Fuji Super HR-U stores well for years but has lower density then most films .

[Alan Townsend]

@Alan Townsend then you're going to have tell my HR-U, that I've had for years, to smarten up and die.

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]

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.

The packaged stuff is terrible. Mine is fresh and perfect, so why would I do that?>

 

[Alan Townsend]

It's absolutely NOT the film... but it may be Alan's box of film.

That is the film to me.

 

[Alan Townsend]

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.

 

[MCB18]

@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 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 hope you do eventually figure out your problem.

 

[koraks]

I have stated the fact that my specific xray film has failed and explained how.

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.

In your place I'd consider putting this box of film aside and have a fresh look at it in a few months' time when you're less invested in a particular conclusion.

 

[Alan Townsend]

@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 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.

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'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 hope you do eventually figure out your problem.

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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!

Uh, 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.

First off, I never make up something like we're dealing with here. Second is, I try to never sound like an authority on a subject, product, or process that I have no personal experience with. The reason I leaned toward the Metol possibility was that both your developers use it and D23 uses Metol as the only developing agent. Next, is that from my experience with badly aged B&W film is that, yes, it does lose speed with age, but also builds more base fog as it ages. Since you said they were just thin negatives I questioned the film being bad guess and went looking for other possibilities.
Also, I said I'd make no final conclusions (post#9) until you reported back. Now that you've reported back I can say "your film is degraded and unusable". My question is "how did it get this way and is Xray film special or more prone to whatever caused it"? Of course we don't know yet what caused it. Since I have never used this film I'm not too concerned as to what happened to your film, but folks like Andy might like to know since he uses the film.

 

[koraks]

Okay Alan, something went wrong on your end and it's not entirely clear what it was, but evidently it has upset you. Cult, myth, religious conviction...I don't know about all those things, but they sure don't apply to me as I'm quite level-headed about the strengths and weaknesses of x-ray film. Having used several boxes of it over the years for a variety of purposes has eroded
away whatever high hopes or prejudice the Cult of X-ray might have imbued on me when I started with it.

I'm looking at this from a rational perspective and in doing so, I see you jumping to a conclusion that seems implausible to me, while the evidence presented doesn't convince in that direction. That's what I've pointed out, and so have others.

Sometimes, implausible things turn out to be true. Those are truly interesting situations - but only if they're presented in a convincing manner. Personally, I don't qualify this case as such as it stands. I'd be more than happy to be convinced otherwise, however. But it'll take more than "you'll have to take my word for it."

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

 

[Alan Townsend]

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.

I just ordered another box of 8x10.

 

[Alan Townsend]

I'm beginning to accept that my film maybe OK after all. The surprise to me is how low the Dmax is for this film. I thought I had measured it before, but don't find the notes. All regular camera films I've measured are around 3.0. I developed a piece totally exposred for an hour in stock d23, and got a dmax of 2.26. My last measurement of Dmax using MC-glycerol 1:100 and D23 1:3 both for 10 minutes gave Dmax of 2.20 for both. I found my first negative that I processed right after getting this film.

As noted this was exposed 1 sec. at f32 with K2 yellow filter ei 50. This negative was developed 10 min. in D23 at 1:3 and is both overexposed and overdeveloped. The density in the lower left region is 1.89. There is no highlight detail as can been seen, so response is blocked up and shouldered over. This the densest, but not the sharpest negative from that first testing.

This is the detail from that first negative just scanned today.

This that negative inverted but nothing else.

Since this density is consistent with the last density of my recent tests at 2.2, this film may be OK. My first two camera negative from a few days ago were fogged from a light leak in the camera, but the fogging was moderate density, so the details should have been viewable unless my developers were at near capacity, which is possible. The light leak has been fixed. My camera lens is an enlarging lens that has an illuminator for the scale that shines red and green light on the scale. In reverse, if the scale is hit by sunlight at the proper angle, two little filters illuminate with red and green light, which of course will hit the film. I have covered those with black electrical tape. Used this lens a few times in the past, but never had this fogging.

Any Fuji HRU users out there who have measured Dmax with film developers? I assume it may go higher using print developer, but haven't tried that yet. When I tested in my darkroom recently, I did not expose enough to yield Dmax in the margins, which I should have done. But I am amazed this film, which does go up above 3.3 density with the xray developers has so much lower density than poor silver starved Kentmere 100. Incidentally, the xray film clears in my dilute fixer in a minute and thirty seconds. I had heard that xray films have MORE silver than camera films.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well now, you solved the mystery and all's well that ends well.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

 

[Alan Townsend]

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.

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.

 

[MattKing]

This means that HRU has much less silver then Kentmere 100.

That is a bit of a leap I'm afraid.
The amount of silver doesn't correlate directly with density - there are many more variables involved. And many of those variables have a much greater affect on density than silver load will.
If an emulsion is designed to build density slowly, it will perform according to it's design specifications. And it doesn't surprise me that X-ray film would be designed to reveal subtle variations, rather than build significant density.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

And it doesn't surprise me that X-ray film would be designed to reveal subtle variations, rather than build significant density.

According to the data sheet, it does build significant density (DMax ~3.0). It needs a sutitably strong developer, D23 1:3 is rather weak.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

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.

 

[koraks]

So HRU has 1/6 the silver of Kentmere.

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

just can't get the lid on this can of worms.

 

[Alan Townsend]

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.

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.

 

[koraks]

The main problem there is the much lower resoution at the lower densities

As a result of the backside, you mean? Because in my experience that can indeed fuzzy things up pretty badly.

 

[Alan Townsend]

As a result of the backside, you mean? Because in my experience that can indeed fuzzy things up pretty badly.

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.

 

[Alan Townsend]

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.

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.

Fuji proudly boasts their "super thin 30 grain technology", so this is a Tgrain type emulsion that is super thin and has about 2 grams of silver per square meter? That very low from a film photography perspective, but how much exactly? Do you have any data on specific amounts of silver in other films?

From our best Google AI source,"

Based on industry data and photographic studies, black and white film generally contains between
3 to 5 grams of silver per square meter (
g/m2g / m squared
)"

I asked for Ilford films silver content, and got the more generic answer, which would indicate HRU has between 2/3 and 1/2.5 as much silver as black and white films. I stand corrected.

 

[koraks]

From our best Google AI source

Which is basically useless when trying to understand how photographic emulsions work.

Anyway, I don't think it's a particularly constructive tangent; the 'more silver is better' horse was beaten to a pulp decades ago and also in this thread there's no evidence whatsoever of sheer silver load being part of the problem.

Dump a piece of that film in dektol, contact print it side by side with a Stouffer so you actually get to see 3.0logD or thereabouts and see how far you get.