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

Printable View

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-Jun-2014, 12:57
tenderobject

Re: Images shot on X-ray film

Wow! Not bad. How's the quality of this film?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

It's still cheaper than regular film, example

8x10 - Ilford FP4+/Delta100/HP5+ = $108 (25 sheets).
8x10 - Kodak Ektascan = $80 (100 sheets).

That's over 4 times as cheap.
12-Jun-2014, 13:19
tenderobject

Re: Images shot on X-ray film

Thanks for the info! I'm loving this film. It seems like i will never use a panchromatic film for 8x10 (I'm broke). I'm really happy with the results i'm getting with X-ray film. I just need to be more careful every time i process my film.. I'm using Y2 filter. I just love how it renders the green to the film. Since my place have massive mountains, trees and great light i think the yellow fits what i like. Maybe i could try light green or other filters someday. I'll check those filters you mentioned.

By the way, i'm using ID-11 (1+3) to process all my films here. I just hope i could still find this developer in Tehran. If not i would probably brew my own developer. If ever i could find chemical supplier in Tehran i would probably make Parodinal. I've tested this developer before and it's also nice and economical than using ID-11. I usually process my X-ray film from 7-9 mins @ 20c-22c and agitate slowly every 15secs. Sometimes i agitate the film abruptly if i can't see proper contrast on my negative. Is this a good start? Is pre-mature development fine with X-ray/Ortho films? Thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by premortho

You really think that excessive contrast is a characteristic of orthochromatic film? Hmmm, ever look at the early work of Edward Weston, or Edourd Steichen, and hundreds of others? Excessive contrast comes from too much exposure, or too much development, or both. This used to be called "soot and whitewash". One of ortho's biggest advantages, from a use standpoint, is development by inspection. Under a ruby red light. If you use too powerful a developer, the neg will flash up so fast you can't control it. Dectol at 1 to 1,or 2 to 1, Rodinal at 25 or 50 to 1. When I use dectol, I use it at 25 to 1. Or Rodinal at 100 or 200 to 1. This takes 8 to 15 minutes to fully develop. I try to get it closer to just less than 10 minutes by strengthining the soup. Now filters. Ortho film is very, but not completely, blind to red light. It is extremely sensitive to ultra-violet, or in other words, skylight. When you use a 2X yellow filter, it holds back the u-v light in the sky, permitting a longer exposure. This allows cloud detail, and more shadow quality. Now I can't tell you which Wratten filters are which, because I use Burke & James "Ideal Ray Filters" If you can find them (on e-bay) they come in 2X, 3X, 4X, and 5X. The last two are almost never seen, so if you can find a 2X and a 3X, you're in business. I suppose everyone knows (or, as a Russian friend of mine says "as every hedgehog knows") That the "X" tells you how many times to multiply the exposure. I've heard that a green filter will work too, but I don't know if it will because I've never had one. Now, I'm sure some of you are staring at this little epistle, and thinking, "Gee, if I would just step up to the pump and pay five or so times more for pan film, my troubles would be over". You think so, right? The answer is, if all you want to take is snapshots, yes. You really should use a light blue filter on pan film to darken the reds. They put an excessive amount of red dye in pan film because it gooses the speed way up there. In conclusion, use ortho film for it's superior qualities, and pan when you have too.
12-Jun-2014, 14:16
StoneNYC

Re: Images shot on X-ray film

Quote:

Originally Posted by tenderobject

Wow! Not bad. How's the quality of this film?

I don't know I haven't used it yet but the people posting here seem to like it, it's more expensive than other x-ray films (which generally a 100 pack or 8x10 can be had for $30 but having the emulsion on only one side is a big plus for my workflow.
12-Jun-2014, 20:46
Ian Gordon Bilson

Re: Images shot on X-ray film

I noticed your comment about Parodinal. It is just paracetamol capsules and sodium hydroxide, so I'm sure you would have no trouble sourcing these. My experimental batch behave identically to Rodinal. If you wish,I can PM you a link to the mixing procedure.
13-Jun-2014, 11:08
tenderobject

Re: Images shot on X-ray film

Please Ian! Thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Gordon Bilson

I noticed your comment about Parodinal. It is just paracetamol capsules and sodium hydroxide, so I'm sure you would have no trouble sourcing these. My experimental batch behave identically to Rodinal. If you wish,I can PM you a link to the mixing procedure.
14-Jun-2014, 06:18
premortho

Re: Images shot on X-ray film

Hey, Andrew, thanks for showing us the results of your test. For me, I much prefer the yellow filter. But I'm sure there are times when the scene would be better with the green one. But I think it's for sure that one needs two yellows, a medium, and one 1 or 2 stops darker. I've been shooting ortho film for just less than 70 years, because I like the control you can have with it by filtration. I don't cry myself to sleep because the best ortho film I've ever used is no longer available (Ansco Super Plenachrome). I just make do with what I can get, and think I'm blessed that there are still so many varieties still available. There are many steps in orthochromaticism, from barely to almost as good as Plenachrome. Have you guys noticed how fine the grain is on ortho film? A lot of people like grain in their pictures. As for me, if I wanted grain, I'd shoot 35 mm and blow it up to 11X14. I believe that green X-ray film is more orthochromatic than blue X-ray film. And blue X-ray film is more orthochromatic than Arista edu-ortho II. So pick a film for the amount of tone control the situation calls for, and shoot it. And don't forget that multi-grade paper is orthochromatic also. Too slow? So what, you are using a tripod, aren't you. Why do you think they are still making Packard Shutters (and selling them!). So, you have a variety of choices from ASA 3 all the way up to over 100. What more could you want?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill

... and a filter test (written filers). Letters represent colour of objects. O=orange; B=black; LR=light red, etc... sorry but cannot find unfiltered image. I also have reciprocity data.
22-Jun-2014, 15:30
gbogatko

1 Attachment(s)

Re: Images shot on X-ray film

This with 8x10 Ektascan, Nikkor 250. Didn't get the exposure right, but still -- jiggered it in P.S.
There is no way this could be printed on silver-gel.
I'll try again some time soon.

Buttermilk Falls in Delaware Water Gap N.P.

Attachment 117200

George
22-Jun-2014, 15:57
StoneNYC

Re: Images shot on X-ray film

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbogatko

This with 8x10 Ektascan, Nikkor 250. Didn't get the exposure right, but still -- jiggered it in P.S.
There is no way this could be printed on silver-gel.
I'll try again some time soon.

Buttermilk Falls in Delaware Water Gap N.P.

Attachment 117200

George

Well looks good as a scan!
22-Jun-2014, 17:04
Jim Fitzgerald

Re: Images shot on X-ray film

George it would make a nice carbon print!
22-Jun-2014, 18:13
gbogatko

Re: Images shot on X-ray film

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald

George it would make a nice carbon print!

If I knew how to do that, I'd try.
But seriously, the density is just off the map. I took a LOT of jiggering to get the water to look half-way decent.

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page