| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 4292
Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2014-05-17
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:17 pm Post subject: Very cheap large format film - x-ray |
 |
|
There are quite a few people using x-ray film in regular LF cameras.
Even new X-ray film is very cheap.
You can order it from vendors of medical supplies, like these -
http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/xray-film-c-28.html?zenid=8a5c951aa13ae190023c8304c9afb4d4
These people have 100 sheets of Kodak Green film 8x10 for $39 - thats 400 4x5 films, or $0.10 per shot. Thats as cheap as photo paper. I have seen even cheaper.
I haven't tried x-ray film yet. It looks interesting.
But there is some information on the internet.
Some is blue sensitive, some is green sensitive
Some info I gathered.
- Regular processing chemicals, processes etc. work well.
- they are sensitive on both sides so they may have less resolution (double image, where one image may be slightly defocused)
Some varieties are sensitive only on one side.
- they are very easily scratched when wet so have to be carefully handled. And because of the double surface you cant develop it in a 35mm tank by rolling them with a rubber band for instance.
- Effective ISO varies. One report is that the Green sensitive stuff seems to be about ISO 200 in daylight or ISO 25 in incandescent. There are different grades and sensitivities also, so one would have to do a lot of tests to figure out the rules for exposure.
- It tends to be rather high contrast
- Theoretially one could use a safelight to cut and load it (it is orthochromatic) but in practice it fogs easily, so assume darkroom cutting would be needed.
- It will need to be cut or trimmed for use on regular film holders as the sizes don't exactly match - 8x10 x-ray is a bit larger than 8x10 camera film.
- Its thicker than camera film so some holders may be tight.
Nice discussion here -
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-X-ray-Film-example-and-comparison
_________________
I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tesselator
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 228
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
x-ray film? Isn't an x-ray light source needed?
How would this work if I may ask? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 4292
Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2014-05-17
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand that x-ray film is not only sensitive to x-rays.
It does work, there are many examples online.
_________________
I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Katastrofo
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 10240
Location: USA
Expire: 2013-11-19
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, x-ray film is definitely sensitive to light. I fudged a newly-opened box of the 14x17 film (was shooting a
KUB for a patient that presented with possible kidney stones) by forgetting to replace the cap back on the box,
this was in Iwakuni 1990 or 1991. We went from a General Electric to a Pickering in the new clinic that didn't
'like' 100V 50 cycle Japanese electricity.
Curious to see your results, Luis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 4292
Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2014-05-17
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No results, and I don't know if there will be any.
I was just researching the possibilities.
My personal problem with any large format film is scanning.
Won't do me much good to have nice LF negatives if they can't be scanned.
So I have to solve that first.
In any case, I just wanted to note that x-ray film is an interesting low cost option for anyone who wants to try LF.
_________________
I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmelvis
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 1114
Location: Florida,USA
Expire: 2013-03-09
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tesselator
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 228
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks! That's interesting. So from that thread I take it that it's like very problematic B&W film.
That it works at all is news to me, thanks again! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
Posts: 1287
Location: Bay Area, California
Expire: 2013-01-25
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
For scanning, multiple scans with each image having some overlap followed by stitching. Lengthy process. On my Epson it takes three scans to do one 4x5.
_________________
http://www.5119photography.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/hancockDavidM
http://beyondbokeh.blogspot.com/
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102333270936007447976/posts
http://www.panoramio.com/map/?user=6830602
DSLR: Pentax K-7
Old School SLR: Pentax K1000, KM, KX, K2, Spotmatic, SP, SPII, SPIIa, SP F, H3, H3V, and 6X7; Nikon FM, FG, F3, and N70, Nikkormat FTN; Mamiya Sekor DTL1000; Canon AE-1, F-1, and EOS 650 RT; Minolta SRT 102; Olympus OMG
View/Rangefinders: Kodak Retina Ia and IIa; Voightlander Perkeo 1; Balda Baldinette and Juwella; Zeiss Ikon Contina Matic IIa, Nettar 515/s, and Contaflex, Ansco Memar, Yashica 35 GSN
TLRs: Rolleiflex 1:3.8, Ricohmatic 225
Large Format: Calumet CC-400 and CC-402; Caltar 165mm 1:6.3 in Seikosha shutter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Farside
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 5805
Location: Ireland
Expire: 2013-12-27
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmelvis
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 1114
Location: Florida,USA
Expire: 2013-03-09
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tesselator wrote: |
Thanks! That's interesting. So from that thread I take it that it's like very problematic B&W film.
That it works at all is news to me, thanks again! |
Some folks really like the film. The emulsion seems to be a little more fragile than standard film, easily scratched. There is supposed to be a variant that is only coated with emulsion on one side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tesselator
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 228
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, it looks like it could be a very creative film! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 841
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:40 am Post subject: Re: Very cheap large format film - x-ray |
|
|
| luisalegria wrote: |
- Theoretially one could use a safelight to cut and load it (it is orthochromatic) but in practice it fogs easily, so assume darkroom cutting would be needed.
|
Kodak and others make a special 'beehive' safelight that has a different colour filter to the normal yellow one used for printing. The safelight is fine for handling the films, loading them into the cassettes (or in our case film holders) and for developing visually.
Standard panoramic or sheet xray films are developed in a tall rectangular tank hung into it from a small metal bar with two clips holding the film in place. a couple of bulldog or alligator clips will do and lots of radiographers used that method. tray processing will work but will damage the very soft emulsion.
Of course these films are ortho films and mainly sensitive to blue. the use of tungsten light will require much longer exposures as someone else has pointed out. Mixed light sources give 'interesting' results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Rss feed
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
-