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

I have to say I was disappointed when they combined the pictures and technical threads on Xray, there was a lot of overlap, but it made it slightly easier to find the tech data you need the old way. Don't forget that all Xray is Blue or Blue and Green sensitive. It's not very red sensitive at all, kind of like printing paper in that regard. Consequently, the reds you photograph are rendered v. dark in prints. And, it is also time of day/color of light dependent on its response. Photos from early or late in the day need a lot more exposure, typically, and likewise under incandescent lights. Your light meter will likely tell you to under expose your Xray film under incandescent/early/late light unless you make corrections. Some recommend as much as a stop per hour outside of 10 a.m.-3p.m. I've also seen some quality issues with Ektascan B/RA. The 14x17 is gone? That's sad, that was one of my justifications in planning to make 14x17 camera! I'd not do double sided Xray again without film hangers and dip/dunk approach to developing. YMMV. Double sided is a lot more common/lower cost.

I am considering using a different film than what I use right now Ortho 25 Ilford, I get it in rolls and run it on my Lambda (cannot run sheet film).

This film is stupid expensive and I am trying to find a suitable replacement .. I only make black and white separation negatives and the conversion to black and white is done well in advance to the spectral response is not important, having a film I can work in red safelight is actually a benefit. Lately with phone conference with Durst Lambda Techs I have concluded that as long as the film can see the lasers the techs have a way of walking me through the calibration steps and adjusting the laser power to the film sensitivity itself. These techs are way beyond my skill set and a blessing for long term ..

I am looking at con tone film solutions with graphic arts backgrounds so if any suggestions I am all ears. These films are 1/10th the price of same roll size Ilford films. Not saying they are gouging me but since what I am doing is such an obscure, niche application I need to work with vendors supplying a larger market which allows for a better buy .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

Bob, in my experience so far: rather poor in general, but with great care it's not too bad. The main issue of xray film is its limited latitude which makes tonality quite harsh if both exposure and development are not controlled very carefully. The thin and soft emulsions also make for development issues (uneveness) to manifest themselves where they would not be an issue with regular film. With great care, very decent results can be had as eg Thodoris illustrates very well above, but personally, I am still struggling (after 3 years) to consistently get usable results. If everything goes well, a good print from a single-sided xray neg is almost indistinguishable from a regular film print. Scanning and digital editing offer more flexibility in adjusting the results, but of course, the darkroom is less forgiving.

---

The only real issue with x-ray film is if double sided utmost care must be used in handling. I have use both single and double sided for more than 10 years. I began when my supply of Tri-X Ortho ran out. I use the same processing procedure with it as I have with Tri-X and Ilford Ortho films. It does have some small limitations in latitude, but not in scale. With proper handling the scale is as long as most panchromatic emulsions, but being orthochromatic it has a different scale. Since it does not "See" red the resultant print is different from one made with panchromatic film. I prefer the scale perhaps because I originally learned with orthochromatic films in the '30's. The only real difference between today's X-ray emulsions and those of general use ortho ones of the past is the softness of the surface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Bob,
I conducted the tests below for my own purposes, but I thought that they might provide a better answer your question than my words.

4 pieces of Fuji AD-M mammography film received identical exposures from an xray sensitometer's green light.
They were processed together in 11x14" flat bottomed trays, with intermittent agitation.
They received a 2'min prewash, developed in Adox RO9 20+1000ml at 24C (which happens to be my room temperature, and I have stopped trying to fight it in open trays), with each film pulled from the developer at 4', 5.5', 8', and 11' minutes.
There was a 30"sec rinse, a 5'min fix, and a 10'min wash.
They were then contact printed on Ilford MGWT RC paper, including a Stouffer scale for comparison, at grades 00, 2, and 5.
The exposures were made with a Durst L-1200 and an Ilford 500 head (the one with Green/Blue lights), controlled by an Analyser 500. I exposed for a little more than minimum exposure for maximum black.
The densities were also measured with a black-and-white densitometer and the readings were plotted with the (free to download) FilmTestEvaluation.xls file.

As a side-note/disclaimer, almost all of my equipment is second hand (to say the least), and my digitizing/post-processing equipment are not exactly "calibrated".
But if you were to compare what you see on your screen to actual contact prints of your own of a Stouffer scale on the corresponding grades, it should give you a pretty good idea of what the actual prints look like.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1897/...6e4ab209_k.jpg

---

Though helpful to the more serious workers in sensitometry could you walk me through what you see with these results, I am not seeing anywhere a real linear 21 step printout that I require and get with my current film. I need to be able to record exact L readings from monitor to film, or within a few points from L 4 to L 96 or in greyscale %4 - % 96 - I do not work with RGB numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Noel

The only real issue with x-ray film is if double sided utmost care must be used in handling. I have use both single and double sided for more than 10 years. I began when my supply of Tri-X Ortho ran out. I use the same processing procedure with it as I have with Tri-X and Ilford Ortho films. It does have some small limitations in latitude, but not in scale. With proper handling the scale is as long as most panchromatic emulsions, but being orthochromatic it has a different scale. Since it does not "See" red the resultant print is different from one made with panchromatic film. I prefer the scale perhaps because I originally learned with orthochromatic films in the '30's. The only real difference between today's X-ray emulsions and those of general use ortho ones of the past is the softness of the surface.

---

Thats interesting and helpful Jim, do you have a name or product code for the film itself so I can see if I can get my hands on this, as well which developer do you use.. For the Ortho ILford 25 I am using a concoction of HC110 that seems to work for me.

Thodoris,
Thank you for your very well done development experiment. It provides a lot of sound basic information for knowledgeable and experienced workers. I am wondering what differences would be evident if working with film exposed through a lens in a camera.

Bob,
Currently I am using single sided Carestream EB/RA in 8x10, and Double sided Carestream T-MAT G/RA in 5x12 and 7x17.
I vary developers too often but my base to which I always seem to return is Pyrocat which I mix from chemicals. I sometimes use HC110H, but have to account for the loss of film speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Noel

Bob,
Currently I am using single sided Carestream EB/RA in 8x10, and Double sided Carestream T-MAT G/RA in 5x12 and 7x17.
I vary developers too often but my base to which I always seem to return is Pyrocat which I mix from chemicals. I sometimes use HC110H, but have to account for the loss of film speed.

---

thanks Jim - in a typical day I run about 40 ft of film so I need a developer that can be replenished , I love Pyro but it would not be practical for this application.

Bob, will you be running it through your Lamda? I've only seen XRAY in small rolls, like 14 inch wide (forgot length...maybe 200ft?). Not sure if it's single or double-sided. Single sided would be more desirable, as the double-sided is slightly softer, due to two exposed emulsions. I love it though, for alt printing. I have also made copy negatives with it from 35mm negatives blown up to 14x17.

Bob,
Xray films were developed to produce high contrast images as shown below by the published data from the manufacturer – in this case, Fuji AD-M mammography film.

But, they are very responsive in changes to their development.

The family of curves in my previous post resulted from processing the films in 1000ml of distilled water containing 20ml of Adox RO9 concentrate (1+50).

The family of curves on the bottom here shows the densities produced when the same test was conducted, using 10ml of Adox RO9 concentrate (1+100).

I'm fairly sure that on a technical level this film could produce the results you're after, but it would require A LOT of testing on your part.

What I'm not sure that you'll be able to overcome is the fragility of this film, since you want to use it in a roller transport system.

Even after several hundred negatives processed, and developing one sheet at a time in flat bottomed trays, I still get the occasional mini scratch.

Maybe the addition of a hardener in the developer could help with this, but I have no experience with it.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1864/...23543fea_b.jpg

Bit the bullet and got my 8x10 camera coming from a 4x5. Getting 8x10 film is nearly impossible here in the Philippines. But XRay film are plenty. This particular one is about $50. Anyone tried this and how the film behaves under normal developing times? I use D76. Thank you. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...20cb8224b0.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't used D-76 in years but here are some suggestions.
1..Get a red bulb or a red filter for your safelight.
2. Check that it is pure red by bouncing the light off a CD. This acts as a prism and reflects all of the spectrum available from the light source.
3. Dilute the developer 1+2 or 1+3 or maybe more.
4. develop with the red light 4+ feet from the tray.
5. Develop until the film looks severely overexposed
6. Complete the processing as usual.
7. this negative will NOT be the way you want it, BUT you can add or subtract development time to get a negative to print to your liking.
8. Remember that the negative is not the goal, but the print is. Don't worry if it takes several sheets of film to get a print to your liking.
Don't get discouraged if early experiments aren't to your liking.

If there is any way to get Rodinal to the Philippines, that would be much better. 1:100, 6-7 minutes, 68F, have fun.

Is that single, or double-sided?

Corran's suggestion to try to get Rodinal is a good one. All the XRAY films I've tried over the past 11 years have given me very nice negatives... and it's way more economical than D76. Up here in Canada it's called Blazinal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

Bob, will you be running it through your Lamda? I've only seen XRAY in small rolls, like 14 inch wide (forgot length...maybe 200ft?). Not sure if it's single or double-sided. Single sided would be more desirable, as the double-sided is slightly softer, due to two exposed emulsions. I love it though, for alt printing. I have also made copy negatives with it from 35mm negatives blown up to 14x17.

---

Yes I will try this and I think single sided may be more desiralbe.. 14 inch would be good for a lot of the work I do.

Thank you very much for the tips. Yes, I can get Rodinal here. Finding out about xray film made the prospect of going larger than 4x5 possible. Hope to be sharing my first attemps soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thread is insanely huge and I read quite a bit but did not find an answer to what I am looking for.

This a curiosity question not technical.

There is a much larger portion of people using green sensitive film, than there is blue. I'm wondering why?

For me, lighter looking foliage. I often shoot with a #11 (green) Wratten filter and get lighter greens.

...and with a yellow filter, I can darken blue skies...and cloud separation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronnate

There is a much larger portion of people using green sensitive film, than there is blue. I'm wondering why?

---

Green responds to a much wider spectrum of light. Blue responds to blue and UV (there is a toe that does respond somewhat to lower wavelengths). Green starts at orange through yellow, blue and UV, and is reasonably close to old-timey orthochromatic films and plates.

I started using Ektascan (1-sided, green sensitive) but switched to half-speed double-sided blue. I got into x-ray film because I wanted something with the spectral sensitivity of collodion w/o the chemical & explosive hazards. Blue is the closest.

I expect most folks favor green because the speed is more consistent throughout the day & it is closer to orthochromatic.

My 8x10 setup uses a 100-year old Rapid Rectilinear lens, and I contact print on albumen to get prints that look like they could be a hundred years old. Green comes closest to the film available at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seezee

I expect most folks favor green because the speed is more consistent throughout the day & it is closer to orthochromatic.

---

Can you explain about the speed consistency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronnate

Can you explain about the speed consistency?

---

I haven't tested it, but as it is sensitive to a much broader range of light frequencies, it stands to reason that it would not lose speed as much in the early hours of morning or later in the afternoon, since those colors are more present in natural light then.

It's well-documented (in this thread) that x-ray film loses speed in natural light when the colors it is sensitive to are not present (duh). Most of us rate it slower in before 10 AM and after 2 PM and faster between those hours when shooting in natural light. Cloud and shade have similar effect so you may need to apply some mental reciprocity failure calculations when shooting in those conditions.

If you dig into this thread deeply enough you will run across examples like "ISO 80 at noon, but ISO 25 at 9:30 AM."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seezee

"ISO 80 at noon, but ISO 25 at 9:30 AM."

---

Is this for green or blue sensitivity?

This thread got so long and disjointed when they merged the two that it is cumbersome to read. I'm picking my way through though, and have not seen any references to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronnate

Is this for green or blue sensitivity?

This thread got so long and disjointed when they merged the two that it is cumbersome to read. I'm picking my way through though, and have not seen any references to this.

---

I wish I could remember. I've only used x-ray film (blue or green) in the studio. If I get a chance I'll do some exposure tests with half-speed blue & let you know what I find out.

Scan of a darkroom print on Ilford MGWT RC paper.

This is a composite picture, with two negatives printed simultaneously on the same paper.

The picture of the Moon is on a 9x12cm sheet of film, which is projected on the baseboard of a 4x5" enlarger (at a 4.5 magnification), and onto an 18x24cm sheet of film containing the clouds (which is contact printed).

With the same exposure (and some minimal dodging and burning) the two negatives are combined into one print.

Both negatives are Fuji AD-M xray film.
They were both shot with the same camera, a Kodak Master 8x10" view camera, but on different dates.
The Moon was shot with a Symmar 360mm lens on May 29, 2018.
The clouds were shot with a Fujinon W 180mm lens on June 14, 2018.

Both negatives were developed in Rodinal (RO9) at 1+100 dilution (1lt solution in a 10x12" tray), at 24C, with intermittent agitation.
The Moon for 10'min.
The clouds for 12'min.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1980/...9b6ac07c_b.jpg

Thodoris, that is phenomenal. Absolutely perfect, well done. A joy to look at.

I went ahead and bought a 100 sheet box of green sensitive double sided 8x10 from zzmedical, mainly because it was the least costly option they offer. I cut some into 4x5 and shot it and developed it in Rodinal and liked it. I also enlarged some 35mm negatives on to it to create B&W positive transparencies, which came out way better than I expected. Strangely the second batch I processed came out great with the exception of having a noticeable blue tint. What is causing the blue tint, and does it mean I didn't rinse it well enough? Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Scan of a darkroom print on Ilford MGWT RC paper.

This is a composite picture, with two negatives printed simultaneously on the same paper.

The picture of the Moon is on a 9x12cm sheet of film, which is projected on the baseboard of a 4x5" enlarger (at a 4.5 magnification), and onto an 18x24cm sheet of film containing the clouds (which is contact printed).

With the same exposure (and some minimal dodging and burning) the two negatives are combined into one print.

Both negatives are Fuji AD-M xray film.
They were both shot with the same camera, a Kodak Master 8x10" view camera, but on different dates.
The Moon was shot with a Symmar 360mm lens on May 29, 2018.
The clouds were shot with a Fujinon W 180mm lens on June 14, 2018.

Both negatives were developed in Rodinal (RO9) at 1+100 dilution (1lt solution in a 10x12" tray), at 24C, with intermittent agitation.
The Moon for 10'min.
The clouds for 12'min.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1980/...9b6ac07c_b.jpg

---

Great job. I hope Steven R sees this.

The blue will not wash out. It's base fog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cp_photo

I went ahead and bought a 100 sheet box of green sensitive double sided 8x10 from zzmedical, mainly because it was the least costly option they offer. I cut some into 4x5 and shot it and developed it in Rodinal and liked it. I also enlarged some 35mm negatives on to it to create B&W positive transparencies, which came out way better than I expected. Strangely the second batch I processed came out great with the exception of having a noticeable blue tint. What is causing the blue tint, and does it mean I didn't rinse it well enough? Thanks.

---

What is the function of the base fog, and is there a way to minimize its effect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

The blue will not wash out. It's base fog.

---

I think it's just the color of the base material, isn't it?

If so, I don't quite understand how you had two different results between batches.

The first batch seems lighter. In any case I should clarify that I am speaking of the positive transparencies I created. My main objective in posting was to say that I am very happy with the new experience of trying X-ray film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

I think it's just the color of the base material, isn't it?

If so, I don't quite understand how you had two different results between batches.

---

Thodoris that is an excellent montage, you can’t really tell it is two different negatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Scan of a darkroom print on Ilford MGWT RC paper.

This is a composite picture, with two negatives printed simultaneously on the same paper.

---

Wow. Just wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cp_photo

What is the function of the base fog, and is there a way to minimize its effect?

---

It's actually the color of the blue polyester base. All x-ray film uses this substrate. It makes it easier for the radiologist to read.

Thanks for the love guys, I really appreciate it!

Kodak Master 8x10" view camera
Symmar 360 at f11 t1/5"s
Agfa HDR x-ray film @ 50asa
RO9 (10+1000) for 8'm in 11x14" flat tray
Scan from contact print on Ilford MGWT paper

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1921/...83528bd3_b.jpg

Nice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Kodak Master 8x10" view camera
Symmar 360 at f11 t1/5"s
Agfa HDR x-ray film @ 50asa
RO9 (10+1000) for 8'm in 11x14" flat tray
Scan from contact print on Ilford MGWT paper

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1921/...83528bd3_b.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Kodak Master 8x10" view camera
Symmar 360 at f11 t1/5"s
Agfa HDR x-ray film @ 50asa
RO9 (10+1000) for 8'm in 11x14" flat tray
Scan from contact print on Ilford MGWT paper

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1921/...83528bd3_b.jpg

---

Very nice!

WOW! The clarity is awesome! I can almost touch him!

Thodoris, that's awesome!

Great image. What do you use to write the date/info on the rebate area?

Thanks guys!

Andrew, get your hands off my face man!)

cp_photo, I'm using a 0.1 black drawing pen.
The brand is called Simbalion and is supposedly "archival quality, acid free, waterproof, pigment ink". That's what it says on it anyway.
It's just the brand that my local office supply store carries which has the thinnest tip and dries quickly on film. Have been using it for years and I'm happy with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras

Kodak Master 8x10" view camera
Symmar 360 at f11 t1/5"s
Agfa HDR x-ray film @ 50asa
RO9 (10+1000) for 8'm in 11x14" flat tray
Scan from contact print on Ilford MGWT paper

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1921/...83528bd3_b.jpg

---

Nice. Have you considered putting a reflector or a fill light on the shadow side?

Now there's a trick, how do you take a selfie with an 8x10 without acquiring a hernia?

Seezee, most of my work has been with natural/existing light. I'm only starting to explore the world of artificial lighting.
(I was taught studio lighting back in school some 20 years ago, but learning something for a class and *actually knowing* something are not the same thing!)

Andrew, hm, use a tripod? (actually two, because of the bellows extension required).
The tricky part is focusing, when the dof for a shot like this is so very narrow.
For this picture I used a single 30w LED flood light placed right outside the frame on the left of the camera, and almost too close to my face—and still only got f11.
A stronger light and f16 (or better yet f22) would make it much easier—though it might blind me…
Will find out soon enough…

If you raise the overall level of light in the room, that'll close down your pupils and make it easier to bear the intense light of the key light.