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

[photoevangelist]

Lee - there is bugger all you can do till you get processing streamlined..

I believe in rotary processing , specially when it comes to ULF. Imho - thats where you might consider stripping just because it seems like easier and more solid approach.
At least once i am migrated to larger sizes - i plan on this

and PMing rest..

I might try this method as I'm shooting ISO 160 F45 at 1 sec with a barrel lens. The Hexanons only stop down to F45. I can afford to lose speed, but I fear damaging the negative by stripping. Ironically I don't see any scratches on my negative. When I first started with 8x10 tray processing I had scratches everywhere.

[photoevangelist]

Lee,
You have quite a few issues here. Check your camera or holder for light leak, especially the holder. Uneven developed caused by the mechanical work flow. You need at least a gallon developer for this size . Flip and shack it every 30 sec and filter your developer if silver particles presents excessively . No fancy developing tool needed. Hope this helps. TT

Tri, I really hope there are no light leaks! These are new S&S holders and I just got the camera back modified and fitted especially for my holders by RR. I'm hoping its error on my part, not theirs. I'm using a handmade lens cap for the shutter and my lens board is made of foam board. It's temporary because I wasn't sure if this lens would cover the format. I can deal with the edge clipping a bit. It's not even visible in images 3 and 4. I need to take closer notes on what movements / focus is working to get perfect edge to edge images.

Now the 1 gallon of chemistry could be my downfall. I was using 3000ml (<1gl) and 60ml of chemistry for 4 negatives. My logic behind this was that I was able to process 8 8x10s in this amount of chemistry. 8 8x10s would be more film per square inch than 4 7x17s, so I thought I was doing okay.

If I need to use 1 gallon of developer per negative, that's going to create a lot of waste when I'm doing 10 sheets! I hope I can do more negatives in that much developer. I might switch to Holden's Dektol 1:10 method if so. Rodinal is about $45 for 500ml since its imported by a private citizen. Most Koreans could care less about Rodinal. A lot of professionals I've talked with don' even know what it is!

[Tin Can]

Yes, even old fumble fingers is now getting scratch free X-Ray negs, I was just checking my last 6, done with hangers.

I found 2 14x17 hangers I plan to use when I get all the other system parts ready.

Now when is Viola showing up? She's my hair model mannequin head, I will use until I find a live one...

I might try this method as I'm shooting ISO 160 F45 at 1 sec with a barrel lens. The Hexanons only stop down to F45. I can afford to lose speed, but I fear damaging the negative by stripping. Ironically I don't see any scratches on my negative. When I first started with 8x10 tray processing I had scratches everywhere.

[SergeiR]

stripping is easier than it sounds, if you got decent piece of plastic or glass to tape negative to. You can actually use one that you later will scan with, if you feel like it. might be a bit of issue with edges, but oh well - you got quite a bit of real estate to work with and plus you can always claim edges as "artistic touch"

[photoevangelist]

Great start Lee!

It's now refinement, wonderful formal locations!

The big advantage is V750 double scanning those negs, that is very handy.

Seems I am progressing on my economy ULF, last night I scored one, that's right, one 14x17 holder in very good condition. Now I need to build an extension back. My camera is getting bigger...

Congrats! Looking forward to seeing it complete!

I sometimes wish I had waited around for a 14x17 or made one myself. Oddly though, I purchased the 7x17 before the 5x7 and 8x10 cameras. (Thats how long I've been working on getting this set up!) My end game is to exhibit work and both 8x10 and 7x17 are large cameras but still kind of small to be hanging on a gallery wall as a contact print. I'm happy with my digital work flow for the 8x10, but don't know how well this will be with stitching a 7x17 negative for gallery prints. I might need to find myself a cezanne, or mail my negs off to be drum scanned. 14x17 would be just the right size for alternative process contact prints. But my goodness, hauling this 7x17 around campus is a task. Every time I go larger, 4x5 -> 5x7, 5x7 -> 8x10, 8x10 -> 7x17, the previous format seems so much easier to carry, though it wasn't that way in the beginning!

[SergeiR]

now rodinal for 45$ is about 3 times overpay, which kinda suck. I have to bring my bottles to russia when travel - no chance finding it there either But still.. you can do 1+200 Of course being one shot it doesnt work super well with dunking .. but for rotary it should be fairly economical


PS: you guys suck.. i am now seriously contemplating to get 20x24 going.. of course there is no xray of that size.. but..

[Tin Can]

Last night I was talking to Keith Canham and he said he is sending a lot of 20x24 film to China.

20X24 is kinda small look on the Canham site and he says, "K. B. Canham Cameras, Inc. is excited that we have an agreement with Kodak™ to sell special order sheet film. We can order any emulsion that Kodak™ currently produces in any sheet film size you desire, so long as one dimension is 40" (1016mm) or smaller. Orders can be completed either by a single purchase of an entire run, or via a Co-Op.

Film orders will require 100% pre-payment (shipping not included). Once pre-payment is received you will be placed on a list along with everyone else that has ordered the same size and emulsion of Kodak™ film (this will be referred to as a Co-Op). Once enough orders are placed to reach the minimum number of boxes needed we will contact Kodak™ and should receive the film in approximately 6 weeks."

I just ordered 1500 ml of R09 for $24 from Freestyle.

now rodinal for 45$ is about 3 times overpay, which kinda suck. I have to bring my bottles to russia when travel - no chance finding it there either But still.. you can do 1+200 Of course being one shot it doesnt work super well with dunking .. but for rotary it should be fairly economical


PS: you guys suck.. i am now seriously contemplating to get 20x24 going.. of course there is no xray of that size.. but..

[photoevangelist]

now rodinal for 45$ is about 3 times overpay, which kinda suck. I have to bring my bottles to russia when travel - no chance finding it there either But still.. you can do 1+200 Of course being one shot it doesnt work super well with dunking .. but for rotary it should be fairly economical


PS: you guys suck.. i am now seriously contemplating to get 20x24 going.. of course there is no xray of that size.. but..

I can tell you from experience, if you're doing a digital work flow, 8x10 is plenty good for 40x50 inch prints on our 10 year old Epson 9600 scanned on an Epson v750 with betterscanning AN glass. If my hunch is correct, even 5x7 can do well at this size. 4x10 would also be a great panoramic format for digital work flow (I saw you are playing with this format). 7x17 might be overkill for a digital workflow, yet too small for wet prints in gallery space. I still plan on shooting 7x17 for at least a year before I decide to keep it or not. If I can't get this xray 7x17 to work for me, I've got 75 sheets of Ilford (and a jobo ULF tube) to play with. I got my times settled with 5x7 already, so I should be good to go with conventional films - knock on wood.

[photoevangelist]

I just ordered 1500 ml of R09 for $24 from Freestyle.

Man, I wish! I did order some adox chemistry from a guy in Germany once. I think he would have shipped the Rodinal too. I should have purchased some back then. No one else will ship it here. I'd drink Rodinal if I could get three bottles for $24!

[SergeiR]

I can tell you from experience, if you're doing a digital work flow, 8x10 is plenty good for 40x50 inch prints on our 10 year old Epson 9600 scanned on an Epson v750 with betterscanning AN glass. If my hunch is correct, even 5x7 can do well at this size. 4x10 would also be a great panoramic format for digital work flow (I saw you are playing with this format). 7x17 might be overkill for a digital workflow, yet too small for wet prints in gallery space. I still plan on shooting 7x17 for at least a year before I decide to keep it or not. If I can't get this xray 7x17 to work for me, I've got 75 sheets of Ilford (and a jobo ULF tube) to play with. I got my times settled with 5x7 already, so I should be good to go with conventional films - knock on wood.

Yeah, but i am keep thinking about doing contact prints I actually do them from time to time, of course people would kill me here, if i tell them that easiest way to make contact print isnt with weird lamps and stuff.. you just rebounce your typical portable flash off the ceiling and you got nice and even illumination of desired intensity.. and repeatable too Cant do much about D&B of course, but oh well..

So its not all completely digital for me too... I just like feeling of working with large negatives. Its different world. Overwise i'd keep hanging around with MF or 4x5 (still do, of course, but far less).

If i were handy with instruments i'd be shooting 20x24 already, or at least 14x17.. But my attention span sucks, and i dont really have much exp or in area of instruments required for something like that.