Very nice!! -- btw, what is 'caffenol?'Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdenrichards
Printable View
Very nice!! -- btw, what is 'caffenol?'Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdenrichards
Thanks, you can read all about caffenol here http://caffenol.blogspot.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by gbogatko
Finally starting to get the hang of this Agfa Green Latitude X-ray film:
Attachment 69327
Eastman Commercial 8x10 + Goerz 14" Red Dot Artar
Shot @ ASA 125 (not stripped) in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100
Yes you are!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by mat4226
I like this. Very nice mood.Quote:
Originally Posted by mat4226
Ooh, really like this one. Well done!Quote:
Originally Posted by mat4226
Great image Matt!Quote:
Originally Posted by mat4226
More Caffenol and X-Ray Film Exposures
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7056/6...3135dd37_z.jpg
Eastman View No 1. 8x10 Camera
Konica Hexanon GRII 210mm
Kodak B/RA X-Ray Film
Caffenol C/M
Nice.
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
Ooooh. Inspiring!Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdenrichards
2 questions: How long in the soup, and is it stripped (I think not, but have to ask).
I"m collecting all the requisite chems now.
For all those who were wondering if double-sided x-ray film could be processed in a drum (and for those who warned against it), I'm pleased to report that I actually tried two 8x10 Agfa Green X-ray film sheets just now is my 11x14 Unicolor Print Processing Drum and I had--judging by the negs that are drying now--even development. No mottling, no streaks.This kind of drum has ridges on the wall that keeps the film suspended for flow on both sides. I figured that especially since the x-ray film is thin and lighter than normal film, it would float fine. It did. The results look identical to the tray processing I've done.
6 minutes for 50ASA exposure this is single emulsion X-ray so no stripping needed, good luck theres all kinds of good advice on 2 sided X-ray in this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by gbogatko
I'm not a big fan of landscape photography, for the most part, and so I've not done much of it. When I do, I tend to choose places as subjects, rather than views, or vistas. This is just the kind of place I might be inspired to photograph, and I would be happy to do it half as well as you've done. Yours is a beautiful image, whatever material you used to make it, and all the more impressive given your re-purposing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdenrichards
Beautiful stark image. It made for Xray film.Quote:
Originally Posted by mat4226
Well done (again) Holden. Whats your development time in Caffenol? If you don't mind.
@25 Asa it's about 3 mins constant agitation in caffenol c/mQuote:
Originally Posted by SMBooth
I've tried the drums. I get even development but those ribs scratch the hell out of the emulsion.
I've stuck with glass in a tray, stand develop in Dektol. 1 minute. Only problem is when the negative suctions to the glass. I've been planning to nip the corners from the glass to give me somewhere to grasp. But the only time I remember I want to do it, is when I'm cursing as the clock keeps ticking on me. 20 extra seconds (still have to be gentle to not scratch the emulsion) is a long time when you have a 1 minute development time. Heh. Contrast ramps up big time on me.
Eventually you have to panick. Heh. And then you scratch as you can see in the top corner on that CXS Half-Speed Blue.
Attachment 69516
Green 8x10 xray, shot at ISO 80, d76 6 min, stripped.
Cooke 300mm lens with tons of flare, wide open.
http://www.inluxeditions.com/hidden/Cooke-bowl.jpg
Thank you so very much!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr
Thanks everyone for all the kind words about the previous work on x-ray film. Here's another, this time with a little more controlled light:
Attachment 69575
Eastman Commercial B 8x10 + Fujinon W 210mm f/5.6
Agfa Green Latitiude @ ASA 125 + Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 (semi-stand in hangers)
Special thanks to @JimFitzgerald for continuously suggesting hangers and tanks, they're wonderful with x-ray film!
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5913/64492282.jpg
A shoot out with Digital NAG group in Fountain valley, California. Except this one with an 8x10 Eidoscope.
Tri, nice! I think portraits of lovely women helps x-ray film in a big way.
Yes 8x10 on hangers is the way to go! KISS is my thing!
Good work. Did you buy this kodak in 8x10" format or it was just larger and you cut the sheets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdenrichards
Nope it comes in 8x10!Quote:
Originally Posted by Milosz Wozaczynski
Can you tell me where you bought it? Here in Poland we have only 13x18cm (almost 5x7) and 24x30cm(bit larger than 8x10) sheets. [8x10= 19,5x24,5cm]
Is this it?
http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/8x1...lm-p-1408.html
That's the one.
How many sheets per box?
I don't know how many sheets per box, but suspect 100. A data sheet for Kodak B/RA is here: http://www.carestream.es/ektascanBRA...nfo_ti1789.pdf
$70 at 100/box is a LOT lower than EFKE 100 (ca. $330 ) or ILFORD FP4 ($440).
This makes 8x10 more doable for those of us on budgets.
CXS (100 sheets at $25/box) is super affordable if you like the smell of Clorox.
I discovered today that my Fuji Super HR-T green-sensitive x-ray film apparently has pretty good reciprocity characteristics. I shot a couple of 30-second exposures with no extra compensation and they came out perfectly. I don't know if in this huge thread anyone has done any reciprocity tests so I thought I would post this. I will be trying out some longer exposures to see just how good this stuff is. I'm surprised it was even good out to 30 seconds.
Wayne,Quote:
Originally Posted by WayneStevenson
Just move the glass with the film, from the developer tray into the stop. It's much easier to handle a plate than a sheet of film.
I have recently experienced the same thing with my green sensitive x-ray film. I was adding reciprocity from a post that Andrew O'neil (I think) put up about this. I have gone back to not adding any and my negatives are much better. After about 30 seconds I just doubled the exposure and it seemed to work fine. X-ray film is a totally different animal.... at least I think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
Jim, have you used the Adox 25 ASA film? We used a few sheets in the redwoods. Rated it at 25, gave a one minute metered exposure exposures at 2min, 4min, and 8min -- as I had heard it had steep reciprocity failure. The 2 min exposure was printable, the 4 and 8 minutes were not over-dense and should have been usable, but the image fell apart in the highlights. I had also heard that the film did not take well with over-exposure...now I know why! Too much exposure (as with the pure white branches in the sun in the background of this image) causes the film to spread out the exposure. Either the anti-halation coating can't handle it, or there is some sort of bleeding of light (or chemical reaction) in the emulsion from over-exposed areas into the surrounding areas of the emulsion.
But the result was that these highly defined bright branches became visual mush. I certainly learn my lesson with that film! The reciprocity failure was in the "normal" range and the 2min exposure had enough shadow detail (placed on Zone III). It will make exposing high SBR situations such as we had in the redwoods tricky.
Has anyone seen anything like this in X-ray film? It has no anti-halation layer...and even more, sticks another emulsion where the anit-hal layer would be! Has anyone seen a limit to the amount of exposure the types of X-ray films can take before there is some loss of definition in the highlights (best seen when a white and a black are next to each other)?
Another thought -- perhaps a pyro type developer might help with the Adox 25. If the spread of exposure around over-exposed areas in the emulsion is more from a chemical reaction happening during development that bleeds into or contaminates the areas in the emulsion around it, then a tanning developer might harden the emulsion enough to prevent this "bleeding" within the emulsion.
Jim...have you noticed any difference in x-ray negs developed with non-pyro and with pyro developers?
I got to get out of the house!
Vaughn
.Quote:
After about 30 seconds I just doubled the exposure and it seemed to work fine
So then you are compensating then, Jim?
I still use the reciprocity data that I posted a while back. I prefer my shadows to be full of light, rather than black voids. I give compensation up to 32 seconds. After that, I don't bother, as the film's DR seems to flatten out resulting in negatives that look grossly overexposed. My tests have shown that the green stuff that I use has bad reciprocity characteristics. The curves don't lie... but then it does come down to the image and personal preferences.
Andrew O'Neill
Andrew, exactly what film are you using? From my reading it seems that the various films from Fuji, Kodak, Agfa, and generic brands too all vary to a broad degree, not to mention with what development techniques are used!
I did not know you had done some reciprocity tests on x-ray film. Do you have a link to these?
I can categorically state that with a 30-second exposure on the Fuji Super HR-T there was NO loss of shadow detail, for me, rated @ ISO 50, developed in a BTZS tube w/ Rodinal 1:100 for 6:30 and stripped. Which is great news for me because I'm stopping down a lot and having resultant longer exposures with 21"/28" lenses.
I have only used the blue-sensitive (Agfa) and I was surprised at how the differently it reacts in different light situations. Tests at 400 and at 800ASA, taken as portraits in open shade, the 400ASA yielded very dense, over-exposed negs. At 800 the negs were dense, but very printable. These first tests were developed at the hospital. The light on the subject(s) was almost all blue light from the sky.
Under the redwoods, the working ASA seemed to be closer to 100. I used 400 and had under-exposed negs but originally blamed in of poor reciprocity. But it just might be the difference in the color of the light that is lighting the scene. So when I have exposed this type of x-ray film, I take note if there is a lot of blue sky adding light to the scene and adjust accordingly.
Vaughn
When I tried that, I had lines on the rear of the neg left where they touched the ribs. I assume that the emulsion touching the ribs wasn't removed completely, thus leaving the lines. But each time I tried it, I got the same result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald Figal
Richard
Vaughn, I have used Efke 25 for years in all my formats except 14x17. The only problem I've had with bleeding of the highlights is when I shoot a heavily backlit scene. I have an image from Yosemite that I will eventually nail that has highlight density that is about 3.30. I over developed the neg a bit so exposure time in the Nuarc is at 1300 units! That is pushing 40 minutes. The detail in the neg is amazing and it is there I just have to print it right. I always use Pyrocat-HD with my Efke and with the x-ray film I use Pyro or D-76 and I have not noticed much difference at least visually. Printing the x-ray negs seems to be the same regardless of developer. I believe that it is true that if you over expose the Adox/ Efke you will build density real fast to a point of where it is just not usable. Some of my best negative shot in the Redwoods when we last worked together were shot on Efke 25 with the 8x20. 10 minute exposures at F-64 and the neg's and carbon prints are some of my best. I love using this film in the Redwoods as the slow exposure allows the light to wrap around the scene and give an added 3-d quality to the light. It was great when there was no wind to boot, remember!!
Andrew, maybe it is the way I meter? I try to keep my shadows open and full of light as well. Zone III and let the blacks fall where I wish them to. Using the Pyro I know I can hold the highlights. Seems like if I give it to much exposure I loose all of my contrast. Could be the lens, ISO rating and the different light that I shoot in. I'm not one for extensive testing and I think it is me as curves do not lie, I agree. I did test a still life set up using my Fresnel and a CFL for light and noticed that the negs were virtually the same. I believe for me I have been overexposing my film as I rate it at 80. Maybe Vaughn is right in that it has different speeds in different lighting situations.
Very true! I found this out as well. Jim, if they way you work works, then keep doing it. I'm not crazy about testing but I do feel that it is necessary to really know your materials.Quote:
Seems like if I give it to much exposure I loose all of my contrast.
Heh. Don't know why I didn't think about that. But giving it some though, I am worried about any developer between the bottom emulsion and glass. There is no way for the stop to reach it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr
There's no problem with the stop reaching the back side. Think of it the other way around-- if you didn't want stop on the back side of the film, how effective would putting the negative on a piece of glass be in preventing it? Not very effective, it turns out. The stop gets to the back side the same way the developer does in the developing tray. Give it a whirl!Quote:
Originally Posted by WayneStevenson
Jim -- thanks. The 2 minute negative was exposed under a 750W self-ballasted reflector Merc Vapor lamp. I hope I don't have to write that again! We went for an hour and the print was a little over-exposed -- some Sodium carbonate was used to reduce the print. The tissue was 6gr lampblack paint to 750lm water and 90 grams of gelatin -- brush sentitized w/ 2% Am Dicho. It might look good at 4%. I do not have the print available to scan. Carbon prints were properly exposed using the 4 minute exposure negative, but the highlights (it was a back-lit scene) were unsharp in what I thought was an unpleasant way. The prints looked almost locally solarized in the highlight areas.
A second image was made the same day using the same film, but more out in the light along the creek and without the large dark areas needing detail as the other image needed. The negative with one extra stop printed nicely. The one with an additional stop exposure I did not bother trying as the neg did not look good due to the over-exposure.
As a rule of thumb, I expose by finding the largest shadow area I want detail in and expose that on Zone III. I figure there will be smaller areas that will fall into lower zones to give the print some snap. Then, hopefully I read my lab notes on processing successful negatives (or failures) with similar SBR and develop at the dilution and time that seems best.
Vaughn
Vaughn, this is what I do when exposing my Efke-25. I just finished printing a negative from Yosemite. The valley in fog. A great scene. I posted the digital shot on FB. My print was exposed @ 1400 units on the Nuarc 26 1ks. About 40 minutes or 50 I'm not sure. Two 700 unit exposures. I used a 16 gram tissue and 1 1/2% dichromate. Natural lighting was soft and had no real contrast extremes. I managed a great print with this combo. Only problem is a little pigment in the small piece of sky in the image. I can crop that out as it is not much and the image is worth it. I reduced the print as well to give it some pop!
Back-lit scenes are tough to expose and especially print. I feel that you are right on the edge and keeping the highlights tame is not easy even if one is developing by inspection as I do.Love to see the prints. They sound great. I love the challenge of back-lit work. Tests one's skill.
Shot this on 8X10 CSX Green latitude. ISO 50 processed in Coffenol CM for 10 minutes. Neg was increadably thin. Image was almost undectable. How the scanner picked it up, I have no idea. Back to the drawing board.
Attachment 70074
Before the forum was redone a while back, I could post images that would show up, not as thumbnails that you needed to click on to enlarge, but full size. Now, when I click on the "insert image" icon it gives me the choice of getting the image from my computer or from url. I past in the url but it always posts as a thumbnail image. I can't figure out how to post large images...help!
Out in the country today to get my mind off things.
300mm Gundlach Radar @ f/16, rear tilt and swing. Fuji green-sensitive film. I think I need to up my development, the highlights are not very good and it was pretty low-contrast before some curves.
http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/...ring/0023s.jpg
CSX Green in coffenol - 150mm Konica Hexanon GRII on 8X10.
I had thrown this under processed neg in the trash after it washed. Dug it out this morning and gave it a scan.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52893762/img567.jpg
I'm really liking some of the things I've been seeing here that have been dipped in some sort of coffee related product.
Does it still smell like a wet roasted cat?
I tried it a while back, but it was a little hard to get past the smell.
I like it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy
Lovely frame! I would develop for another minute, rocking the tray the whole 7 minutes. 2 sided negs are THICK so don't be surprised if you can't see them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran