Kodak out of stock in Tokyo

[AgX]

"X-ray images", that designation is misleading.


I guess it is time for you to get that lead apron on and crank up that high voltage generator...

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[Photo Engineer]

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.

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

 

[Zedwardson]

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

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.

The simple fact is that analog users are going to be seeking media to do their artform. Sure I would love it if we had Kodak gold 200 at the dollar store. But it is natural for users to find artistic use of industrial films that are being produced for the non-photographic market. Its not going to be the main market for the product, but if it produced in volume it will lower the cost of the film.

For example, I would be willing to try in 35mm or 120 roll films many emulsions as long as they where low priced and with work I could obtain artistic merit. Even if it is a film designed for security, microfilm, or so on if it is priced correctly, I would be tempted to try. There are other users like myself, but I am not going to delude myself that the artistic market is strong enough to support such film independent of its intended use.

 

[kb3lms]

But the Ektascan films aren't panchromatic, are they?

To close my own loop, I see that Kodak/Carestream has now used the Ektascan trademark on a whole range of films. Thus, it is not the old red-sensitive only Kodak SO-239 emulsion that Stone is using. What Stone is using (Ektascan B/RA?) is probably intended to copy monochrome CRT images in a device called a multi-format camera. It is a single sided film with an AH layer and apparently T-Grain. It may work quite well. It is not a regular X-Ray film.

Normal X-Ray film has notoriously low sharpness. This is caused by the double emulsion and high speed. They are quite grainy. On the other hand, since X-ray images are an unfocused shadow they are not very sharp either so high sharpness is not a primary requirement. Speed and contrast is, however. They are normally orthochromatic or sometimes blue sensitive only.

Jason

 

[RattyMouse]

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

60,000 feet?? What were you flying, a U-2??

 

[ambaker]

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

 

[StoneNYC]

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

25meg??? My images are 150-800mb depending on format...

 

[Xmas]

Because, notwithstanding APUG fantasies, it wouldn't sell like hotcakes.

Now now this is a reality distortion thread and you're not wearing your reality distortion helm or the battery is flat. Did it give you a headache?

 

[AgX]

Normal X-Ray film has notoriously low sharpness. This is caused by the double emulsion and high speed. They are quite grainy.

Not all X-ray filmsc are double-sided. There are a lot of variations.

 

[Photo Engineer]

60,000 feet?? What were you flying, a U-2??

A U-2 flies at at least 100,000 during a mission.

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

Not all X-ray filmsc are double-sided. There are a lot of variations.

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.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

Because I can't see the images as well on a tiny GG, and it's easier to make subtle changes on a larger film plane.

That's why they don't make 35mm view cameras...

I'm also using Delta100, HP5+, E100G, and Velvia100 in 8x10 LF sizes (I only wish they still made ULF size chromes...) but sometimes having a few cheap sheets for some lesser important shots are also useful, and I'll let you know when I make some good images so you can see a good X-Ray image. I've also noticed the reciprocity failure of at least the AGFA X-Ray I have is REALLY good, seems on target with Acros100... So I'm wondering how the Ektascan will pan out...

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...That's why they don't make 35mm view cameras...

They did:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/Monobar.jpg​

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...ew-camera-dslr-conversion-dscf8696_resize.jpg​

 

[StoneNYC]

They did:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/Monobar.jpg​

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...ew-camera-dslr-conversion-dscf8696_resize.jpg​

They made bellows for macro work, I wasn't aware they made actual view cameras though. Lol

My point was that I find it easier to adjust on a bigger plane.

 

[AgX]

Stone,
I can't say for ULF.

 

[Truzi]

They did:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/Monobar.jpg​

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...ew-camera-dslr-conversion-dscf8696_resize.jpg​

Those are adorable.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Those are adorable.

Agree!! The children from an 8x10 mom and an 11x14 dad. Wonder what they grew up to be?

Being rebellious kids, it was probably whole plate...



Ken

 

[RattyMouse]

A U-2 flies at at least 100,000 during a mission.

PE

OK, so you were slumming that day.....

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

I just saw this and though of you....

Shot by another photographer on X-Ray film...



Credit:


I wouldn't call that terrible...

 

[RattyMouse]

Pretty weak X-Ray.....can't even see the bones. I would have turned up the juice.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Without a 5x7 using TriX or the like, I can make no judgment. Sorry. I agree that it does not look bad. But who is to say what a "real" professional film could do.

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

 

[kb3lms]

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.

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

 

[RattyMouse]

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

Just kidding PE! And yes, I've looked at every one of the photos in your gallery. Great, great stuff.

 

[StoneNYC]

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

The image of the girl is not my image, it's someone else's, because I haven't made any good ones yet... but I will ... but I've seen a TON of really beautiful landscapes taken with x-ray ... and I plan to make a bunch of my own.

I'm using AGFA Curix 11x14 x-ray film, which I'm pretty sure is a true x-ray film, the contrast was fine, the density in the negative was great, I just didn't aim it very well being was using a cardboard box... lol

The stuff I will use from Kodak, the Ektascan for my 8x10, is still film, even if it's specialized to something other than "traditional" x-ray .... and the point isn't weather it is or isn't x-ray, the point is that it produces a fine image and costs 400% less than the stuff kodak is selling as normal B&W film...

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!

I can't say, I know that my own images posted earlier were not photoshopped at all since I don't know how to use PS... lol

And I did buy Delta100 and HP5+ in 8x10 as well, and shot one sheet of Delta100 8x10 yesterday and another today, I'll shoot 2 more tomorrow and develop them. By tomorrow the Ektascan should come in the mail, and then I'll give that a go and see what happens Do some comparison shots.