Using Fuji X-Ray film Green HRT as a negative

[TheToadMen]

I have no experience (yet) with the Fuji X-Ray film, but I'm going to order some straight at Fuji Medicals HQ overhere in Europe. I have sent them an email inquiring. They replied quickly and are willing to send it to my company. They asked me first though if I understood it was X-Ray film for medical purposes, what I wanted it for and how I wanted to develop it - to make sure I didn't get the wrong stuff for my photograhy. But when I explained the experiences from people on this forum it was no problem at all.

I'm going for Fuji Green HRT. I made this choice after reading a lot of discussions on APUG and viewing a lot of prints from these negatives.

These sizes are available:
S-HRT 18x24 cm : €91.48
S-HRT 24x30 cm : €152.65
S-HRT 30x40 cm : €254.31
S-HRT 35x35 cm : €240.77

Every box contains 100 sheets of film. Prices including VAT.
About the sizes: 1 inch = 2.54 centimeters (cm).

I'm going to get me the 18x24 cm size for my old Russian FKD plate camera and the 35x35 cm for a wooden pinhole camera I'm going to build. It's not that expensive and I like to test something new also.

BTW: if there is someone who would like to join this order, send me a PM. Only add shipping costs to your address.

Bert from Holland
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl

 

[Gerald C Koch]

This film is not sensitized for visible light and there is no published speed for visible light. You would do far better buying conventional film. Good luck.

 

[DWThomas]

This film is not sensitized for visible light and there is no published speed for visible light. You would do far better buying conventional film. Good luck.

My understanding is that it is (intentionally) sensitive to visible light, green in fact. The x-ray filmholders place some sort of thin film of phosphors against the film and those emit visible light when radiated.

I just got a package of 8x10 (inches) but haven't had a chance to play yet.

Edit:
Since the sensitivity affects how much people and pets have to be zapped, I would expect that although the published specs may not read like those for photographic film, its characteristics are likely as tightly controlled.

 

[Tom1956]

Everything you'd want to know on the subject here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?80011-Images-shot-on-X-ray-film

 

[dmb]

This film is not sensitized for visible light and there is no published speed for visible light. You would do far better buying conventional film. Good luck.

Most X Ray film IS sensitive to visible light as to reduce dosage to patients a phosphor screen is placed next to the film that emits visible light in response to the X Rays. The common fims are sensitive to GREEN or to BLUE - hence the film names - Film speeds are reported to be around the 200 to 400 ISO range.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The film is sensitized for the output of the phosphor screen. This sensitization may be for only a very narrow band of the green spectrum. Still this film was never intended for exposure with continuous visible light spectra. At the very best colors other than blue and green are going to register as black.

 

[Tom1956]

Basically it is an orthochromatic film with emulsion on both sides. Following the link I posted will show what beautiful work can be done on ortho x-ray film. Not having pan is not the end of the world. I just bought an 8x10 Horseman specifically to get out there and shoot the same film the OP is talking about. 31 dollars/100 beats the heck out of the pan prices.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Basically it is an orthochromatic film

Just because an emulsion is sensitive to a portion of the green spectrum does not make it an orthochromatic film One would have to compare the spectral sensitivity of this film with a conventional orthochromatic one.

 

[Tom1956]

I investigated the idea before jumping in and buying this Horseman 8x10 for this purpose. X-ray blue is a colorblind film like Mathew Brady's, and green is sensitive to blue and green. I've seen the sensitivity graphs and they're pretty flat across that end of the spectrum. There ARE problems as compared to the high-price pan films, but the least of the problems is money. As for me, I simply refuse to pay 70 or 80 dollars for a 10 sheet box of photographic film. Ridiculous. My first idea was to shoot paper negatives, but the x-ray film looks like a better way to go. At least I'll be out there shooting 8x10, as until now, I've been shooting nothing. All things considered, not a bad gig.

Sorry OP for hogging your thread.

 

[TheToadMen]

@Gerald: You're absolutely right about this film not being meant for "normal" photography of visible light, but it seems to be usable.
Just type in Fuji HRT at Flickr and you'll see nice examples. Here are a few (at random):

using a 8x10 camera

using a pinhole camera

developed in HC-110

grandfather

These examples are good enough for me to try it myself. I agree with Tom about prices too. I can't hardly find any good film for reasonable prices for my old Russian FLD plate camera, using 18x24 cm negatives. A box of Ilford Fuli FP4+ costs about €130 for 50 sheets.
The best price of normal film seems to be Fomapan 100 (50 sheets) for € 80.
But the X-Ray film is 100 sheets for €92 so the cheapest to experiment with, especially in my self build wooden pinhole cameras.
And I love a good experiment.

Oh, and Tom: no hogging taken - you're welcome.

 

[Fotoguy20d]

You might want to check out this thread on LFF

Dan

 

[desertrat]

The film is sensitized for the output of the phosphor screen. This sensitization may be for only a very narrow band of the green spectrum. Still this film was never intended for exposure with continuous visible light spectra. At the very best colors other than blue and green are going to register as black.

The data sheet published by Kodak for its green sensitive X-ray film describes it as orthochromatic. They use that exact word. The data sheet also has a spectral response curve. It looks much like the response curve for orthochromatic films. I understand this thread is about Fuji film, not Kodak, but users at the LF forum have reported similar results. I expose Kodak green X-ray film through a yellow #11 filter and get results similar to black and white negative film, except light greens are brighter, and reds are dark, but overall tonality is similar.

 

[Tom1956]

I wonder how much of Adams' early work was done on ortho film. I'm going to be using the Fuji green stuff because it's so cheap on ebay. I bet on most of my scenic work I'll hardly tell the difference from not having the expensive pan. Except on a red barn or something. But not many barns are red anyway. I think this is a workable idea.

 

[pdeeh]

one only has to look at Holden Richards' work to see that xray film can produce exquisite results.

it is slightly absurd to argue that it is unusable for normal photography when the empirical evidence is otherwise!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The following is from an article discussing a typical green sensitive X-ray film. Emphasis is my own.

"Green-sensitive universal X-ray film

A general X-ray film designed for use with green emitting intensifying screens. The system speed of this film has been adapted for specific applications, according to the international guidelines. The toe of the sensitometric curve has a form which provides a high contrast in the low densities of the image."

I am always suspicious of using something for an unintended purpose. The spectral response given in the article shows an unusually tall peak at 560 nm. This peak is much higher than would be seen in an ordinary ortho film. Obviously this is done to match the output of the phosphor. Therefore greens will be rendered much lighter than usual. Just what the effect will be of the distorted contrast is another matter.

The response to the OP by Fuji sent up a warning flag to me. They were uncomfortable selling the film for non X-ray use. Still the price is low enough to cover a lot of testing.

 

[Tom1956]

Well I admit it's not exactly what I would have preferred. But at the prices for regular pan 8x10, what is a body supposed to do? It already costs a fortune in gasoline alone to go through the country scoping out pictures. Then add 5 or 6 dollars a sheet for film, and the mortgage doesn't get paid. Or I can sit here and save all that money, looking at my pretty Horseman sitting up on the tripod in the living room. Not much choices, eh?

 

[TheToadMen]

The response to the OP by Fuji sent up a warning flag to me. They were uncomfortable selling the film for non X-ray use. Still the price is low enough to cover a lot of testing.

Hi Gerald,
The Fuji salesman was even so kind to phone me. I think his fear was (also) that I was ordering something I didn't understand: he asked what I was going to use it for and how I wanted to develop the film since it is originally intended for medical use. He knew I wasn't a doctor. I told him it would be done with "ordinary" B&W developers and that there were good examples at the forum. This was quite new to him. It's my guess he never considered the possibility of using the X-ray film as a "normal" photo negative.
So it will be a nice way to test & learn LF photography and tray development, since this is new to me.
I also got me some Maco Genius film 18x24 very cheap. I made my first shots this week and will try tray developing this weekend for the first time. If it works out all right, I'll use the negatives in a course for Casein Printing in 2 weeks time.

And when I'll get the hang of it, I'll also use some Ilford FP4+ film later, I'm going to order through the Ilford ULF 2013 run.

 

[Tom1956]

Here's my take on it: When you sit around and don't take pictures much, you get out of the groove. So get a box of 8x10 x ray film off ebay and some pyrocat, and get out there and burn through that cheap stuff. By then, you get back in the swing, and THEN start in on the high-dollar stuff.

 

[DWThomas]

Actually, from what I've read about this film, I am way more concerned about the apparent fragility of the emulsion during processing (and the fact it's on two sides) than I am about the spectral response. I don't own, and have no other reason to own fancy tanks and hangers in 8x10, so I'll be wrestling with plastic bags or smooth trays or whatever.

I have no illusions that the results are going to look "exactly like Delta 100," but I expect to get some useful results using my recently built pinhole camera. In my own quirky opinion, the pinhole process is riddled with enough compromises that one more won't matter. The hundred sheets of 8x10 HRT-Green cost me about $45US shipped to my door from an ePrey vendor. I'd far rather play around at less than $0.50 a shot than four or five dollars per. It's really that simple!

(If I ever get past the current crush of yard work, I may yet get some hard evidence! )

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

It's not bad stuff. You can process it under a safelight. The emulsion is extremely soft when it's wet. Even trays with slots can scratch it. I process it in HC-110 or Xtol.

 

[jpreston]

I just ordered a sampler pack from www.filmphotographyproject.com for my recently acquired Graphic View 4x5. Can't wait to get out and shoot with it! Mat Marrash has some pretty cool images shot on the stuff. www.matmarrash.com

 

[rdelung]

The screens that hold the X-ray film, give off green, or blue light. That is what makes the film holder work. The idea being that you would need less X-ray to
produce an immage. Prior to that we had "cardboard cassetts." They had no screens, and needed more X-ray to produce a immage. The immage was great, but
at a cost of exposure.