Cool! I used it in that application here as well: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...be-scan-one-negative-2025.215648/post-2937385
In my case the sharpness was not an issue because I used single-sided x-ray film, which sadly is no longer readily available.
PS: yes, I can see the difference in the video, but whether it's meaningful is another matter.
Andrew, you mention stripping-off one side of the emulsion in the video.
Just how fraught with danger to the other side of the emulsion is this process?
I tested it quite a bit. As long as the film is duct taped down to glass, the side facing the glass is safe. I never had an issue with bleed over. Very little ammonia is required to remove the emulsion.
Straight or diluted? Thanks for the clarification!
If the difference in sharpness in the first enlargement is due to a thickness of film, I would have thought that the Depth of Field (which can be quite deep) of the 35mm enlarging lens at a smaller f-stop would be way larger than the thickness of an x-ray film. Maybe you could test focus on the x-ray film and then focus on the easel and split the difference. I think the difference would be tiny, Perhaps a Gelatine print of the 35mm negative would be just as soft anyway?
Is your easel white and is there reflected light coming from underneath?
Your premise seems off to me. (but I have never done this)
It’s NDT film, not medical film. Seems like that is a more mixed bag. I know that both single- and double-sided NDT films exist. Just not sure exactly what this stuff is.Virtually all of it is double-sided. The main exception is the film specifically intended for mammography. It's rare and generally significantly more expensive.
It's not just the depth of field. It's also the geometry of projecting an image to different distances. They will not be the same size, and therefore less sharp when printed together.
There's also scatter in the top emulsion layer. DoF doesn't solve this, trust me. The backside image on double sided x-ray film is just fuzzy, there's no way around that.
I have to wonder if you could intentionally over expose the film by a stop (or more) and then strip off the back emulsion; did you try this?People who have used most xray films would get this. It's got nothing to do with DOF. This is double-sided film. It has emulsion on both sides. The side facing the lens during the exposure is sharp. The emulsion on the other side is unsharp. There is no way around this unless you strip the unsharp side after processing... But this technique literally cuts the density range in half. I tested this 'til the cows came home. An easier way around this issue, is to use single-sided xray...
Contact prints are indeed emulsion to emulsion and that's how they end up in the correct orientation.contact prints on regular film should always be printed emulsion to emulsion and thus backward
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?