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

I don't know about developing by inspection, but the longer the wavelength the less likely you are to fog the film, everything else being equal. That said, most light sources aren't just one wavelength. LED's may be better about a narrow band of wavelengths than the fluorescent tubes, but I've not seen the spectra to be sure about it. BTW, 550 nm light is green, so not a good choice, at least I don't think so. I believe I read once that human vision is most sensitive in green light, but I still think it would be a bad idea. 630, 700, 740 should all be red. 770 is generally outside "visible" and into "infra-red" so not a good choice for inspection of film because you wouldn't see anything at all. I hope someone in our group who develops by inspection can guide you better than I can. I've thought about the using IR night vision gear to be able to see in the darkroom especially for making my own film one day. That's far in the future for me right now though.

Yes, in theory the further in the red, the less chance to fog the film. But I am interested in practical experience, the theory we know it all. I am not convinced that going as far as possible into the deepest red will hit the sweet spot between securely excluding fogging and still being able to comfortabely see the image developing.

550 nm was a typo, I meant 570-590.
What I see are red LEDs offered as: red and deep red. The reds are around 600 nm, maybe up to 630 nm. (So it is more orange in my opinion.) The deep reds are above 630 nm, typically 660-670 nm. And then some producers offer far red (although sometimes they refer with this to just what I presented before, different producers, different naming schemes) going up to 700 and a bit beyond. (And then ofcourse come the IR LEDs, these are not what I am interested in.)

So what practical knowledge did you guys aquired in this regard?

Here is the Spectral Absorption chart for the GBX-2 Red filter we use with regular incandescent bulbs.
Kodak recommends this filter for most blue and green sensitive xray film. No fogging issues after 17 minute safe light test with our fastest film.

I would think that if you have access to your LED Spectral Output chart and it fits in the shaded area you would be safe.

Attachment 252537

There's over 660 pages on this thread and looking for information is kinda hard, and search engine not that great. Sorry if I am repeating a question, honest I looked for it.
There was someone, maybe it was on this thread? Maybe it was a web page? I don't remember
But it went something like:

@ISO, generally do speed/fstop combination, because it doesn't read the same stuff as a normal light meter.

Does anyone remember reading this? I took a shot a couple weeks ago, and I managed to shot it at 200, and I metered on like a grey chair. Turned out okay but that was when I remembered someone had it written down. Maybe my question is, can I use a reflective light meter the same way on a subject with xray film? I see most people are rating Fuji xray film from 50-100.

I rate it at 50, otherwise you don't get enough shadow detail, then I develop with gentle D23, sort of let the highlights take care of themselves, since I'm scanning, not printing. Know that since the film is not sensitive to red, i.e. warm colors, it won't "see" tungsten light as very strong at all. I don't know by how much. Adding two or even three stops might be a good idea.

This is my first xray shot. https://www.flickr.com/photos/michae...in/dateposted/ There's a complete explanation of what I did underneath. Eventually I switched to some very mild agitation about once a minute, that's the only change. I use hangers for development--you will find that the stuff has about the scratch-resistance of jello when it's wet. That particular photo was "scanned" by holding the hanger up to the sky and shooting the neg with my phone camera then running it through Photoshop.

Almost all of the photos in that particular Flickr group are shot on xray film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdarnton

I rate it at 50, otherwise you don't get enough shadow detail, then I develop with gentle D23, sort of let the highlights take care of themselves, since I'm scanning, not printing. Know that since the film is not sensitive to red, i.e. warm colors, it won't "see" tungsten light as very strong at all. I don't know by how much. Adding two or even three stops might be a good idea.

This is my first xray shot. https://www.flickr.com/photos/michae...in/dateposted/ There's a complete explanation of what I did underneath. Eventually I switched to some very mild agitation about once a minute, that's the only change. I use hangers for development--you will find that the stuff has about the scratch-resistance of jello when it's wet. That particular photo was "scanned" by holding the hanger up to the sky and shooting the neg with my phone camera then running it through Photoshop.

Almost all of the photos in that particular Flickr group are shot on xray film.

---

Good info! Rate at 50 and meter like I would if it was a regular film? Sort of around that middle grey area, plus 1 or 2 if I want whites to be whiter, that sort ot normal film stuff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

There was a major purge years ago when the backend had some issue, with local files. Others, I assume folks have website changes or refreshes and they disappear.

Here's one I shot last weekend. Fuji HR-T, EI of 80, developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 6:30 at 70F:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.co...perd-4312s.jpg

---

sorry slow reply. Like the image, thanks for posting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Unkefer

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...eac495ff_b.jpg18x24 Mammo Shortie Sawed Off Norma by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is a test shot (my Shorty Norma) French Kodak 18x24cm Mammo Film, processed in D23 1:1. Taking camera is my new Annie/Avedon inspired 8x10 Norma. I applied 30 degrees of front and rear swing, the Norma original recessed lensboard is sharp all the way across the field. I like how the DOF drops off with the 360mm f5.6 Norma Symmar. There appears to be highlight blooming, which I find kind of attractive. Best thing about this film was that it was not at all expensive. And I have a lot of it

---

lovely tonality in this shot. Hard to get 8x10 mammo film in EU, looks like I'll have to buy a couple of 18x24 holders :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dimento

lovely tonality in this shot. Hard to get 8x10 mammo film in EU, looks like I'll have to buy a couple of 18x24 holders :)

---

In Europe I know only the Fujifilm UM-MA and it is available only in 18x24cm and 24x30cm.
I spend a lot of time to find single coated xray film in 8x10" but end of the day it ends with the 18x24cm size.
The different is not realy large but the filmholders are more rare than the 8x10" versions.

The film itself is excellent, it has a very high silver content and a speed of ISO 50-160 in relation to the colour of the light.

I buy the films in Germany here: roentgenexpress.de
I guess they deliver it to Irland as well.

A sample? Here it is:
18x24cm Fuji UM-MA, Kodak HC110 1+79
Schneider G-Claron 9/210mm

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...b0b3ce76_h.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arri

In Europe I know only the Fujifilm UM-MA and it is available only in 18x24cm and 24x30cm.
I spend a lot of time to find single coated xray film in 8x10" but end of the day it ends with the 18x24cm size.
The different is not realy large but the filmholders are more rare than the 8x10" versions.

The film itself is excellent, it has a very high silver content and a speed of ISO 50-160 in relation to the colour of the light.

I buy the films in Germany here: roentgenexpress.de
I guess they deliver it to Irland as well.

A sample? Here it is:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...b0b3ce76_h.jpg

---

Nice work. Yes the filmholders seem pricey alright. I'll keep an eye out. I know a fairly skilled woodworker who might be able to modify an old wooden 8x10 holder for me.