Well obviously. X-rays go straight through ghosts... :cool:
Neil
Printable View
Well obviously. X-rays go straight through ghosts... :cool:
Neil
That 14 second exposure didn't catch the ghosts because they were floating around... ;)
My ghost photo, shot on x-ray film (staying on topic) a couple of years ago. Click through for the story:
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8763/...fc813f44_c.jpg
My Father Visits
by Michael Darnton, on Flickr
+1.
Made from 14x17 green latitude, double-sided. Top and bottom of negative cropped...actually, cut away with scissors. EI 100. Pyrocat-HD.
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4560/...799b34ed_b.jpgCoquihalla River Rock by Andrew O'Neill, on Flickr
I've got a lot more reading to do, but have been looking around a bit for more information on the differences between x-ray films. (Yeah, I know it's cheap and I can just try any type because of that, but I like to learn.)
At this google patents page, I found the following quote:
"Radiographic Film 2-A is commercially available Carestream MXG (TMG) radiographic film that is considered to be a high contrast, low exposure latitude radiographic film. This film is coated onto a transparent blue support.
Film 2-B is commercially available Carestream TMAT-S (TMS) radiographic film that is considered to be a medium contrast radiographic film. This film is coated onto a transparent blue support.
Film 2-C is commercially available Carestream TMAT-L (TML) radiographic film. It is considered to be a low contrast radiographic film with wide exposure latitude. This film is coated onto a transparent blue support."***
I don't know enough to venture much opinion on this, but some of my reading has shown that folks think x-ray film, in general, is high in contrast. Maybe this quote can spark some discussion. I know so little that I'm not even sure if these particular films are even all available. I just thought folks might find it helpful.
It is high in contrast by nature. If I develop a sheet the same way I develop a sheet of HP5, I cannot work with it. By diluting the developer, I can end up with a continuous tone negative. Negatives that I can print on silver, or alt processes such as Carbon and Kallitype. Xray is not my main film though, mostly due to it not being a pan film... One can still make some lovely images with it.
I did a comparison with some "1/2 Speed Blue" that a friend sent me, and my usual stock of "Green sensitive" film. I did just one test - shot both at the same speed and developed in the same chemistry - the Green had way, way more shadow detail than the Blue but the highlights looked about the same. I am guessing playing with development could help, but I decided to just proceed with my "Green". I have no idea if any were 2-A, B, or C.
For the new person. All X-Ray is on a blue tint base that does not come off. It's blue to make it easier on Dr eyes.
Xray film was never intended for pictorial use- It's a happy discovery by the OP -go backbackbackback
As such, it has
NO ASA,
NO ISO
Those are STANDARDS done in a particular way .
ANd Aero film stock has no ASA/ISO for pictorial work
Jim Galli tried AEro Plus X and used his experience to quickly zero in.
I studied the CI curve/times, scratched my skull and came up about where his Jimness did, by exposing and developing some.
Back to Big X
What y'all folks need is EXPERIENCE of your own to find an EI appropriate to the tools and chemicals you have-.
Buy cheap at first- ya gotta TRY IT see above.
When you learn some THEN buy some expensive Fujak or KoJI- who knows maybe brand YZ actually is - or not.
And blue background- gee variable contrast paper uses TWO emulsions Blue for highest contrast, Green for lowest.
But that's a nuance until you spend a few cheap sheets to determine the ballpark for exposure/development.
I repeat
Pick an EI for a medium speed film - say 80-160- maybe even 200.
I did that
The first neg was too thin, so I upped the amount of concentrated developer in the tray
The second was VERY contrasty, so I tweaked for more exposure and less developer time
So it's practically painless and it works
First try developers and times given for medium speed films- Usta be that such times were published and varied to achieve certain Contrast Index values-
not that you need to measure CI, but to see how time might need to be varied, or dilution changed .
Stop reading-start DOING