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

[Carl J]

[photoevangelist]

Very nice! I love seeing skies with xray film. I've yet to really try anything outside. That's my summer project, but I figured I'd stay away from scenes with skies.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Thanks Randy and Jim. I'm glad you guys liked it . So Jim you dig the rembrandt lighting huh?

Absolutely! Dig the lens as well!

[Carl J]

Very nice! I love seeing skies with xray film. I've yet to really try anything outside. That's my summer project, but I figured I'd stay away from scenes with skies.

Thanks, Lee. The yellow filter makes all the difference for the skies. That being said, the HP5+ version has better (more dramatic) skies but I could live with this if it was the only shot I had.

No sky, but one more (Fujinon 250mm, f6.7):

[Harley Goldman]

Thanks, Lee. The yellow filter makes all the difference for the skies. That being said, the HP5+ version has better (more dramatic) skies but I could live with this if it was the only shot I had.

No sky, but one more (Fujinon 250mm, f6.7):

Very well crafted composition, Carl. Interesting elements very well balanced. Nicely done.

[Tav Walraven]

Carl...

Nice work with the x-ray film and the tube development. ....."what scratches, I don't see no scratches"............It would be nice if they made the B/RA in larger sizes over 8x10. Oh well..........................


TW

[Ilford4ever]

So, Zz medical is offering free shipping now on all x-ray film. Is this the beginning of the end for x-ray film?

[Tin Can]

We are a tiny tiny percentage of X-Ray users, if it was the end prices would be rising. ZZ is now just slightly cheaper than http://www.cxsonline.com/ where I have been buying. They have been very reliable.

So, Zz medical is offering free shipping now on all x-ray film. Is this the beginning of the end for x-ray film?

[photoevangelist]

As I understand it the digital xray machinery is a very expensive conversion, which is why film is still used in smaller practices. If an end is near, I sure would like to be in the know. I'd like to stock up on a few boxes. I don't think my portrait series would be as interesting on pan film and it surely wouldn't have been possible on the scale I approached it with. I can't afford to do 55 portraits (x2 for insurance) with regular pan film.

BTW. I use double sided emulsion-not stripped. Scanned on Epson v750 with better scanning glass raised on 4 Korean pennies, using EpsonScan, levels, dust and scratches, and very little smart sharpening to achieve what I believe to be absolutely beautiful 40x50 inch tonal prints on our university's 10 year old Epson. My scans were larger than our printer's capability and I believe I could print 4 times the size of the 40x50 inch prints if I wanted. I am super pleased with my digital output workflow. Because of framing costs, I doubt I will ever, or rarely, go to 40x50 inch prints again - which is a shame because they look damn good on the gallery wall. Maybe I'll buy a few large frames for signature images of a show.

I'll have to upload samples of the 2400 dpi images later. But I can't say that I need to strip the negatives at 40x50 prints, though I have never tried enlarging traditional film or stripped xray or drum scans to this size.

The prints blew me away, all my students, and co-professors away. The "wow" factor was high during the exhibition opening and my pride level went through the roof.

That being said, I think 5x7 is a large enough format for nice digital 30x40 prints. 4x5 was stretching it a bit (of course my 4x5 test at 30x40 was Tri-X in Diafine) with our technology at the school. I'm going to play with 8x10 xray some more, but I think xray and huge contact prints like Jim, Tri, et al are where xray is at. 5x7 pan film is affordable enough for me to shoot with constant dependable results.

[Tin Can]

All very good information Lee.

Thanks for sharing!