8x10 or 11x14

**Drew Wiley** · 27-Sep-2016, 16:06

Just a big compendium lens shade. The guy standing in the back is holding a smartphone camera in his other hand, aiming it down the middle.

**Duolab123** · 27-Sep-2016, 20:59

Originally Posted by Randy

There was a time when I was one of those who loved giant prints made from large negatives ( I never made anything larger than 16X20 from 4X5 myself ). But perhaps it's my old age, perhaps the fact that I am so loving making cyanotypes, I simply love the look of 8X10, 5X7, 4X5 and medium format contact prints. I have several 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 cyanotypes around the house displayed on little black wooden easels.
I still enjoy looking at giant prints when done well...I just have no desire to make them.

Side note - I entered several 4X5 cyanotype prints in two local art exhibitions this summer. As best as I could tell, my prints were the only prints that were not digital and were definitely the only prints that were smaller than 8X10. I got 2nd place in one exhibition and 1st in the other.

I love 4x5 and 5x7 contact prints. Many famous photographs are small contact prints. George Eastman Museum, has the collection of Lewis Hine, if you look at the details of the prints the originals are small, we see larger reproductions and think the original must be an enlargement. I have an 11 x 14 camera, I will say the size of the negatives can almost be intimidating, they look like a Xray.
Best Regards Mike

**Fr. Mark** · 28-Sep-2016, 06:54

I have a 14x17 X-ray film print out of an MRI study of the exact centerline profile of my head. For grins, one day I printed a positive of it in cyanotype to give to my father who is a retired radiologist. So far, that's the largest print I've ever made and it IS an X-ray.

I've thought that if I was going to go to ULF, I'd go at least 14x17 or a big panorama like 8x20 or both.

**jesse1996** · 28-Sep-2016, 17:22

Originally Posted by Fr. Mark

I have a 14x17 X-ray film print out of an MRI study of the exact centerline profile of my head. For grins, one day I printed a positive of it in cyanotype to give to my father who is a retired radiologist. So far, that's the largest print I've ever made and it IS an X-ray.

I've thought that if I was going to go to ULF, I'd go at least 14x17 or a big panorama like 8x20 or both.

X-ray film seems really interesting due to the lower cost and interesting tones.but i hear its difficult

**Tin Can** · 28-Sep-2016, 17:31

Originally Posted by jesse1996

X-ray film seems really interesting due to the lower cost and interesting tones.but i hear its difficult

Yes and it is so cheap in 8x10 you can play with it and not feel like you are throwing out $10 bills all day long.

You can cut it any smaller size. I cut it to 5X7, 4X5 and smaller. I also use the largest. Please read the X-Ray thread. It's huge.

I gave my doctor today a 5X7 X-Ray neg of their new medical center.

**Duolab123** · 28-Sep-2016, 18:18

I was astonished how much less expensive X-Ray film is than regular pan film. Is X-ray going to stick around?? Is there something about film for Xray that makes it better? I am sure that places around the world that do not have the huge sums of money required to convert to digital.

Randy is right look at what Kodak wants for Tri-X 8x10. It wouldn't bug me so much if you could still buy 100 sheet boxes of 4x5 and 25 sheet boxes of 8 x 10. Alas Ilford is where I am getting all my 8 x 10 (Not there is anything wrong with Ilford!)
Best Mike

**LabRat** · 28-Sep-2016, 18:50

Originally Posted by Duolab123

I was astonished how much less expensive X-Ray film is than regular pan film. Is X-ray going to stick around?? Is there something about film for Xray that makes it better? I am sure that places around the world that do not have the huge sums of money required to convert to digital

What I have read is that some of the Eastern European film producers have said is that they will continue to produce camera films, as long as they have a market for X-ray products first... The good news (It seems to me) is that after a visit to a dental specialist I went to, (that was using a new looking Carestream panoramic X-ray machine), was that I saw the image on the monitor, and compared to the small film images that my other dentist was using, the fine detail resolution of the digital image looked like a so-so cameraphone image, without the minute inner detail than the rich fine detail that the film image has... So maybe that level of resolution may not be needed for some applications, but for looking for something small (like some tiny blip in a mammogram,etc) the full detail would be needed, and the present "state-of-the-art" systems are in their infancy (for the time being)... And the cost of the machines are very high... And doctors seem to be used to flopping X-ray sheets around, so maybe it will be around for a little while longer until the technology catches up...

Steve K

**Fr. Mark** · 29-Sep-2016, 18:48

X-ray film is easier to make, I think, or at least the cheap stuff is, compared to pan films: at most one dye to increase spectral senstivity v 2 I think for pan films, no separate antihalation layer to worry about, no notches (for most of it).

Harder to use? I don't know. It's all made so you can use X-ray under a red safelight. That makes developing by inspection possible w/o special gear. It makes it easy to cut to size as was mentioned. It is inherently v contrasty. That can be dealt with with exposure and development (usually dilute like Rodinal 1:100). It has no published film speed but it seems like a lot of use use it 50-100 ASA. With Ortho films tungsten light will need 1-3 stops more exposure than your meter says. Ditto early or late in the day and filters may not do what you've grown to expect from pan films. Some of it is blue sensitive and some Sees out to green or a bit beyond. Blue looks a little like tintypes, green more like Ortho film of old. I've wondered if I could get the dye and pan sensitize green sensitive... Most of it is double sided which people have proposed various ways of avoiding scratches. To me, film hangers seem sensible but you will find other approaches. Last I checked CXS had 8x10 for about 35$/100 sheets delivered price in Continental USA. Ektascan B/RA was available from ZZmedical for around 90$/100 delivered. I like/need the cost savings. Hard is spending "big" money on the steep learning curve.

Longevity in the marketplace? Hard to know. Buy some. It can't but help to keep it around.
Digital XRays I've seen carry plenty of detail. Not sure I buy that as the main reason for film still being made.
I was all worried about film going away when I started this journey. Now, I'm really not. I'm a hobbyist, nor someone with year's invested in a certain film developer paper paper developer combo so I can be relaxed. I am also looking forward to making my own films some day regardless.

**Tin Can** · 29-Sep-2016, 19:09

We need to nail down this green vs blue business. I buy Kodak CSG And Ektascan both are considered 'green' but both are on a blue tinted base as is 'blue' X-Ray. Maybe an X-Ray emitter works differently with 'blue' or 'green' but nobody has showed me the difference in our usage. Show me the donuts! I guess there is no difference, FOR OUR USAGE.

With one click I found more info from Kodak. http://www.classicxray.com/kodaktmatg.html

Direct from the Yellow Father,

'Formally named Kodak MXG, the film is now called Carestream Clinic Select Film. Same film. Same box. Same great price!!

Features include:
• Kodak T-Grain® emulsion that delivers high visibility of details without sacrificing speed
• Forgiving exposure and robust processing tolerance to reduce the need for costly re-examinations
• Manual or automatic processing in standard and rapid (60-second) cycles

High contrast, half speed, orthochromatic film for general radiology. Unique patented Kodak T-Grain film technology yields brilliant, sharp images to support easy, reliable diagnosis.'

Not to criticize Fr. Mark and he has indicated he would write a 'Sticky' we can point newbies to.

Have at it, Fr. Mark, perhaps collaborate with a couple members of your choice, as I do think the LFPF Front 'Info" Page needs an addition.

Originally Posted by Fr. Mark

X-ray film is easier to make, I think, or at least the cheap stuff is, compared to pan films: at most one dye to increase spectral senstivity v 2 I think for pan films, no separate antihalation layer to worry about, no notches (for most of it).

Harder to use? I don't know. It's all made so you can use X-ray under a red safelight. That makes developing by inspection possible w/o special gear. It makes it easy to cut to size as was mentioned. It is inherently v contrasty. That can be dealt with with exposure and development (usually dilute like Rodinal 1:100). It has no published film speed but it seems like a lot of use use it 50-100 ASA. With Ortho films tungsten light will need 1-3 stops more exposure than your meter says. Ditto early or late in the day and filters may not do what you've grown to expect from pan films. Some of it is blue sensitive and some Sees out to green or a bit beyond. Blue looks a little like tintypes, green more like Ortho film of old. I've wondered if I could get the dye and pan sensitize green sensitive... Most of it is double sided which people have proposed various ways of avoiding scratches. To me, film hangers seem sensible but you will find other approaches. Last I checked CXS had 8x10 for about 35$/100 sheets delivered price in Continental USA. Ektascan B/RA was available from ZZmedical for around 90$/100 delivered. I like/need the cost savings. Hard is spending "big" money on the steep learning curve.

Longevity in the marketplace? Hard to know. Buy some. It can't but help to keep it around.
Digital XRays I've seen carry plenty of detail. Not sure I buy that as the main reason for film still being made.
I was all worried about film going away when I started this journey. Now, I'm really not. I'm a hobbyist, nor someone with year's invested in a certain film developer paper paper developer combo so I can be relaxed. I am also looking forward to making my own films some day regardless.

**Randy** · 30-Sep-2016, 16:57

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

We need to nail down this green vs blue business.

I have always used the green of various brands. A while back a friend gave me 10 sheets of the 1/2 blue, which he always used. I did two exposures at the same speed and processed the same. The 1/2 blue did not have near the exposure latitude of the green - much of the shadow detail was completely unexposed even though the highlights were comparable to the green. The green looked much closer to my experience with 8X10 pan film. Both had a blue base, so both films looked blue after processing.