Anyone ever stuck Xray film under an enlarger with some success?
I saw a dude make prints on xray film about 8 years ago. Can't remember the name can't find it on the net.
Figured ya'll might have an idea.
Anyone ever stuck Xray film under an enlarger with some success?
I saw a dude make prints on xray film about 8 years ago. Can't remember the name can't find it on the net.
Figured ya'll might have an idea.
If you use the 'X-ray copy film' you can make big negatives for UV-light contact printing.
Well that's one answer to the question I was going to ask of, "why?"
Enlarged negatives for alternative process contact printing did occur to me, but won't you need two generations to get back to a negative, picking up contrast in both steps? Can the stuff be reversal processed? Or can it be developed to low enough contrast that two stages give a good result? Come to think of it, though I've never dabbled in alternative processes, I think many of them require more contrast and density anyway, don't they?
IF
you want big negs from a neg you can try Xray dupe film, also known at Photowarehouse as Direct Duplicating Film
Back in the threads someplace you will find info.
But to repeat what I have said
I use it to dupe negs, by contact and by projection.
The stuff is slow, at least under my Beslaer 8x10 enlarger
For contact I take the lens out.
For projeection , to get a larger neg and to be able to dodfe and burn, I use an appropriate lens stopped down a couple.
For about 2x- 116 t0 5x7-ish, a reasonable neg takes 6-8 minutes, and you better not move or breathe or vibration will kill it.
Contrast is usually a problem of "too much" rather than too little, and I've used that to salvage a neg that had nearly faded away. Now I have a printable neg, albeit gritty.
Higher contrast------print developer.
More normal contrast, or less hassle to avoid bumping it up, I use Clayton 76 film developer.
Direct dupe is not a reversal process, it's, well, direct, one step "just like" printing, only you have a new negative.
Only drawback is very slow speed, but beats the poo out of many alternatives
I think maybe the OP had in mind a positive , perhaps to display backlit in a window or a lightbox.
What you want is duplicating film. Kodak has marketed this under many names. I think the last I used was called something like "Kodak Versalite TDF", where the DF stands for duplicating film, and I presume the T is for Tungsten. You expose this stuff just like paper and develop it in Dektol and you get a negative. You don't need to go through the step of getting an "internegative" positive transparency. I use this stuff when I want to make a copy of a negative from my 11x14 view camera. I then cut out a section and can make enlargements of that in my 8x10 Elwood enlarger.
Ok, make a positive from a neg
Same as with ortho - but two sides to the emulsion- dunno how that affects the "look" .
YOU try it, it's a heck of a lot cheaper than anything else- ortho film, paper, etc.
This Xray duplicating film can have different contrasts depending on the developer used. Did some tests here: http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/lff/xray/_DSC1802.jpg
Found dektol mixed with Xtol made a nice pleasant positive.
has anyone ever thought of making a positive image this way and mounting it on top of a nice glossy white surface? I read about using Opal Glass for prints, it seems you could do a poor mans version with ink jet paper and a mat.
Bookmarks