The spectra I've seen show a response well into the UV. However, the focus will be different and indeed it may not get through your lens.
Neil
Printable View
The spectra I've seen show a response well into the UV. However, the focus will be different and indeed it may not get through your lens.
Neil
I googled a few of my lenses and no one seems to have tried UV photography (and posted online about it) with them. Are there any pieces of information about a lens that would allow me to anticipate its UV transmissibility?
Ok just to get back to picture taking. I thought I might try something new. I have now dabbled a bit with nd10 filters using xray and it works pretty well. The company that makes the ND fIlter I purchased also makes star filters, these are designed for digital, so I thought it might be fun to see what the effect would be using xray film. Please excuse the quality and the out of focus pic, but I was mainly interested in effect.
Attachment 155944
Why not just keep experimenting with developers, dilutions, time and agitation methods to get the contrast where it needs to be to print on the desired paper? That is what most of us have done more than once in our lifetimes to get the desired results. What works for me may very well nt work for you.
8x10 Kodak CSG, 360mm Symmar-S, rotary 12 minutes in R09 (2.5ml : 270ml)
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5716/3...b2f35d39_o.jpgEd by Sergei Rodionov
Ed actually used to be a 4x5 shooter (speed graphic) back in high school and post school days, shooting society pages in Pasadena, CA and then was photographer whilst serving in navy.
After Everyone Left
A little after the sun had set behind the hills in the west.
210mm lens at f16
13x18cm Agfa HDR mammography film
Tray developed by inspection
Scan from negative, finished in PS.
https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5768/2...886ab8c1_b.jpg
Very nice!
Just got a box of CSG Green Sensitive Carestream 8x10 x-ray film from zzmedical to try; I believe it's Kodak film, though nothing on the box indicates that. I've looked through this thread for EI suggestions, but haven't found anything related specifically to this film. I'm thinking an EI of 50 - 100 to start...what say you?
Many thanks!
It's Kodak. Start at 50 ISO.
Which developer will you use, Alan?
Looking at my notes I have used "CSX Green" - no idea if that is Carestream or not. I rated it at ISO 50, processed in Rodinal 1:200 for 6 minutes or 1:100 for 4 minutes (tray).
I have recently used Ilford PQ paper developer in trays on CSG and it is well cooked in 2 minutes.
Probably the same ones I experimented with when shooting Ektascan: Rodinal, 510-Pyro, and Obsidian Aqua. I will process in BTZS tubes with the Rodinal and tanks/hangers for the staining developers. Generally, I've found the staining developers control the contrast better, but my only experience thus far is with the Ektascan material. But, some absolutely lovely images posted here using the green sensitive material has prompted me to give that a go.
OK, I wouldn't say my testing of CSG Green has gone very well. So far, I've only processed using tanks/hangers; Rodinal 1:100, though the contrast of the negative looked pretty good, was just too grainy for my taste, and 510-Pyro was on the thin side and somewhat under-developed. Also, had a couple scratches which is probably to be expected using tanks/hangers.
I'd like to try rotary processing this film next, but, to be honest, it baffles me a bit due to the dual-sided emulsion. If the one side is basically plastered against the wall of the tube/drum--I can use BTZS tubes or a Jobo Expert Drum--and doesn't see much, if any, chemistry what is that side going to look like? Or, does it not matter? Also, are there any other developers, besides Rodinal, that you have used to process this particular type of film using rotary processing? Time/temp/dilution?
Thanks for any insight provided.
8x10 BTZS tubes will scratch the backside of the film like crazy - you'll have to strip that side to get rid of the scratches if you use the tubes. The BTZS tubes in 8x10 size don't make the film flush against the sides, but the 4x5 size does. Not sure about any Jobo drums as I don't have/use them. X-ray film is definitely grainier in general, but is not noticeable usually IMO. I printed an 8x10 scanned negative to 32x24 and you could practically use a magnifying glass and not see any grain. That's as big as I could print, which admittedly is only about 3x.
Nope. don't use tubes with the double-sided stuff. Trust me on this. You could strip that side, but from my experience, stripped film looks terrible printed. The tones looks weak and it's grainier. I have developed using hangers, but one must be very careful inserting and pulling the film out of the hangers. Really gentle agitation... I barely pull the hanger out of solution. My favourite method is still flat-bottomed tray.
I use tanks and hangers and they work fine.
I also scratched X-Ray in the beginning and everybody told me be gentle.
I have shot X-Ray with Hasselblad, very sharp.
Xray is also sharp in an Olympus OM-1 with 1.8 50mm zuiko lens, f16, 1 sec., mirror lock up, self timer. CXS green is not care stream/Kodak. Packaging is totally different. I do ektascan in trays and have done cxs green in hangers and tanks but made the tanks too small/narrow for 8x10, the film bows a bit and catches the lip of the tank and scratches. multi 5x4s' not so bad if v. careful.
Well Randy, you're just so damn rough! ;)
New Moon – Aug 2016
210mm lens at f16
13x18cm Agfa HDR mammography film
Tray developed by inspection in very old Rodinal 1+100 at 22C for 7 min.
Scan from negative, finished in PS.
https://c6.staticflickr.com/6/5505/3...eea7b83e_b.jpg
Thanks, all, for your replies. I'm starting to think that me and x-ray film just don't get along very well. ;)
@Andrew - I've tried single sheet tray processing with regular 8x10 film when using staining developers--mostly ABC Pyro--and I've never been satisfied with the results; basically, uneven development was the primary issue. And, I rocked the tray for 12 out of every 15 secs moving counter-clockwise around the tray on each corner. Therefore, it was pretty much continuous agitation. Still...not great. Using the shuffle method--4 to 6 sheets in stack--provides much better results. But, I can't see even trying that technique with double-sided x-ray film; I'm guessing I'd have a lot of scratches no matter the method of handling the stack.
You need to check your agitation method in the tray. To develop a good technique fill the tray with the same amount of water as the developer you use (this may be too little if you get poor results). Put one drop of food coloring in the middle of the tray then agitate in your normal manner. If the color spread evenly you have a good technique, if not, try other methods until you get good results.
I used to have student do this as I watched andthey were usually amazed to discover they were really agitating very little.
Weird. I always get even development using flat-bottomed trays for either types of xray films... 1 litre of solution in an 8x10 tray. I only agitate north, south, east, west once every minute... the first minute is constant agitation. It's important that all of the developer moves over the film, so slightly vigorous movement of the tray is works best for me. Too gentle, then mottling may occur. Too vigorous, then excessive contrast or worse, scuffing/scratching.
Thanks, Andrew. I will try your technique next. If that doesn't work out for me, then I'm afraid x-ray film is not going to be part of my repertoire.
I almost gave up on the stuff when I first started using it back in 08. You'll figure it out!
In terms of evenness, my first attempt at tray developing x-ray film was terrible, too. But subsequent trials proved much better. I used the hake brush method, and as I've stated in previous posts, I'm semi-stand developing (1:1:200 Pyrocat-HD, 1 minute agitation, 29 minutes rest, 30 seconds agitation, 29½ minutes rest, then on to the stop bath. Temperature is 20 to 22 C°), so this may not work for you. I move the brush north to south for 15 seconds, then east to west for 15 seconds, until the time limit is reached.
I was a bad scratcher of X-Ray until I decided to try everything and even scratch the heck out it for testing. I use tongs when I just want a fast answer. Almost like Polaroid.
X-Ray is cheap, try everything. Several members here told me to try ZipLocks. Which does work well. Good for Hotel bathrooms.
Now I can develop a scratchless 14x36 inch enlarged negative X-Ray in a 11X14" tray by using film clips sloshing it curled. For that I use Ilford PQ 1-9. 2 min dev, 1 min plain water stop, 2 min TF5, 2 min wash. Even dries fast.
I would love to see how Vet Techs do it.
Play with it. Waste it. Cut into small format. Use scraps to check Fix clear time. It's good practice for premium film. When I get $25 a shot film. I need some confidence. That day is coming.
Thanks for the tips Andrew, I developed two negs of a church yesterday, the first developed with mottle and streaks, that was flat bottomed no agitation ro9 2.5ml to 275ml dilute. The second I tried the same technique in the same developer turned out well. I can see the mottling in the soup underneath the negative, so agitation well may be the cure to keep it all mixed
So far, I've gone about using x-ray film in a bit of a haphazard way: rate it somewhere around 50 or 100 and develop to inspection in whatever developer seemed handy. While this yields usable images quite often, I get nowhere near the success rate I'd like for making e.g. Van Dykes. Hence, I did a little testing today. This wasn't intended as a formal Zone System test. I only made some Van Dyke prints and scans from the negatives to see if my development times were in the ballpark I needed. I do not have access to a densitometer.
First, I set out to establish a development time that I can use for further refinement, if/when I feel like it. I cut up a sheet of green-sensitive film to 4x5's and exposed some sheets at identical settings, rating it at 50 based on experience so far. I chose a scene that featured a 10-stop brightness range. I then manually developed each sheet in a tray, each time using an excess (300ml for one 4x5) of freshly made developer. I opted for Pyrocat HD, as it's economical and has so far proven to be excellent for my purposes (mostly Van Dyke brown printing and scanning). This yielded the following:
http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/zut/t...611a_PCHDw.jpg
The first sheet I developed was the one that says 7m30s. It also yields the best Van Dyke brown print, although the 8m45s sheet is pretty close. The 6m15s sheet is clearly underdeveloped for Van Dyke prints at least, although it scans fine and still has plenty of shadow detail. For scanning and silver printing, this would be just fine.
I then decided to bracket some shots to see how the film responded to under- and overexposure. I shot the same scene (but with more subdued light) at ISO 25 - 50 - 100 - 200. I wanted to get some detail in the black tolex of the speaker cabinet left to the chair, underneath the plants, so I imagined this area to be around zone I to II. I chose to develop the sheets in one go in my Jobo, opting for a 9 minute development time. This is the result:
http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/zut/t...1611_PCHDw.jpg
With these parameters, I could get away with ISO 100 if the shadows don't matter much. There's a little shadow detail I could rescue in digital post processing. But ISO 50 seems like a good compromise. ISO 25 gives more shadow detail, obviously, but the highlights are only preserved because the total brightness range of the scene was quite limited. ISO 200 is underexposed to the point of being unusable.
My preliminary conclusion is that for a scene of fairly normal contrast, ISO 50 is a safe bet for this film and developer, but I'll have to keep placing important shadows at zones III-IV for Van Dyke brown prints, as in that process, shadow contrast is limited in my experience. I may try some contractions and expansions to get a feeling for how to deal with low- and high-contrast scenes.
Koraks thanks for sharing these tests. I believe it would be most helpful to see unaltered scans of prints. It is obvious that the most appropriate negative for VDB, and thus other alt prints, is not the one which looks best as a digital positive. so seeing these prints would be of help to many observers.
Jim, you're absolutely right of course. With the caveat that my purpose is dual: I want my negatives to print well with VdB, but I also want them to scan well. The latter is obviously the easier requirement, as negatives that make for good VdB prints generally scan just fine as well. In fact, it's much easier to extract particularly shadow detail from a negative by scanning it than by printing it as a Van Dyke. So in the end, for me, the way these negatives scan is just as important as how they print as VdB.
All the negatives of the ISO bracketing test came out pretty thin, with only the ISO 25 one being appropriate for printing. This is due to development; I noticed that when I develop in my Jobo rotary processor, I tend to get weaker negatives than when processing for the same time in a tray. I think it has to do that the negatives spend quite a bit of time suspended above the developer in the Jobo tank (I fill the 2509 with 300ml of developer). For the test posted above, I didn't compensate for this. As a result, the ISO bracketing test only makes sense when the negatives from that same batch are compared in a digital scan. I only printed the 25 ISO negative and it produced a usable VdB, but if intended specifically for that purpose, I would have developed it either in a tray for 9 minutes or in the Jobo for something like 12 minutes. I would have to test but don't intend to do so, as I never use the Jobo for x-ray. I only did it this time because I wanted these particular sheets to be processed identically.
Having said that, the negatives made with the different development times (all at ISO 50) were all printed. These are quick and dirty prints and by no means well done. However, they do illustrate the difference in terms of what the negatives are capable of. Below is the scan of all three prints together so that they can be compared in a sort of useful manner. I only altered the color a bit to get it to approach the actual prints (which I didn't quite succeed in). Of course, the Epson scan software applies its own Japanese-magic curve, so I think there's really no such thing as an 'unaltered scan' of a print. It's always a second-hand approximation of the real thing. The best I can give you is a direct comparison with the same processing parameters for the prints.
http://www.koraks.nl/galleries/zut/t...aVdB_PCHDw.jpg
These prints were made with the following parameters:
* Sensitizer: 5 drops of 20% ferric ammonium citrate, 4 drops of 11% silver nitrate, 2 drops of 8% tartaric acid
* Paper is Schut drawing paper, 160g/sqm with a rather coarse surface
* Exposure: Philips face tanner (50W of UV fluorescents) about 5 minutes at ca. 10cm distance
* 1 minute rinse with tap water with continuous agitation, followed by a quick (5-10 second) rinse with tap water.
* Fixed with exhausted film fixer at a dilution of ca. 1:15 (I mostly use exhausted film fixer for work prints).
* Quick rinse and then dried with a hair drier.
Obviously these prints are in no way archival and were never intended to be. Their sole purpose was to get a feeling for how the different negatives compare. Besides, no matter how hard I try, I never get two Van Dyke browns to get to look absolutely identical.
In the prints above, note the huge difference between the first and the second print, while the difference between the second and the third is much more subtle.
Andrew,
THANK YOU so much for posting your tray technique with xray film. I just tried it this morning using CSG Green and finally...FINALLY...I've produced my first usable neg! :) No scratches, no mottling; just a nice clean neg. I didn't develop it long enough for pt/pd printing, but that's easy to fix.
Thank you, again, as I was on the verge of giving up. And, thank you to others who encouraged me to push on and keep trying.
Even though the prints are not intended as the final ones, they stil provide more useful info than the previous negative scans.
By the way, I don't like to put x-ray film in a Jobo unless time necessitates it. I normally use a tray for the 7x17's and 8x10's. When I do use the Jobo I use an Expert drum and fill it with water prior to loading film. ALso, I mix my VDB by the liter. It stays in a brown glass bottle at a relatively constant temperature in the darkroom, and I have had it last up to 2 years.
Do you use double sided film? I have a jobo print tank that I never use and I'd love to be able to use it for xray 8x10s, but I don't see how I could get even development without resorting to stripping the emulsion off the backside. Is that the approach that you take or have you found a more elegant way?
As to the VdB sensitizer: I used to mix batches of 50ml or 200ml, but I found that the results were not entirely consistent between fresh and older sensitizer, so I switched to mixing it fresh. It also gives more flexibility in varying the recipe this way. I sometimes add more or less tartaric acid to control the contrast. Especially rising the tartaric acid concentration upwards of 1.5% w/v of the mixed sensitizer (below that point dmax suffers) gives some possibilities of boosting the contrast without the speed penalty and toxicity of using dichromate. I suppose everyone has their own ways of going about alt processes and I'll probably keep adjusting my methods as well.
Yes i use double sided film occasionally. The cylinders which hold the film in Expert drums are barrel shaped enabling chemicals to get to both sides of the film. I have never stripped the emulsion off the back side as it reduces the contrast too much and is a waste of time as far as I am concerned. Your approach to VDB is interesting to me. I may give it a try to see if it suits my methods.
Stripping literally cuts the DR in half. You also end up with a muddy looking, grainier image. Definitely a waste of time. If you have to strip, then best to use a single-sided film like Ektascan.
Oh really? :) :)
I love how dogmatic this keep getting. "no rotary" "must strip" & etc...
Rotary is only thing I use. I have not stripped single sheet in about 2.5 years, didn't like what it gets me. I have not scratched sheet in about 3 years, i think.
I do loading into tube inside of smallish tent. Loading of holders typically - in darkened room. Using both old wooden holders and modern plastic ones.
I think it is important to just find something that works. Experimenting is pretty much only one way to get there. I had film scratched during loading and while getting it out of tubes, till i figured and got all the moves right for myself. We all humans - we all have different control over fine motor skills.
There are days i can walk with cup of water on my head. There are days i can barely walk straight and need to hold onto stuff.
--
Much like with anything else - may 1000 flowers bloom, may 1000 schools prosper.
--
8x10 Kodak CSG double sided, 110:1 R09, 12m rotary
https://c3.staticflickr.com/6/5611/3...e57d9bc3_b.jpgEduard by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
Once again an amazing result Sergei, I have ordered a mod54 insert for 4x5, you have convinced me to give rotary a try!
Thanks , Andrew.
Mod54 is a bit funky. I threw mine away (no one wanted it back in Russia). I never got it to point where at least one of regular film sheets would escape or get scratched.
It was 1st revision, and honestly saying - i wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
Imho Jobo did WAY better job. But then one can make similar hack for paterson's tank from just unused 120mm spindle , i think. But i heard 2nd revision was a bit better.
Thanks Sergei, yes I have read bad things about the mod 54 for inversion, but thought rotary would be a lot more gentle on the film. I'll try it, if it causes too much angst I will return to tray, which I find relaxing anyway.
Hello SergeiR,
I am always very impressed with the work you produce using CSG Green. You mention Jobo above...do you use Expert Drums? Do you process on CPA/CPP style equipment or more manual like a roller base?
I have had recent success processing CSG Green in flat bottom trays, but that's single sheet at a time. My Expert Drum would enable me to process multiple sheets in one go. :)
thank you, Alan
Ii use both Jobo and Unidrum tanks, depending on work load and how i feel. As a result its either Jobo's CPP2 (ancient one, without lift) or Unidrum's rotary base (i don't like it bc you have to watch damn thing like a hawk, so drum won't fall off, but its far more compact space wise).
I have manual Jobo base too, and used it with 20x24 tank, but its rare. So my batch is 2-3 sheets in one go.
There is actually full description on how i deal with Xray film on my site/blog ;)
I do not own any expert drums :( I really wanted one for color work, but they are more expensive and i do have only ancient Jobo CPP, so its not like i can use it anyway)
Hi Koraks, yes on another thread they say that the middle holders, which have a solid support, forces the soup to divert around and causes a faster flow which makes for uneven development. Was that with rotary or inversion??