To me, I would strengthen the developer. It all seems to be there, just thin.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp
Printable View
To me, I would strengthen the developer. It all seems to be there, just thin.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp
Thank you sir. With the Ektascan I have found different sensitivities dependent on light. I now shoot it at ISO 80 in the shade and under artificial light and at ISO 125 in most sunlight applications. If split sun/shade with the main subject focus in the shade I'll split it at 100. Anyone else experiencing this?Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
Processing with Rodinal at 30ml/1l in a Jobo (continuous) for 6:30 at 20c.
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
I love this shot; you're getting some great mileage out of that Gundlach Radar.Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
To an extent I like the density of the shadows but highlights are still blowing out on me too much, I did side by side comparisons of Delta100 and Ektascan@100 both in Rodinal 1:50 using 300ml total in the 3005 different dev times of course, but I'm pretty sure it was over development not over exposure that caused highlight blowouts on the ektascan film. I tried using a yellow filter as others have mentioned that helps, but I haven't been able to test enough of both to see if the yellow does help tame the contrast or not...Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottPhotoCo
I'm thinning maybe shooting it at 80 instead and reducing dev time significantly that might help. So that's my next attempt.
Abandoned lodge on Vancouver Island. Ektascan developed in very dilute Pyrocat-HD.
With Ektascan I've seen quite a few people shoot at ISO 80 and shorten DEV times by 15% to tame contrast. Seems to work for me. Adding the yellow filter might be the next step. I've only done 20 sheets of the stuff but I'm going to become good with it once the 14x17 camera is up and running. Don't want to waste my time when I have to develop a sheet at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
So true!Quote:
Originally Posted by angusparker
wow, I would not have guessed this was X-ray film if you hadn't included that data. and the price is incredible. guess I'll have to order some to experiment with ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jcoldslabs
I'd recommend it. With a little bit of testing--it only took me three 4x5 sheets to get in the ballpark for exposure and processing times--you'll be well on your way. And yes, you can't beat the price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred L
Jonathan
only hitch is that the link says no shipping to Canada. will have to call and ask about specifically and if they can make exceptions.
so to be sure, this film is single side coated which is why it looks so damn nice compared to other X-ray films which are coated both sides right ?
Fred, I just added the film to my cart, and they list three places as shipping destinations: USA, Canada and Dominican Republic.
Shipping one box to Canada via UPS is only $22, but it's UPS :(
thanks Ari, that UPS thing is a killer though. did you order or just ran the order to see what shipping cost ?
I just ran it through to see the cost.
I'm sending you a PM.
What do you consider "very dilute" Pyrocat HD?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
5ml of A and B solutions in 1200ml water.
Thanks
yesterday was not my day :) negs, prints.... but anyway
Attachment 121003
Attachment 121004
Attachment 121005
TTX:
13x18 + Fujinon 250/6,3
Kodax Blue X-Ray 13x18 in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100, contact printed on Slavich paper in Ilford MG Dev
Can't you just buy some x-ray at an Canadian seller for medical equipment? Might be it bit more expensive but from what I have read you have 22 dollar to play with if you can skip UPS. In the Netherlands I bought at a dutch medical supplier and they didn't ask if you where a professional. But that might be different in Canada of course. :) Oh and I payed €55,00 for 100 sheets of double sided film.
My day wasn’t much better either. Thought I’d tentatively standardize on ISO 25 and do some portraits, since I really liked photoevangelists work in this thread.
This extremely blue film make skin looks crazy with all those pores and blemishes. And then I think I’m overdeveloping after I thought I have to battle mottling with near continuous agitation and sheet flipping in my tray.
Metered ISO 25, f22, 1s. But messed up on the first frame and shot at f5.6, i.e., 4 stops "overexposed". So, ISO 1.6?
http://i.imgur.com/kbIegWTl.jpg
Metered ISO 25, f22, 1s. Metered EV 9 on the right cheek and EV 7 on the left. So I need to go easy on the agitation, or dilute more. But I already diluted Refinal to 1+3 and developed this for 15 min, instead of 5 min before.
http://i.imgur.com/nc5hPlLl.jpg
side-by-side
http://i.imgur.com/IcbMzqx.jpg
But now I think I will just stop doing trays and use this
http://i.imgur.com/TR6SnIp.jpg
Then I can do less frequent agitation and hopefully avoid mottling and fucking up the sheet trying to flip it over.
You are developing by time instead of by inspection? What concentration of Rodinal are you using? I adjust my concentration of Rodinal, or Dektol until it takes about 8-9 minutes for developement. I had a problem with stronger mixes of the image going from too thin to too contrasty with higher concentrations too quick. Are you also washing (stopping) in a rotary processer? I would try just changing one thing at a time. I would first develop the way you have been, then rinse in a tray without agitation. I use distilled water. What happens is, the water pretty well stops the highlight development, but, by not agitating, the developer works a little longer on the shadows. If that doesn't do enough, then try diluting the developer more. You are already close to the short side time frame for developing.I don't know how much, if at all, this helps with this problem. But I can assure you of one thing. The problem is not with the film. Ektascan is the finest orthochromatic film available today.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Well, the bottom one looks great to me. The top one would be a problem no matter what kind of film you used. Too much light coming in through the window vs. the amount of light on the shadow side. The lighting ratio is too extreme. Did you use a reflector? If you can find a copy of Mortenson's book on portrait lighting and exposure, I think it would help you a great deal. You certainly need no help on posing a model. These two are great. I don't know what the problem is with the middle one, unless it is under exposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by NiNo
No, that's not the only reason it looks nice. It is also backed (anti-halation backing), which stops the flaring one gets with double side x-ray film. Ektascan is the finest orthochromatic film available today, other that Ilford's Ortho-Plus, which is only available in 4X5, and a lot more expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred L
premortho, thank you for your notes
thanks Premortho, yup, anti-halation backing is definitely a plus for sharper images. Shooting ortho would be something new, but for the right subjects....
Pretty sure any day with a beauty like her is a good day, and I like the blow out on the first one, it's pleasant, and I like the harshness on her face in the last one, again, personal preference but I like both of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by NiNo
thank you!
my wife will be glad to know:)
does anyone know why scratches on the negative?
i am pretty accurate by working with, but at the end i always see 2-3-more scratches :(
i use kodak blue
is kodak/retina green or another one better?
many thx!
Most x-ray film is double-sided (emulsion on both sides), so both sides needs to be handled with twice the care of single-sided film. If you are developing in trays, try putting a piece of glass on the bottom of the tray to prevent scratches. Work out a development method that minimizes how often a side of the film touches anything until it is dry.
Some folks have found that film hangers are a nice way to go, depending on size.
Vaughn, thanks a lot!
a piece of glass - its so easy! :) i will try to develope with next time
Trouble is, you should have a piece of glass with each tray...and of course, not breaking them, too! Good Luck!
Yes, the right subject is right. As I've said before, I was taught (by my grandfather) to use ortho film for everything except portraits of women. Ortho film can be brutally sharp. I suppose that was the rational for soft focus lenses back in the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred L
When I was learning photography in the late 30's and 40's ortho films were at least as common as panchromatic ones. I used to carry Tri-X ortho as well as Super XX. Oh how I miss Super XX. I still have a little Tri-X Ortho and am glad I ran across this info about the Carestream product.An order is going in today.Quote:
Originally Posted by premortho
Jim
It was always interesting to photograph people with a few freckles as those beneath the skin also showed up as very dark spots.Quote:
Originally Posted by premortho
I'm only half way through this wonderful thread. Lots of beautiful images and a wealth of info. I've been shooting X-ray for a few months. I try to control scratches and managed to get scratch free negatives roughly 8 out of 10. Have you folks tried repairing a scratched negative? I was thinking of pencils. Any other stuff?
Cheers,
Max
I have small bathroom which works as my darkroom when needed and I can use only one Paterson developing tray for developing, stop bath and fixing ;) I've used very fine sandpaper to smooth tray bottom and since then I didn't saw any scratches, but I don't touch the sheet until it's fixed and cleaned. Then I touch it only at the very edge and hang it to dry.
I've made safelight using three bright red LED's connected to 4xAA batteries and it works perfect. Light it bright and there is absolutely no fogging on the film.
Yes, but is more fussy than Tri-X Ortho. That product had three emulsion layers, fast, faster and pretty damn fast. Ektascan has one layer, fast. But, with careful metering, and not overdeveloping, it is sure good stuff! I use a Weston Master 111, and have had good results. When you cut this down to 4X5 (or 5X7) remember to notch the other corners so you will load the cut film holders correctly. And a good 2X yellow filter does good work with this film. When I started photography (in 1946), Ortho was the most common film used. Pan was only used for special occasions or special effects. Remember the red filter craze? I bought a couple rolls of pan to try the red filter sky effect, but gave it up. Looked too un-natural for me. Be careful, you've probably forgotten how much sharper ortho is then pan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
Mine is due Monday. I am looking forward to a few tests for EI and development prior to walking over the the lake with the 8x10.
Jim
look forward to seeing the photos Jim
Development? Don't you develop ortho film by inspection? I might add that I have been using a led safelight originally made for a bicycle. If you go this route, be sure to get one with a clear lens. That way you get the red led bulb. The color cut-off on led's is quite sharp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
10m, rotary 1:150 Rodinal
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3879/...e521af70_c.jpgScan-140907-0006www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
some pics from yesterday
Attachment 121462 Attachment 121463
TTX:
Fujinon 250/6,3
Kodak Blue 13x18 in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 on Foma FB + Ilford MG Dev
8x10, Kodak CSG, rotary processing 12m, Rodinal 1:150 (or somewhere between 150 and 200)
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3862/...f8bd581d_c.jpgScan-140907-0005www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
How did you get the nice vignette? Was it just the lens or purposefully done? Or in the print process?Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
Its pretty much how light was there, and very light burning on the right edge. Combination of overcast, slightly burnt out grass and quite dense foliage around doing rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Hello! There seems to be 3 types of Ektascan film; Green, Full Speed Blue and Half Speed Blue. Do you know the difference between these?
I found a distributor here in Mexico but I don't know which one should I buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcoldslabs
I don't know about the "color" varieties--blue/green/full speed--but here is a scan of the box and label from the 8x10 x-ray film that I just bought. All I can say for sure is this version is a single-sided emulsion on a blue-tinted base with an anti-halation layer and a shooting speed somewhere around EI50 - EI100.
http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/Ektascan%20Box.jpg
http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/Ektascan%20Box%20Label.jpg
Jonathan
Yes, I will be developing it by inspection but I like to home in on EI and development prior to making images which I hope will be more important.
My darkroom is rather fully equipped with several types and colors of safelights so I have no concerns there. There are at least three red ones which have been totally satisfactory with Ilford Ortho as well as some very ancient Tri-X Ortho.
I sent you a PM to which I hope you respond positively.
Jim
Yea that's what I have, I've never heard of different versions...Quote:
Originally Posted by jcoldslabs
And neither have I. Kodak has many different X-ray films, which vary in color rendition, but Ektascan is the most orthochromatic of all of Kodak's X-ray films. In fact it is the most orthochromatic film they have, period. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Attachment 121562Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Here you go. I'd like to buy some b/ra film, but I don't know which one I should get :/