Thank you James R. Kyle :)Quote:
Originally Posted by James R. Kyle
Printable View
Thank you James R. Kyle :)Quote:
Originally Posted by James R. Kyle
Lots of great advice here Thodoris. Thanks very much. Interesting that you expose at ISO 16. Even my "good" negatives have been very thin. I thought perhaps my very long development times (and thin negatives despite this) were due to dilution issues, but 2 stops more exposure should help. I'll try ISO 16. Have mixed a fresh batch of D76H and will try again a dilution of 1:4 before upping the strength.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras
The hardener in the fixer makes a lot of sense for this film! I didn't think of that. I've never used hardener, but have a bottle that came with the Kodak rapid fixer, so I'll prepare another solution.
Since I'm an interloper here on the large format forum, using approximately 6x9cm film sheets, I've been using 500ml glass beakers to develop and fix the film with stainless steel clips that dentists use to process those small x-ray films of theirs (I use a 1000ml beaker to wash under running filtered water). The clips hook onto the lip of the beaker and with the emulsion side facing the centre of the beaker, I don't think there's much risk of mechanical damage (I'll attach a photo).
The advice on trays is great. Part of my reasoning for trying x-ray film on medium format, is to see if I like the processes and results. The idea being to eventually move to larger format photography and using trays makes a lot more sense there.
I use a plain sodium sulphite solution as HCA for fibre-based paper, but I'll get hold of some sodium bisulphite, which I gather is safer to use with film.
Once I'm satisfied with D76H processing of UM-MA, I'll give the Rodinal a try!
All the best,
Iain
Attachment 250611
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6e218e1d_b.jpg1000mm F16 Apo Ronar Test HRU XRAY D23 Octobox by Nokton48, on Flickr
First Fuji 8x10 HRU XRAY film 1000mm F16 Rodenstock Apo Ronar. D23 tray developed with four Xray clips, One in each corner to keep it off the bottom of the 11x14 Cesco Tray. Lens set to F32, actual exposure F64 with two stops bellows draw. Exposure appears sharp, next test with be some panchromatic film. This was fun to do. Eighteen pops of the Octobox 1600J Primo were required.
Time day matters
and latitude
I mostly shoot inside with strobes
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...bd85fa49_b.jpgFirst Test of NPL 8x10 HRU 1000mm F32 18 pops Octobox by Nokton48, on Flickr
First test of Negative Lab Pro, a program which converts large format negatives (small ones too) into nice looking positives. This is 8x10 Fuji HRU XRAY Film, D23 replenished. Neg copied with Sony Nex-7 (36mp) with 50mm Zeiss F2.8 Touit, an AWESOME optic. Big learning curve ahead :)
Would somebody do me a favor and lick his finger for touching a sheet of Kodak/Carestream Min-R (anywhich subtype of the series) on both sides?
It is the Carestream/Kodak mammography line of films, but from the data sheets I have avaible I can not decide if the base is coated one bot faces or only on one. Carestream writes about double coating but at the same times mention they coated with a fine grain coat and a coarse grain. So it is not clear to me what they mean by double coated.
I already wrote Carestream twice but they dont care to answer.
I can't do a lick test for you but I think MIN-R is both double emulsion and with two different (dual) emulsions on one side. I will try to find the brochure that shows this. I think it was for the RS version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
I'm shooting some 18x24cm Min-R today, and even under my safelights I can see a distinct base and emulsion side. Plus it is notched so you are sure of the emulsion side. Right now I'm trying processing in my venerable 8x10 Black Unicolor Unidrum II Print Drums. So far it looks very clean, no flow marks I can detect. Seems to fit tightly in the 8x10 slots meant for 8x10 enlarging paper. I kind like running a sheet a time, I'm working on a good neg with straight D23 Replenished, my current soup of choice. So far I have reduced the development time to 4 3/4 minutes (on a Unicolor Uniroller) and each neg looks better with each try. Zeroing in on what I want, maybe more exposure and even less development? Will try that maybe tomorrow. It is fun to be back in the darkroom, I'm enjoying it.
Prolly has two layers on the emulsion side? So far no defects from running Min-R in my four Unidrums (poor man's JOBO) :)
In the meantime I found, well hidden and not from the Carestream official website, a Spanish commercial brochure where they show the layers in the film:
https://healthstore.cl/pdf/Film-Min-RS.pdf
And here the poor quality English version: https://www.ti-ba.com/wp-content/upl...nal-5-5-08.pdf
I am wondering if this both side coating is true only for Min-R S or all the other versions.
Would like to find out what the differences are:
- I found Min-R EV described as the premium product. A slightly higher price supports this. From the 2014 sales brochure, for boxes of 100 sheets:
EV: 18 x 24 100 892 5356 £216.53 / 24 x 30 £368.03
2000 Plus: 18 x 24 £206.33 / 24 x 30 £351.28
- Min-R 2000 is normal quality, Min-R 2000 Plus being a 2011 higher density reformulation with a deeper blue tint. (C. claims radiologists prefer more blue. We surely not.) https://www.itnonline.com/content/ne...ewer-artifacts and https://www.auntminnie.com/clinical-...ted-mammo-film, etc.
- I am not sure where Min-R and Min R S fits in the product line.
- I do not know what Min-R L is.
I thought/hoped mammography film to be always single side coated. In the meantime I have the feeling that all Min-R variants are coated on both sides but intended to be used in casettes with only single (green) emitting intensifiying screen.
Would have been nice to know before I ordered a life supply of boxes with the Min-R EV.
So, the film is notched - this means is asymmetrical - the normal X-ray film is symmetric, no orientation mark. From the brochure is clear it has two different senzitive layers one on one side and one on the other side and also have the extra antihalo layer (not present in normal X-ray film).
So it looks like a hybrid film - something between the simple X-ray and the (almost) photographic mammography X-ray with the emulsion on one side and antihalo on the back.