It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that green/blue refer to the spectral sensitivity of the emulsion, not the color of the substrate. AFAIK, all x-ray film uses the same base: blue tinted polyester.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Printable View
It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that green/blue refer to the spectral sensitivity of the emulsion, not the color of the substrate. AFAIK, all x-ray film uses the same base: blue tinted polyester.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
I find the blue stuff is even more prone to halation than the double sided green stuff, which is the only kind I can get here at reasonable costs. I also don't particularly like the spectral response of the blue film. I only use green now.
I'm not young nor wealthy enough to test all iterations of X-Ray. When I was wandering in the Red light (dark) a few years to. I closel listened to Jim Fitzgerald whom I think said just pick one, they are similar for our purposes. So being the Kodak 'Hater' (kidding!). I am from anger, I chose Kodak CSG 2X and later Ektascan for its single coating, despite many very good practioners of X-Ray, such as Sergei Rodonov saying it was a waste of money and cheapest Realn X-works just fine. Sergei certainly produces results that I can only admire and I doubt eve approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
My advice is Jim's and Sergei's, buy the cheapest X-Ray possible and shoot it like clay pigeons. Meaning use a whole box of 100 sheets, ASAP you will know what it is.
Randy is right. Don't over analyze it. Int is cheap so shoot a lot and you will learn what you like. For 8x10 buy some single sided stuff and some blue and green. You will be out less than 200 and have 300 sheets of film. Man you can experiment like crazy and you will learn a lot. I do not give it any extra exposure for reciprocity and it works fine. Develop in Pyrocat HD or Rodinal and enjoy. I have this stuff in 11x14 green and blue and all three in 14x17. What is not to like!
Yep. Spectral responses.. Special magic doohickies..
Seriously - buy film, shoot it, then work on refining things.
Little to no knowledge actually required to deal with that (or any other in fact) film, if you possess basic developing skills and have little discipline to figure out sensitivity & etc.
Its fraction of the cost of any other large format film, specially if you go with double sided versions. Now where you will take it after you got film working for you - entirely different matter, but that is where actual photography starts.
7x17 Fuji green X-ray developed in Rodinol 1:100 for 6 mins. Attachment 154699
I use both single and double-sided. For the double-sided it's green latitude. I prefer the double-sided's look. Lovely stuff when using light green or light yellow filters. I also shoot the green lat in 14x17. Because I like full, luminous shadows, I apply reciprocity compensation.
thank you for reminder! I kept thinking i want to try something and yes - it was green-yellow filters again!Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
We having awesome clouds lately, of course by time i get into field everything will be gone, but i can hope, right? :)
I've only used films that are available locally. Which means, Agfa only (Kodak closed its distribution center here about a decade ago).
I used green sensitive Agfa CP-G+ for a long time. It has no AH backing, and it has rather pronounced halation where highlights meet with shadows—or even mid-tones for that matter.
Now, I'm using green sensitive Agfa HDR. It's single sided and it has AH layer.
In a comparison with the CP-G+ (shot the same scene with both emulsions), I found HDR to have better definition. This is more of interest for enlargements. In contact prints, examined from a normal viewing distance, it's hard to spot the difference.
Fr. Mark was kind enough to send me some Ektascan B/RA to test, but the past few months have been crazy busy (with a literary project) so, I haven't found the time to do some comparative shooting between it and the HDR.
I've read every post in this topic from before & after the 'big merge,' & it seems that most prefer the green sensitive film. I'm curious why — price? extended spectral sensitivity? it was easiest to find/purchase? something else? I'm sticking with what I have, so don't interpret this as a plea to convince me otherwise — I just want to understand people's choices.
No reason for me, I just picked green and stuck with it.
There may be no difference for our purposes.
Test them both and report?
There is quite a difference in the look between Ektascan single-sided and CSX Green Lat. double-sided, in my opinion. Green Lat. is softer, and renders greens lighter, especially when a light green filter is used.
So do we no longer have a simply image sharing topic for specifically x-ray? That's unfortunate. It's true that both threads would get a bit of discussion and a bit of simple photo sharing. Hmm...does anyone think we need a specific "x-ray" thread in the Image Sharing subforum? I guess it's already quite granular.
I've never used anything but the green stuff. It seems to work fine. I went through some different developers over the years but I'm back at Rodinal 1:100, now in tray. I stopped stripping them because I'm lazy. Sometimes they get scratched. The single-sided stuff seems nice but I still like the cheap stuff.
Here's a couple shots from Thursday morning, both on Fuji HR-T. First with a 240mm Graphic Kowa and second with a Nikkor 120mm:
http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/...mtn-4165ss.jpg
http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/...mtn-4163ss.jpg
One x-ray thread makes it easier.
11x14 Kodak X-Ray CSG 2 sided not stripped Rodinal 1/50 tray 4 minutes, Imagon 360 f7'7 holes open crop to 8x10 from scan on V700 cleaned up in PS
Second shot different from the one in Sept Portraits.
Discussion welcome
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7780/2...c5fc45dd_h.jpgerin 2 XRay2x11x14crop by moe.randy, on Flickr
Great job Randy!
Randy that is just beautiful. Pali
Those pearls look a little odd!
This film exposed better than fresh Delta 100. It underexposed the face shadow side at ISO 100. All things same. almost...:(
I gave the X-Ray one more stop to ISO 50.
Imagon at work! great job, Randy !Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
best,
Cor
Thanks guys, I had almost given up on soft focus. Fortunately my model can sit very still as I slowly focus.
It is elegant! I wish I could do something like this. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Outstanding, Randy! BTW my wife, who is a Black South African, told me to have you tell her how beautiful she is and that she loves her hair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Awesome portrait, Randy
Thanks everyone!
MXR Blue xray film iso 50
B&J 5x7 Tailboard camera Wollensak 7 1/4
4 sec @ f16
dev Rodinal 1:100/9 min rotary
contact printed on Agfa MCP 310
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8360/2...ed31f4_c_d.jpg
Very nice work, Randy.
So after getting the approximate size of normal negatives from you guys, and buying a Dahle guillotine myself, my negatives are a bit better in shape. Still regularly off enough that it causes issues for the 2509n reel. Any tips for the actual procedure of cutting?
Specifically I keep having these little two to three millimeter slivers of extra stuff that need to get sliced off, and the Dahle chokes on little cuts like that. Mangles the negatives and creates irregular shape. Doesn't happen on every single one.
Even the ones that look and fit as it they were the right shape are without proper exposure borders when I develop them.
I've also been stacking up developed negatives. Looked at the prices to scan at the best of the two or three local labs here, and at 4$ per low-resolution scan, I might as well buy a dang scanner. Not really in my budget but there are no obvious alternatives. Funny because I've been keeping the most detailed photo-journal in my life, and I can't evaluate the results for cross comparison.
I'm not sure what's causing your problems with the cutter. There will always be a small 'waste' cut-off, due to the difference between nominal and actual dimensions for 4×5, but my Dahle cutter handles that with aplomb. Did you mark the cutter with e.g., Dyno tape, so you can accurately set the guide with reliable repeatability? Are you trying to cut more than 1 or 2 sheets at a time?Quote:
Originally Posted by senderoaburrido
As to the scanner, I just bought a scanner after having paid for the cost of an Epson v850 in $5 + tax chunks, that being the price of a 2400 dpi scan with dust removal & output to TIFF at my local lab. So I feel your pain.
You are kind Andrew and I am nearly impossible to satisfy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
IMHO it barely qualifies to post. But I am loosening up about that and I know I can improve if as I keep at it. I throw out or give away a lot of developed X-Ray film, fortunately I know an artist that wants scraps. She did a cool installation with 100's of MF slides. An out of reach room divider above a wall. All found slides. Back lit it works and has lasted 5 years now in a movie studio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
These local guys don't even remove the dust. The 4$ is for a low resolution scan.
How exactly are you cutting? Please, could you explain your process?
This is what's happening to me:Attachment 155729
I end up with that 2/16' lip at the edge, and it's just too slight for the Dahle Vantage guillotine blade to snip. I've tried pushing the blade slow and pushing it fast. Either way, it refuses to cut the paper and simply bends it instead.
Exactly. 4×5 is ~1/16″ smaller in each dimension than nominal. You should wind up with a ⅛″ waste piece, which the Dahl should be more than capable of handling.* Here's how I do it:Quote:
Originally Posted by senderoaburrido
- Cut 1 sheet at a time, beginning by making a 4-15/16″ wide piece and a 5-1/16″ wide piece for each sheet. The 5-1/16″ is the one that falls off the cutter bed.
- Set the 4-15/16″ pieces aside. Trim ⅛″ from each of the wider pieces.
- Reset the guide. Cut each piece so you get a 3-15/16″ piece and a 4-1/16″ piece.
- Set aside the narrower pieces and trim ⅛″ from each of the wider ones.
I always place the round corner against the fixed top guide and the adjustable guide. If in doubt, hold the film in place with your (clean) hand — although, in my experience, the clamp does just fine. By the way, if you load the film holders with the round corner in the same position that you would put the notches on conventional film, you'll alway know which side was facing the camera. If you're using Ektascan this doesn't matter, but it's useful on the double-emulsion stuff.
I do not find that the speed at which I make the cut has any affect, good or ill.
*Is it possible your cutter is defective?
Is your cutter old? Mine does those cuts easily one at time. I set up stops and cut 4 sheets into 16 all the time.
I pull the knife towards the counter edge slightly.
I use a piece of 'real' as the pattern and use it to set dimensions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by senderoaburrido
For cutting film with a guillotine cutter that I borrowed from church from time to time I used an oops sheet of film to get close. Then, I made a corrugated cardboard template very slightly over sized compared to commercial film because it fit my holders with less slop. Then, I used some blocks of maple with sharp (not rounded) corners to create stops on the guillotine cutter. These I held in place with a small C clamp. The guillotine cutter works better if I cut one sheet at a time and (and this is key with the one I used) you have to press the blade toward the stationary part of the cutter, at least a little. For 5x7 I cut off an almost 1" strip 10" long. I do a bunch of these and then put everything away light safe. Then I re-set the stop so I get the 5" dimension. Yes, you do end up with slivers of film. 4x5 is similar but easier to mess up because the dimensions are more similar. I'd do a bunch of one, reset, then do a bunch of the others. Before I get too far I like to check how they fit in the holders just to make sure I've not made a dumb mistake like making the film 4x4 or 5x5. Don't ask how I know I need to do this...
My local photo store has a rotatrim. That costs a LOT more but cuts beautifully. Maybe some day. Meanwhile, I scored a free guillotine cutter at a yard sale this summer, but haven't tried using it yet. The bigger one from church could break down 14x17--->whole plate, but that is also a future if ever need...
why goto all the expense and hassle of scanning when you can make contact prints? Just saying...
Back to film cutting: from what I've been told, in the bad old days of glass backed negatives being common, the plates actually were 8x10." Then, people started coating emulsions onto (?cellulose nitrate? cellulose acetate?) some kind of plastic. The plastic film was MUCH thinner than the glass plates of old and flopped around too much to use them in glass plate holders. So, someone had the bright idea of making an insert into the glass plate holders that would allow you to use your existing film holders with the new film. This insert was made out of sheet metal. The sheet metal adapter holder has some size to it, so 8x10 exactly films did not fit, they had to be an 1/8 or 3/32 or some such smaller side to side and top to bottom. Thus, 8x10 film is a little smaller. When we go to cutting 4x5 or 5x7 from 8x10 those losses get doubled in both dimensions in 4x5 and in one dimension in 5x7 because they did the same thing (I think) with 4x5 and 5x7 holders. In the end, the slightly smaller than the nominal dimensions became the standard even for purpose made film only (glass plates would not fit) film holders. I have had the blessing to end up with 5 8x10 holders that have the metal inserts or could be used with glass plates. Since I want to make my own films some day, I'm really glad to have them even if I have to have a non-standard set up for the camera back.
If that's not weird enough I have a 1/2 plate camera that came with three holders all of which had adapter inserts for 4x5. These are much more crude than the nice ones sold by E.Kodak, but they work! (after a fashion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
I hope it is not defective. It isn't old, though. Bought it ~2 months ago at a Canadian office supply company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
I'll take the advice offered here and cut much closer to the edge of the board, in case the spring tension is keeping it an integral millimetre or two away.
"why goto all the expense and hassle of scanning when you can make contact prints? Just saying..."
Agreed!
For cutting down to 4x5, I drilled holes in the wooden bed of my guillotine, into which I place finishing nails. Make the 5" cut, move the nail over to the 4" hole, make 4 more cuts... Easy, even in the dark. I then snip a corner with scissors if needed to serve as notches.
X-ray is fine in dim red light. So notches are t needed even with single sided stuff. It's really obvious. The non black side goes toward the lens. With double sided it doesn't matter. I bought a nifty antique ticket punch before I figured this out. I should re-sell it.
I tried again last night. Worked a lot more carefully. Pushed the blade a little closer to the edge, which seemed to make perfect cuts and curved cuts alternatingly. Ended up with about 1/2 good negatives, and another half that needed extra trimming with scissors. Much better rate of success, much firmer fit in the holders. Thanks guys! I'll have to pay closer attention next time to improve my technique.
I suggest sitting down.
Wouldn't work with my current setup. I work on top of my washer in the bathroom at midnight after blocking out the back porch window and the seams of the door. Thankfully, the bathroom itself is windowless. There really isn't any other room that would work for this purpose in my apartment. The amount of space left in that room does not accommodate a chair and a lower table.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
I actually work on the bathroom floor so I get as little red light on the film as possible while I work (the pedestal sink blocks most of it). I put a lintless cotton rag (actually an old pair of worn pajama bottoms cut in to rag-sized pieces) under the cutter so the cut-offs drop onto it, and not the bathroom floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Do you have a bathtub in your bathroom??? I'm asking because my film processing room is a small spare bathroom with a tub, and for an extra work surface I cut 2 pieces of 2X4 lumber to go across the length of the tub about 1' foot apart, that rests on the upper ends of the tub, and took a old Ikea-like pine tabletop (I found in a dumpster) to rest on the wood rails to make a VERY sturdy table top over the tub, for cutting and tray development processes... I sealed the wood pieces well, so they can be clean wiped down easily, or can even be hosed down after spills, and it works GREAT!!!! The pieces are removable and hide behind the open bathroom door when not in use...Quote:
Originally Posted by senderoaburrido
You can cut & process easily that way!!! And you can get a small "milking" stool to sit on while processing in the dark...
Steve K
So, I started thinking that maybe the reason some users are having excessive contrast issues with this stuff is because if using MG papers to print on, the deeper than normal blue base could act a little like a contrast filter, as the contrast layer of the MG paper is more sensitive to blue light, the film base would pass more blue, and it would somewhat filter out a little more green light (green is the flatter contrast layer) so could it tilt the print contrast higher???Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
Hmmm... Made me think...
Steve K
Steve, this is how I did all of my developing and carbon printing for years except I had a piece of Hardi Backer board cut to fit the tub. Cement board. It was rigid and I developed and printed all the way up to 14x17. I finally have a darkroom in the new house with plenty of space.Quote:
Originally Posted by LabRat
That's a dang good idea. I live in a big city, so scrap lumber shouldn't be a hard find. It doesn't affect your ability to apply leverage on the guillotine by being in a sitting position? That was my only other concern. I'm so used to doing all this stuff standing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by LabRat
I think you are correct. I have a devil of a time getting the contrast down to where I like printing on VC paper. I've had to really work on getting flat/low contrast negs with xray film.Quote:
Originally Posted by LabRat
Try using a graded paper.
I've always used a roller cutter to trim film... Seems to buckle less, and self-sharpens (on some, or some have cheap replaceable blades), the only drawback is the film has to go under the cutter guide bar (not too bad, though)... I have even tried those cheap Fiskars cutters and can they work pretty good, too... But just do one sheet at a time...Quote:
Originally Posted by senderoaburrido
Steve K
Has anyone tried using this stuff for UV photography? I was looking at getting a cheap U330 glass filter, a small one, just to try it out. It seems like an appropriate filter as it would line up well with the sensitivities of this film on the red side.
Try it and please do share your results here.