot of his light leak problems and his prints are looking nice. Went to a show of his a couple of month ago and bought one of his prints. 14"x36" is an awesome format.

Roger

---

Nice!

Thanks for the link to the "great big camera" - pretty neat!
I'm not enamored of the landscape here in the deep south...Clyde Butcher can have it (I'm not going wading in chest-deep water to get the shot, sorry!). But if I do move somewhere that I feel speaks to me...I think a 7x17 or 14x17 is in my future. I can just fit 14x17 onto my scanner bed (!).