Are we missing a trick?

Donald Qualls · Mar 28, 2006

I've just seen (in another thread right here on APUG) a source for 8x10 film at $36 per 100 sheets. It's available in blue sensitive, ISO 25 equivalent, blue sensitive ISO 50 equivalent, and orthochromatic at a speed I don't know (but surely in roughly that range).

It's Konica X-ray film. It's also available in various ULF sizes, including but not limited to 7x17, 11x14, 10x12 -- and would you believe 30x35? If that last is inches, that might be the biggest film currently available...

http://www.med1online.com/c-270-x-ray-film.aspx

The "half speed" is ISO 25 or so, "full speed" is ISO 50-ish. They don't give a speed for the ortho, but given the application, it can't easily be slower than ISO 12, and might be as fast as ISO 50.

I've seen an example of this film, cut to 4x5 and shot in a camera, that contact printed to quite a credible print with much of the "wet plate" look (because it was the blue sensitive film).

And free shipping for orders over $100.

Kino · Mar 28, 2006

Wow. Makes the head swim with the possibilities..

How about a 7 exposure, "rapid-fire" (for a pano camera), dropping plate, panoramic camera making 5 x 30 inch negatives using 30 x 35 film that is cut after development?

Wonder what a 30 x 35 b&w slide would look like?

Man, can you imagine the pinhole camera you could make with a empty 55 gal drum?

Wow.

scootermm · Mar 28, 2006

isnt Xray film coate with the emulsion on both sides of the film, as in theres no "base" to the film just a double coated film?

I was informed of this a few months back when curious about bidding on a batch of 200 sheets of Xray film in 7x17. Not sure if its true/false... but would be curious to know what experience others have.

pelerin · Mar 29, 2006

Donald Qualls said:
<SNIP>
It's Konica X-ray film. It's also available in various ULF sizes, including but not limited to 7x17, 11x14, 10x12 -- and would you believe 30x35? If that last is inches, that might be the biggest film currently available...

http://www.med1online.com/c-270-x-ray-film.aspx

<SNIP>

And free shipping for orders over $100.

A small cynical voice inside me is saying that, given the cost per sq/ft of the 8x10 those (30x35 etc.) must be metric dimensions. It is certainly cheap enough to take a risk and see if you can make it work for pictorial purposes.
Celac.

removed account4 · Mar 29, 2006

hey donald

i hate to say this, but i had a big box of 8x10 kodak xray film.
i threw it out ...
it was textured on both sides, and didn't process any of the chemistry that i tried it in .. film + print developer ...

i even called kodak with the catalog info to get possible developers and relative asa's ... but no-go

i hope others have had better luck than i had

- - john

wiseowl · Mar 29, 2006

30 X 35mm sounds about right for dentistry x-rays

jimgalli · Mar 29, 2006

As part of my job, I have boxes of 14X17 Kodak Xray film in the freezer. The kind used for radiograph's. Whenever one of those jobs comes up I always test the chems by bringing a good 4X5 neg to work and using the stuff just as I would use paper under an enlarger. The result is a rather bluish positive 14X17 of my chosen scene with excellent tonality. Put on a tungsten light source the blue goes neutral and the Xparancy is quite a nice effect. I've given a few away. I use the Kodak Industrex developer, but have also used Dektol 1:1 just as effectively. Actually the Dektol is smoother for pictorial work. Not all of the KODAK films were double sided, but some are. Xray film has more in common with paper than film. It develops to completion like paper.

CRhymer · Mar 29, 2006

wiseowl said:
30 X 35mm sounds about right for dentistry x-rays

I think it is cm. Here is a link to a Canadian Konica Medical Film distributor. The size selection box lists 30x35 in cm.

http://www.medicaltronik.ca/clientEn/detailProduit.asp?ProdID=7258

It is for SR-G type film (green sensitive), but I think the size selection is the same. Also, if in cm. on the Med1Online site, it is similar in price/size/area to 11"x14".

Could be wrong.

Cheers,
Clarence

Petzi · Mar 29, 2006

I think LF and ULF users should buy photo film, so the photo film manufacturers stay in business.

Petzi · Mar 29, 2006

As far as I know, x-ray film is thicker than photographic film. This may lead to focus problems, because the focal plane changes. At f/90 with a 1000mm lens it might not be that important though...

Kino · Mar 29, 2006

Petzi said:
I think LF and ULF users should buy photo film, so the photo film manufacturers stay in business.

Oh, I don't think it will significantly impact the market if we buy a few boxes here and there for unusual effects or even pictorial photography; it is after all film made by a film manufacturer, right? I suspect the X-Ray film market is suffering too...

However, it COULD make the difference between allowing someone with a tight budget to shoot and get comfortable in LF prior to investing in regular negative stocks.

I plan to keep buying camera-purposed negative and related materials for the foreseeable future.

Sigh* I KNEW the 30" x 35" was too good to be true, but even the 8x10 price is shockingly affordable to experiment with!

Petzi · Mar 29, 2006

You are mostly correct, but consider the fact that ULF films have recently been produced at user's request. If that does not sell, it will not happen again.

Donald Qualls · Apr 1, 2006

Last I heard, htmlguru(whatever numbers) had gotten a few sample sheets. Yes, the 8x10 is 8x10 inches, but there are a few metric sizes -- 13x18, 24x30, and 30x35, apparently (if I'm remembering correctly from the other thread -- it's in the Alternate Process area if you want to check it). Still, the 7x17 ought to be popular with those who have trouble getting *any* film in that size.

And double coated means never having to wonder if you loaded it in the holder backward, right?

From what folks have said on the other thread, it's been processing in Dektol (the normal developer is apparently an MQ or PQ type similar to D-19), and the ISO 25 equivalent (for half-speed blue sensitive) is derived from the original poster's in-camera tests; he posted an image that was processed in an X-ray processor and it looked pretty decent.

X-rays aren't usually processed to huge contrast; they depend on the subtle gradations in reading the films, where they still use film. D-19 is a little hotter than, say, D-23 or D-76, but it's not lith developer; Ryuji Suzuki suggested Dektol/D-72 at 1+1 or 1+2 should work well.

If I have the money, I might get a box of this stuff after I get caught up on my chemicals and enlarging paper. I can easily cut it to fit my Aletta 4x5, and it's slow enough the translucent bellows shouldn't produce much fog...

p krentz · Apr 16, 2006

Petzi said:
As far as I know, x-ray film is thicker than photographic film. This may lead to focus problems, because the focal plane changes. At f/90 with a 1000mm lens it might not be that important though...

I just shot and developed a couple of sheets of the asa 50 xray film and developed in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 in a tray, no presoak, the 5:00 one looks thin, the 7:00 looks pretty good will know Monday when I print it. The film is thinner than Tri-x, FP4, or HP5. Pat

Dan Fromm · Apr 16, 2006

scootermm said:
isnt Xray film coate with the emulsion on both sides of the film, as in theres no "base" to the film just a double coated film?

I was informed of this a few months back when curious about bidding on a batch of 200 sheets of Xray film in 7x17. Not sure if its true/false... but would be curious to know what experience others have.

You're thinking of high speed X-Ray film. It is a sandwich, emulsion-base-emulsion. The base is transparent. I have some radiographs of small fishes shot with it. The fishes were laid down on the film and zapped. Low resolution images, not as easy to read as I'd like.

Petzi · Apr 16, 2006

p krentz said:
The film is thinner than Tri-x, FP4, or HP5. Pat

I used to work in a hospital, and all the x-ray film that I held in my hand seemed very thick, much thicker than photo film. But perhaps they were just using the good stuff. I don't know.

Kino · Apr 16, 2006

Petzi said:
I used to work in a hospital, and all the x-ray film that I held in my hand seemed very thick, much thicker than photo film. But perhaps they were just using the good stuff. I don't know.

You were probably handling acetate base, or depending upon how old you are, Nitrate base film, which is much thicker!

p krentz · Apr 17, 2006

Xray Print

Donald, I just posted the print from the xray film in the standard gallery. Thanks for you help with that. Pat

p krentz · Apr 17, 2006

This is a contact print. Pat

DBP · Apr 17, 2006

When I was in high school, my dad used to bring home the tail ends of film spools from the machine they used to record cardiac catheterizations. I could get a few rolls off one in the bulk loader. If memory serves, contrast was a little low, but it worked. And given how little I knew about developing at the time, contrast might have been correctable. BTW, according to a GE website, they currently record on both video - for instant replay, and film - for final diagnosis.

p krentz · Apr 19, 2006

I tried to develope some xray (4x5) in BTZS tubes, it left some of the emulsion on the back side of the film, that was after a 5:00 soak, 4:00 developing 0:30 rinse, 5:00 fix. So I guess it will have to be tray development for this film. The 810 BTZS tubes may do better since they have ribs, if the chemicals can get under the ribs. The development was fine on one side but you could not get a proper density reading with residual emulsion coating. Pat

p krentz · Jun 6, 2006

I just received a reply from medonline and the 14x36 ortho-tri x is in inches, not mm, if any of you ULF guys are interested 25 sheets per box about $56. Pat

Whiteymorange · Jun 7, 2006

The way I read the site, what they're offering is Tri-Fold x-ray film, not Tri-X film. an important distinction, I think. Maybe clear to everyone else reading this thread, but the last posting seemed a bit vague on it.

p krentz · Jun 7, 2006

Whiteymorange said:
The way I read the site, what they're offering is Tri-Fold x-ray film, not Tri-X film. an important distinction, I think. Maybe clear to everyone else reading this thread, but the last posting seemed a bit vague on it.

Thanks for clarifying that. Pat

rrankin · Mar 21, 2007

p krentz said:
I tried to develope some xray (4x5) in BTZS tubes, it left some of the emulsion on the back side of the film, that was after a 5:00 soak, 4:00 developing 0:30 rinse, 5:00 fix. So I guess it will have to be tray development for this film. The 810 BTZS tubes may do better since they have ribs, if the chemicals can get under the ribs. The development was fine on one side but you could not get a proper density reading with residual emulsion coating. Pat

I tried some of this using tubes with ribs and Pyrocat-hd at 1:1:100 for 7 minutes as you had mentioned earlier. While most of the rear emulsion was removed correctly, there are still visible lines along the ribs, so the ribs don't really help, they just change the interference. This just happened, so I haven't thought of any solution so far. And that is an aggravation since tray dev is not an option for me and the price of this film makes photography stay within my grasp...

As to the images themselves, they look reasonable to me hanging to dry. They were shot with the x-ray film 50iso and a Darlot lens from 1860 or so. They exhibit some of that 'tintype' look hanging against a black background and I can't remember if that is overexposed and underdeveloped or underexposed and overdeveloped. But I think they are printable, albeit with rear lines running through the faces.

Any brilliant ideas out there?

Cheers, Richard

Are we missing a trick?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency