X-Ray Film

CMoore said:

I did a search, but what little info i could find was mostly about development.
I was curious about the prints.
Regards printing, what is the reason for using X-Ray Film.?

Click to expand...

How does it differ from HP5 for example.?

Click to expand...

That is to say.....if i took a picture of a park bench with a fountain next to it, how would the print from the X-Ray Film differ from the HP5.?

Click to expand...

koraks said:

Some find that x-ray film, particularly the double-sided stuff, builds density very rapidly which can be of use for alternative processes which require negatives with a very long density scale. Others use it because all x-ray film is blue-sensitive or orthochromatic (bue- and green-sensitive) and none of it is sensitive to red light. Hence, it renders tones in a particular way.


In many ways.
1. X-ray film is generally slower. Most film exposes quite well at EI80.
2. X-ray film is not red-sensitive and some isn't even green-sensitive. HP5+ is of course panchromatic
3. Some x-ray film (most of it in fact) is double-sided and lacks an antihalation layer, although mammography film is generally one-sided with antihalation, so a bit closer to a regular ilm
4. I find tonality to be completely different from normal photographic films, Highlights tend to be compressed, while the toe tends to be quite steep.
5. For its speed, x-ray film is generally slightly grainy, but it's generally still less grainy than a high-speed film like HP5+.
The list could be expanded, but the long and the short of it is that x-ray film is just a completely different animal from regular photographic film. You love it or hate it. After having shot hundreds of sheets of it, I can't say I love it. Of course, it's cheap, so it has that going for it.


The x-ray print will generally be contrasty in comparison (although exposure and development can moderate this for sure), highlights may exhibit pronounced blooming (depending if double-sided or mammography film is used), shadow detail may be lacking (again depending on exposure) and if full shadow detail is present (due to more exposure), highlights may be more compressed.

Click to expand...

DWThomas said:

I've shot Fuji HR-T (green sensitive) x-ray film for pinhole shots the last few years. I've refined my process to get some pretty nifty results, but I'd say in general it's an acquired taste -- but then so is pinhole!

My initial reasoning was simple economics, 100 sheets of 8x10 for $40+ delivered! (As I e-speak, B&H lists a 25 sheet package of HP5+ for $129.95, 10 sheets of Kodak T-Max400 for $89.95!) My most recent efforts developed it in HC110 1+63 and got plenty of density in 3 to 4 minutes. That helped tame a tendency to high contrast. For sizes at 4x5 and below I would lean toward conventional film, but in the smaller sizes one can get usable quantities for less onerous dollar amounts.

Click to expand...

Andrew O'Neill said:

Personally, I prefer the double-sided green.

Click to expand...

koraks said:

In terms of tonality, yes, I agree, and I was surprised to find that out, but perhaps I need to persevere on the box of BR/A to get it down well. But...I never really fixed the scratching issue on the double sided film in a satisfactory way.

Click to expand...

koraks said:

But...I never really fixed the scratching issue on the double sided film in a satisfactory way.

Click to expand...

Wayne said:

Yes people have used Rodinal. I have used it, for one, but I havent used X-ray much. There's no shortcut to reading the 5 million post thread linked above. One of the mods is obsessive compulsive about neatness (but we love ya O!) and merged 2 shorter, slightly more manageable threads into one monstrously huge unreadable behemoth.

Some people use glass in the bottom of the tray to rediuce scratches, some people remove one side of the emulsion with bleach, there are a lot of different things people have done to it. Next time you get the flu just spend that week reading the thread. You'll feel pretty sick anyway by the time you're finished.

Click to expand...

CMoore said:

Pinhole.....Genius.!

I realize that the dimensions of the box and "aperture" of the Pinhole will effect things, but........in a Sunny 16 situation, how long were your exposures, approximately.?
Thank You

Click to expand...

tezzasmall said:

Has anyone got any suggestions about developing and avoiding any scratching of the negatives sides?

Click to expand...

DWThomas said:

Well the pinhole sizes have varied a bit over the last couple of outings, but in relatively sunny conditions exposures have run in the 5 to 15 seconds range with an f/300 pinhole. (Not a tool to photograph sports action! ) I've been incident metering for ISO 50 with the HR-T, but forum research shows claims ranging from 25 to 200 or even 400; e.g., all over the place, so experimenting is the rule. So ISO 50 translates to 1/50 @ f/16. One difference with x-ray vs commercial panchromatic film is with x-ray film there's none of those little charts in the box for sun, hazy sun, cloudy bright, etc. According to my vague notes, the 20 second @ f/300 April 2018 shot here in my gallery was under hazy sun/cloudy bright conditions. There are times during those long exposures where the light can actually change during exposure -- can be a bit tedious -- another reason to bracket, bracket, bracket!

Likely my use of ISO 50 is allowing me some pulling of development to reduce the contrast, which as mentioned above tends toward high.

Hope that's some help.

Click to expand...

Andrew O'Neill said:

Initially one thread was started. More of a technical look at xray, with images. Someone set up a second one for images only. That's fine but practitioners were also writing/talking tech there. We essentially had two threads that were the same. It made sense to merge them.

Click to expand...