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

[SergeiR]

I have yet to get the first newton ring. When I was shooting Arista 8X10 film a couple years ago, I was plagues by rings.

you lucky.. i been getting them even with ANR glass.

[Tin Can]

ditto

you lucky.. i been getting them even with ANR glass.

[BarryS]

More work from this weekend shot at the Great Falls of the Potomac on 18x24 Fuji AD-M mammography film. I shot these at EI 3 (!) and developed for 4 minutes in 1:4:200 Pyrocat HD at 70 C in a Jobo rotary processor. It may be the very short developing time, but it looks like I'm seeing some uneven development on the last image. My last batch was developed for 5 minutes and I didn't see any issues, so that may be the limit for this concentration of Pyrocat. The negatives look good with nice tonality and density--I believe they'll print just fine on silver gelatin paper. I'll be moving on to some low contrast developers next--Pyrocat HD is workable, but I could use a little more speed and some longer developing times.

[rdelung]

I don't bleach or remove the back side, some think the front side is slightly sharper and make sure they scan or enlarge the front side.

http://www.fpointinc.com/glass.htm

Got it, thanks-----Rde

[Tin Can]

I like these, but that film is way higher priced than CSG, unless you can point to a cheaper supplier.

I do like the fact it is SS, has anti-hal and a protective backside coating.

I'm just cheap.

I assume at that speed, you do not need ND filter to make long exposure.


[QUOTE=BarryS;1026003]More work from this weekend shot at the Great Falls of the Potomac on 18x24 Fuji AD-M mammography film. I shot these at EI 3 (!) and developed for 4 minutes in 1:4:200 Pyrocat HD at 70 C in a Jobo rotary processor. It may be the very short developing time, but it looks like I'm seeing some uneven development on the last image. My last batch was developed for 5 minutes and I didn't see any issues, so that may be the limit for this concentration of Pyrocat. The negatives look good with nice tonality and density--I believe they'll print just fine on silver gelatin paper. I'll be moving on to some low contrast developers next--Pyrocat HD is workable, but I could use a little more speed and some longer developing times.

[BarryS]

I bought a bunch on ebay for 10-25 cents/sheet. As the shift continues to digital x-ray systems, there's going to be plenty of cheap film--it just takes a little extra work to hunt it down. You don't need a ND filter--or a shutter for that matter, at my current speed. I think I can squeeze out a couple more stops with a different developer, but it'll still be slow. If you need extra density for any alt-process--salt printing, carbon, Pt/Pd, etc.--it's trivial to get up to any desired density. The base fog is low and it's very fine-grained. If it weren't for the sloooow speed, it would be as nice as real film.

I like these, but that film is way higher priced than CSG, unless you can point to a cheaper supplier.

I do like the fact it is SS, has anti-hal and a protective backside coating.

I'm just cheap.

I assume at that speed, you do not need ND filter to make long exposure.

[Tin Can]

Hard to escape eBay, i will look.

Is it fitting 8X10 holdrs or are you using 18X24?

I bought a bunch on ebay for 10-25 cents/sheet. As the shift continues to digital x-ray systems, there's going to be plenty of cheap film--it just takes a little extra work to hunt it down. You don't need a ND filter--or a shutter for that matter, at my current speed. I think I can squeeze out a couple more stops with a different developer, but it'll still be slow. If you need extra density for any alt-process--salt printing, carbon, Pt/Pd, etc.--it's trivial to get up to any desired density. The base fog is low and it's very fine-grained. If it weren't for the sloooow speed, it would be as nice as real film.

[BarryS]

I found some 18x24 holders that fit standard 8x10 cameras. You could also use some double-sided tape to fit to an 8x10 holder. If double-sided x-ray film is working for you, I'd hesitate before getting into mammo film.


Standard x-ray film

Pros
Cheap, easily available
Lots of standard sizes
Reasonable film speed
Use standard developer


Cons
Two-sided coating makes film easy to scratch during processing
No notch
No anti-halo backing

Mammo film

Pros
Inexpensive from secondary sources
Single-sided coating prevents processing damage
Notched
Anti-halo backing

Cons
Expensive from normal retail channels
Non-standard sizes prevalent (18x24, 24x30)
Very slow speed
Contrasty, needs low-contrast developer

[Tin Can]

Thanks Barry, all very good info.

I have been taping the standard doubled side into a big copy camera. Next up for me is taping 11x14 into it. It's a clunker but it is fine for 1 to 1 portraits.

If I find some cheap mammo, I will buy it.

I look forward to your further adventures!

I found some 18x24 holders that fit standard 8x10 cameras. You could also use some double-sided tape to fit to an 8x10 holder. If double-sided x-ray film is working for you, I'd hesitate before getting into mammo film.


Standard x-ray film

Pros
Cheap, easily available
Lots of standard sizes
Reasonable film speed
Use standard developer


Cons
Two-sided coating makes film easy to scratch during processing
No notch
No anti-halo backing

Mammo film

Pros
Inexpensive from secondary sources
Single-sided coating prevents processing damage
Notched
Anti-halo backing

Cons
Expensive from normal retail channels
Non-standard sizes prevalent (18x24, 24x30)
Very slow speed
Contrasty, needs low-contrast developer

[HT Finley]

The cheap 8x10 stuff fits in 8x10 film holders with no problem, not tape or anything, right?