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

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

Did you use a filter? Green-sensitive film?

Yes, this is green sensitive, one sided emulsion.
And no, I didn't use a filter. But the late afternoon light was extraordinary.

[andrewch59]

I don't see the point in putting a print from xray up here, listing the lens you used, the exposure time, type of developer and development time etc and then retouching it all on ps from a scan and not mentioning it. You end up with something totally different than what the lens has captured.
As said previously isn't the idea to show xray results? I would think ps stuff belongs in the digital photography section as it is no longer a digitial copy of an analogue shot.

[Randy]

395mm (aprox) home-made doublet (got the elements from Surplus shed a few years ago and cemented them together) @ about f/8 - probably better suited for 5X7 as it gets a tad to soft near the edges for my taste

Some brand of Green sensitive 8X10, tray processed in Arista Premium Liquid 1:9 @67 deg. F for 5 minutes, agitated with hake brush every 90 seconds, scanned and slight levels adjust in PS7

[Corran]

I don't see the point in putting a print from xray up here, listing the lens you used, the exposure time, type of developer and development time etc and then retouching it all on ps from a scan and not mentioning it. You end up with something totally different than what the lens has captured.
As said previously isn't the idea to show xray results? I would think ps stuff belongs in the digital photography section as it is no longer a digitial copy of an analogue shot.

Come on dude. Short of extreme manipulation, which no one has really been doing, all of that contrast adjustment, burning/dodging, etc. is no different than darkroom printing. That kind of attitude is simply toxic.

[Thodoris Tzalavras]

My initial idea was to just post pictures and if people liked them and wanted to know how I made them, they would ask and would answer. I'm quite open with sharing my knowledge, emulating those who shared theirs with me.

Since I'm the newcomer though, and especially since there were some veiled accusations of misrepresenting the pictures I posted, I thought that it might be proper to introduce myself.

By the way, since these forums are open to all, from beginners to masters and everyone in between, I find a bit weird the level of skepticism my work was greeted with. Maybe the benefit of the doubt would have been a better response.

In any case.

I've been using x-ray film since 2007, I'm a darkroom printer and a publisher, and I spent the afternoon preparing the following PRINTS for your consideration. I thought that this might earn me some credibility here.

What you see here are darkroom prints accompanied by a known target, in order to remove any confusion. Everything was scanned together, with the same settings.

These are contact prints on Ilford MG Warmton RC Pearl. The enlarger was a Durst L1200 with Ilford Multigrade 500 head, controlled by an Analyser 500. They were developed in Ilford MG 1+15 for 2 minutes.

Top, left:
Initial test strip at Grade 2.

Bottom, left:
Straight print at Grade 2. Exposed for the E strip.

Top, right:
Burning-in test for the sky:
Same base exposure as straight print, with additional exposures at Grade 5, as follows:
No addition, 1/2 stop of base exposure, 1 stop of base exposure, 2 stops of base exposure.

Bottom, right:
Final print with the following sequence of exposures:
1. Base exposure at Grade 2, with 1/3 of a stop dodge on the right side of the sky near the horizon.
2. 1 1/2 stops of base exposure burning-in for the whole sky at Grade 5, while masking the ship.
3. 1/2 a stop of base exposure burning-in for the sky on the left.

Now, if you'd like, compare the scanned and digitally processed file, that was deemed objectionable by some, to the darkroom prints.

When I said that my digital post processing mirrors my analogue, I meant just that. And please note that the "final" print here is a mere 4x5". My actual prints are 16x20", a size which allows for much better local controls over tonality and contrast. This here is but a sketch.

By the way, I hope that this exercise in futility on my part could at least be of use to those who're genuinely interested in what can be achieved with x-ray.

[Tin Can]

Theodore,

Thank you for posting your response, introduction and lesson.

I learned about you, your process and that I jumped to a conclusion.

My apologies sir.

Please continue.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Manipulation... In the darkroom or on the computer. Either way, it shows the potential of x-ray films. Very nice image, Randy, by the way.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

It is a great inexpensive learning tool

[Andrew O'Neill]

It certainly is!

[andrewch59]

Come on dude. Short of extreme manipulation, which no one has really been doing, all of that contrast adjustment, burning/dodging, etc. is no different than darkroom printing. That kind of attitude is simply toxic.

Apologies if I seem "toxic" I went to our local photography club last week, not a camera insight, definitely no talk of analogue. The photo of the y ear was of four dogs lying on a dirt road. The owner of the pic openly admitted that he was in two minds to put three dogs in the pic or four??
Is that not just digital imagery??? I have always been in awe of some of the photographers on here and their ability to manipulate xray film to produce wonderful pics.