X-Ray film and photography

[Removed Account]

I have been going over the X-Ray film section of Kodak's website, and got to thinking that it would be interesting to make X-Ray photographs from an artistic, rather than medical perspective. It would be unreasonable to expose a full person to x-rays for non-medical purposes, but I would like to see what could be made in a still-life setting, with various plants and objects. Photographing the insides, from the outside. I presume it would be damn near impossible for an individual to obtain even a weak X-Ray machine, as well as very expensive to build a protected area to use it in, but it is still an interesting idea. I will do more research on the 'net and at the university library, but does anyone have more information on radiography? Has anyone done this type of thing before? Is there any less dangerous form of radiation that could record an image on film? I'm looking forward to learning more about this!

- Justin

 

[gr82bart]

Some interesting x-ray shots of people, well, except for the fish:
http://simonperry.org/images/woman-foot-in-stiletto-x-ray.jpg
http://www.killsometime.com/Pictures/images/xrayKiss.jpg
http://www.kk.org/streetuse/X-ray1.jpg
http://fwcb.cfans.umn.edu/spangler/Biochr/gnrl_images/Fishes/Sheepshead-Lateral-XRay.JPG
http://images.naffiss.com/xray.jpg <--- *** WARNING *** This image will offend some people NSFW (or home!)

There is a lot of literature on the web about "safe" X-ray exposure. Here's one: http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/pdf/sfty_xray.pdf As for getting an X-ray machine? Try e-Bay. You never know ... Dead Link Removed and Dead Link Removed

Regards, Art.

 

[ann]

it is being done, and rather well infact. i need to check my files for the website of a fellow who is doing lovely stuff and get back to you.

 

[gr82bart]

Here are some:
http://www.judithkmcmillan.com/
http://www.bmyersphoto.com/BWXRAY/index.html
http://petergof.com/x-ray/
Dead Link Removed

Regards, Art.

 

[ann]

that didn't take as long as i thought it would
try www.beyondlight.com

as an aside, these look much better in person.

 

[DrPablo]

I wouldn't do it.

While the risk from an individual plain xray exposure is extremely low, there is a cumulative lifetime radiation exposure that lasts the rest of your life. So why accumulate DNA errors from the xrays? especially knowing that most cancer cells arise in cells that have received multiple genetic hits.

I mean in clinical medicine we work really hard to minimize xray exposure to patients, and this is when they're medically indicated.

Also, there are certain places you just don't want to irradiate even once if you can avoid it. Notably the thyroid (in the neck), the genitalia, and to a lesser degree the lymph nodes in the chest (where lymphomas can arise).

 

[gr82bart]

I wouldn't do it.

While the risk from an individual plain xray exposure is extremely low, there is a cumulative lifetime radiation exposure that lasts the rest of your life. So why accumulate DNA errors from the xrays? especially knowing that most cancer cells arise in cells that have received multiple genetic hits.

What? And not get kewl images like this one?

http://askabiologist.asu.edu/research/2hsnake/images/x-ray2.jpg

Regards, Art.

 

[DrPablo]

What? And not get kewl images like this one?

http://askabiologist.asu.edu/research/2hsnake/images/x-ray2.jpg

Regards, Art.

Hmm, if I irradiate myself enough then maybe I too can have an appendage like that.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

I have seen some beautiful still life images done with X-rays. Several months ago, while I was in the radiology area of New York Hospital, I saw several that were done by one of the technicians there, along with an explanation as to how he did it. Be careful but Go for it.

 

[poutnik]

The amount of added risk of developing fatal cancer after X-ray (or any kind of ionising rays) is well established. It is 5% per Sievert of radiation dose (1Sv). The amount of radiation dose you get from a plain chest X-ray is on the order of 1mSv (miliSievert), CT scan of abdomen will yield on the order of 7-10mSv.

It is important to note that your overall lifetime risk of developing cancer is on the order of 20-25%, the above risk is added to this.

I would not willfully irradiate myself or anyone else unless it's medically necessary. I know what I'm speaking about, I do it for work. I've seen secondary cancers in irradiation field in children after intensive cancer treatment.

 

[gr82bart]

This thread reminds me of Homer Simpson. And the Darwin awards.

Regards, Art.

 

[GeorgesGiralt]

Hi !
Would it be possible to use X-Ray film, but with plain standard light instead of X-Ray ?What should one expect as rendition ? Is it panchro ? Ortho ?

 

[DrPablo]

I think it would be ortho -- undeveloped / unexposed xray film can be handled under a dim red safelight, but it's instantly exposed by room light.

 

[htmlguru4242]

In response to GeorgesGiralt, absolutely. I've done this a few times before, but cutting the film up for use in a 6x9cm 120 camera and for 4x5 film holders.

In my experience, the results are high in both contrast and grain, though they have a nice effect to them. The speed is somewhere around ISO 12 or 25. I've not done specific testing, though I'd suspect it to be on the lower end of that range.

They sell X-Ray films in both blue sensitive and green sensitive varieties; I believe that the green sensitive film is both blue and green sensitive (ortho). I have looked for panchromatic X-Ray film, though it does not appear to exist. It works quite well considering what the film is intended for, but there are a few issues.

First of all, the emulsion is very very soft (at least with the film I'm using). I've accidentally scratched it off completely with my fingernail. Hardening fixer, or a hardening bath somewhere along the line is definetely in order.

Second, most of the X-Ray films out there are double emulsion (one one each side of the base). I believe that this is done to increase contrast for X-Ray work. This softens the image focus-wise, but it's not too bad. I could see this being very nice for some purposes.

Last, many films have a green or blue colored base.

I develop it in D-76 1+1, and it comes out well, but it is contrasty. I haven't worked with it seriously enough to discover how to fix this, but it would certainly possible to tame the contrast.

It can be worked with under a dim red safelight. Be careful, as it fogs MUCH more quickly than paper does, especially the green sensitive stuff. Every time I use the red safelight that I have for paper, I always end up with rather fogged film.

The BEST part about using X-Ray film for visible photo work is the price. There are quite a few suppliers in the US that will send you free sample packs of 8x10 or 11x14 films. Should you want to buy it, its really cheap. I think that 11x14 sheets end up being a dollar or two.

 

[htmlguru4242]

And as to photography with actual X-Rays, that would be really neat. X-Ray machines pop up on EBay all the time (yes, I've looked), and there are plenty of instructions online about building them.

Just be careful, because X-Rays, as mentioned, are extremely unsafe if proper precautions are not followed.

 

[poutnik]

If you're still interested, preferably go the way of exposing X-ray film with visible light. If you really must expose it with X-rays, shoot only still life and do take the proper precautions.

It is better to be safe than sorry, in this case really really sorry.

 

[DrPablo]

And as to photography with actual X-Rays, that would be really neat. X-Ray machines pop up on EBay all the time (yes, I've looked), and there are plenty of instructions online about building them.

Just be careful, because X-Rays, as mentioned, are extremely unsafe if proper precautions are not followed.

What would be more interesting would be a filter to do reflective x-ray photography of real world scenes. I have no idea if that's possible, though.

 

[htmlguru4242]

That would be really interesting, DrPablo, though I couldn't imagine it would be easy. You'd almost certainly need some type of an X-Ray source, as I doubt there's any useful X-Ray radiation coming in through the atmosphere.

Focusing it would be an issue i THINK. With wavelengths of less than 1 nanometer, conventional lenses would probably be nearly, if not completely useless. I wonder if a pinhole could be used?

Filtering would probably be the easiest part; just a thin piece of X-ray lucent metal or plastic that's opaque to visible light.

Hmmm

 

[poutnik]

There is a lot of ionising radiation (and part of it is Xray/gamma rays) in the atmosphere, but there is no way of shooting a reflective image of a real world. There is nothing in the way of reflective materials for Xray (only absorbtive). Also, conventional optics does not work at all with Xrays. You'd have to adopt the same ways of imaging as gamma cameras do, either use a pinhole in a thick leaden material (would work only with a point source or small area source of Xrays), or have a collimator (look it up for details, it's complicated to elaborate here shortly).

In short, it is not possible to acquire something in the way "what would I see if I could see Xrays".

 

[DrPablo]

Yeah, I guess that's true. Diagnostic radiology records x-ray transmission, not reflection, and even water significantly impedes transmission as compared with air. I mean you know radiographically that someone has pneumonia because normally aerated parts of the lung become more radio-opaque.

Of course at high altitude there is much more ionizing radiation exposure (which is the usual mantra we tell patients about x-rays -- that they get more radiation exposure on an airplane flight than from a single x-ray).

 

[poutnik]

Paul, a single chest Xray (with a dose of 1mSv) will raise your chance of cancer by 0.005% (or to put it in a different way, out of 20000 people having had a chest Xray, 1 will die because of a cancer caused by this irradiation), whereas flying 1000miles with an airplane has a chance 1:30000 of you dying as a result of a disaster/crash....

 

[DrPablo]

I've always compared the radiation exposures from a CXR versus an airplane flight, not the risk of mortality between the two. My wife is a diagnostic radiologist and she gives me some of these figures. I worry more about CTs, of course, with my pediatric patients. What is it about a 1/3000 lifetime risk of a solid tumor attributable to CTs in young children?

 

[nze]

As I say i another X-ray film thread i use some to do still life ( the larger in the following link) Dead Link Removed

 

[yashasvi bhuta]

sorry to revive this old thread but can you please list the people who will send a few X-ray sheets for as a sampler

 

[SMBooth]

Santa Claus
Easter Bunny

Buy some it's cheap.