X-ray Film question

[mark]

Can someone who shoots X-ray film in the LF camera help me out with a couple things? My goal is carbon prints with Bostick and Sullivan premade tissue. (I'm just starting out)

1- Two sides with emulsion
Obviously I have not shot x-ray film but the price makes it enticing. Having two sides with emulsion has me scratching my head though. Does the second emulsion, the one next to the film holder get exposed as well as the forward side? If it does get some exposure, does this second exposure cause the contact print to be not sharp. It would seem that, if it does expose, the plane of focus being would be different causing a lack of sharpness in the second emulsion.

2- Film thickness
Is this film thicker than ordinary B/W film and if so does this result in a lack of sharpness because the GG is no longer at the same focal plane as the emulsion side of the film?

3- Development
I have read a lot and there is a general consensus that the emulsion is easily scratched during development. I read mention in several cases about using a large zip-loc as a floppy development tube (for lack of a better description). Can someone explain this?

4- Blue and green
Do these colors act like filters? (i.e. Green renders foliage white and blue renders the sky white)

5- Chemicals.
I have read people using Pyrocat-HD xtol and D76. Will any developer work or does one seem to work better than others?

6- Contrast
How does this film behave. Will I have to work to build contrast in the neg, work to control the contrast, or does it act like traditional BW film?

I am sure there will be more questions as I explore.

Thanks in advance

 

[bvy]

Can someone who shoots X-ray film in the LF camera help me out with a couple things? My goal is carbon prints with Bostick and Sullivan premade tissue. (I'm just starting out)

1- Two sides with emulsion
Obviously I have not shot x-ray film but the price makes it enticing. Having two sides with emulsion has me scratching my head though. Does the second emulsion, the one next to the film holder get exposed as well as the forward side? If it does get some exposure, does this second exposure cause the contact print to be not sharp. It would seem that, if it does expose, the plane of focus being would be different causing a lack of sharpness in the second emulsion.

Yes, it does get some exposure. It does affect image quality, but not profoundly, I don't think. I think I've read that you can bleach one side off, but have never tried it. It's just the nature of the beast. Personally, I stopped using the stuff for this reason.

2- Film thickness
Is this film thicker than ordinary B/W film and if so does this result in a lack of sharpness because the GG is no longer at the same focal plane as the emulsion side of the film?

The kind I use is slightly thicker, but any effect on focus would be negligible.

3- Development
I have read a lot and there is a general consensus that the emulsion is easily scratched during development. I read mention in several cases about using a large zip-loc as a floppy development tube (for lack of a better description). Can someone explain this?

Treat it gently. Avoid tongs. The only way I was able to avoid scratching it was to use glass bottom trays.

4- Blue and green
Do these colors act like filters? (i.e. Green renders foliage white and blue renders the sky white)

Yes. Depending on what you have, it's either orthochromatic or blue sensitive.

5- Chemicals.
I have read people using Pyrocat-HD xtol and D76. Will any developer work or does one seem to work better than others?

6- Contrast
How does this film behave. Will I have to work to build contrast in the neg, work to control the contrast, or does it act like traditional BW film?

The stuff can be very contrasty. I use a soft grade developer and don't agitate. There is no magic bullet that I know of, since it's not made for this purpose. You'll have to experiment.

Have you looked into litho film? It's very similar in contrast and spectral response, and maybe not as fast. But since only one side is coated, it's easier to handle. It's also thinner, if that's really a concern. At it's best, it can be incredibly sharp.

 

[vdonovan]

nathan002 by vdonovan2000, on Flickr

I love X-ray film. This is Fuji HR-S, Green sensitive, exposed at ISO 80. Processed in Xtol 1:1 for six minutes. I used a Catlabs CL81 reel in a Jobo tank, which puts a few scratches on the edges.

 

[Roger Cole]

How about D23? With only metol it's pretty soft working.

 

[Rick A]

Extensive thread on LFPF about the use and processing of x-ray film. Use film hangers and tanks to minimize scratching, also pyro developer or a hardening fixer is recommended because the emulsion is somewhat soft plus coated on two sides. Two schools of thought about stripping off emulsion from one side post processing, but for carbon transfer the recommendation is to leave it on. I've been following the thread for quite a while, there are many questions answered.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-X-ray-Film-example-and-comparison

Check this guy out, he uses a lot of x-ray film for his carbon transfer prints.

Dead Link Removed

 

[mdarnton]

I've been using xray film exclusively. One reason to try it is that it's cheap as dirt! If you like 1975 film prices, this is the stuff!

For carbon printing, the extra contrast may not be a problem. Most alternative printing methods like contrasty negs. I'm scanning, only, and the extra contrast isn't a problem for that, either. I haven't found any sharpness problem from xray film. The relative colorblindness of this film works very well for portraits, and portrait photogs used ortho films long after they were out of fashion for other types of photography. You can use red LED safelights; if you choose carefully, a very bright one will have no fog risk at all. That's discussed in the LFF threads.

I use 1:6 D23 with minimal agitation, every five minutes, and develop in Kodak hangers (they hold the film better than others--no contact marks, etc). That way there's no risk of scratching at all. A guy named Vinny on this forum and the Large Format forum makes plastic tanks that hold two or six 8x10 hangers.

You can see what I'm doing with it, and some technical notes, too, here: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton

 

[bvy]

For carbon printing, the extra contrast may not be a problem. Most alternative printing methods like contrasty negs.

I would have thought the opposite. Most alt processes I've seen have a very narrow spectral response, which would suggest you want a flatter negative.

 

[mdarnton]

Well, I don't know from personal experience, but one of the reasons I started with xray is that I wanted to print carbon, and a number of people have said that the higher contrast of xray works well with it and other alternative processes. If you want low contrast, you're never going to get it with xray film--for that it's just the wrong material.

 

[Axle]

While I have little experience working with Xray Film, my one attempted ended in failure, and I just haven't had the time/chance to try it out again, but hopefully later this year.

Developing - Instead of Trays try Hangers and Tank - if you can find good Kodak Stainless Steel Hangers and tank you're golden
Chemistry - Try a Pyro developer something like Obsidian Aqua or Pyrocat HD.

 

[michr]

If you can wait for a bargain, look for mammography film. Prices are usually quite high, but occasionally you'll see some go for about what other kinds of xray film go for. Supposedly mammography film is only coated on one side, and I'll vouch for the fact that it is much more resistant to scratches. Putting a sheet of glass in each tray reduces scratches as well, though you need a method to keep the sheet of film from adhering itself to the glass.

The contrast is more manageable in comparison to regular xray film as well.

 

[mark]

I read the LFPF thread, as well as many here, before I asked my questions.

I had some very technical teachers when I first began photography and that training rears its head when I start something new.

I am kind of stuck on the double emulsion causing a double exposure thing. It seems obvious that the second emulsion will create a softer image than the first. If it is printed this way the second image will act like an unsharp mask rendering the over all image a hair softer. Good for portraits, not so for print sniffing blades of grass counters which i tend to be with my own prints at times.

Considering the cost I will probably give it a shot and bleach the back.

For those of you bleaching the second emulsion off what are you wiping with? And I will be on the look out for hangers and tanks. Still interested in the zip-loc developing method if someone is using it.

 

[Rick A]

Jim Fitzgerald recommends leaving both emulsions on, and not stripping off the second emulsion to maintain density for carbon transfers. He tested extensively and found that removing the back emulsion resulted in not enough negative density for proper printing. Yes, it also results in slightly softer image, but not as noticeable as you might expect. I plan on using this: Dead Link Removed (Fuji Green) for my CT negative film.

 

[mat4226]

As someone that has carbon printed and digitally scanned with x-ray film negatives, I can assure you the difference in that extra side of emulsion is negligible, compared to the amount of work that goes into removing it. Here's a link to all of my digitally scanned x-ray work:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mat4226/sets/72157630956294236/

That extra layer of emulsion is no where near as big of a problem as the lack of an anti-halation layer on the film!

 

[Jim Noel]

I would have thought the opposite. Most alt processes I've seen have a very narrow spectral response, which would suggest you want a flatter negative.

How much experience do you have with large format film and with alternative processes.
Your statements indicate a lack of such experience, particularly with alt processes. You are biting off a large chunk and may be quickly disappointed with results.
I suggest you learn something about film density ranges and their relation to the chosen printing processes. Longer scaled negatives, what too many call higher contrast, are necessary for most of the alternative processes. Flat negatives print even flatter with processes such as VDB,Pt/Pd,salt and carbon. They look awful.
X-ray films are not necessarily contrasty, they are just different from the panchromatic films most people are used to. All tend more toward the orthochromatic spectrum, in other words they don't record red, or its near relatives. Some are pure orthochromatic, and some only approach it.
I suggest you read completely the two threads about x-ray film you will find on the other popular forum used by LF photographers. hey are full of information which will be of immense help to you.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Can someone who shoots X-ray film in the LF camera help me out with a couple things? My goal is carbon prints with Bostick and Sullivan premade tissue. (I'm just starting out)

1- Two sides with emulsion
Obviously I have not shot x-ray film but the price makes it enticing. Having two sides with emulsion has me scratching my head though. Does the second emulsion, the one next to the film holder get exposed as well as the forward side? If it does get some exposure, does this second exposure cause the contact print to be not sharp. It would seem that, if it does expose, the plane of focus being would be different causing a lack of sharpness in the second emulsion.

2- Film thickness
Is this film thicker than ordinary B/W film and if so does this result in a lack of sharpness because the GG is no longer at the same focal plane as the emulsion side of the film?

3- Development
I have read a lot and there is a general consensus that the emulsion is easily scratched during development. I read mention in several cases about using a large zip-loc as a floppy development tube (for lack of a better description). Can someone explain this?

4- Blue and green
Do these colors act like filters? (i.e. Green renders foliage white and blue renders the sky white)

5- Chemicals.
I have read people using Pyrocat-HD xtol and D76. Will any developer work or does one seem to work better than others?

6- Contrast
How does this film behave. Will I have to work to build contrast in the neg, work to control the contrast, or does it act like traditional BW film?

I am sure there will be more questions as I explore.

Thanks in advance

1. Yes, the emulsion facing the film holder gets exposed. Yes, it's not as sharp. With contact prints, it doesn't really matter and is only noticeable if you do side by side comparison with a single emulsion film contact.

2. It seems thicker to me, but no worries.

3. Be very careful loading/unloading film in the filmholders. I develop in flat-bottomed trays, and never get scratches. Gentle agitation. I have used hangers successfully for stand. I don't use it for standard development. Too much chemistry going down the drain for my liking.
I wrote about my experiences with ziplock bag usage. It's over at the LFF site. Easy to use. Here somewhere: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-X-ray-Film-example-and-comparison

4. Check the same xray thread above. I showed some examples with yellow (#8, 12, 15) and green filters (#11). Green lightens foliage slightly, with the green latitude film that I use.

5. I have used many developers, and my favourites with this film is pyrocat-hd, obsidian aqua, and rodinal. Try what you have on hand. You may have to dilute it more than usual...

6. I like lots of contrast because I make carbon and kallitype prints. It's not like conventional films. It will build contrast faster and easier.


Did you purchase some xray film? If the double-sided stuff worries you, then pick up some Kodak single-sided stuff. Kodak Ektascan B/RA.
Here is an example of stand (in hanger) VS standard (tray) development. Both in pyrocat-hd. Stand image is on the left. It is slightly sharper.

 

[bvy]

How much experience do you have with large format film and with alternative processes.
Your statements indicate a lack of such experience, particularly with alt processes. You are biting off a large chunk and may be quickly disappointed with results.
I suggest you learn something about film density ranges and their relation to the chosen printing processes. Longer scaled negatives, what too many call higher contrast, are necessary for most of the alternative processes. Flat negatives print even flatter with processes such as VDB,Pt/Pd,salt and carbon. They look awful.
X-ray films are not necessarily contrasty, they are just different from the panchromatic films most people are used to. All tend more toward the orthochromatic spectrum, in other words they don't record red, or its near relatives. Some are pure orthochromatic, and some only approach it.
I suggest you read completely the two threads about x-ray film you will find on the other popular forum used by LF photographers. hey are full of information which will be of immense help to you.

Thank you for your suggestions. I have experience using X-ray film to produce a negative, and I shared those experiences. My question about negative contrast relative to alt. processes was for my own education, as I'm looking to produce these to make cyantoypes. If a contrasty negative is required, then that's good news to me, because I have no trouble making them (by various means). My point was that it goes against some of the reading I've done. Sorry if I came off sounding like a know-it-all, when in fact I was wanting someone to elaborate so that I could learn more.

 

[Gregg Obst]

If you want the path of least resistance and highest probablity of good results and fewest scratches but at a slightly higher price point per sheet then forget the single-sided emulsions and take a look at Kodak Ektascan B/RA single-sided X-Ray film. Available in 8x10 sheets, 100 sheets per box from ZZ Medical (Dead Link Removed)


I've shot and processed hundreds of 4x5 sheets of the stuff and never had a single scratch. I've processed it with all of the following methods:


1. Mod 54 six sheet insert for the Paterson Universal daylight tank using hand inversions
2. Beseler 8x10 print drums, four 4x5 sheets per drum placed on a Uniroller 352 auto-reversing base.
3. Jobo Multitank 5 with 2509N six sheet 4x5 reels on the same Uniroller 352 auto-reversing base. This is my current method as of late since the Multitank 5 can also be used with the CatLabs CL81 8x10 three sheet reel.


My standard issue developer cocktail is Adox Rodinal (from Freestyle) at 1:100 dilution for six minutes if using the rotary base or seven minutes if using hand inversions. X-Ray film, both single and double-sided, are most vulnerable to scratches when they are wet so be sure to not manhandle your film getting it out of a tank/tray/hanger or off a reel. I use a two minute stop bath and a seven minute fix with Ilford Rapid Fixer then a ten minute rinse and finally a one minute bath in Photo-Flo before hanging to dry. There are lots of other developers that work great so look at some examples of what people are using and determine if that's the look you are wanting and if it will fit into your workflow.


Cutting 8x10 sheets down to 4x5 can be done with a rotary paper cutter, I got mine off of Amazon. The model I use is a "Fiskars 196800-1001 12-Inch European Rotary Paper Trimmer". Just make a poster board mask that has your dimensions measured off with a ruler and sharpie and tape the mask to the cutter's base as a guide. You can use an 11 watt red bulb placed no closer than four feet from the work surface so you can see what you are doing during cutting, loading and unloading film holders, etc. I got my bulb off of Amazon. Look for "CPM Delta 35110 Brightlab Junior Safelight 11W Universal Red Bulb". I have the bulb mounted in a 12 inch silver work light fixture from Home Depot that clamps on a door in the darkroom (extra light sealed bathroom).


For some good examples of Ektascan B/RA in use look at some of the photos from Scott Stillman (https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottstillman/sets/72157633823629414) or Wang Zhang (https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=30827874@N02&q=ektascan) or my own humble collection (https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=25235850@N03&q=ektascan)

 

[jon.oman]

There are some interesting ideas here.

 

[vdonovan]

Gregg, Thank you for sharing this information. It is wonderfully clear and specific and a big help to anyone (including me) interested in working with X-ray film.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well, I certainly didn't use it because it's cheap. Like most things new to me, I had to check it out. It's got a certain look/feel to it, especially the double-sided stuff. Being cheap though, is an added bonus! It's because of xray film, I was able to convince a colleague of mine to introduce LF to his highschool class.

 

[mark]

Thanks andrew. The stand developed Neg looks a lot sharper. Is this normal? If it is that is the direction I am going.


Jim, I don't know if your comment was aimed at me or BVY, but I shot LF for almost 15 years. Granted I have not shot a sheet of film in over 4 years but the learning is ingrained. I have also targeted negatives for traditional papers and POP papers.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks andrew. The stand developed Neg looks a lot sharper. Is this normal? If it is that is the direction I am going.

Yes, it's normal.

 

[andrewch59]

In my limited experience (freely admitted) I have used half speed blue and green, which tend to both be about iso 100ish, although I tend to go 80ish. The blue I have found is more succeptable to scratching then the green, and a little grainier.
The green is now my film of choice, I have 11x14, 10x12 and 8x10 of it. I develop with normal film developers and fixers and develop in tray, the trick I have found is to use another negative (a dud) that has had the emulsion cleaned off, so protecting your film from all the scratchy bits on the bottom of the tray. I use these (duds) in all the trays and have very little probs with scratching film. I have previously tried using the negs to make albumen prints, but they were not quite dense enough. I used Tim Leyton's trick of cutting film speed in half, taking a reading for shadows and stopping down two.
Result is a awesome dense contrasty neg that is great for albumen.

 

[Jim Noel]

I would have thought the opposite. Most alt processes I've seen have a very narrow spectral response, which would suggest you want a flatter negative.

Each of the alternative printing processes requires a different contrast to produce the best print. The requirements of cyanotype and carbon are quite different. Flat negatives produce flat prints.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I tried this Fuji green sensitive film. With XTOL I was able to get a rating of ASA 400. Sure cheap.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HRT-810-FUJI-GREEN-X-RAY-FILM-8-X-10-New-/170788982651