Yours was from a different batch and likely an earlier generation before they took extreme cost savings measures when mine rolled out (educated guess.).
Yours was from a different batch and likely an earlier generation before they took extreme cost savings measures when mine rolled out (educated guess.).@Alan Townsend then you're going to have tell my HR-U, that I've had for years, to smarten up and die.
The packaged stuff is terrible. Mine is fresh and perfect, so why would I do that?>While I haven’t personally shot any x-ray film (yet), I do know plenty of friends that have. One of them is still sporting a box of 11x17 HRU they bought in 2019. Seems like this is also the experience of most folks on this thread. I very much doubt it’s the film.
I’d say develop it in some known good chems (pre-packaged stuff that you just bought), and if that still gives you issues, then I’d start to worry about the film being bad.
That is the film to me.It's absolutely NOT the film... but it may be Alan's box of film.
Or some dumdum might open the box…
Did you sneak in and open my box when I was sleeping? Shame on you. I think that would fog the film quite a bit, but since the margins are crystal clear, no, did not happen.
I know. I don't think the conclusion holds, but only you are in a position to evaluate all the evidence and eliminate all hypotheses. Based on what you've said here so far, I'm unconvinced you've nailed it, esp given the unlikelihood of the conclusion you draw.I have stated the fact that my specific xray film has failed and explained how.
I think you have it turned around. Everyone telling me I did something wrong and my film is OK is being defensive of this idea of xray film immortality that is on the web. I am simply attempting to warn other people that this is a myth. You are pushing that myth with some religious conviction of some sort. I'm trying to save people from wasting so much time on this repurposed film that doesn't work very well anyway and to keep it in the freezer. This is what happens when someone shares information that's not popular so they try to kill the messenger. I know you don't want to hear this. There is nothing in it for me of any kind either way. I have no agenda other than sharing my observations.@Alan Townsend honestly I’m not sure what the point of discussing this anymore is, pretty much everyone has explained to you that it’s more likely than not an issue with developing, however you continue to insist that it is not… and when given suggestions on how to troubleshoot you immediately get defensive.
I'm extremely happy now that I'm free from the cult of xray film photographers who believe their film is immortal (yes exagerating a lot). Sorry to tell you that your hru film can go bad at the drop of a hat with no warning in ways you've not seen before. Just look at what happens when someone reports it.I understand not being happy that you are having issues, but I see nothing in this thread that makes me think anyone here is trying to do anything but help.
I had it all figured out before I posted this thread, otherwise I would not have done that. Anybody with this film still working should freeze it, and have second thoughts about buying more.I hope you do eventually figure out your problem.
Case closed Andy! It's a crap shoot for sure. Sad part is it might just be a crap shoot on the best negative or print you have ever made in your life. Whoops, toooooo late! Like I said, we don't know Alan's story, but bad film sounds strange to me. Time to go clean the drive and brush the truck off. Later gators!
First off, I never make up something like we're dealing with hereUh, leading up to you making things up to suit your narrative? Two people agree? Yes, opinions matter in most things, but in science, it's the facts that count.
According to Google AI, yes this film goes bad two years after manufacture. I've been doing film photography since the 1960's and never seen a film go bad like this. Also, this is my first experience with Fuji hru xray film. My gut tells me this is a weird film and likely a t-grain type of film due to its optical clarity. Most films are very diffuse, even opalescent in appearance. Holographic films are the only ones I've ever seen that are transparent like this. It also likely uses different dye sensitizers than camera films due to the need to cover the emission spectra of certain phosphors used in xray film packs, so this dye could be less stable than others.
I have 30 year old tmx that still works, although low contrast, and 30 year old tmy that still works although foggy with low contrast. Also some 40 year old fine grained positive copy stock that works perfectly today. Never seen a film die on que like this. The film still has some sensitivity but is likely about 1% of what is was when new. It may be only blue sensitive now, for example.
Also possible some manufacturing defect or engineering change occurred over the years. Maybe Fuji started buying chemicals on Amazon or other questionable source. Two year shelf life may work fine for the medical market anyway, so this is moot.
This has been my first experience using xray film, and I believe it has also been my last experience with it. If the quality was really good, my opinion would be different. The quality of this film is suitable only for contact printing, and even for that is questionable. It does create images that are interestingly distorted from reality.
I believe I paid $42 for this box of film two and a half years ago, so it was very cheap and not really much of a loss. However, when I include the work that I did trying to get it to function, the cost was much more. This film has gone up in price 60% in the last two and a half years. I am done with it.
I posted this as a warning to others to stay away.
Would be interesting to find out from the film manufacturer if they have anything to say on XRay film behaving differently from regular B&W film wrt aging.
Thanks for the suggestion. I have vials of powders divied out for e72 print developer, but didn't want to waste one for that. I am amazed at this low Dmax. This means that HRU has much less silver then Kentmere 100. I wanted to compare films using same developer. A difference of .77 density units between Kentmere 100 and HRU is a difference of a factor of 6. So HRU has 1/6 the silver of Kentmere. No wonder It's so cheap and doesn't really work all that well with huge toes and shoulders. Now I have almost 2 boxes to play with.If you use full strength D23 and add a tsp of Sodium Carbonate to it make it more active, you might be able to get higher DMax than D23 1:3.
This means that HRU has much less silver then Kentmere 100.
And it doesn't surprise me that X-ray film would be designed to reveal subtle variations, rather than build significant density.
HRU has 1/6 the silver of Kentmere. No wonder It's so cheap and doesn't really work all that well with huge toes and shoulders.
So HRU has 1/6 the silver of Kentmere.
just can't get the lid on this can of worms.That conclusion cannot in any way be substantiated by the evidence you present. Optical density has an imperfect correlation with the mass of silver per surface unit. You're ignoring particle geometry and placement. It's entirely possible that the Kentmere film contains less silver than the x-ray film. And that's without the additional methodological problems associated with how you determined density.
I'm sorry, but this thread remains a highly problematic one in terms of how observations result in haphazard conclusions.
Thanks for the more recent HRU brocure than the one I have. I'm surprised how low the Dmax is for this film. Otherwise, I have been aware of it's other shortcomings. I think it is adequate for direct contact printing for some alt processes either by large view camera or negative enlarging via reversal. It is not going to be practical for enlarging 4x5 hru negatives. The main problem there is the much lower resoution at the lower densities, which I would be working with. My experience with this film is longish development with dilute developers to get a fair long flat portion of the curve at low contrast.It's OK Alan, use this film only if you find it suitable for your purposes. Many here have used this film successfully for several processes and it works adequately for them modulo its inherent characteristics (ortho, high contrast, less sharpness due to double sided emulsion, etc.). I've seen some excellent studio portraits made from this film by a friend and it shines. It is a useful film.
As a result of the backside, you mean? Because in my experience that can indeed fuzzy things up pretty badly.The main problem there is the much lower resoution at the lower densities
Yes, that mtf curve looks pretty bad. I will come up with an 8x10 camera shortly, and just do direct contact prints. That works. I will diddle with reversal processing some for the output of enlarged negatives, also workable due to shorter exposure ranges allowing more density. I target 1.8 density range typically.As a result of the backside, you mean? Because in my experience that can indeed fuzzy things up pretty badly.
I can't say exactly how much less, but it is much less than Kentmere which is advertized as having less silver than the premium Ilford films. Kentmere 100 has a short toe, then an extremely linear curve that covers fully 10 zones before the shoulder is reached.That conclusion cannot in any way be substantiated by the evidence you present. Optical density has an imperfect correlation with the mass of silver per surface unit. You're ignoring particle geometry and placement. It's entirely possible that the Kentmere film contains less silver than the x-ray film. And that's without the additional methodological problems associated with how you determined density.
I'm sorry, but this thread remains a highly problematic one in terms of how observations result in haphazard conclusions.
Which is basically useless when trying to understand how photographic emulsions work.From our best Google AI source
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?