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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

I'm confused by your statements. You say they are wildly contrasty - so I assumed your highlights were blowing out.
I have no experience with EB/RA or HC-110 so that's just my thoughts with regard to the ol' adage of "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights"...

---

Not just the highlights, there is like nothing on the negative below Zone IV, just film base and Zone VII goes really dense. I tried developing for 2, 4 & 6 min at the very diluted HC-110 concentration, using 1.5 oz developer to 126.5 oz water in 1 gal tanks I guess I need to place my shadows in Zone III or IV, and lower the development time quite a bit. I'll try doing that this week when I get some time. I can't see using less developer than what I'm using. I was just wondering if anyone had achieved good results with the EB/RA film and HC-110. I had also tried developing it with Rodinal with similar unacceptable results.

8x10 Kodak CSG, 360mm Symmar-S Elinchrom Quadra Ranger heads.

As usual shot at ISO 100.
Usual rotary R09 1:120 for 11m.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/424/32...f5be68e0_o.jpgConnie by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

Here are some of my mediocre prints from my crumby office scanner:
Attachment 159589
Attachment 159590
Attachment 159591

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by senderoaburrido

Here are some of my mediocre prints from my crumby office scanner:
Attachment 159589
Attachment 159590
Attachment 159591

---

Not all bad!

You do realize that EVERYBODY adjusts scans?

Expecting immediate perfection from ANY photographic process is unrealistic.

Keep up the good work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by senderoaburrido

Here are some of my mediocre prints from my crumby office scanner:
Attachment 159589
Attachment 159590
Attachment 159591

---

Its a good result. Everyone does adjust scans. Everyone plays with curves and dodge/burning prints even when they are contact printed. Nothing wrong with helping print to look like what YOU want it to be.

To echo the above, these seem fine. The middle ones might could use a bit more exposure and less development for the lighting, or perhaps not depending on intended "mood."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SergeiR

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.

---

Amen, brother, Amen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koraks

http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/4x5_a.../XBT151_01.jpg
I used the information in this thread to shoot and develop some 4x5 x-ray (8x10 sheet cut into 4 pieces - how's that for economy!?). Exposed at ca. ISO 100 or perhaps a bit more (didn't account for bellows draw), developed in a small (ca. 5x7") tray in 200ml Rodinal 1:100 for about 6 minutes. I reused the same developer from the previous sheet I developed in it and the developer seemed to be getting very tired at this point ;) The film is Raytronix blue-sensitive stuff I got from eBay.

---

Now that's how a tray developed negative is supposed to print! Text-book example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

Wouod you be willing to post more about this in the "x-ray images and examples" thread which is more for discussion as opposed to this one that's about image sharing? Or create a new thread about the various pan films, this is interesting and I would be interested to learn more. I always knew that Acros was sensitive somehow differently than other pan films which is why I try and use it exclusively for my landscape work, but also for modeling work sometimes, has a different look I like a lot. Anyway if you wouldn't mind posting more info about this elsewhere that would be awesome!

Be well,

~Stone

---

I had massive trouble getting back on this site until lately. I'm not that smart anyway. Probably 90% of what I know about film sensitivity is in that post. I'm an amateur photographer of 70 years experience. I remember all of the wonderful claims for the newest, latest, and fastest films ever. Very few of these wonder films ever were all that wonderful. NOTHING has ever replaced Ansco's Supreme. NOTHING has ever really replaced Plus-X. As far as that goes, even Verichrome and Verichrome Pan do things that no other film can do. Except for Ansco's competitive product, and even that had it's own personality. Kodak would love to get rid of Tri-X, and hook everyone up with T-Max 400. The funny thing about this is that the only real difference between films is in the soup they coat it with. All the rest of the roll films are made on the same equipment. Wide rolls of whatever are sliced to 120 or 35 and what usta' be film pack film. The other line makes sheet film, and cuts it to different sizes. If I ran Kodak, we'd still be making batch runs of 122 and 116. Maybe even 118 (quarter plate roll film). Advertise it like the flavor of the month. "For June, the flavor of the month is Verichrome. First week and a half, 120, other half of the second week, 118. Third week, 116. Fourth week, 122". That's 20 work days. Leaves a couple of days at the end of the month to clean up the old soup, and start cooking the next soup. Of course, I don't have a degree in economics. So they wouldn't let me near the place. My expertise was in production engineering, or in other words, making stuff.

Hi premortho, good to see you here. What do you think about an entrepeneur starting production of film that is as similar as possible to Ansco Supreme, Plus-X and Verichrome Pan? Is the equipment and know-how available and willing to do this? Money is usually not the issue if the business case and means of production can be found.