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

Ok, this is interesting to me.

In my testing process of this Kodak Ektascan Mammography x-ray film I shot two frames of each subject. One at 100 asa and the following at 80 asa. In the first set of images I processed them both the same way (Tray, 20 mins in Adinol 1:100) and compared the results. The contrast was quite good and it was looking like I was going to rate this film somewhere between 100-160 depending on lighting conditions.

After looking at some of the uneven development on one of the last images I processed I went to Flickr and looked up other images made on this film that looked good and asked questions. It was recommended to use a shorter development time, lower asa and continuous agitation. As I still had my 80 asa image yet to be developed I decided to try this to compare to the 100 asa semi-stand(ish) development I tried previously.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7292/9...03b31314_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_80fs1-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Shot at 80 asa for 1 second at f6.3
I did seem to have a bit of a light leak on the right but this shouldn't affect the processing.

8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 6 minutes. Continuous agitation.
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Late afternoon direct sun
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro using the Epson software with no additional adjustments

General observations:
The processing seems much more even. Tones are even but overall the image is much flatter. I don't personally care as much for this image as it feels quite lifeless and not engaging to me.

Next steps:
I have another 2 shots in this test series to process. I am going to process the one shot at 100 asa for 20 minutes with 10 second agitation every minute to see what this does. My goal will be to smooth the development issues yet still keep the nice contrast of the originals. Once I see how that turns out I can decide how I want to process the second image shot at 80 asa.

Here is the partner image to the one above for comparison. Shot at 100 asa and Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then at 10 mins for 30 seconds
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3773/9...1b3f27b8_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_100fs.5-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr

I will be ordering tanks from an LFF member here soon to see how that works for me as well. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottPhotoCo

Ok, this is interesting to me.

In my testing process of this Kodak Ektascan Mammography x-ray film I shot two frames of each subject. One at 100 asa and the following at 80 asa. In the first set of images I processed them both the same way (Tray, 20 mins in Adinol 1:100) and compared the results. The contrast was quite good and it was looking like I was going to rate this film somewhere between 100-160 depending on lighting conditions.

After looking at some of the uneven development on one of the last images I processed I went to Flickr and looked up other images made on this film that looked good and asked questions. It was recommended to use a shorter development time, lower asa and continuous agitation. As I still had my 80 asa image yet to be developed I decided to try this to compare to the 100 asa semi-stand(ish) development I tried previously.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7292/9...03b31314_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_80fs1-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Shot at 80 asa for 1 second at f6.3
I did seem to have a bit of a light leak on the right but this shouldn't affect the processing.

8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 6 minutes. Continuous agitation.
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Late afternoon direct sun
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro using the Epson software with no additional adjustments

General observations:
The processing seems much more even. Tones are even but overall the image is much flatter. I don't personally care as much for this image as it feels quite lifeless and not engaging to me.

Next steps:
I have another 2 shots in this test series to process. I am going to process the one shot at 100 asa for 20 minutes with 10 second agitation every minute to see what this does. My goal will be to smooth the development issues yet still keep the nice contrast of the originals. Once I see how that turns out I can decide how I want to process the second image shot at 80 asa.

Here is the partner image to the one above for comparison. Shot at 100 asa and Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then at 10 mins for 30 seconds
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3773/9...1b3f27b8_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_100fs.5-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr

I will be ordering tanks from an LFF member here soon to see how that works for me as well. :)

---

Hi Scott, will you tell me just how you went about scanning with the Epson scanner. I've herd of folks using pennies supporting Anti-Nuton glass, and the neg. placed on top. Did you do this or use the neg holder that comes with the scanner. I have a new one, and want to use it on 8x10 work. I like how yours turned out. Could you share your technique
Thanks. R.W.Delung The Seattle Guy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdelung

Hi Scott, will you tell me just how you went about scanning with the Epson scanner. I've herd of folks using pennies supporting Anti-Nuton glass, and the neg. placed on top. Did you do this or use the neg holder that comes with the scanner. I have a new one, and want to use it on 8x10 work. I like how yours turned out. Could you share your technique
Thanks. R.W.Delung The Seattle Guy

---

Honestly, I just put the negative directly on the glass and scanned. No special sauce or adjustments. I had to use the Epson software as the Silverfast limited the size of the scanning area for some reason.

Happy to help further if I can be of assistance.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

]I have a couple of questions for the x-ray shooters...

Where do you usually get your x-ray film from?

Google "x-ray film" and take your choice.

Does it have an ISO rating like color/bw film?

NO. But it seems most people are getting around 100, plus or minus a stop for medium speed green anyway.


Can I use my regular b/w chemicals to develope it?
Yes

I'm assuming you have to cut it down to 4x5 or what ever size you want to shoot.


It doesn't come in 4x5 so if that's the size you need, yes

I have a close friend who I'v take images of her daughters. She runs an OBGYN clinic. I may be able to obtain film there.

If it hasn't gone digital. And why not just order it online? Its dirt cheap.

Quote:

---

I wonder if someone can write an x-ray film article for the LF homepage? I might be willing to actually, or contribute. I'm not the best writer.

---

I wrote an article for a talk that I gave a while back. It's based on my personal experience/workflow. If anyone's interested, I could post it tomorrow. I too am not the best writer!

I always say never stop a volunteer.

Have at it. It is long overdue.

Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

I wrote an article for a talk that I gave a while back. It's based on my personal experience/workflow. If anyone's interested, I could post it tomorrow. I too am not the best writer!

---

Well, I tried but I haven't a clue how to go about getting the article on this site. Ken Lee suggested that I ask all the moderators. I tried QT Luong, but his message box is full.

On this page you can contact all mods at once.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...rules_faq_item

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Well, I tried but I haven't a clue how to go about getting the article on this site. Ken Lee suggested that I ask all the moderators. I tried QT Luong, but his message box is full.

---

Thanks. I got the info from Ken. I soon heard from Ralph Barker.

So, will it be posted? :)

I think there is a need so we can direct people to it, as it seems many are unwilling to read the complete existing threads.

btw, I have read all I can find here and elsewhere.

And I am still working with it. Very affordable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Thanks. I got the info from Ken. I soon heard from Ralph Barker.

---