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

[seezee]

In terms of evenness, my first attempt at tray developing x-ray film was terrible, too. But subsequent trials proved much better. I used the hake brush method, and as I've stated in previous posts, I'm semi-stand developing (1:1:200 Pyrocat-HD, 1 minute agitation, 29 minutes rest, 30 seconds agitation, 29½ minutes rest, then on to the stop bath. Temperature is 20 to 22 C°), so this may not work for you. I move the brush north to south for 15 seconds, then east to west for 15 seconds, until the time limit is reached.

[Tin Can]

I was a bad scratcher of X-Ray until I decided to try everything and even scratch the heck out it for testing. I use tongs when I just want a fast answer. Almost like Polaroid.

X-Ray is cheap, try everything. Several members here told me to try ZipLocks. Which does work well. Good for Hotel bathrooms.

Now I can develop a scratchless 14x36 inch enlarged negative X-Ray in a 11X14" tray by using film clips sloshing it curled. For that I use Ilford PQ 1-9. 2 min dev, 1 min plain water stop, 2 min TF5, 2 min wash. Even dries fast.

I would love to see how Vet Techs do it.

Play with it. Waste it. Cut into small format. Use scraps to check Fix clear time. It's good practice for premium film. When I get $25 a shot film. I need some confidence. That day is coming.

[andrewch59]

Thanks for the tips Andrew, I developed two negs of a church yesterday, the first developed with mottle and streaks, that was flat bottomed no agitation ro9 2.5ml to 275ml dilute. The second I tried the same technique in the same developer turned out well. I can see the mottling in the soup underneath the negative, so agitation well may be the cure to keep it all mixed

[koraks]

So far, I've gone about using x-ray film in a bit of a haphazard way: rate it somewhere around 50 or 100 and develop to inspection in whatever developer seemed handy. While this yields usable images quite often, I get nowhere near the success rate I'd like for making e.g. Van Dykes. Hence, I did a little testing today. This wasn't intended as a formal Zone System test. I only made some Van Dyke prints and scans from the negatives to see if my development times were in the ballpark I needed. I do not have access to a densitometer.

First, I set out to establish a development time that I can use for further refinement, if/when I feel like it. I cut up a sheet of green-sensitive film to 4x5's and exposed some sheets at identical settings, rating it at 50 based on experience so far. I chose a scene that featured a 10-stop brightness range. I then manually developed each sheet in a tray, each time using an excess (300ml for one 4x5) of freshly made developer. I opted for Pyrocat HD, as it's economical and has so far proven to be excellent for my purposes (mostly Van Dyke brown printing and scanning). This yielded the following:

The first sheet I developed was the one that says 7m30s. It also yields the best Van Dyke brown print, although the 8m45s sheet is pretty close. The 6m15s sheet is clearly underdeveloped for Van Dyke prints at least, although it scans fine and still has plenty of shadow detail. For scanning and silver printing, this would be just fine.

I then decided to bracket some shots to see how the film responded to under- and overexposure. I shot the same scene (but with more subdued light) at ISO 25 - 50 - 100 - 200. I wanted to get some detail in the black tolex of the speaker cabinet left to the chair, underneath the plants, so I imagined this area to be around zone I to II. I chose to develop the sheets in one go in my Jobo, opting for a 9 minute development time. This is the result:

With these parameters, I could get away with ISO 100 if the shadows don't matter much. There's a little shadow detail I could rescue in digital post processing. But ISO 50 seems like a good compromise. ISO 25 gives more shadow detail, obviously, but the highlights are only preserved because the total brightness range of the scene was quite limited. ISO 200 is underexposed to the point of being unusable.

My preliminary conclusion is that for a scene of fairly normal contrast, ISO 50 is a safe bet for this film and developer, but I'll have to keep placing important shadows at zones III-IV for Van Dyke brown prints, as in that process, shadow contrast is limited in my experience. I may try some contractions and expansions to get a feeling for how to deal with low- and high-contrast scenes.

[Jim Noel]

Koraks thanks for sharing these tests. I believe it would be most helpful to see unaltered scans of prints. It is obvious that the most appropriate negative for VDB, and thus other alt prints, is not the one which looks best as a digital positive. so seeing these prints would be of help to many observers.

[koraks]

Koraks thanks for sharing these tests. I believe it would be most helpful to see unaltered scans of prints. It is obvious that the most appropriate negative for VDB, and thus other alt prints, is not the one which looks best as a digital positive. so seeing these prints would be of help to many observers.

Jim, you're absolutely right of course. With the caveat that my purpose is dual: I want my negatives to print well with VdB, but I also want them to scan well. The latter is obviously the easier requirement, as negatives that make for good VdB prints generally scan just fine as well. In fact, it's much easier to extract particularly shadow detail from a negative by scanning it than by printing it as a Van Dyke. So in the end, for me, the way these negatives scan is just as important as how they print as VdB.

All the negatives of the ISO bracketing test came out pretty thin, with only the ISO 25 one being appropriate for printing. This is due to development; I noticed that when I develop in my Jobo rotary processor, I tend to get weaker negatives than when processing for the same time in a tray. I think it has to do that the negatives spend quite a bit of time suspended above the developer in the Jobo tank (I fill the 2509 with 300ml of developer). For the test posted above, I didn't compensate for this. As a result, the ISO bracketing test only makes sense when the negatives from that same batch are compared in a digital scan. I only printed the 25 ISO negative and it produced a usable VdB, but if intended specifically for that purpose, I would have developed it either in a tray for 9 minutes or in the Jobo for something like 12 minutes. I would have to test but don't intend to do so, as I never use the Jobo for x-ray. I only did it this time because I wanted these particular sheets to be processed identically.

Having said that, the negatives made with the different development times (all at ISO 50) were all printed. These are quick and dirty prints and by no means well done. However, they do illustrate the difference in terms of what the negatives are capable of. Below is the scan of all three prints together so that they can be compared in a sort of useful manner. I only altered the color a bit to get it to approach the actual prints (which I didn't quite succeed in). Of course, the Epson scan software applies its own Japanese-magic curve, so I think there's really no such thing as an 'unaltered scan' of a print. It's always a second-hand approximation of the real thing. The best I can give you is a direct comparison with the same processing parameters for the prints.

These prints were made with the following parameters:
* Sensitizer: 5 drops of 20% ferric ammonium citrate, 4 drops of 11% silver nitrate, 2 drops of 8% tartaric acid
* Paper is Schut drawing paper, 160g/sqm with a rather coarse surface
* Exposure: Philips face tanner (50W of UV fluorescents) about 5 minutes at ca. 10cm distance
* 1 minute rinse with tap water with continuous agitation, followed by a quick (5-10 second) rinse with tap water.
* Fixed with exhausted film fixer at a dilution of ca. 1:15 (I mostly use exhausted film fixer for work prints).
* Quick rinse and then dried with a hair drier.
Obviously these prints are in no way archival and were never intended to be. Their sole purpose was to get a feeling for how the different negatives compare. Besides, no matter how hard I try, I never get two Van Dyke browns to get to look absolutely identical.

In the prints above, note the huge difference between the first and the second print, while the difference between the second and the third is much more subtle.

[Alan9940]

Andrew,

THANK YOU so much for posting your tray technique with xray film. I just tried it this morning using CSG Green and finally...FINALLY...I've produced my first usable neg! No scratches, no mottling; just a nice clean neg. I didn't develop it long enough for pt/pd printing, but that's easy to fix.

Thank you, again, as I was on the verge of giving up. And, thank you to others who encouraged me to push on and keep trying.

[Jim Noel]

Even though the prints are not intended as the final ones, they stil provide more useful info than the previous negative scans.
By the way, I don't like to put x-ray film in a Jobo unless time necessitates it. I normally use a tray for the 7x17's and 8x10's. When I do use the Jobo I use an Expert drum and fill it with water prior to loading film. ALso, I mix my VDB by the liter. It stays in a brown glass bottle at a relatively constant temperature in the darkroom, and I have had it last up to 2 years.

[koraks]

Do you use double sided film? I have a jobo print tank that I never use and I'd love to be able to use it for xray 8x10s, but I don't see how I could get even development without resorting to stripping the emulsion off the backside. Is that the approach that you take or have you found a more elegant way?
As to the VdB sensitizer: I used to mix batches of 50ml or 200ml, but I found that the results were not entirely consistent between fresh and older sensitizer, so I switched to mixing it fresh. It also gives more flexibility in varying the recipe this way. I sometimes add more or less tartaric acid to control the contrast. Especially rising the tartaric acid concentration upwards of 1.5% w/v of the mixed sensitizer (below that point dmax suffers) gives some possibilities of boosting the contrast without the speed penalty and toxicity of using dichromate. I suppose everyone has their own ways of going about alt processes and I'll probably keep adjusting my methods as well.

[Jim Noel]

Do you use double sided film? I have a jobo print tank that I never use and I'd love to be able to use it for xray 8x10s, but I don't see how I could get even development without resorting to stripping the emulsion off the backside. Is that the approach that you take or have you found a more elegant way?
As to the VdB sensitizer: I used to mix batches of 50ml or 200ml, but I found that the results were not entirely consistent between fresh and older sensitizer, so I switched to mixing it fresh. It also gives more flexibility in varying the recipe this way. I sometimes add more or less tartaric acid to control the contrast. Especially rising the tartaric acid concentration upwards of 1.5% w/v of the mixed sensitizer (below that point dmax suffers) gives some possibilities of boosting the contrast without the speed penalty and toxicity of using dichromate. I suppose everyone has their own ways of going about alt processes and I'll probably keep adjusting my methods as well.

Yes i use double sided film occasionally. The cylinders which hold the film in Expert drums are barrel shaped enabling chemicals to get to both sides of the film. I have never stripped the emulsion off the back side as it reduces the contrast too much and is a waste of time as far as I am concerned. Your approach to VDB is interesting to me. I may give it a try to see if it suits my methods.