Thanks Wayne.
Printable View
Thanks Wayne.
Last in this test series. With the results from the last 2 rounds I changed things up a bit on this processing scheme. I bolded below what I changed this time.
8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Late afternoon direct sun
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro using the Epson software with no additional adjustments
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5328/9...41dabeaa_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_100.5s1-6.3006 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
100 asa - 1/2 at f6.3
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then 15 seconds every 3 minutes
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5325/9...765dea64_b.jpg
Ektascan_BRA_80.25s1-6.3001 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
80 asa - 1/4 at f6.3
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 20 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then 15 seconds every minute
Process changes:
After the fairly drastic difference between 80 and 100 asa on the previous tests and the uneven processing I was getting I tried two different things this time.
1. On the 100 asa image I changed the agitation scheme to 1 minute followed by 15 seconds every 3 minutes to see if the uneven agitation would be solved while keeping the contrast that was nice on the previous rounds. It appears it has. :)
2. On the 80 asa image I processed for a shorter time (10 minutes) and agitated the first minute and then for 15 seconds every minute.
Observations:
I was really surprised how similar these images came out. There are subtle changes in the highlight areas but the overall tonality seems nearly identical. The sharpness and detail is quite good.
Next steps:
I am finally comfortable to shoot this film and have an idea of what I am going to get. You can't beat the price point (for single sided film anyway) and processing isn't difficult. I love film. :)
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
I read the whole thing, and I'm on dialup. It took me days. And I just developed my first x-ray negatives last night. I developed the first one with a red ping-pong ball bulb about 15 feet away. It was almost black. Guess that was a mistake. The second one developed in dark turned out OKish, will try to print it tonight. Hard to judge this stuff for the first time without printing it.
I can't do anything until QT Luong gets a hold of me. But he has to read my email first. It's probably not really necessary posting an article. The two main threads here (I wish they could at least be merged into one!!) in regards to X-ray film, are very meaty.
I think just a few bits would be good.
X-Ray film types and the 3 sizes that fit ANSI holders, (8x10, 11x14 and 14x17) sometimes the 7x17 fits and sometimes it does not, holders are not standard and 7x17 X-Ray film is actual size not 1/16" smaller like ANSI film.
An ISO guide and a suggestion that normal chems work.
Warning to be gentle with the doubled sided stuff, and so on.
Explanation of types and uses, including mammo, took me quite a while to figure mammo out, and I have yet to use it. But soon.
Now this will be lost in the forum, search does not work so good for me. imho ymmv
My article isn't comprehensive guide to x-ray film. It's based only on my personal experiences, although I do answer some of your points... except about some films do not fit standard holders. I have no experience with odd ball sizes. I only work with 8x10 and 14x17, in green latitude double-sided. I also talk about use of filters, EI's, methods of development, chemicals, conventional and alt printing abilities, and a bit on stripping... the film, not me.
i believe that if someone actually capable of shooting with camera - they are capable of reading and thus can find information. If information has to be chewed and spoon fed - may be that person shall not be there in first place. People conditioned to think that there is something super important about PROCESS. Thanks to lovely people of f64. Joy of discovering things, joy of trying new things, rediscovering something, hunting for bits and pieces - its all getting lost. Everything has to be "exposed for shadows" everything has to be under bloody developed and god forbid if you do something in dark room for 10 minutes and not 5:45.. You wont ever get good picture.... Riiiiiight.
---
8x10 kodak csg , 1:160 Rodinal, 7m rotary. Wollensak 12 inch SF series . Print.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/9...660df34d_c.jpg
Scan-130809-0001www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
Two more Fuji HRT neg
Take late in the day last Sunday as a low light test
G-Claron 270mm f45 was concerned regarding light but shadow detail was good,
second print was a little darker the range of tones id better than I thought:)
Scan of Print:):D
Attachment 100348
Attachment 100349
This shot was in the opposite direction so a little sun was shining beyond the lattice wall
Attachment 100350:)
GOOD COMMENT
Although not everyone is a good reader.
I read every post regarding the film process and Widely conflicting posts from
all manner of viewpoints( incluing the older set of posts took nights), so I wrote down the exposures posted from my judgment of the best looking images posted'
and used that as a starting dev time.
Having the mother of all battles actually buying x-ray film was just one step into the process' in AU you have to be a medico to buy x-ray film
my friendly Chiro offered to get some for me,as buying from USA +postage is over $100 dollars
so price was $55 from Fuji then the wholesaler got involved and price went to $110. but fresh stock
so $1 dollar a sheet for my new for me Kodak 8x10.
We do not have 8x10 but 240x180mm so my solution was sliding some 10mm dyno tape under the side and end rails,
then cutting some 13-15mm black card to fit under the metal rails and over the dyno tape.
when loading the film slide the film under the card which works quite well.
I have given up sticky taping the film in to the holder and use a 12mm stick on dot with holds the film in place.
which saves the jungle cat effort to remove the tape!.
Is it worth the effort absolutely never contact printed before so your initial development time was what I used 15.45 sec and 1.100 Rodinal
in trays 1 sheet at a time and rocking the tray side to side 1 lite mix each time
Still winter over here so bright sunshine just as lately is rare,time will tell
How it goes in our clear sunny days
Regards
Bazz8
I experiment, as do most B&W workers. Good process has served me well.
Well, here is my first effort actually shooting this film with an idea of outcome in mind. I'm not a nature or landscape photographer but I love the tones, softness and details in this image. This is an uncropped 8x10 shot made on Kodak Ektascan B/RA mammography x-ray film.
I wandering this weekend looking for interesting things to photograph and see the tones and range of this inexpensive film. About an hour from my house I found a state park with some quite beautiful small trees that I came to learn are Ironwood trees. They have a beautiful reddish smooth surface and the leaves and branches were quite beautiful. It was 105 degrees so I didn't wander far from the car to find a tree so I was forced to shoot a detail shot so that the parking lot or other elements wouldn't be visible in the image. Overall I love the tones and rendering of out-of-focus areas. I think that there are several crops of this image that would be more beautiful than the whole but I posted it here so that you could see how beautifully (in my opinion) that tones can be rendered by cheap film.
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Kodak Ektascan B/RA X-Ray Film
80 asa at 1/100 - f16
Tray processed in Adinol 1:100
Agitation for 1 minute followed by 15 seconds every minute
Scanned on an Epson 750 Pro
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7284/9...65358d69_b.jpg
Ironwood Detail by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Lovely
A few details from the previously posted image:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5495/9...eb1b757e_b.jpg
Abstract 3 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2843/9...8444015f_b.jpg
Abstract 2 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Yes, those are Newton rings and I like them here. :)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5547/9...07067280_b.jpg
Abstract 1 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Rodney - :) Quoting is.. art ;) But i glad you like it. Models. some i have to beg, some do ask me to be shot.. Its just kinda viscous circle.. Trust me - i have weeks when i cant find anyone b/c i am either too picky or everyone just too busy to shoot. I have real issues with being shy, so asking new people is insanely hard for me, so i started some time ago going to meetups (meetup.com) just to get acquainted with models i like to shoot later and it sort of started to bring new ones it too.
You basically missed yet another batch of questions on basics from someone who doesnt want to read through existing material, and few people nudging Andrew to build up Q&A article for site.
Tim - if you want to try - you can run image with newton rings through Capture one - it has moir removal tool that might work ;) It just never occured to me till now, and i might give it a whirl myself sometime ( i got big fat pile of digital shots to process ;(()
8x10 lith print from Kodak CSG. Had to crop a bit from original proportions, as i dont have dryer (go figure, i used to have one since i was 14 years old!) here yet, so edges of fb based paper curled a bit and i cant get damn thing to flatten properly.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2813/9...859cd71c_o.jpg
Scan-130819-0001www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
Seriously. You can have so much more fun and better time just by shooting and exploring and printing than sorting out best time to process or best film or something like that.. ;)
Very true...
Sergei,
I may have to try that. But seriously, in this image it doesn't bother me at all for some reason. :)
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
Is there a specific section you'd like to see? I posted 3 detail shots above that are pretty close to a 100% crop though this is relative because it is a scan.
As far as size goes, it really depends on what you're after. A lot of it has to do with your subject, lighting and process as to how sharp things appear - if you're after sharp. I think you can print this at any size you wish depending on process (wet or digital) and what your desired look/feel is.
Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co
First portrait test using x-ray film:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5464/9...bd256af0_b.jpg
Rachel 082013 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
80 asa - 1/2 at f8
8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA Mammography Film
Tray processed in Adinol at 1:100 for 13 minutes. Agitation for the first minute then every minute for 15 seconds
Deardorff 8x10 + Kodak 12" Commercial Ektar
Scanned on Epson V750 Pro
Inspiring Scott! I couldn't resist. I just placed an order of 8x10 Kodak Ektascan B/RA.
I've been away from the thread for a while but I think everyone should understand by now that x-ray film is fun, cheap and can give you great results. Still, you have to create something worthwhile! All of the information is here along with examples. Just do it people! The more you DO the more you KNOW!!
Scott, that is a fine example of a highlight portrait. It is very striking. I think that is the first example of a highlight shot I've seen done on x-ray film. Did you come up with that highlight idea on your own? I recognised it because I remember it from one of Mortenson's books. (expose for the highlights, let the shadows fall where they may).
Blotchy X-ray (Fuji HTR), kind of suits the image...
Attachment 100687
Thank you for the kind words. Are you refering to William Mortensen? I just googled Mortensen photographer and his work came up. So no, I hadn't even heard of him. But I have now and just ordered a book of his work. Thanks!
The look I was after was actually a culmination of the entire process. I exposed the (x-ray) film at 80 asa and metered incident light and shot as metered. I processed using my baseline for this film + 2 minutes to bring in a little more contrast as I shot it in shade and wanted a bit more than I saw. Aftere processing I scanned the negative and completed my processing using dodging, burning and contrast in Photoshop to get the look I was after. As this is my wife, and she NEVER likes her photos I am careful to show her images as flattering as possible. I have found that on female portraits overexposure on the skin tends to smooth things out a bit and hide "imperfections". There was certainly plenty of detail in the original negative (you could clearly see skin pores). And there you have it. :)
There isnt such thing :) it might be however something lost in translation (i am guilty of doing it too , every now and then ;)) and indeed meant as high key.
I was talking about classification of this as something that follows Mortensen's concepts - its pretty far from his 7D negative for pictorial portraits and i believe its not falling into his commercial portraiture category (i.e your off the mill typical AA style) mainly b/c of being a bit too high up too. But i dont have reference in front of me to judge latest. And its too late and i am lazy to dig book out ;)
Very bright areas and generally dense / contrastry negatives are something that you easily get with X-ray, i believe. Which is just perfect, apparently, for Jim's printing style. And i can vouch that it makes lith printing pretty darn easy too - have to blast them quite a bit though, to get your typical +2 exposure starting point ;)
5X7 slider back Calter 240mm at f22 and f16.
Attachment 100730
See? Randy's negative got pictorial potential, as Mortensen would say ;)))
I shot a previous version August 11th with Costco C41 processing, I present this image just to show I didn't exactly copy you Sergei, then I saw your doll and I had to do it again in LF. Of course I will be using Plastica for more practice.
Check the EXIF. I need a lot of practice.
Attachment 100742
Randy - i knew you werent :) If i may add suggestion - dont fall into typical LF shooter trap (i know, its hard to adjust thin DOF, but its doable) - dont do head-on shots of her.. Turn her a bit.
LOL, that can mean 2 things! I do plan to turn her head and she needs new clothes. Thanks for the advice!
Also, right now I am going to use sharp lenses in focus, if I can...
Been very busy building my dream darkroom, soon I will share pics of that. I now have 750 sq ft of total blackout, my entire small storefront! Not easy with south windows.
Good luck with dark room. My back and bellows for ulf camera is finally ready and slowly drifting towards me in parcel, so at some point i am going to fight very peculiar battle of trying to figure out if i can use 14x17 taped in holder ;) Its a shame there is no 20x24 xray ;)
This is Michael Boruch, he taught me B&W analog photography 15 years ago for one college semester. At that time I had no darkroom experience and even now have only recently set up a darkroom. During his class I bought Nikon N70 and Nikon Coolpix 100 and did all assignments with both cameras. http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/others/100/ At that time there were no cell phone cameras and I could take digital pics with no one noticing. I fell in love with digital and wasted a lot of time and money.
Michael and I had no contact for 15 years, the other day he stopped by for a quick 6 hour visit. We talked and talked. He still teaches college photography.
Shot with chipped grey paint Ansco Studio 8x10 and Semi-Centennial stand, I got it almost free from a moldy basement, perfect bellows! Bad paint. My favorite rig.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7378/9...82c91b52_o.jpg
I've been most impressed by many of the X-Ray shots here. Unfortunately, I only shoot 4x5 so I guess some cutting might be involved. Nice shot and tones.
Hi Randy, Off the wall question. I would like to develop some 8x10 blue sens. X-ray film in 10x12 trays. Approx. how many sheets of film would you say I can develop before I have to replenish my developer? I'll be using Rodinal @ 1:100 mixture. Thanks from the other Randy guy from Seattle Wash.
I did 4 Sheets of Kodak CSG 5x7 in 1 liter, 1-100 R09 and 2 sheets 8x10 same film in fresh batch. I did them 2 sheets at a time in 10x12 trays with grooves and I see no exhaustion or groove streaks.
I think 10 ML of R09 is cheap enough to use for 2 sheets, Sergei is the one I follow. If you go back he lists his results consistently with his experiments.
Soon I will try HC 110, just because I want to see how it does on roll film. I do not like R09 with roll film.
I've followed this thread but gleaned little technical info. A lot of displays and complimenting. Can somebody please give me an idea of a starting developing time for Fuji HRT green in D-76? Thanks--HTF