Hi guys! Is there a post already here about printing X-ray film on Silver gelatin paper? I was planning on testing my negs since i have some Foma papers. I just wonder how you guys tame the contrast etc..
Printable View
Hi guys! Is there a post already here about printing X-ray film on Silver gelatin paper? I was planning on testing my negs since i have some Foma papers. I just wonder how you guys tame the contrast etc..
Nice skintone! Itlooks like the Ektascan is not contrasty than other X-ray film (Fuji XRT Green).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott --
OK, you guys are ruining my life. All of this stuff is so beautiful! I just ordered a box of x-ray film to slice up for my 5x7. Another project--just what I needed. . . .
I think you should start off with Kodak Ectascan because it is single sided, so development is easier. Also look for a medium yellow filter, and try with and without. If you remember that it is an orthochromatic film (not sensitive to red light {they print as black}, you'll just do fine). Also, 5X7 is my favorite size. I really like the proportions. And, as my grandfather told me, smallest contact print that looks well hung on a wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
Get a 5x8 Chamonix instead and then it's less cutting :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
Stone, Helpful? Compassionate? Who was just looking for an 11x14 back on-the-cheap? Your photographically gifted and intelligent, try to be helpful too.... the smily face doesn't always make it funny.
But an 8x10 Deardorff would be even less! I have a friend who might lend me one. ..
What did you rate the film? 80 ISO? This looks like a winning combination. Contrast seems better tamed than my workflow with this film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott --
There are other cheaper 5x8's and I was semi-serious, if I were "into" the whole cutting down thing, I would certainly consider it.Quote:
Originally Posted by imagedowser
It wasn't meant to be smug, in fact, I contacted Chamonix to ask them (for this guy I just made the comment to) if they would create or had created an "insert" that could be used so that 5x7 holders could be used in the 5x8 camera, as I think some kind of "spacer" would be handy to just slide into the back or somehow attach to a standard 5x7 to extend the holder, the answer was just that they would make a reducing back to 5x7 which is a lot bulkier than I was thinking.
Anyway the point is it wasn't meant to be a smug comment, on the contrary I was serious (hence the due diligence on the "insert" invention I was thinking about).
Sorry that didn't translate well. But I think the 5x8 idea is pretty great, enables you to have way more options, including Velvia50/100, Provia100f, Ektar100/Portra160/400(without special order) and a number of other B&W films not cut in 5x7 and cutting in half is a LOT easier than cutting in half and then having to cut another side at a different length and hoping both cuts are precise enough not to fall out of the holder.
Sorry again if that wasn't helpful.
As far as my "on the cheap" goes, I have a priority system of what's worth the "big bucks" and what's worth scrounging for. And it comes down to application. I doubt I'll be hiking around with an 11x14 so any camera that will fit in my car is sufficient to me, but the Chamonix 8x10 is light enough to hike with, so I'll save for over a year and spend the big bucks to get one. Same with lenses, the fujinon 600 C is the ultimate for light hiking with any kind of reach, and the IC is incredible, so I'm willing to spend the money to get one (even if I will try and find a deal of possible) but a 1200mm is going to be too heavy in any iteration for me to hike with so if I ever find one cheap I'll snag it but I won't pay a lot for one because I don't see it as a value if it's a brick. This might sound crazy to you but that's just how I see things. So if I'm going to buy any 5x7/5x8 it should be ultra light, and frankly Chamonix is the only game out there, so I suggested it. I think there are some old wooden cameras in 5x8 to be had for a few hundred bucks, but you'll probably still have to buy the Chamonix holders as any other ones are scarce (though I just saw a member here sell 7 of them used so the deals are out there if you are patient!).
Ok I'm going to go play with my new Chamonix now...
Angus, I rate at EI100. But my experience with this stuff is that it's more forgiving on exposure than it is on developing; compared to the arista I usually use, moves in, say, 10% of developing time (rotary) or tweaks in dilution of Adanol have pretty pronounced effects on contrast. For example, I shot this today:
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2914/...339d30e4e9.jpgimg234 by Scott --, on Flickr
I pulled the developing to 6:30 at 20C (a reduction of about 12%) and contrast was usable. At 7:20 it would have been outside the realm of my scanner (4990).
All that said, there are a lot of variables that come together. I'm using an old Petzval that's marked 14", though looks to be more of 16", so the aperture may be f/6, or f/5, or somewhere in between. I'm metering, say, 1/10 at f/5.6, adding a couple stops for estimated bellows factor, guess at how long the Packard is open. The shot of the boys was taken with the Instantaneous setting on the Packard, so about 1/30. But there is a lot of room for slop, and I'm scanning and printing digitally, so the whole process is actually fairly workable.
Thanks Scott for sharing. I'm usually doing 6:30 versus 8:00 for my standard developer and rating at 80. I'm using a more modern lens and shutter combo so I guess I should do a series of tests and settle on what works best for me.
If you have a multicoated lens, it's as much as a stop faster than an "old fashioned) lens. I've used Packard Shutters for about 70 years, and it is the most reliable and consistent shutter I've ever used. The secound best shutter I've ever used is a Compound. Note that both of these are air operated ("Pnuematic"). With the Packard, it is important to use a stiff hose. This helps the repeatability of times considerably. Automobile vacuum hose is what I use. If you must use plastic hose, keep it short. Like a foot or eighteen inches. There is no need to "guess at how long the Packard is open. "One chimpanzee" is as close to one second as any mechanical shutter can get. The word "click-uh" is a fifth of a second, "click" a tenth. Hope this information is helpful to you two guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by angusparker
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3874/...7c603d77_c.jpg
Kayt by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
Kayt
Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)
Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangers
8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Moersch MT1 1:10 2 min.
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2916/...b72602be_c.jpg
Assisted Self Portrait #03 by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
Assisted Self Portrait #03
Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)
Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangers
8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Moersch MT1 1:10 2 min.
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2928/...16332706_c.jpg
Damodaran by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
Damodaran
Taken With:
8x10 Korona, 12" Goerz Dagor
Fuji HR-A (Green Sensitive X-Ray)
Processed with:
Rodinal 1:100 for 4 min. in tanks and hangers
8x10 Contact Print on:
Fomabrom 111, D-72 1:2 2 min. + Moersch MT1 1:10 2 min.
My first! Fuji green, D23, 1:6, stand developed for 12 min. I just scanned it wet, still in the hanger,
against the sky, with my digital Nikon, to see what I had. The scene had quite a bit of range, and
this handled it well, I think. I was surprised!
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3840/...4e392466_c.jpg
xray1 by michael.darnton, on Flickr
Well it has been a while. This was a test image. I was using some old carbon tissue poured well before my move. 8x10 carbon print.
Wow Lee! Your portraits are awesome. Are these image from scanned prints?
Can you share any tip on contact printing X-ray film to Silver Gelatin Paper? Filters, Time, etc :D
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoevangelist
Yes, I'm curious about the reasoning behind using two developers in succession also. I'm sure there is a reason, I'd just like to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderobject
Which two developers? Isn't MT1 a toner?Quote:
Originally Posted by premortho
OK, that answers the question. MT1 is a toner. I guess I would have written the description just a little different.
Just curious..has anyone tried to do long exposures with the Ektascan xray film? A friend gave me a few sheets to try out and the results came out pretty good (for regular exposure) but I'm curious about reciprocity. Anyone have any tips or examples?
I have actually shot up to 10 sec with no problem whatsoever, I wasn't sure about the reciprocity either so I just went by what the meter said, turned out fine. I was using green sensitive fuji
Anyone tried to clear one side of the xray? I'm tired of the scratches on one side of the film. Cheers.
Yup, it's pretty easy, it's basically the same as when you have to bleach a Polaroid Fuji negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Hao
You find a nice piece of glass, actually I just use newsprint but that's just me most people like to have a much harder surface, anyway you get some plastic tape that's really good and you just line the edges so that it's taped against the glass or the paper quite enough that any runoff doesn't see through to the other side and make sure it's completely flat so that not a single little crack in the taping can allow any kind of liquid to get to the other side, anyway then you just poor bunch of bleach on top, a lot of people like to use the gel bleach but I found no problem using regular old Clorox bleach, then you simply take the paper towel and wipe off the emulsion.
When you're done and it's completely clear on one side, you take the whole piece and rinse it off under tapwater so that all the bleach is gone, and then take the tape off and then wash it again just to be sure none of the bleach is on the edge line, make sure that you don't wet the other side because you don't want contaminated bleach to touch the actual good side of the film. Then simply hanging to dry like you would normally.
That's what I do anyway.
PS it was too much to type and I'm on my phone, so I ended up dictating this with Siri, so if there's any words that seem off, that's why. Good luck!
Many thanks, StoneNYC. Very timely. I'll get some bleach and try out.Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Cheers.
Max
I always found it very easy, but I've heard others say that it's very difficult for them, so depends on if you have somebody fingers, and whether that's easy or not, I literally just use paper towel to rub off the emulsion, it's soft and you can throw it away after.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Hao
That said I suggest you attempt this first on a negative you don't care about just to be safe.
Thanks! Contact printing times are going to be different for each paper, developer, machine, lens, aperture, and distance to paper. I'm using a Zone VI VC enlarger at the moment, but almost finished setting up my Omega D5 which, from there on out, I'll be using for making contact prints because the Zone VI bulbs aren't made anymore. For these recent portraits, I've been doing "split filtering" the green bulb for the highlights and the blue bulb for the shadow value.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenderobject
I wonder if anyone has any experience with pencil retouching on x-ray film. I am doing mostly portraits, and there is a definite advantage to doing some old-fashioned retouching. I do know that it was traditionally done on the back, on films made for retouching, or after applying a varnish dope layer for tooth. I tried pencil on one side of my double-sided Fuji green, and it went on quite nicely, which makes me wonder why not to retouch on the emulsion side (since I don't have a choice, both sides being emulsion :-)
Anyway, it sure would save a lot of Photoshop time, I think.
Well done, Vince!
Deat x-ray film users!
I will try to shoot with x-ray film. I need som help please:
Which one to try first? Do you have any experience with them? Fuji IX100, Fuji IX80, Agfa CP-GU, FUJI UM-MA Hc, KODAK MIN-R. Do you think FUJI UM-MA Hc will be the best? Do you have any problem with Fuji?
I know NIF: no protection between films. EP/PB wacuum sealed? Have you this?
High contrast... they saying. I it good for photos?
What kind of foxer are u using? I will try caffenol developer.
I am looking for thr same, the seller here tells me that Kodak has stopped xray and its now rebadged as something else, would that be true?
I had my first try with Agfa CP-GU (double side emulsion).
After caffenol, when I took out from the developer and during washing the negative looked perfect. As soon as I pored the fixer on the negative, it turned dark.
With household bleach I removed the emulsion from one side. The image looks better, but still dark and looks foggy.
Developer:
27g Washing soda
8g Vitamin C
20g Instant Coffee
3g table salt with Iodine
500ml water
Fixing bath:
sodium thiosulphate (anhydrous) 80g in 250ml water
What was wrong?
I don't know what is wrong, but I suggest you start out with a commercial developer. This will reduce the variables. Rodinal 1-100 is one of the stand-bys. If you start reading back about 20 pages, you will find all kind of development hints. I prefer the Kodak single sided emulsion. Less chances for scratches. Also remember that if you use double sided emulsions, you will need more exposure if you remove one side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakody1
It will always turn dark when you pour on the fixer. The fix clears the unexposed/undeveloped emulsion away making it look dark.Quote:
As soon as I pored the fixer on the negative, it turned dark.
With household bleach I removed the emulsion from one side. The image looks better, but still dark and looks foggy.
Also, I would advise against stripping the emulsion. You end up with a negative with half the density range and degraded tonalities, imho.
Why are you washing the negative after development? Do you mean rinsing it in a stop bath? You should be stop, fix, then wash. I hope you are working under a safe, safelight.
I don't think that's true. If you cut the density in half everywhere, you still have the same range of tones, it's just half the density. That's important for alt. process but not traditional silver printing or scanning. Am I wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
I disagree about degraded tonalities but that's of course an opinion.
Search Google for Carestream x-ray film.Quote:
Originally Posted by analoguey
Thank you for the answers. I will try one more time with caffenol. Maybe the problem was the too strong red safe light (I hope)
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/denta...l/darkroom.pdf
"It must be made clear that there is no such thing as an absolutely safe safe-light. The film will be fogged if it is exposed too long to any intensity light. The question arises now for how long can a film be exposed to safelight illumination before fog becomes apparent."
http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/...kroom_fog_.pdf
Bakody, the product I reccommended is Kodak Ektascan B/RA film/4153. It is described as "medium speed,single coated tabular grain, orthochromatic medical x-ray film. It is coated on a 7 mil blue tinted polyester base (support), with anti-halation backing. Because it has anti-halation backing it has a film notch at the edge which must be in the upper right hand edge when loading the cut film holder." It is more expensive at $80.00 per box of 100, plus shipping. Since we don't know where in the world you live, we don't have anyway to approximate the shipping charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakody1
Oh yes, it is now called Kodak Carestream Ektascan B/RA film/4153. I buy mine from Z and Z medical in the USA. They have it in stock. How much the shipping will be, I don't know. I think 80 cents a sheet is a bargain for film with anti-halation backing.
I'm in Europe, Hungary...
Thanks, yes it is rebadged Carestream. I just bought a packet - I was told it was green sensistive.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
It has generic packaging here(of Carestream), but none of the extensive labelling I see on this thread.
Mine just writes out "TMX", then emulsion no and size/expiry date (till 2016).
Where is here, analoguey? It is not "re-badged", it is re-named. In the United States, the name for this kind of marketing is "It's the same old whore, but in a new dress". Crude, but very descriptive. If you read my post #727 and 728, it will give all the info on the film, through the courtesy of Z&Z Medical, where I get the stuff. What I wrote in 727 was a direct quote from Kodak, Rochester's description. Ektascan is an orthochromatic film, which means it does not "see" red light. This affects exposure. It is quite slow in the early morning, and late afternoon. It is fastest between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM at my latitude (44 degrees). You should keep an eye out for a medium yellow filter. I can't reccomend a specific filter, because I'm sure you could never find what I use, which is a Burke&James Ingento 2X yellow filter. 2X means two times the exposure. The fact that this film has an anti-halation backing is a big plus, and, combined with the fact it is a single sided emulsion is why I use it. I would not start using this film with a home brewed developer. You will have to learn it's ideocincracies, so using a common developer simplifies the learning curve. I don't shoot enough film these days to use a short life developer, which is why I use Rodinal. I used to use D-72, 24-1, but it doesn't keep that long. Rodinal keeps for years in the bottle it comes in.Quote:
Originally Posted by analoguey
Two new ones:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3847/...ee14c2fd_b.jpg
Eric by michael.darnton, on Flickr
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3839/...b09c6a89_b.jpg
Roberta by michael.darnton, on Flickr
Attachment 119711
This is Ektascan cut down to 4X5, shot with an RB Graflex D, with a Wollensak 15 in. tele 5.6 at 1/5th of a second at f 8, in a dark back yard late in the day. I processed the film in D-23 with an afterbath of water and sodium Carbonate and printed on Oriental Seagull G-3. Print's too big for the scanner. It was much easier to print than to scan.
My Super D has a baffle under the mirror that shades off the lower 1/2" or so of the top of the photo on vertical shots with the 15" tele on closer shots like yours. Is yours a Series D, and do you not have this problem?
I don't have this problem. I get a clear image on the ground glass top to bottom and a fully exposed negative. I have mounted the lens on the very front of the standard, using a bottom slider from a defunct Speed and some hardware store parts to tighten it up top. It focuses at infinity just fine by racking out maybe an inch and I can focus to about 6-8 feet; I haven't measured but will tomorrow. If you like I'll grab a cell phone shot of the mounting to show you. This lens is my favorite for the D. It is an early D I think, maybe manufactured in 1928.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
Bill
Why the sodium carbonate wash?Quote:
Originally Posted by blueribbontea
I just held the negative under running water and played around with bleach. The emulsion comes of very quick. A little bit got to the other side though but not much. So taping it down will be a better idea. Just try it out on a worthless negative and have some fun. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
I've been playing around with some x-ray in preparation for some salt prints. This was one that I shot recently and just scanned. Any idea what might be creating the artefacts in the sky area. I develop in a ziplock bag...could these be as a result of holding the bag too close to the safe light when inspecting? It was quite a short development time (5 mins)...could it be too short a development and as a result should I dilute my developer (PMK by the way) to allow for longer development?
Attachment 119718