v750.Quote:
Originally Posted by photoevangelist
Printable View
v750.Quote:
Originally Posted by photoevangelist
I'm googling around but can somebody tell me where I can buy some mammo film please? I see on zzmedical who sell Sony Blue Thermal mammography film, but I'm wondering is it laser print film or conventional film? Sony's webpage didn't help much, they didn't supply any detail. I highly appreciate your advises.
Thanks Andrew.
I only found 24x30 cm mammo films, seems I have to cut it down to 8x10".
@Corran What a beautiful picture, I wish I could snap something like that.
Abandoned church, Long Pond Ironworks, NJ
Plain green Xray film -- one side stripped.
Attachment 92367
Boring out a steam valve.
ALCO #60, RIngos NJ
Plain green xray - one side stripped. Schneider 165/8.
Attachment 92368
Stripping cuts down contrast. Makes scanning and silver printing a lot more controllable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Graves
Plain green 8x10 xray, not stripped, scanned.
Heliar 300 wide open
Attachment 92372
Plain green 8x10 xray, not stripped, scanned.
Verito 14" at f/8.
Attachment 92373
It cuts the density range in half. Contrast remains pretty much the same.Quote:
Stripping cuts down contrast.
I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
Another way of putting it is that it's easier to realize shadow detail without everything beyond facial tones turning into solid paper white; without having to do insane fiddling with 'levels' or paper-grade filters and water-bath development. Unless you're printing with alternative methods, which is a different story.
This is nice. Very well done. Is this a scan of the negative or a print? I know it says scanned but I want to be sure and if it is a scan how will you print it because I'd like to see it. Love the Verito.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbogatko
Sigh -- it is a scan of the negative. Finances prevent a real dark room that can achieve actual darkness during the day. That and a day job.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald
I actually have a Gum kit from photo-forumulary, but have only had the chance to gaze at it longingly....
One day. one day...
Hang in there. It is frustrating not having a darkroom. I make the best of my two bedroom apartment. That will make a nice print, I can tell. Congratulations.
A carbon print from Blue X-ray film shot at ISO 50 on the new 8x10. D-76 for 7 minutes. Hermagis Edioscop at F-8.
8x10 kodak csg, gundlach radar
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8392/8...09926531_c.jpg
Scan-130328-0003www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
gotta get some x-ray film
i had no idea
why am i paying a lot for plain old film
great images!
Not for people who only print digitally, so nothing wrong with a scan.Quote:
It is frustrating not having a darkroom
8x10 csg, yellow-green XO filter (Kenko). Old Angulon 165mm.
Late evening (almost twilight)
@iso 50, developer in 1+100 Rodinal, 7.30m.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8259/8...33d50dd6_c.jpg
Scan-130331-0006www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
Sergei, you are driving me crazy! That is wonderful even on a computer, WOW!
and I just learned Novosibirsk is the third largest city in Russia. I learned something today!
Thanks and keep posting, your data is also appreciated.
I'm with Randy. Sergei, you do outstanding work!Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
OK, I just ordered Kodak Green Ortho 7x17 100 sheets for $61.29 delivered from http://www.cxsonline.com. Since I am currently shooting 5x7 Ilford DPP, I will cut this down to 5x7 and have plenty to make 7x11 for
This is getting interesting,
now back to shooting DPP with studio flash
Thanks, Peter and Randy.
I finally pushed myself today to do some of development in my usual rodinal 1+100, for stuff that was shot on different ratings (literally going from iso 5 to 100) , just for the hell of it. Wanted to see if i can use process lens with hand shutter, plus some other ideas. Then got brave enough to try studio shots i did yesterday, rating from usual meter around iso 50-60.
Lower ones went completely overexposed, no surprise there, even with 3 minutes development (still gave me some weird imagery though. can use it for textures and abstracts overlays with digital), but doing 7.30 with iso 50 in 1+100 turns out to be very very close to what i like to see in skin tones. Didnt even have to wiggle much those bars in vuescan. And right now about to see what print will look like ;)
8x10 kodak xray cgs, gundlach radar, rodinal 1+50, 5 minutes.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8249/8...aca3a567_c.jpg
Scan-130330-0001www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
Very nice Sergei. I really like your artistic style, the very dark atmospheric condition is so expressive. Moody! Excellent. I have much to do. X-Ray may be precisely where I want to go.
Thank you.
Beautiful!
Two light setup? One above and one to the right? Strobes?Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
Wonderful light/shadow comp and control.
Thanks guys.
Randy - thats the oddest thing with Xray probably. People find it too contrasty or weak ranged.. But it works for my light/preferences in studio shooting just fine. I can get about any digital on market - from 35mm to dMF cry like a baby, with noise b/c of way how i light things.. That was another reason why i so wanted to go back to film - its just working (ok, having cameras quitting in middle of shoot did help decision a bit too :)). And i know what will happen next.. i will keep looking at Jim's work and then you will post yours too.. and i will start scraping for 14x17 back like maniac ;)
ghostcount - single light. But angles very carefully to desired poi Since i got my modeling lights working properly and track setup - my shooting pace increased dramatically and i also no longer have need for polaroid/digichimping tests, which is brilliant :)
Well, it will take me a while to get up to speed. I have been doing half digital, half wet, but my D800 so pissed me off I sold it at a huge loss. I want images, not electronic marvels that don't work. Too expensive playing digital one up-man-ship games that is just getting worse. Now we need 4K video cameras and next week 8K video.
I like your 'look'. To print like that with my Canon Pro 1 printer, I need a lot of black ink. I hope to finish my darkroom and move to all wet.
My shooting studio is small, but I have strobes and led's on wall booms. I'm kinda old and beat up to compete, but I will give it a try.
Big cameras here we come, since big film IS available and affordable.
Thanks for all the inspiration!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
I'm so close to selling my 5D M2. Already sold 3 Canon lenses. It just doesn't get used at all. I'll be taking a major loss too. This is why I want to get out of the digital rat race. These 100+ cameras and lenses are still good and beat the quality of my digital. Even when it surpasses its quality, it won't be nearly the fun of saying, "I shoot xray film." It causes so much interest. My students are loving the large reversed images on the ground glass. I got a call from a major Korean English TV channel yesterday. They want to do an interview on me (because I'm a foreign photographer). This will be my chance to evangelize large format, xray film, and darkroom work. If I was using a DSLR, I'd be just as interesting as all the other brother's mother's sister's cousin's friends with one. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Love all the new work here! It's exciting! Just did 5 more portraits yesterday, hoping to develop them all (one at a time) today. I've decided to go with a yellow filter. The green filter is my favorite, but it requires two extra stops, meaning I have to shoot at F8 (lens is F6.8). With the yellow, it's a similar effect, it reduces contrast, but I had to add a filter grade (1.5 to 2.5) to get the feeling I wanted (making it more contrasty than the no- lens filter image. But I do like the look. Green was really nice but my F32 strobe light +2 for bellows extension and +2 for filter at ISO 160 caused me to reconsider. The Yellow is ever so slightly more contrasty when printed with the same 2.5 filter, but only adding one extra stop for filter, so I can shoot at F11. I need to upload some examples - prints are being flattened.
Well, I am keeping my D7000 and P7000. I use that little Nikon P7000 more than any other camera for scouting, test shots, and of course pictures of cameras for sale...
Checked your links. Nice. Sounds like you enjoy Korea. A few years back I tried to teach in China, but was somehow refused. Very confusing, as I exceed all requirements. I might be too old.
You are right about the pleasure of saying, 'I am shooting X-Ray film.' Sounds so exotic, if only they knew.
The digital rat race is very appropriate, especially if your interest is portrait. We don't need insane resolution, high ISO's or super sharp new lenses. What we do need is desire, film and a few old things that most people see as junk.
Looking forward to your new prints!
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoevangelist
Those 'points of interests' are desirable indeed. Truly amazing work.Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
iso50 shot, processed 7:30m in 1+100 Rodinal, constant agitation.
old convertible symmar (300/500 one) gives different rendition of tones, and she was a bit too tanned in comparition to most of people i shoot (spray on). And of course - blonde hair.. Worst nightmare comes true right there - hell to light by itself and she wanted that backlit kind of shot..:)
getting a bit too much details in highlights actually (had to pull highlights up a tad in scan), and shadowed face was a bit on thinning side, not entirely happy how i overlooked hand.. but oh well :)
oh and no filter. Straight CSG film.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8524/8...199a31b0_c.jpg
Scan-130331-0005www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
Shooting women to their order is very tough business.
Best thing about film, is that they can't chimp.
When digital, I now set up a monitor rotated to portrait right on the studio stand and give them a remote. They can chimp for hours. I even use it for self portraits. Guilty.
I also prefer pale and dark.
Where do you get your models?? Every single woman is centerfold gorgeous!Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeiR
;) I am always sticking with advice Eli Reed gave me a few years back. If they hire/work with you - "they work with you for reason of getting your style, even though they might not realize it. So just do your thing or dont do it at all".Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Well.. Not every, lets be honest there. Its like not every photo makes it out of dark room 8)Quote:
Originally Posted by photoevangelist
So far I've read 364 of inches in this thread. The discussion goes back and forth between stripping and not stripping. My overall observation is that the more experienced workers like Jim Fitzgerald prefer not to strip. I agree with him. The only reason I can see for stripping is careless handling of the film.
Perhaps workers won't and began using large-format film the last 20 or 25 years never learned how to handle film without scratching it. Those of us who go back to the 1930s well remember how easy it was to scratch the film, and this film had no emulsion on the base side.
I presume that most scratches, or at least many of them, a curve while sliding the film into the holder. I was taught at a very young age to never do that. My method involves removing the dark slide completely then slipping as much of one long edge under a lip as possible, then by putting a slight bow into the film pop the other edge under the other lip. Then it is necessary to all slide the film a fraction of an inch in order to have it seated correctly. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand how people slide 8 x 10, 7 x 17, or other large film into the holder. I've never tried to do so.
I realize that some scratching occurs during processing, but also notice that the careful experienced workers don't have a problem.
Think about your film handling and how it might be improved.
I hope this helps.
Jim
The tubes for the film in Expert drums are not cylinders, they are barrel shaped, thus allowing chemicals to flow on the back side of the film.
I don't know why the stripping thing is such a big deal.
I also think it's folly to just dismiss those of us who strip the film as "careless film handlers."
I process my film in an 8x10 BTZS tube. Yes, my first reason to strip the film is that it gets scratched all to hell in the tube, as people told me it would. But I also discovered ways to not have that issue, but I don't really care, as I find it beneficial.
Like I mentioned, I think people should test it for themselves.
Being slightly incapacitated at the moment I have read this entire thread as well as the other thread concerning x-ray film. When I read the comments by people who appear to have the greatest knowledge and most experience I come up with the conclusion that the only reason for stripping film is to eliminate scratches on the reverse side which are generally caused by poor film handling techniques.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Graves
I know some will argue with is that they have good techniques and still get scratches, but if I were able to watch them in action I have little doubt that I could point out their faults in film handling techniques. During my time as a teacher for over 60 years I have been able to make such observations for more than a few people.
Sergei,
this is another of your beautiful images. Yes I can see where you might have a concern or two, most of the people these images have appeared on this thread would be more than happy to have this image as their own.
You are the one of the people to whom I was referring in my previous reply as being an experienced and careful worker. Your attention to detail in every aspect of your work lends to its technical excellence as well as its beauty. I have thoroughly enjoyed seeing your images and reading your comments.
Keep up the good work.
Jim
Good news, now if my hands will cooperate, I will be delicate, when I get my order...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
I might add, I really appreciate the large images shared, far more inspirational than little ones...
Thanks Sergei, you are very generous indeed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
Maybe a little history on stripping is in order . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
Back in '09 I had noticed that there were quite a few discussions on the forum about scratches on the back-side emulsion of x-ray film. I made it a personal challenge, and in short I tested the first household chemical I thought would do the job. And there you have it. A simple, and relatively safe process to remove those unsightly scratches. That was easy. But, my reason for removing the back-side emulsion quickly evolved from disposing with the occasional scratch, to removing bromide drag marks caused by drum processing, to reducing the density of some negatives allowing for easy printing. When I originally brought it to the forum I never dictated that stripping was designed for a single purpose. And I definitely never intended stripping to be a point of contention, especially after 3 plus years. I just threw it out there expecting that it would be improved upon. Though on some level, I am glad to see it's still has a place.
Yeh, I'm still with the living.:cool: Cheers! Dann
Glad you like it folks. Forum helped (and helps still ) me a lot, in understanding mechanics of LF , as i never been educated on how to actually do whole thing - so i appreciate every bit of intel i can get here, and it just beacons me to share results and show what i got using what i learned here. E.g i wouldnt ever even thought about trying xray if it werent for it. Hell, i probably wouldnt ever have guts to try LF if it werent for it :)
It is so nice to have a viable alternative to traditional film and everyone is trying to do their thing with it. If I was a sliver printer then maybe I'd try stripping and everything. But as a carbon printer with exposures on the NuArc around 15-20 minutes I love the dense negs I get with x-ray film..... and the images especially portraits. I may have to try to cut some down for the 8x20 soon just to see if I can do it without scratching and if I do scratch it then I'll strip it. What is not to like.
Jim, just out of curiosity . . . could you not achieve the same "density" with regular film?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald
Yes I get even greater density with my now gone Efke 25. It is nice to have a film that has a different "look" than traditional film.