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

[grzybu]

That's what I wanted LF camera for: making kallitypes straight from negative. I'll try do test tonight to see how it works from real negative, not digital one.

[SergeiR]

Very nice, can you share your camera details? How you managed a DIY 8x10.

there is number of threads on DIY LF cameras in section of forum that is about DIY btw

[ScottPhotoCo]

12Dag_Xray_f16_2.5_020214 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr

Doing some testing of Kodak X-Ray Film Ektascan B/RA. Metered at 80 iso.
Jobo 3005 + Continuous agitation (6m @ 68) + Rodinal 40mL/1L

[ndg]

What do you think? Do you like the results?

12Dag_Xray_f16_2.5_020214 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr

Doing some testing of Kodak X-Ray Film Ektascan B/RA. Metered at 80 iso.
Jobo 3005 + Continuous agitation (6m @ 68) + Rodinal 40mL/1L

[Andrew O'Neill]

Scott, I like the concept. The image is a bit contrasty, though. I think it needed a tad more exposure. Did you shoot under natural light? Was bellows ext. required? Reciprocity? That is one of the films that I use, and I shoot it at 80 outdoors. I've not tried it indoors.

[Carl J]

A little underexposed, perhaps? I've had pretty good results at 50iso. I'll also still usually rate it at 50iso even outdoors, where I think it tends to be somewhat faster. At any rate, it's cheap enough I can shoot an extra sheet if I'm in doubt (but I usually don't bother). I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight. That's my eventual plan for 11x14 (just waiting for the camera to come back from upgrades).

[ScottPhotoCo]

What do you think? Do you like the results?

Scott, I like the concept. The image is a bit contrasty, though. I think it needed a tad more exposure. Did you shoot under natural light? Was bellows ext. required? Reciprocity? That is one of the films that I use, and I shoot it at 80 outdoors. I've not tried it indoors.

A little underexposed, perhaps? I've had pretty good results at 50iso. I'll also still usually rate it at 50iso even outdoors, where I think it tends to be somewhat faster. At any rate, it's cheap enough I can shoot an extra sheet if I'm in doubt (but I usually don't bother). I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight. That's my eventual plan for 11x14 (just waiting for the camera to come back from upgrades).

Thanks for the comments. Here are the details and my thoughts:

This was shot indoors with natural back light. It was a really difficult light to meter for and that's why I wanted to try it. I metered for the shadows on the inside of the typewriter as I just wanted to see detail where the arms sit at rest. If you look closely, it's there. There was approximately a 7-8 stop difference (guessing) between the black typewriter and the open window behind. I was hoping to save some detail on the top of the cabinet. If you look closely you can just see wood grain on the cabinet on the right. But, not enough. I may try this shot again this weekend, shoot it the same way (2.5 seconds at f16) and modify my Rodinal mix to 25mL to 1L of water and process for the same 6 minutes to see if the concentrate of developer was a bit too strong. I am processing 4 sheets at a time so this is 6.25mL of developer per sheet. Thoughts?

[gbogatko]

Scott, I like the concept. The image is a bit contrasty, though. I think it needed a tad more exposure. Did you shoot under natural light? Was bellows ext. required? Reciprocity? That is one of the films that I use, and I shoot it at 80 outdoors. I've not tried it indoors.

Here's where I get really confused. Ektascan has the same insane density as the double-sided stuff, so how does increasing exposure cut down on the contrast? I've shot Ektascan at ISO 200 (studio lights), and only get something approaching controlability with a 2-bath d23 mix; pulling the neg only after the highs start to show up in bath-A.

Ugh. It's really hard stuff to shoot (Ektascan).

Incidently, I found that a yellow filter really helps tame the density.

George

[StoneNYC]

Here's where I get really confused. Ektascan has the same insane density as the double-sided stuff, so how does increasing exposure cut down on the contrast? I've shot Ektascan at ISO 200 (studio lights), and only get something approaching controlability with a 2-bath d23 mix; pulling the neg only after the highs start to show up in bath-A.

Ugh. It's really hard stuff to shoot (Ektascan).

Incidently, I found that a yellow filter really helps tame the density.

George

I would suggest longer exposure but shorter development time. I think that's what he means as well.

ALSO I would suggest longer exposure and trying something like Rodinal 1:150 1 hour stand.(usually I do 1:100 but the amount of highlight here I would dilute even further.

Just a suggestion, what do I know?

[premortho]

You mean people are developing this ortho film in the dark? One of the great things about ortho film is developing by inspection.

A little underexposed, perhaps? I've had pretty good results at 50iso. I'll also still usually rate it at 50iso even outdoors, where I think it tends to be somewhat faster. At any rate, it's cheap enough I can shoot an extra sheet if I'm in doubt (but I usually don't bother). I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight. That's my eventual plan for 11x14 (just waiting for the camera to come back from upgrades).