Large Format X-Ray Photo

[Bronson Dugnutt]

So trichrome frames with that film should be photographed with violet, blue-green, and yellow-orange filters. Interesting.

From eyeballing datasheets, ortho 25 has similar spectral response boundaries to Kodak's 3378 but stronger in UV/Violet. All my filters are red, orange, or yellow unfortunately.

 

[removedacct2]

interesting thread I am lucky to find. I shot quite a lot of 8x10 and excepted Foma it's expensive so I have been playing with x-ray film for some time.

about couple practicalities I read along the thread:

• film sizes: I bought 300 sheets of blue Agfa in 5x7. I am building a 5x7/13x18 camera, as it will be more convenient for long walks so bought this when I spotted it. It was in fact confusing because the box mentions both 13x18 5x7, but 13x18 cm is a bit larger than 5"x7" and needs to be trimmed for insertion in 5x7 holders. In fact the film is 5x7:

otherwise here in Europe I have to buy 18x24cm rather than 8"x10", but my holders are 8x10, which seems to be more sold by the usual main providers (Maco, Fotoimpex, etc). Luckily it's very easy to make adapters

• darkroom light: I tried the cheapest most basic back red light for bicycles. 35kr ~ 3,5 €/$ . Works very well:

• processing tray in order to avoid scratches. A small engine oil dripping tray:

------------

Developers
----------------


I see Microdol-X /Mic-X used a lot, some Rodinal 1:100 and some D76 1+1.

I have been using D23. As I understand Microdol metol based too.
What caught my attention was the metol variant mentioned in comment #90.


first I used replenished D-23, but it doesn't tame enough the strong contrast, be it double-sided blue (I have Fuji HR-U) or mammographic single-sided ( I have Agfa HDR-C+)

then I used the double bath variant (Barry Thornton) A: a slight weaker D-23 B: borax, and not much better

very recently I am playing with TDLC-103, ie. very little metol and sodium sulfite, 1g and 5g respectively, and 10g sodium bicarbonate. Better it seems.


couple pictures of Fuji HR-U in D-23, developing time by inspection, typically around 10 mn:

with an Industar-37 at f32. Sky is burnt:

here it's late evening with grey sky (some scratches in the middle...)- Lens Industar-37 300mm at f32.

here the sun is set but casting some light, this was tricky.... lens is a modified Lomo RF-4 360mm at f64:

TDLC-103 seems better, here with Agfa Mamoray, 10mn. Sunny light but inside a yard. Lens is my modded 360mm Lomo RF-4 at f32

 

[juan]

With X-ray film folks are using D-23 1+1 or 1+2 to tame contrast. I use FX-2 at 1+1 And Pyrocat HD at 1:1:200. Maybe you should dilute your developer, though your negatives are looking good.

 

[Nokton48]

Wild Apple Tree Maki II HRU Handheld 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Handheld HRU 6.5cmx9cm XRay photography. Plaubel Makina II with Plaubel Makina Yellow Filter 1/50 at F6.0 Exposure determined by guess and experience so far. Replenished Legacy Mic-X 12 minutes at ambient. Neg is overexposed which is not right but very promising as I will decrease exposure by one and two stops next time. Also will reduce developing time to eight minutes which is more like it but this is working OK so far. Arista #2 8x10 Print Omega Dii Diffusion head laser aligned. Multigrade dev

 

[removedacct2]

With X-ray film folks are using D-23 1+1 or 1+2 to tame contrast. I use FX-2 at 1+1 And Pyrocat HD at 1:1:200. Maybe you should dilute your developer, though your negatives are looking good.

last one was developed in TDLC-103 ie. 1g/liter metol 5g sodium sulfite and 10g bicarbonate , D-23 has 7,5 g metol 100g sodium sulfite, so TDLC-103 is basically a very diluted D-23.

I was not interested in D-23 1+1 or 1+2 because I read it doesn't keep, is one-shot like D-76 1+1. That said I found no information about reuse of TDLC-103 but yesterday when I tried it first time I did four sheets 18x24 one after the other and have kept the developer, so will see next.

I got this defect with the last/4th sheet done in that TDLC-103 batch. Weird, what could it be ???
the film is Agfa HDR-C+ Mamoray , single sided, anti-halation brown back.
Processing: wash off the anti-halation under the faucet then dip it in the developers tray (emulsion up of course), a little bit of agitation every 3 mn, then a short dip in a tray with acidic stop (Fomacitro) then rinse under the faucet then into rapid (acidic) fixer,then long wash.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Some of those marks are from inefficient agitation.

 

[removedacct2]

Some of those marks are from inefficient agitation.

ok so then it may be specific to this film (Agfa HR-C+ Mamoray). First time using it, bought 300 sheets for 90€ ... Before I used regular double-sided, always processed in tray.... almost no agitation, just 30s. first then couple ones after 5mn...

today I went shot some more of this Mamoray, and have processed in "divided" D23 (a bit less metol in first bath, a 2nd bath in borax), tray processed and well marks are spectacular ....

somewhat less here:

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'd suggest washing the antihalation in a tray rather than "under the faucet" -- to me, those look like dyes being only partly removed by water flow. Could also be due to uneven wetting of the gelatin before going into developer, leading to uneven development. If you're going to prewash (which will help keep your developer looking nicer), be sure it's long enough for all the gelatin to get thoroughly soaked.

Also, with as little of anything as is in it, I'd be extremely surprised if your TDLC-103 would keep overnight after mixing. Kind of surprised you got multiple 8x10 out of it at all, unless you used a lot of it (that's like developing four consecutive 135-36 in however much is in that tray).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'd suggest washing the antihalation in a tray rather than "under the faucet" -- to me, those look like dyes being only partly removed by water flow. Could also be due to uneven wetting of the gelatin before going into developer, leading to uneven development. If you're going to prewash (which will help keep your developer looking nicer), be sure it's long enough for all the gelatin to get thoroughly soaked.

Also, with as little of anything as is in it, I'd be extremely surprised if your TDLC-103 would keep overnight after mixing. Kind of surprised you got multiple 8x10 out of it at all, unless you used a lot of it (that's like developing four consecutive 135-36 in however much is in that tray).

I think Donald is on to something. I've never washed AH layer under the tap. If I feel the need to remove this layer, it's always in a tray. That said, I've bothered removing any layers and gone straight into the developer.

 

[koraks]

Why bother with a separate step to wash off the anti halation dye? It'll come off in the developer just fine and won't really interfere with subsequent development sessions if the developer is reused. If that's bothersome, just revert to a one shot developer. I don't see any fundamental drawback to it; quite the opposite.

Much respect to all of you who keep the faith in this stuff; I gave up on x-ray altogether. The 'best' (least worst) I tried was Ektascan BR/A; green sensitive single sided mammography film. It worked sort of OK and with a lot of care I could get even development and no scratches. The one thing it would not do, and never will, is improve its shoulder. Its curve is nice and dandy all the way up to the moderate high values and then *boom* it flattens off abruptly. What a mess. The blue sensitive stuff was even worse. A waste of time, altogether.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

With the right lighting, xray is quite gorgeous. I'm having loads of fun shooting 14x17 with lens and with pinhole. Developing it in D-23. I used to develop it in Pyrocat-HD, but found it to be muddy. D-23 1+1 is quite nice. That's with double-sided green. I've got some Ektascan BR/A, but I don't think it's green. Not very fond of it.

 

[koraks]

Ektascan is green alright. Never liked the double sided stuff because of the scratches and the softness of the backside. Might work for pictorialist kind of shots, but I have no talent for those.

I've seen some of your images and they're the exception to the rule; very nice work, but as you said, in the right kind of light. It works OK and can indeed be beautiful at times when the light is flat and the palette matches what the film is capable of recording. Close ups of foliage in the shade can work very well indeed on this material. But it remains a bit of a one trick pony that way.

I've seen and indeed made many images under normal lighting conditions with a more typical contrast range, but I just can't get past how the highlights break down. Can't help it; like I said, mich respect to those who accept and embrace it for what it is.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'll have to take another look at the Ektascan stuff I've got... if it truly is ortho, I'm kinda wishing I had some in 14x17, as I'm starting to run low...

 

[koraks]

There's Ektascan and there's Ektascan...I'm talking about BR/A (or B/RA?). I'm sure there's blue Ektascan as well, probably double sided etc. I don't know the supply situation now; I ordered mine a few years ago from the US. It was a costly affair but I was able to split out a few boxes between a few people. Next time I'll just order fomapan and be done with it. It's only 8x10 though, which makes it easier...

 

[removedacct2]

I think Donald is on to something. I've never washed AH layer under the tap. If I feel the need to remove this layer, it's always in a tray. That said, I've bothered removing any layers and gone straight into the developer.

I never did before either but always process regular film in a tank and the double-sided xray I process in tray has no AH. In this case it's just because well the faucet is by the zinc where I have the tray and I didn´t bother to take another tray for a prewash ....

I'd suggest washing the antihalation in a tray rather than "under the faucet" -- to me, those look like dyes being only partly removed by water flow. Could also be due to uneven wetting of the gelatin before going into developer, leading to uneven development. If you're going to prewash (which will help keep your developer looking nicer), be sure it's long enough for all the gelatin to get thoroughly soaked.

Also, with as little of anything as is in it, I'd be extremely surprised if your TDLC-103 would keep overnight after mixing. Kind of surprised you got multiple 8x10 out of it at all, unless you used a lot of it (that's like developing four consecutive 135-36 in however much is in that tray).

yes it makes sense. Basically process it like regular film.
I make 1 liter of TDLC-103 and have kept the bottle I mixed two days ago and was used for four sheets. So I will test with a small 4x5 piece of film.

Ok, I went as per your suggestions: regular prewash, some more agitation.

For comparison two identical shots, landscape with lot of (light grey) sky. Lens is Industar-37 300mm @f32.

First negative processed in trays: a good 10 mn wetting/prewash, agitation I did 10s every 3mn and of course in tray it isn´t effective as in tank.
Second negative processed in tank, prewash, developer 1mn inversions then 5s every minute.
In tray, inspection under red light, negative was good after 10mn,
Next negative in tank, and not knowing how is depletion of TDLC-103, I added 10% time (1mn), despite much more agitation. Opted for risk of some overdevelpment rather than not enough.

2nd negative has scratches in the corners, I forgot to put a separator in my tank so corners did scratch each other under the agitation. Not important for the test.

processed in tray. Obviously something wrong in the sky ....

processed in tank. Sky better but I don't think these were the clouds....

 

[Donald Qualls]

Increased negative density (lighter in the positive) at the edges of a tray developed film suggest the tray is too small, leading to more effective agitation at the edges than in the center. The swirl marks in the center of the sky on that negative look like the development time is too short (fully wetting the sheet in the developer takes too large a fraction of the total time). General recommendation is to avoid development time shorter than five minutes (and never mind C-41). These could also be due to local exhaustion, likely if the developer is shallow.

The tank developed image also shows edge density -- in this case, from agitation renewing the developer more effectively at the edges (swirl or roll agitation will do this with too-dilute developer). The "clouds" in the sky are probably due to local exhaustion as the developer flows across the sheet -- notice they're more noticeable on image left. This is also due to too-dilute devloper.

Solution here is probably to use a developer with higher concentration of developing agent, but at a lower pH to slow down the process. D-23 is a good choice, perhaps diluted 1+1 or 1+2. This should normally be used one-shot; 250 ml of D-23 will develop an 8x10, a liter will do four -- but even with the high sulfite content, it usually isn't recommended to store diluted D-23 past the single session.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I process with one tray. Little trick I picked up in my tiny, kitchen corner, black bin bag darkroom. Saves a ton of room! Tray with rinse water. Dump. Pour in developer, dump. In goes stop. Dump. In goes fix... Then back in its container. Wash.

 

[koraks]

The swirl marks in the center of the sky on that negative look like the development time is too short (fully wetting the sheet in the developer takes too large a fraction of the total time).

Maybe, but in my experience this is not necessarily the case with x-ray film. The problem with x-ray is that once unevenness emerges due to the agitation pattern not being 100% consistent across the sheet, these differences simply remain. I.e. they don't resolve by further development. The solution in this case is to use an agitation pattern that ensures that the entire sheet of film receives exactly the same agitation pattern. For me, this was the combination of:
1: Prewetting the film; doesn't have to be long, 30-60 seconds was enough. X-ray film wets (and scratches) very quickly due to the lack of a top coat.
2: Frequent agitation, but not continuous; a few seconds every 30 seconds worked for me (i.e. the 'Kodak rhythm').
3: An agitation pattern that resulted in as random flows as possible across the sheet, achieved by consecutively lifting different corners of the tray and certainly not a regular rocking motion of the tray.
4: Use of single-sided film. No matter how I tried, I never managed to get truly even development across the entire sheet AND zero defects with double sided film. I never went to the lengths of trying hangers in a tank, but I think that's pretty much the only reliable way to get consistent results with double-sided x-ray film.
5: Tray size does matter and it does help to have a margin between the edge of the film and the edge of the tray. What also helps to prevent excessive edge density is to agitate gently (while still observing2 & 3 above).

Getting good results from x-ray film is rather finicky, which is half of the reason why I abandoned it; poor tonality in many/most scenes being the other.
It works very nicely though for certain applications; for instance I did some really nice transfers from an inkjet positive to an x-ray negative which was consecutively used to expose UV resist on printed circuit boards. In such an application the problems with uneven development don't really hurt. It does really need to be single sided, though.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I always get even results in (flat-bottomed) tray with double-sided. D-23 1+1. Random, gentle agitation cycles every minute. Hangers sucked for me. You have to be even more careful agitating otherwise really bad surge marks will occur.

 

[koraks]

Oh I could get even development with double sided alright, but I'd have small defects in the corners of the sheets more often than not. It was just unreliable. Flat bottomed tray, evidently; a non-stick oven tray in my case. I tried several types of trays; the oven tray was the lesser of all evils.

 

[removedacct2]

Solution here is probably to use a developer with higher concentration of developing agent, but at a lower pH to slow down the process. D-23 is a good choice, perhaps diluted 1+1 or 1+2. This should normally be used one-shot; 250 ml of D-23 will develop an 8x10, a liter will do four -- but even with the high sulfite content, it usually isn't recommended to store diluted D-23 past the single session.

I used until now D-23 stock, replenished with DK-25R because it's very convenient, lasts a while. I do one sheet 8x10 at a time, replenish, do the next sheet, etc.
When reading about metol variants I recalled vaguely TDLC-103 mentioned some places. I have the 2nd edition of Bill Troop, Steve Anchell "The film developing cookbook" and TDLC-103 is mentioned in the "Other low contrast developers" section after POTA.
I was surprised how little metol. In fact they mention down to 0,25g by liter:

There is no apparent need for HQ in either formula at this pH. Contrast
with this formula and T/O XDR-4 is somewhat higher than POTA. Most
importantly, the Phenidone streaking problem is eliminated. e 1g/L of
metol called for in the T/O XDR-4 may not be low enough. I have modified
TDLC-103 to use 0.25 to 1 g/L of metol. I reduced sulfite as well: 25 g/L
could be too solvent for some document films. By allowing more oxidation
of the metol, the lower level of sulfite should also result in more controlled
highlight gradation, and more adjacency effects.

Actually, most developing agents can be used for document films, if the
amount of the agent is low enough. Formulas with metol, metol-glycin, or
pyrocatein can be prepared with carbonate as alkali. Su developers are
similar to the traditional high acutance compensating formulas, except that
the amount of developing agent is approximately half, and the carbonate is
proportionately higher.
e tenique is to keep the total amount of developing agent between
0.15 and 0.3 grams per liter of solution. is assumes rather high carbonate
alkalinity.


I was surprised by the low amount of metol. Searching a bit more around, it seems for sure 0,3g is enough for a 120 roll in 500ml.
But Troop formula is for 1 liter of water and they tell nothing about uneven distribution of the chemicals in the solution and specifics of processing and agitation.

By the way, as for the distribution and flow of fluid in the developing container, this is what I use for regular (single-sided) 8x10/18x24 sheets, with inversions or continuous rolling or standing.
Long time ago it did hit me that bottles of Tetenal BW chemicals are 100% opaque and almost the diameter of a steel tank for 35mm/120mm spirals. A Kindermann-like lid does snap into place with a bit of pressure around the edge of that plastic cylinder. Two empty bottles needed, some glue/tape, thin perforated aluminium sheet and a plastic paper binder (for separator):

ok, so that is basically a slightly wider Kindermann tank, higher than one for 3x 120 spirals but smaller than a 4 or 5 spirals. 1100ml liquid does cover a 8x10 sheet, and less than a 1000ml a 18x24 sheet (2cm less width).

Perfect for continuous rolling or inversions. I do all my regular 8x10 sheets (Foma, Ilford) with this no problem.

that's what i used for the 2nd negative.

----

I was considering to test other formulas metol-based, but when I read Troop, Anchell about TDLC-103 I went for this one. Because if they said 1g/liter or less metol works, then why bother with D-23 1+1 or 1+3 ?
But obviously there's more to this....

 

[Nokton48]

Makiflex 150 F2.8 Auto Xenotar MINR Mammo by Nokton48, on Flickr

Foxglove on the back deck. Plaubel Makiflex with 150mm F2.8 Schneider Auto iris Xenotar lens wide open. 4X Neutral density filter added. Kodak MINR Mammography Film 18x24cm, cut down into four 9x12cm's. Microdol-X Legacy Developer 12 minutes at 74F. Aristo #2 RC 8x10 print, Omega DII laser aligned 180mm black Rodagon, Dektol dev 1:2. Handheld which I have been doing with Makiflexes a bit.

 

[Nokton48]

Makiflex Auto 270 Tele Arton Mammo 9x12cm MicX by Nokton48, on Flickr

18x24 Kodak Mammography MINR film cut down to four 9x12cm's. Sinar Norma film holders, Plaubel Makiflex with 4x5 Adapter Back. 270 Auto Tele-Arton Yellow filter. Broncolor Portrait lighting. Microdol-X Legacy developer 12 mins 73F. 8x10 RC #2 Arista Dektol 1:2 dev. Handheld camera

 

[Algo después]

some interesting posts about movie make up with orthocromatic film...

Make-up comparison showing how to make-up for black and white and colour films. There were a number of experiments with colour film systems through the early part of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, I do not know the type of colour film stock this make-up was designed for. Given the make-up colours used for the black and white make-up it would appear that the suggested black and white make-up is for blue-sensitive or orthochromatic film.

Cosmetics and Skin: Early (Silent) Movie Make-up

Stage performers who came to work in films in the early twentieth century knew how to apply greasepaint and powder but soon realised that techniques they used for the stage were unsuitable for the screen

cosmeticsandskin.com

You can see in the 1929-1930 ads below from International Photographer that Max Factor's movie makeup is front and center. In some instances, his name and the words panchromatic make-up are as about as large as—or larger than!—the titles of the films being advertised.

Max Factor's "Horrifying" Panchromatic Makeup

Discover why Max Factor’s panchromatic movie make-up was "horrifying."

www.chicagomovietours.com

 

[Cholentpot]

I shot and developed 8 sheets of Min-R in the past few days. They came out quite thin, I used my development methods that worked in the past. First 4 sheets I rated at 100 and they came out very thin, the sheets drying now I rated at 50 and they look pretty thin too. I wonder if this stuff lost sensitivity in the past year. The film has been stored in my fridge. I'll post scans when the stuff dries.