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

I am going to do some experiments with this film to nail down exposure sensitivity, and
find development times for a standard (such as xtol, HC-110b, ID-11, etc).

Once I find the speeds and development times, I'll do comparitive photos of green sensitive, green latitude, blue, and half-speed blue for everyone so that I think everyone's questions will be answered.

Should have this all taken care of within a week's time hopefully.

Going to probably start with T-Max. Have litres of this junk I've been meaning to dump down the drain (shhhhh). I'm not a fan of it. Best to actually use it for anything I suppose. See what HC-110b will do to it as well.

Anyone tried either of those?

I appreciated the test of the scanned negative that had one emulsion removed. It looked like there wasn't much difference.

I test I would like to see now would be a double-sided contact print and a one-emulsion contact print. It almost seems like if the sharp side of the film was placed down, the back would act as a kind of "unsharp mask".

Very interesting. Thank you for the test.

It seems that very little sharpness is lost by the double-sidedness in a contact print. It could be that the xray film is less sharp than "real" film, but it looks like if it is, it's because of the emulsion itself and not due to the doublesidedness. The example images in the parent post of this thread do seem to show that the xray film is less sharp, although this could be development too.

I'm still not sure what to think of the increased density that would seem to result from a double-sided negative and how that would effect silver printing--I mean I don't know what "good" Xray negative should look like. It almost seems like if you underexpose enough to bring the overall density down to normal-looking levels, you would end up pushing the shadows out onto the toe. Then again, even twice the density is only a difference of .3 density.

I just received a box of the CXS house-brand 8"x10" green-sensitive film, and did a little experimenting last night. It's also orange-sensitive, so my first safelight exposure came out fully exposed - oops. It seems to expose about ASA 100 (similar to my Efke 100) but develops faster in D76, and since it's double sided has a much deeper black. The emulsion is very fragile when wet, but solid when dry, as others have noted. It also has a bluish tint to the base, similar to 1/4 blue or CTB gels. After bleaching off one side of the emulsion, the x-ray and Efke stocks were approximately similar. I found the sharpness of the film to be certainly sharp enough for contact printing - there's no antihalation layer of course, so some highlights may bloom. YMMV.

I expect that this film (with double sided emulsion) will work very well for the use I intend to make of it; contact print to cyanotype and other alternate print techniques. Over the next few weeks I'll be building a rough-and-ready 8x10 camera out of an old Wollensak lens and junk lumber, then see how it works.

BetterSense - I don't think underexposure is the solution to the x-ray film density issue. You may get less density overall, but you will lose shadow detail. You could try for extreme underdevelopment or water bath development for highlight control, but you may risk uneven processing then (I didn't try water bath). A spritz of Clorox on one side of the film is quick and very effective - but you risk leak through if there are any pinholes in the negative base (I noticed one on the sheet I bleached).

Quote:

---

A spritz of Clorox on one side of the film is quick and very effective - but you risk leak through if there are any pinholes in the negative base (I noticed one on the sheet I bleached).

---

Are you even taping the edges of the negative down, then? You make it sound like you have discovered a good system for bleaching one side.

Okay, here is an update on some recent 8x10 shots that I did. I use Pyrocat-HD to develop my negatives. For the x-ray film I use the 1:1:200 dilution. I developed the 8x10's in a tank and tried minimal agitation. I must say that hangers are the way to go with this film as there are no scratches at all and the Pyro hardens the emulsion. My times were 17 1/2 minutes and I got some good negatives. I shot the film at 100 and some of the scenes were low contrast and some high. 10 zones or more. I did develop a couple of sheets for 12 1/2 minutes and they were very thin.I have a foot switch that I use and I plugged it into my red safe light and checked development with no fogging that I can see. I just switched it on about 3/4 of the way through development.

I am going to try to develop some sheets next time using my standard agitation technique and watch development because I see no benefit to the minimal agitation at least for the x-ray film. Nothing scientific going on here but I'm going to re-shoot the scenes and then develop with a different approach. If I get some higher contrast all the better as I print alternative process carbon transfer.

I have not noticed a huge difference in sharpness when printing both sides. I print in carbon and I did do an 11x14 negative of the same scene printed both ways. You can see the sharpness difference when the negative is reversed. Could be that the negative is so big that it shows more. The high contrast of this film and the cost are a couple of great factors to consider for the alt. process printer.

Jim

Jim
Thanks for the update. I have a day or so to go before I finish 3 tanks. The scratches from tray developing are daunting. I have tested a window-screen-frame film hanger by dunking it in the chemicals and, for very limited tests, see no corrosion issues.
The width of these hangers is extreme compared to "real" hangers, so the tank tests should reveal edge turbulence issues- glad to see a semi-stand approach is also viable.
Shoot I'm waay behind
regards
Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdWorkman

Jim
Thanks for the update. I have a day or so to go before I finish 3 tanks. The scratches from tray developing are daunting. I have tested a window-screen-frame film hanger by dunking it in the chemicals and, for very limited tests, see no corrosion issues.
The width of these hangers is extreme compared to "real" hangers, so the tank tests should reveal edge turbulence issues- glad to see a semi-stand approach is also viable.
Shoot I'm waay behind
regards
Ed

---

Ed it is a matter of time isn't it? I still have to finish the 11x14 film hangers. I have the tanks but I've been immersed in carbon transfer printing and I need to get the hangers done. My 8x10 negatives are scratch free. I still need to test normal development with the film in tanks. With my red safelight I can easily judge when to pull the negative to get the required density for carbon printing. The Pyrocat-HD works great at controlling the highlights. Normally I use 1:1:150 for minimal agitation with great results. I think I'll try this dilution and normal agitation to see what I get. The developer is cheap as I mix it from scratch and the film is.... what can I say. I have 300 sheets of 11x14 which I got for almost free. Maybe .03 cents a sheet. Carbon transfer printing is cheap and my results are outstanding. Life is GOOD!

Jim

Just thought I would post an example of the CXS Brand Green Latitude film. I am pretty sure it is made by Kodak. This was shot in my homeade 8x10 Pinhole which I made just for this film. As you can see the green foliage gets very light with this film almost like an IR shot

Wallace, thanks for posting this example. I think we all need to post some visuals of what we are doing with this film so we can see what it is all about. Very nice pinhole by the way.


Jim