Judy on X-ray

I admire guys that branch-out and experiment like this

Nice image. My Wollaston Meniscus is one of my favourite lenses.

How fun! I have used x-ray film...but not in Dektol, which I have used to gain contrast with FP4+. Now I use Ilford's Universal PQ Developer instead...but no x-ray film. The loss of sharpness of having emulsion on both sides when making carbon prints (relatively thick 'emulsion') was not acceptable for my work.

The images below were taken with x-ray film and processed at the hospital (the techs loved it!) Taken in open shade at ASA800 (I took one at ASA400, but it was a little thin. ASA 800 was a good exposure. Using the same film under the redwoods, the ASA dropped down closer to 100 (but developed by me). I believe it to be the same film you are using. The color of the light source seems to be a big deal with x-ray film!

[Edit -- I got it backwards...I did used the ASA 800 negs for printing -- the ones at ASA400 were too dense (but still printable). Thanks Don!]

Bryce, Calder, Alex
8x10 platinum/palladium prints

PS - I had no idea Calder had such freckles until this image. Calder's shirt and pants, and Bryce's pants were red -- thus almost clear in the negative.

Two threads wrestled into submission as one, in the correct sub-forum too!
And thanks for sharing your experiment.

Reinhold said:

A Dektol/glycin blend, @1+10 dilution, @ 3min, 65º,= extremely dense negative.

Click to expand...

If you did it under a safelight, that could contribute to the density, depending on what the light is. Some xray film needs a very dim, very red safelight or it fogs.

I used to develop xray film all the time in Dektol 1:3. I was using it in an 8x10 camera with a flash and got somewhat higher contrast normal-looking negatives that contact printed well. I stopped doing it because I bought better 8x10 film. And I also accidentally left my box of xray film open when I turned on the lights...

Vaughn said:

Taken in open shade at ASA800 (I took one at ASA400, but it was a little thin. ASA 800 was a good exposure.

Click to expand...

? other way around maybe ?

bernard_L said:

? other way around maybe ?

Click to expand...

It was almost a quarter century ago (2001) -- you are probably correct!

I just took a look at the negatives -- I used the ASA 800 negs for printing -- the ones at ASA400 were too dense (but still printable).