Large Format X-Ray Photo

[DWThomas]

I have used THESE in a Kodak "bullet" housing, but I ended up using a Rubylith "filter" and a homebrew ND filter (inkjet print on transparency film) with the green sensitive X-ray material there seemed to be a spectral spike or two outside the red zone (and those little globes seem to put out a bunch of light compared with the usual 15 watt incandescent the housing instructions recommend). I do have a Kodak #2 Dark Red filter I was using with the 15W incandescent.

 

[bnxvs]

https://www.largeformatphotography....film-technical-discussion-with-example-images

 

[Cholentpot]

https://www.largeformatphotography....film-technical-discussion-with-example-images

So I keep getting shunted to that thread when asking for specifics.

It's 500+ pages long.

If someone has knowledge they can share without having to sort through War and Peace it would be kind to share it.

 

[Nokton48]

I'm in that thread but it's humungeous.

I'm starting to roll with this and that's why I'm documenting it here.

Look at Ebay vendor XRayExpress, that is my source, I just ordered four more boxes. So am set that is 2000 4x5 sheets total for under $200

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Photo 1 looks nicer to my eyes.

Where do I get this stuff? I'd like to chop down to 2x3. 7 cents an exposure? Count me in, scratches and all.

I was getting it from, ZZ Medical, and CXS Online.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So I keep getting shunted to that thread when asking for specifics.

It's 500+ pages long.

If someone has knowledge they can share without having to sort through War and Peace it would be kind to share it.

It first started off as a technical thread, with images. Then someone started a thread for just images. It was confusing having the two threads, so the moderators merged them. Everything you need to know is there. There really isn't much to know other than the stuff comes in single, and double-sided. Double-sided has to be handled with care... best to develop in hangers or smooth, flat-bottomed trays. The green latitude double-sided is my favourite. I shoot it at EI 80-100. Responds very well to green and yellow filters. Kodak Ektascan B/RA is single sided and very sharp. X-ray film has a blue base, and rounded corners. Double-sided has not notch codes, as it's not necessary. Single-sided does. You can use whatever developer you want, although it will have to be diluted, as the film is high contrast. I use pyrocat-hd and dilute it twice as much than I do for conventional film. I process double-sided in a flat-bottomed tray, with very gentle agitation.
Go through the LFF Xray thread with a cup of coffee, and copy/paste away!

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm in that thread but it's humungeous.

I'm starting to roll with this and that's why I'm documenting it here.

Look at Ebay vendor XRayExpress, that is my source, I just ordered four more boxes. So am set that is 2000 4x5 sheets total for under $200

I was getting it from, ZZ Medical, and CXS Online.

It first started off as a technical thread, with images. Then someone started a thread for just images. It was confusing having the two threads, so the moderators merged them. Everything you need to know is there. There really isn't much to know other than the stuff comes in single, and double-sided. Double-sided has to be handled with care... best to develop in hangers or smooth, flat-bottomed trays. The green latitude double-sided is my favourite. I shoot it at EI 80-100. Responds very well to green and yellow filters. Kodak Ektascan B/RA is single sided and very sharp. X-ray film has a blue base, and rounded corners. Double-sided has not notch codes, as it's not necessary. Single-sided does. You can use whatever developer you want, although it will have to be diluted, as the film is high contrast. I use pyrocat-hd and dilute it twice as much than I do for conventional film. I process double-sided in a flat-bottomed tray, with very gentle agitation.
Go through the LFF Xray thread with a cup of coffee, and copy/paste away!

This is what I was looking for. Very useful information.

So starting out, I'd like to find cheap, fast and single sided. I'm going to be messing up a load of sheets.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

This is what I was looking for. Very useful information.

So starting out, I'd like to find cheap, fast and single sided. I'm going to be messing up a load of sheets.

Grab some Ektascan!

 

[Nokton48]

I use these bulbs from Lowes (they are only 3 watt but very bright) and with also a 1A Deep red filter in front.

https://www.lowes.com/pd/Energetic-Watt-EQ-A19-Red-LED-Light-Bulb/1000623747

No fogging with sensitive dry speed plates. So also fine with X-Ray and Ilford Ortho.

Thanks Jason Lane (the dry plate Guy) for steering me this direction.

 

[Cholentpot]

I use these bulbs from Lowes (they are only 3 watt but very bright) and with also a 1A Deep red filter in front.

https://www.lowes.com/pd/Energetic-Watt-EQ-A19-Red-LED-Light-Bulb/1000623747

No fogging with sensitive dry speed plates. So also fine with X-Ray and Ilford Ortho.

Thanks Jason Lane (the dry plate Guy) for steering me this direction.

How do you set up with the 1A filter?

 

[tezzasmall]

I just ordered four more boxes. So am set that is 2000 4x5 sheets total for under $200

I've still got a box to experiment with, but I have to ask, why is there such a HUGE difference in price between x-ray and 'normal' 10 x 8 / 5 x 4 film? I understand there's a lot more R+D costs, advertising etc. for our photographic manufacturers, but surely there shouldn't be as much difference in price as there is?

Terry S

 

[Donald Qualls]

why is there such a HUGE difference in price between x-ray and 'normal' 10 x 8 / 5 x 4 film?

Volume of production, likely. Despite medical X-ray converting almost entirely to digital, the few remaining users who haven't converted, along with industrial users who haven't or can't, probably consume twenty times as much film in a year as all the large format photographers still working. Further, there are only half a dozen different films, some of which are the same emulsion coated on one or both sides of the base -- this cuts down both R&D and production costs.

 

[Nokton48]

"How do you set up with the 1A filter?"

Just make sure you get the one with the mounting brackets attached, so you can properly aim the safelight.


Kodak 1A Grey Bullet Safelight 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This one is 7-8 feet from my film loading formica table, with Beselar Rotatrim rotary cutter. 3W Lowes red LED inside a Kodak Grey Bullet Safelight. Kodak IA deep red filter in front of the LED.


Kodak 1A Grey Bullet Safelight 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

3W Lowes red LED inside a Kodak Grey Bullet Safelight. Kodak IA deep red filter in front of the LED. As recommended by Jason Lane (the dry plate Guy). Thanks Jason!

This one is 7-8 feet from my developing tray in my darkroom sink

 

[tezzasmall]

Volume of production, likely. Despite medical X-ray converting almost entirely to digital, the few remaining users who haven't converted, along with industrial users who haven't or can't, probably consume twenty times as much film in a year as all the large format photographers still working. Further, there are only half a dozen different films, some of which are the same emulsion coated on one or both sides of the base -- this cuts down both R&D and production costs.

Thanks Donald. That all makes sense but one can still live in hope of a price REDUCTION to bring them all in line with x-ray film.

Terry S

 

[Cholentpot]

"How do you set up with the 1A filter?"

Just make sure you get the one with the mounting brackets attached, so you can properly aim the safelight.


Kodak 1A Grey Bullet Safelight 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This one is 7-8 feet from my film loading formica table, with Beselar Rotatrim rotary cutter. 3W Lowes red LED inside a Kodak Grey Bullet Safelight. Kodak IA deep red filter in front of the LED.


Kodak 1A Grey Bullet Safelight 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

3W Lowes red LED inside a Kodak Grey Bullet Safelight. Kodak IA deep red filter in front of the LED. As recommended by Jason Lane (the dry plate Guy). Thanks Jason!

This one is 7-8 feet from my developing tray in my darkroom sink

Thanks! I have a 1A filter but it's a 52mm lens filter. I have an idea though...

Volume of production, likely. Despite medical X-ray converting almost entirely to digital, the few remaining users who haven't converted, along with industrial users who haven't or can't, probably consume twenty times as much film in a year as all the large format photographers still working. Further, there are only half a dozen different films, some of which are the same emulsion coated on one or both sides of the base -- this cuts down both R&D and production costs.

Strategic reserves.

I have no proof but I think the Government requires an amount of X-Ray film to be in reserve. Why? If the power goes or gets flaky (hello rolling blackout in CA) We still have access to X-rays via film. Sure, you need a source of power but it can be from off the grid. Development and processing need no power and you can hold the sheet up to a window to see results. And it won't get lost when the computers are out.

 

[Blythenti]

Hey, it looks very lovely!

 

[Nokton48]

Hey, it looks very lovely!

Thanks Blythenti

This morning I have loaded three 4x5 Graphmatics with HR-U, one more to load, have to recharge my Dyson dust gun!

Also I am loading four Graphmatic 2x3's I use that with my Sinar Norma Rapid Adapter Back. I can get nine 2x3 sheets from an 8x10 HR-U. I have five boxes now of HR-U so that is 4500 2x3 exposures

Also I bought a box of the Fuji RX 8x10 100 sheets, which is a high speed double sided, comes in a blue box.
The HR-U is medium speed green box double sided.

Anybody here try the high speed blue box Fuji RX?

 

[Cholentpot]

Thanks Blythenti

This morning I have loaded three 4x5 Graphmatics with HR-U, one more to load, have to recharge my Dyson dust gun!

Also I am loading four Graphmatic 2x3's I use that with my Sinar Norma Rapid Adapter Back. I can get nine 2x3 sheets from an 8x10 HR-U. I have five boxes now of HR-U so that is 4500 2x3 exposures

Also I bought a box of the Fuji RX 8x10 100 sheets, which is a high speed double sided, comes in a blue box.
The HR-U is medium speed green box double sided.

Anybody here try the high speed blue box Fuji RX?

Can you spare a few sheets of HR-U in 2x3? I like to try some out and I don't have the facilities to chop yet.

Who said film has to be prohibitively expensive?

 

[Nokton48]

Not to offend, but I don't have a way to box it up and safely transport it.

It is delicate stuff, the emulsion is incredibly thin

 

[Cholentpot]

Not to offend, but I don't have a way to box it up and safely transport it.

It is delicate stuff, the emulsion is incredibly thin

No worries.

Once I've seen that someone else has done it, I think i can try it myself.

 

[MattKing]

Some of the other reasons that X-ray film are cheaper is that it is considerably cheaper to cut, package and distribute.
Not to mention the fact that extending the sensitivity of materials that aren't naturally sensitive to red light adds cost and complexity.
Working under red light is a lot cheaper and easier than working in total darkness.
And being able to limit your marketing and distribution efforts to a few specialized wholesale vendors is a lot cheaper too.
In addition, and correct me if I am wrong, I believe that the native resolution of X-ray film is lower than photographic film. X-rays have longish wavelengths, which means they are great for penetrating solids, but relatively lousy at resolving fine details.
If you are going to use X-ray film, it probably helps to read up on how it is employed in medical applications.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Some of the other reasons that X-ray film are cheaper is that it is considerably cheaper to cut, package and distribute.
Not to mention the fact that extending the sensitivity of materials that aren't naturally sensitive to red light adds cost and complexity.
Working under red light is a lot cheaper and easier than working in total darkness.
And being able to limit your marketing and distribution efforts to a few specialized wholesale vendors is a lot cheaper too.
In addition, and correct me if I am wrong, I believe that the native resolution of X-ray film is lower than photographic film. X-rays have longish wavelengths, which means they are great for penetrating solids, but relatively lousy at resolving fine details.
If you are going to use X-ray film, it probably helps to read up on how it is employed in medical applications.

,


Double-sided resolution is poor but only obviously so when compared side-by-side with a conventional negative. On its own, it looks fine. Single-sided, like Ektascan B/RA is very sharp, with excellent resolving ability.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

This was shot on double-sided, green latitude xray. Developed in Pyrocat-HD. The resolution isn't the greatest, but works well for this particular image. If I had shot it with Ektascan B/RA, (I wish I had just for comparison!) the rock would have been better resolved... Single-sided xray has higher resolution. Double-side, no AH. Single-sided does have AH backing.

 

[Donald Qualls]

X-rays have longish wavelengths, which means they are great for penetrating solids, but relatively lousy at resolving fine details.

Sorry, but no. X-rays have shorter wavelength than UV, much shorter than visible light. This equates to higher energy per photon, which is part of why they penetrate more than visible light (another way to look at this is that there are few electrons in most solids that can absorb a photon at such a short wavelength). Their resolving power, however, is much finer than visible; that's why x-rays are used to lay down the traces on integrated circuits that need to be smaller than a wavelength of visible light.

I wouldn't expect X-ray film to have less resolution than camera film, either. It's slow, which mean fine grain. Lack of sharpness, when present, is entirely due to the second emulsion on double-sided films -- the back side gets an exposure that's slightly diffused by the translucent emulsion on the front, like putting a frosted acetate over your negative and a clear one under to get an unsharp mask. If you could make the second emulsion's exposure and contrast enough lower than those of the front, you'd get a built-in USM with double-sided x-ray film.

 

[MattKing]

Oops, wrong end of the spectrum.
But I think that if you were to compare the resolution of dental X-ray film exposed photographically with a 35mm photographic film negative of similar size, you will see more resolution in the photographic film.
Most of the exposure to the two sided films doesn't come from the X-rays themselves, but from the mechanism in the X-ray machines behind the film which reacts to X-ray photos and emits back visible light photons.