X-Ray Film

[CMoore]

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.?
How does it differ from HP5 for example.?
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.?
Thank You

 

[MattKing]

For one thing, most X-ray film has emulsion coated on both side and as far as I am aware only available in sheets (some of which are quite small).
It is significantly cheaper than large format film of similar size.
Its spectral sensitivity isn't at all panchromatic, so colours will be rendered very differently from HP5.
Its speed will also be different .

 

[bernard_L]

There:
https://www.largeformatphotography....film-technical-discussion-with-example-images
you have a thread on just that: using X-ray film for photography; more than 5000 posts. Numerous examples. Technical discussions.

 

[koraks]

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.?

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.

How does it differ from HP5 for example.?

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.

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.?

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.

 

[CMoore]

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.

I see.
Thank You

 

[DWThomas]

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.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

I did some experiments with 8x10 Ektascan B/RA a while back to play with a beat up old camera I was working on. The detail holds up well enough and the restricted spectral sensitivity is a fun diversion, and like others here point out controlling the contrast is an effort. I'm more of a tinkerer than an artist, I mainly view xray film as an inexpensive way to tinker in really large format at a cheap price. An artist could get some use from xray, and that LFF thread has some great examples.

 

[CMoore]

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.

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

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, check out the https://www.largeformatphotography....discussion-with-example-images&highlight=xray thread at the LFF. I've been using the stuff for over 10 years up to 14x17. I use Double-sided green, and single-sided Ektascan. They both have a different look/feel. Personally, I prefer the double-sided green. Anyways, head over there and check it out.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...so it's difficult to answer your question... If there are any orange to red objects in the scene, they will be rendered very dark, to black. Blue sky? Unless you pop on a yellow or green filter, they will be white...I love double-sided green on a sunny day. No anti-halation layer, so sometimes nice soft highlights.

 

[koraks]

Personally, I prefer the double-sided green.

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

Tonality is a biggy. Flat-bottomed trays, gentle agitation, and no scratches. The nice thing about BR/A is that I can develop it in BTZS tubes. It's also razor sharp! Good luck and please share you results!

 

[tezzasmall]

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

For me this will be the biggest problem that needs sorting out I think, when I start on my pack of x-ray film.

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

And does anyone use Rodinal to develop it? ISO, developer dilutions and exposure and developing time estimates would be helpful for a starting point.

Terry S

 

[Wayne]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For double-sided xray, flat-bottomed trays are the best in my opinion. I have also used Rodinal but it's been a while as my main developer is Pyrocat-HD... I have data at home and can post it later this afternoon... But seriously, head on over to the LFF. See my link above...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

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.

 

[DWThomas]

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

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.

 

[DWThomas]

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

I tray develop 8x10 in 11x14 smooth bottom trays (Cesco, I believe they are). The bottoms are not glass smooth, they have a very slight matte or pebbling to the surface, but no sharp ridges, molded bumps, or injection molding sprues, etc. I have heard people suggest putting a sheet of window glass (or maybe acrylic would work) of appropriate size in the bottom of a regular tray, but never tried it. Another thing I've only read of is putting the sheet in a polyethylene zip-lock bag with the developer and sloshing it around. Myself, for my limited use, I'm happy with the trays.

 

[CMoore]

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.

It helps a TON...Thank You
I am 60 years old, but i am ,just a beginner at photography. I have not been doing this for the last 40 years.
So..... any help with the basics, to get started, is Much Appreciated.
Thanks Again

 

[Wayne]

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.

I understand reasons for both. But every time I hear someone's comments about the seing the merged thread for the first time its that they are no way going to read that whole thing. I can't blame them.

 

[awty]

Gets some, build a camera its fun. I made my own trays from sheet colorbond. You use less chemistry if you keep the trays tight and flat. After prpocessing about 20 sheets I can keep the scratches to a minimum. I use 1+3 in d76 and .8+.8+100 in pyrohd
Heres my pinhole build. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/diy-fbphc-build.163661/

Heres a few pinhole test shots I mostly use an orange filter, cause I want to use for alternative contact prints. Exposure times are pretty good so far, it suffers less from reciprocity compared with other films. 4mins in good light with a 2 stop filter is about average.
These are photographs of 14x17 negatives. You could do a lot better with a lens.

 

[bnxvs]

Fujifilm Super HR-U (green) in EZ Rodinal






Control print on Slavich BE 400 (+- #4), Dektol 1+1, 8 sec. exp. Contact.

 

[tim48v]

I've been playing with the Kodak Ektascan. There's a link under Photrio's blog page: https://www.photrio.com/forum/news/

 

[osella]

I use it primarily for palladium printing as its natural contrast works well for the process plus it is much lower in cost. I have found that with a sheet of glass on the bottom of the tray works to prevent scratches. I use one sheet transferring it and the negative between trays. The double sided green sensitive(carestream MXG) works well for me at iso 50-80 and about 7:00-9:00 in replenished xtol. I haven’t quite figured the best development time.