Use of X-ray film: technical discussion with example images

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've only seen those kind of marks (mottling) when the developer barely covered the film and agitated once every 30sec...2 litres of developer in a 16x20 tray is about half inch deep, if it's a flat-bottomed tray...but you were giving the film continuous agitation.. very strange, indeed. Anyways tonally, especially the last image you posted, looks great!

[Don Dudenbostel]

How about this. I most often use HP5 but for this one I used Kodak Mammography film.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Don, great use of x-ray film

[Don Dudenbostel]

If you want to use x-ray film for traditional photography I would suggest mammography film. Standard x-ray film is coated on both sides and mammo film is coated on one side only. I use it for x-ray work with the appropriate screens like the image above but can't remember if it's blue or green sensitive. I don't think I'll stick my head in the machine to find out

[gbogatko]

A search of the forum posts will give you that answer in great detail, but from what I have read and observed, stripping one side of the emulsion does not produce a sharper negative.

Stripping reduces the contrast. Imaging exposing two pin registered negs and then trying to print with both of them against the paper. That's what the double coated x-ray is like. And if you're shooting at 80, then you're definitely getting density on both sides. The stuff does NOT have an anti-halation coating and for all I know is just a single coating on either sides. Just like the first films.

I shoot the green stuff at iso 200. "green" acts like blue/green sensitive (orthochromatic), and blue means only blue sensitive. Blue looks VERY old school, zero sky detail. Both give results that look like stuff from the silent film days. Both work very well with soft focus lenses -- much closer to the film for which the lenses were designed.

If you've gotten used to developing the stuff by inspection, you'll be disappointed the first time you strip off one side and see almost 1/2 your density disappear leaving a grainy mess. I just arrived at this point. Develop by inspection is wierd because one thinks they're overdoing it. I'll have to get a feel for the 'right look' if I'm going to strip off one side.

"Stripping" consists of pasting the film to a piece of glass (larger than the neg) using blue painter's tape, spritzing clorox all over it, then smushing around the clorox until all the emulsion is gone. Wash it off and take a look. If you're lucky, it's all gone, but most times there'll be stuff left behind (it looks like really bad mottle). A 2nd spritz and smush gets the rest. The painter's tape is what keeps the clorox away from the 'good' side, so pay attention to how you paste the the neg down.

Stripping is an artistic decision. X-ray has a really unique look. Sometimes it's appropriate, and sometimes it isn't. I stripped a shot taken with a soft lens that looked right out of a pictorial book. Then I stripped off one side and it looked awful. Practise, practise, practise.

I'll put up some of my stuff later tonight when I get back home.

George

[gbogatko]

Oh, and I've been using Dektol 1:12, "by inspection." Then it's like developing lith film.

[Scott --]

How about this. I most often use HP5 but for this one I used Kodak Mammography film.

Don, where are you getting the mammography film?

[gbogatko]

Here's one done with a verito 14.5. Not 'stripped'.
Not a print, I don't have the equipment to do pt/pl much less gum, but I could get close to the look in P.S.

[Don Dudenbostel]

Don, where are you getting the mammography film?

Got it off of ebay.

DD

[Erik Larsen]

Scanned silver prints from 8x10 blue-sensitive Agfa x-ray

If the Little Rascals ever do a remake, your son in the left picture would make a good Alfalfa. Very cute.
Regards
Erik