Lol, I just only now noticed your post count..... Day-um!
Just shot an ad at 11,000 feet, found a Mamiya 6, see you all in a few weeks....I'm sure there will be a "freshie" industry topic posing as a massive dart board.
Reminds me that in the former communist block, Xray film was used to produce records of western music recorded off the radio, as old X-ray films could be had, and it was soft enough to carve grooves for the sound.Stone, there is no doubt that XRay films can take good photos. They are just simpler emulsions and to a certain extent, simpler coatings. This has imposed certain limitations on their use but with care, you can get what you "deserve".
A comparison, to be valid, would consist of 3 images on a reference film and 3 on XRay. The three would be +1, N and -1 all of exactly the same subject using the same camera and etc.... Then you can look at what is actually going on, and you can do it at several magnifications if you wish.
PE
But the Ektascan films aren't panchromatic, are they?
My post count is what it is. I go with the flow and do what I want every day.
BTW, my posted aerial shots were at about 30,000 - 60,000 ft and were upside down, some at zero g.
PE
A picture is worth a thousand words, but takes up 25 meg on your hard drive.
I used to say there were photographs for which I just did not have the words to describe. Now it appears, if I use enough ones and zeroes I can actually get pretty darn close.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Because, notwithstanding APUG fantasies, it wouldn't sell like hotcakes.
Normal X-Ray film has notoriously low sharpness. This is caused by the double emulsion and high speed. They are quite grainy.
60,000 feet?? What were you flying, a U-2??
Not all X-ray filmsc are double-sided. There are a lot of variations.
If you have to resort to using x-ray film to save money, why not downsize the format a little and use films which will give much better results? The results I've seen so far from x-ray films are terrible.
They did:...That's why they don't make 35mm view cameras...
Those are adorable.
A U-2 flies at at least 100,000 during a mission.
PE
If you have to resort to using x-ray film to save money, why not downsize the format a little and use films which will give much better results? The results I've seen so far from x-ray films are terrible.
What other single sided x-ray films are there in ULF? I've been looking for a single sided 11x14 for a while now. Ektascan seems to be the only one.
And, 60,000 ft is not slumming. It was the normal operational altitude of our planes. Not bad though. Did you even look at them?
PE
The CRT copying films or laser printer films would be the only ones as far as I was ever aware. I worked in that division at Kodak for 10 years, although not directly connected with film. I only used the films in printers I was helping to develop. Laser printer films would not help you and nowadays are all dry-process anyway. I have no idea how dry processing works.
It is true that there are a few specialty x-ray films that are not double sided. By and large, though, x-ray films are double-sided and most are orthochromatic.
Stone, the film you are using is not an x-ray film in the true sense as it's intended use is for recording a projected CRT image. However, they are sold as part of that product line.
Jason
It's fine I suppose. But who knows what ph0t05h0p gymnastics were required vs working with a general purpose film. It's also a studio shot, which means the lighting, contrast etc etc can be controlled. I didn't realize that was your intended application, so point taken (sort of, not really). But I still think in the field this kind of film would be difficult to use and would be a fairly lousy performer overall, particularly with darkroom printing. It seems to me it really defeats the purpose of moving up in format size, but that's just me.
Buy more Ilford and Kodak film!
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?