Printable View
I had the same problem to start off, just had to adjust the fstop to a smaller setting and let out less light. I think my main reason was to turn a magic lantern positive image into a larger negative for alternate printing. Hopefully the image above proves it can work for Kallitypes
I just went through the alternate printing thread and saw one you did (van dyke brown) of an axe or cleaver on a block of wood, the detail is amazing! Great Print!Quote:
Originally Posted by koraks
X-ray (single and double-sided) has worked well for me when enlarging smaller negatives for kallitype and carbon transfer printing.
Thanks! But I have to admit that that print was from a digital negative (although the original capture was on 35mm p Pan F+). The few enlarged xray negatives that I made didn't yield particularly impressive prints. But that was also because I reversal processed them (so negative - negative) and that introduces a whole new set of parameters to control.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
The company I get my xray film from have reversal film, is it any good? I guess the cheapest way would be to make a small positive, then enlarge it onto a large piece of film as a negative??
Hello
I've been lurking around here for a couple months and was wondering if anyone uses Sprint Developer? I'm in college and Sprint is provided. (I can use other developers if approved by faculty) I am mainly worried about how much grain. I'm not a fan of noticeable grain. I am leaning towards CXS Green but would rather Ektascan because antihalation. I plan on doing different types of alternative process contact prints.
Grain won't be an issue in a contact print. You may have to experiment to get development times.
I had not ever heard of Sprint developer and looked it up online. Fascinating. Not my thing... I'd never choose an all in one system like that, but I can see the attraction for a school lab. But they lost me when saying N+1 development was a "general safety factor." Sigh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Whitely
Reading the material safety data sheets, it looks like this is a purely hydroquinone based developer. They are obscuring their exact formula (as if there were great mysteries in developers these days). Pure quinone developers seem to be very high contrast and slow acting. Slow is ok, but given that x-ray film is a bit prone to high contrast already, I'd be concerned about the contrast. Grain is probably less of a worry. The grain in my Rodinal (a notoriously grainy developer) processed 4x5s on green x-ray doesn't seem problematic to me until the print is enlarged to truly enormous sizes. If you're contact printing it will be a non-issue.
Give it a shot! It will be fun. I'd try diluting it heavily though if your lab is using it one-shot. If they are replenishing and you can't dilute it, you may need to try a water bath alternation if your contrast gets out of control. But you may need pretty extreme contrast depending on what your alt-process is? My experience is with fine silver printing so I can't speak to that.
Definitely take the time to profile your film, developer and paper (or paper equivalent in your process). It will save you a ton of time in the long run. I messed around for way too long before formally taking test shots and doing it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Greenberg Motamedi
This is very similar to my process. I do Rodinal at 100:1 shot at 64 asa. What agitation scheme did you land on yourself? Thanks.
I will soon start with my first xray film exposures. I will use green sensitive with my 8.5x15" camera. I made film inserts for my bookform style holder from green plastic. Now the question: would you paint these in mat black? Will the lack of anti-halation of the film in combination with reflections of the green plastic cause problems?
I taught photography at a college my last 20 years of teaching. I can't believe a college provides Sprint developer which is so lacking in qualities of a more adaptable developer. I would inquire, no almost insist, on using a more common developer such as HC110. This is a very adaptable developer in liquid form so it is simple to mix when ready to develop. I would try it diluted 1+100 from the syrup. A time of around 6-8 minutes should provide you with a printable negative. If there is a read safelight in the film development room, use it. Develop until the negative is very dark, then look at the reverse to see if the shadows have detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Whitely
Good luck!
Just developed four sheets of 4x5 cut from 8x10 Ektascan BR/A rated at 100 film speed using D-23 1:6 for 8 minutes in trays, 74 degrees F in the darkroom, agitated 30 sec to start then 1x/minute. The negatives are still washing or drying but look pretty good to me. Hopefully they will be printed with Dr. Mike Ware's New Cyanotype chemistry tomorrow. One of them was my 14 yr old's first film exposure. He's not really into this but I wanted him to try it once from "oooh, that looks like a picture" to a print in his hands.
Hi Randy,Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy
That sounds like an interesting setup. Could you please share pictures of your setup (perhaps on a different thread as it is off-topic here) of the home-made lens? Very impressed with the outcome.
Rex
You leave forum for couple months and thread turns dull and techy...
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4392/...dd815035_c.jpgEveryone needs friends by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
rotary, R09 100:1 , 10m
Kodak CSG, Dallmeyer 3B replica test
Attachment 169406
This is phone snap of a bigger file, too big to reduce down. I stopped the owner nd asked to take a snap, luckily my camera was just up the road and was able to retrieve quickly. Taken in a car park with a wolly velo, 8x10 in a 10x12 camera so it is off centre slightly
Figured I show an example of what is working for me to add a data point for those looking for useful info (this thread has been very helpful!).
This was taken using a Caltar 10" lens on Ektascan B/RA and developed in Xtol 1+1 for 9 minutes in a Jobo 3005 / scanned on a V700:
https://drscdn.500px.org/photo/22896...83f227918d3bab
Doing my research for planning to start shooting green X-ray (ortho), but I was wondering what kind of tonal rendition I would get with a broad range of subjects???
I think I just got an idea while watching a re-run of Ken Burns' documentary of "The Prohibition" on TV last night... Shot after still shot of a wide range of subjects from the ortho era, and I saw the contrast, skin tones, shade vs sky, etc... (I know they sharpen/enhance most all photos shown on broadcast these days, but I could at least get an idea of overall contrast...)
Quite a tutorial for me!!!
Steve K
I've seen some mention of using medical film holders, but the xray film holders I've seen don't use dark slides - since they're for x-ray use, they just use a low density face & just shoot through that.
Is there a way to modify these, or is there another type of film holder for medical use that folks are referencing?
I've looked into building my own film holders, but if I can use or modify these then it would sure save a lot of time. I'm planning to build my own camera, so as long as I know what the specs of the film holder are then I'll just build to that, so it doesn't matter if the distance-to-film is different from a standard film holder.
Thanks, Nathan
There are some medical holders that are the same as our film holders. I'm not a doctor and don't play one on TV. However I've had people in the medical business recognize my normal photographic film holders as Xray film holders somehow.
Taken in a haunted house built in the 1870's, Shen Hao 4x5, super Angulon 90mm f5.6 about thirty seconds. Rotary dev R09 12 mins
Attachment 171741
I can see the ghosts.
I could feel the ghosts! There was a murder/suicide committed at one time, there is one bedroom that you can feel the weight of something. Gulp! going back next week to take some more pics
Attachment 171826
I've been reversal processing X-ray film, giving a big beautiful (if slightly blue) black and white transparency. This is single-sided Carestream.
Quickie formula:
First developer: Ilford PQ Universal 1:5 8 minutes@68 degrees F
Bleach: Potassium Dichromate in Sulfuric Acid solution
Clearing: Sodium sulfite
Re-exposure: 1 minute
Second Developer: Ilford PQ Universal 1:5 5 minutes@68 degrees F
Note scratches on this example! The bleach makes the emulsion softer and even easier to scratch. This example was tray processed, leading to scratches. Usually I tank process, which gives less problems.
Can you tell me the advantages of making a positive? Is this something akin to making solarized negatives, these look quite spectacular on the right subject and also require a second exposure.Quote:
Originally Posted by vdonovan
There is no real advantage, other than that it is unusual. In fact, I find I get less control over the resulting image because the two developers both essentially go to completion. It's hard to control contrast, so I have to be more aware of contrast when shooting.
I mount these 8x10 transparencies in back-lit LED frames. They look quite beautiful with, as you say, the right subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdonovan
I once enlarged onto 4 sheets of 14x17" X-Ray, an image sized to the 4 panels. Hung in a backlit window. Only noticeable at night. No fade after a year.
Heck, I made an X-Ray positive print of a new clinic and gave it to my Doctor, who had no light box. As I found out...
Randy I remember you displaying them on the thread, looks pretty spectacular.Quote:
Originally Posted by vdonovan
I have just dusted off an old book called "Photographic Amusements" by Fraprie O'Connor, it has a section on BAS-relief, combining positives and negatives to produce a unusual and sometimes 3d effect. Seems a similar procedure you are doing
Supposed haunted house, though I never saw anything. Super Angulon, 14 sec exposure, F22, developed in RO9 12 min 1:150
:) I don't see anything either.
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
Never heard of the 2-A-B-C. I'm not as experienced as some of the bunch, but normally buy full speed blue, half speed blue or green, the latter is my preferred .
I started on blue but found green far less contrasty and as Randy says gives better shadow detail and softer tones. I spent a lot of time on this thread reading through the articles to find a start point and just experimented. Rather than worrying too much about development and ratios my first concern was producing an image that was not too scratched up, or blotchy. This seems to be the greatest challenge with xray film.
Start reading the threads
Andrew O'Neill, Randy, and Randy Moe: Thanks for the helpful comments. Not just helpful to me, but helpful to lots of folks, some who may actually already have some experience with x-ray film, and some who may not. This thread is crazy long and full of details. And there are other x-ray threads, too. Even if what you've said has been said before, repetition is not always bad.
EdWorkman: Your comments were very helpful, too. I found the information about no normal standards for x-ray or aerial film interesting. Your practical comments about how to go about doing some testing is also helpful. I also understand, I think, why you say, 'stop reading- start DOING', but, frankly, I don't want to stop. I LIKE to read. I find it all fascinating.
I also have almost no cash to spend. (Really, if I'm honest, I have LESS than no cash to spend, since I seem to keep falling behind.) But I've got plenty of time to read. I'm very grateful to so many folks here who take the time to write about what they've done -- including you! -- so that I can figure out the best way to spend those few dollars I can scrape together in the most sensible way. (X-ray film may be really cheap, but it is not free.) Or to not spend them at all on x-ray film or some other aspect of LF after long and careful consideration.
I bet there are lots of folks who have never taken an LF image who read and find interest in these posts. Thanks for sharing what you know.
Paul, that is why I got into xray, no money to buy expensive sheet film. I get mine from chicago medical supplies, it cost me Aust$60 for a hundred 8x10 sheets, which can then be cut up into 4x5, giving me 400 sheets of film. If I buy three boxes at a time I get it for the same postage fee, as they will all fit into the same flat rate postal envelope. Hope that helps
Last year ZZ medical had a Black Friday sale on X-ray film. It might be worth checking this coming Friday to see if they repeat it.
andrewch59: The reading I'm doing on x-ray film is really exciting me. I've wanted to get much more into LF, but money is the problem. This stuff is so cheap that I'm doing lots of thinking and drawing of ULF cameras I might build. American Science and Surplus has a 'kit' of dead x-ray film that you can get for $3.25, which contains eight sheets of a variety of sizes, with 8x10 being the smallest. I just ordered two of these, since just what sizes are included is a bit random (I called to ask). Having some actual sheets in my hands will help me decide if I really want to go through with it and build a big camera, and I can then use a sheet of whichever size I choose to actually build a camera around it. Many ULF film holders cost more than I want to spend on the entire camera build, so if I do this, I'll build the holders, too. I've already got quite a bit of wood and aluminum sitting in my workshop from past telescope and camera projects. The toughest part of the project for my skill set will be the bellows.
Yeah, I read about this Black Friday special last year while slogging through all the pages of this thread (I'm up to page 192!). I hope it happens again because it will give me an excuse to order some 5x7 at even greater savings than usual. (Yeah, I'm that cheap.) If there isn't a sale that day, I'll get around to ordering it soon, anyway. I'm selling some photo stuff on eBay to raise the funds (a deal I made with my wife: to buy astro or photo goodies, I have to sell astro or photo goodies I already have).Quote:
Originally Posted by j.e.simmons
This morning I got an email from ZZ claiming a 3% Black Friday discount on everything. I deleted it and cannot find it on their site.
I see double sided Carestream 8x10 is what it has been.
However, Carestream 8X10 single side is 40% up. Case only, 14X17 single side is the same as it has been.
Paul, I have some info, actually full instructions for bellows construction, pm me and I will send them to you. Sorry, but I downloaded them from the net and the pictorial examples seem to have vanished, but enough to let you know what you are in for.
PM sent; and thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewch59
The double-sided green latitude film also looks quite nice exposed through a #11 light green or #15 yellow filter.
Hi All!
Mi first success result:Attachment 172384
kodak clearstream original 18x24 (this is cut 9x12cm)
shot iso100, develop 9min 1:50 rodinal + 10ml papaer developer 1:9
Paul, you sound like me. I even have resorted to making sure that when I buy anything photographic on-line, that it arrives while my girlfriend is at work - and when she sees me using it at some future point in time and asks about it, I just tell her I have had it for years, just haven't used it in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Kinzer