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

[Wayne]

Nice print! And just to be clear on my part I don't object to negative scans I just like to know when I'm seeing those or prints.

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. .

[Fr. Mark]

I wrote up as much of a summary of The basics of using X-ray film as I could in the Spring, I think. I sent it to the moderators who were going to try to get the site owner to do something with it. I imagine he's busy and from what I gather, not much involved in the site anymore. Anyway, I never heard anything after that. It's too long to post here easily.

[Misko]

Maybe making a PDF & posting a PDF would be an option?

[Corran]

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.

To be honest I don't really know what you are trying to say.

My point was that telling those of us who post negative scans of LF negatives should post in the digital images section is a slap in the face, rude, and exceedingly short-sighted, and quite simply wrong.

[Michael E]

Maybe we can draw the line when it comes to moving pixels. Altering brightness or contrast, dodging and burning, even toning an image has been accepted for a long time. Adding clouds, removing trees or telephone poles, moving the moon in the sky, or even composing an image from scratch on the computer is a different business and should be mentioned when posting the image. OK?

Plus, there is no such thing as a straight scan. Just as a print is not simply an inversion of a negative. There are always choices and settings to be applied.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't really care. It's the final image/print that matters... and as long as it's large format!

[Wayne]

Nobody gives a hoot whether you manipulate your image. Just tell us if its a print or negative scan. We can assume if its a print scan you did your best to make it look like the print. We can assume if its a negative scan you did your best to make it look like a print that doesn't exist. If you have both, post both. There's really no reason for anyone to get huffy.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I don't really care. It's the final image/print that matters... and as long as it's large format!

Andrew, this is what matters.

[premortho]

I've only ever developed in trays. Since the 1940's. With Rodinal. I like to develop at 65 degrees. No, I don't know how many degrees centigrade that is. I was taught to always use a tray one size larger than the film you are working on. It takes very little developer solution. Much less than a roll film tank, for instance. When I worked on a newspaper, we used Dectol in tanks. Because "that's the way we always do it". I'm reasonably sure you've had that quoted to you before!

Once I get tray development down, I plan to try this. Will post back to let you know how it turns out.

Also just bought an HP Combi on FleaBay. Will be testing it later.

[towolf]

I don’t think so, we designed the 2x2 experiment specifically to test film-vs-film and time-vs-time


It’s this one here. According to manufacturer it’s 5600 K.

Right now it must be compensated by roughly 1.5 stops. I can’t really believe it’s spectral. Why is everyone discounting the reciprocity failure theory?

Still related to this question, why flash does not register on x-ray film as much as the light meter would indicate (i.e., 1.5 stops less than metered).

Some said, it would be a spectral issue. I finally got a chance to take a color picture and it’s clearly visible that the flash on the right of the camera is "hotter" than the continuous light on the left side. With "hotter" meaning: more Kelvin.