I rewired my old Kodak bullet safelight, put the Lowe’s bulb in it, and covered with the CBX-2 filter. Bounced the light off the ceiling so nothing direct. No fogging.
Printable View
I rewired my old Kodak bullet safelight, put the Lowe’s bulb in it, and covered with the CBX-2 filter. Bounced the light off the ceiling so nothing direct. No fogging.
I love how visible there are compared to my incandescent safe light which takes me 2-4 minutes before I can see anything in the room. I’m hoping the rubylith will make the light safe without reducing the ambient light too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Can
I used Carestream X-ray film for several years. I’m now testing Fuji and ran into something strange. I use BTSD methods and ran the tests with a step wedge and Plotter software. While most folks seem to shoot this film at ISO 80-100, my tests show EFS of 6-14. The tests show development times for Pyrocat that include SBR 7 (N) time of 7:15 which seems in line with what others have reported. I went out and shot a full range scene that was SBR 7. The program gave me an exposure time of 3-minutes and a development time of five minutes 30-seconds. This just didn’t seem right to my eye and experience. I made a second exposure by my incident meter at ISO 100 - 1/30 second and developed for the 7:15 time.
The long exposure came out far overexposed. The short exposure had a little less shadow detail than I like, so in the future I’ll try it at 80.
Any idea why the Plotter software gives such low EFS and resulting long exposure times, while at the same time giving what seems to be correct development times?
I don't think Fuji or Kodak would make wildly diff Medical X-Ray film
I have some industrial X-Ray coming, that MAY be different
It's 5X7, which I never saw in Medical
I don't have the tools or skill to do what you did, but with a little experimentation, I shoot HR-U at EI80 and developed in Rodinal 1:100. I haven't tried in Pyrocat yet, since I'm only just starting experimenting with Pyrocat in other contexts. Once I'm more familiar with it, I may try HR-U in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by j.e.simmons
Sandy King wrote in some thread years ago that Effective Film Speed and ISO are not the same but should be close.
BTW, where do you buy your 8x10" Mammo films in the US? This size is not available in Europe, I have to buy 18x24cm and the ration is not exactly the same.
Thx in advance.
I think new 8x10 mammo is extinct
Maybe expired available on eBay USA
https://www.zzmedical.com/x-ray-acce...-ray-film.html
I used them for almost a decade, very reliable source
I don't think I will ever run out of my pile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippe Grunchec
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5b4f05b0_h.jpgKodak Min-R Single Sided Mammography 18x24cm by Nokton48, on Flickr
Here is my stash of 18x24 single sided.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...cf553d6b_h.jpgSinar Norma 18x24 Lisco Holders XRAY by Nokton48, on Flickr
An 18x24cm contact printed on the larger 8x10 paper allows a nice black border IMO
So here I am 604 web pages and post count so high I dare not even think in those terms, lest I fear an explosion of the brain. How do i sort through all that to find a few answers and testimonials of Fuji HR or HRT Green and Rodinal combination? It seems to be the favorite combo to achieve convenience, yet true continuous tone in 8x10 tray use. Thank you.