Nice Images!!
Printable View
Yup. Its a bit peculiar thing i noticed too. Never had to compensate for longer exposures, at it seems be have enough latitude to allow for 2-3 stops miscalculations (every now and then i think i have gone too long or too short, but .. nope. Comes out right). Of course you still can goof it up, but it seems to be harder to do so.
8x10 Kodak CSG, 10m rotatry in 1:100 Adonal
Another cool part is that it dries up in about 15 minutes in drying cabinet so you can shoot batch and have ready results within 45 minutes ;)
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7476/...15fcf917_o.jpgScan-141030-0001www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
Sergei,
A beautiful portrait of a beautiful woman.
Thanks guys :) I was lucky enough to marry woman who not only doesn't mind me photographing and dorking with cameras in general , but also who doesn't mind me to come home after long work and at like 10pm shout "hey! lets try shooting this!" :) And then patiently wait while i doing all the stuff ;)
And encouraging me to do more photography b/c she knows I like it.
I agree Sergei...an excellent portrait!
Scan of a whole plate neg using Agfa Ht-g. Developed in Rodinal 1:120 for 10 mins.
I've exposed and developed to produce higher density for salt prints. I actually like the glowing highlights in this scan but the neg will perform best with an alternative POP (hopefully) :rolleyes:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5614/...ea670853_b.jpg
Nice. One of the things I'm finding particularly easy to make happen with x-ray film is glowing highlights, which I really like.
how do you choose between blue & green x-ray film?
There are other differences, but basically blue is mildly orthochromatic, green is more orthochromatic, and Kodak Ektascan is the most orthochromatic of all x-ray films. It is also backed with an anti light-scattering material. It costs twice as much as other x-ray films. Orthochromatic means "all colors", and it looked like it was compared to "ordinary film", but it still couldn't record red. Then came panchromatic film which does record tones of red.
Also... And more importantly
Green = 400ASA
Blue = 100ASA
Half or double is just that, so green half speed is 200ASA
For some reason I'm doubting the Blue speed, it's possible Blue is 200 and Half Speed Blue is 100.... Sorry for the cryptic info, green is definitely 400...
I'm happily shooting Green at 80 . . . .
I believe the 100 and 400 speed refers to system speed: The imaging system consisting of the film and the proper intensifying screens that fluoresce under x-rays to expose the film. Place the wrong kind of film into the wrong kind of screens and the resulting system speed drops to around 10 (as I guesstamate from my experience in x-ray). So green x-ray film isn't the same speed when exposed by light in a camera as TMAX 400, nor is blue x-ray film the same speed as Delta 100. I don't believe any ASA/ISO number has been assigned to x-ray film used in-camera and exposed to white light.
Ralph
I did something wrong on the above post, 2161. My comment is in the last two sentences. Thank you, and sorry for the confusion.
a first test to check if it works at all.
http://www.dynamo.de/filmwasters/xray_9x12_001.jpg
Crown Graphic, 6.8/90mm Angulon,
Fuji AD-M, 18x24, cut into 9x12 sheets, iso 100,
Rodinal 1+120, 18°C and 8min. (approx.)
slightly adjusted in Lightroom.
I believe the 100 and 400 speed refers to system speed: The imaging system consisting of the film and the proper intensifying screens that fluoresce under x-rays to expose the film. Place the wrong kind of film into the wrong kind of screens and the resulting system speed drops to around 10 (as I guesstamate from my experience in x-ray). So green x-ray film isn't the same speed when exposed by light in a camera as TMAX 400, nor is blue x-ray film the same speed as Delta 100. I don't believe any ASA/ISO number has been assigned to x-ray film used in-camera and exposed to white light.
Based on a very recent foray into industrial radiography at work, this is correct, except that the "film speed" is the contribution to the "system speed" that is not due to the "screen speed". So a 400-speed film with a matching "fast" screen will have a system speed of 800, for which there is no parallel in the photographic world.
Combining a blue-sensitive film with a green-emitting screen will give lousy results. When I learned this, it suddenly dawned on me why I had to expose CSG at an E.I. of 80 when using strobes, but 64 or less if the exposure was made with only the (tungsten) modeling lights. And when one of the modeling lights was dimmed to match a low flash output, the results were strangely unlike I expected. You might expect that someone who started taking pictures in the 1960s, when film boxes had both "daylight" and "tungsten" ratings marked on them, would remember that even tungsten-halogen lamps aren't the same color temperature as a strobe!
this was shot today using a titan 8x10 pinhole camera, I have a filter on the inside and I forgot to add a bit of exposure for it, green sensitive xray film, f288 6 min. exposure. There was a bit of evening light coming in.
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3953/...570c212d_z.jpggoforth creek, pinhole 8x10 by goldenimageworks65, on Flickr
One can never have to many lenses :-)
One can never have to many lenses :-)
I think the rule is the same one which applies to clamps for woodworking: you will have too many at exactly the point where you no longer have enough room to use them. The corollary to this is: the only reasonable solution to insufficient shop/studio space is to get more space....
8x10 xray csg, 12m Adonal 1:100 rotary
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3955/...89c75a42_c.jpgScan-141102-0003www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
a couple more xray shot today with the ole 8x10 pinhole, the FL of this pinhole camera is 150mm@f288
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7471/...eb20c3f5_z.jpgpinhole 8x10 2 by goldenimageworks65, on Flickr
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5613/...13b45843_z.jpgpinhole 8x10 by goldenimageworks65, on Flickr
With pinhole, no need for expensive ND filters.
Nice water!
Many (I think the majority) of these x-ray film shots look quite dark. Is it possible to do a high-key shot on x-ray film? Is the general darkness a function of the material, or a conscious choice by the photographer?
This shot was with my Kodak 8x10, a 5x7 back, the lens a Gundlach Radar lens using Green x-ray film, process in HC110.
[IMG]https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3941/...db23c595_z.jpg18091-Vase with Leaves-5x7 on 2D-Fuji Xray-Hc110-Radar Lens copy by jackharrisphotography, on Flickr[/IMG]
Pretty Space Age stuff, Radar lenz on X-Ray.
Great image response! :)
Certainly a high key image can be made. It has to do with shadows and colors. Reds will be black, oranges dark gray, etc. A rim lit nude against a white background would be a great subject for a high key image. I have everything I need to make this image, except the subject.
Here is a portion of a recent high key test with CSG. I hope since I don't usually put images in here.
Attachment 124585
In my case, my work is in general getting lower and lower keyed, however, the material isn't dictating that. My negatives are looking really nice, by my usual standards. One of the things I have noticed about the stuff is that high toned things are rendered really nicely, and shadows can be very open, too, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation. The only real difference, in my case, is that I'm developing to quite a higher contrast than I would use for silver printing, but that's my intention, for the type of scanning I do, and the carbon printing I intend to try in the future.
Michael, can you explain your method of development?
D23, 1:6.
10 minutes, room temp, agitation every two minutes, in hangers in tanks.
I save and reuse the developer for maybe five or six weeks.
Shot today. 8x10, Fuji Green in D23, 1:6, 12 min.
Just trying to be a 1965-vintage studio portrait photographer . . . .
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3948/...8a2411f4_b.jpg
Roger Chase by michael.darnton, on Flickr
nice portrait