View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
luisalegria
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:17 pm Post subject: Very cheap large format film - x-ray |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
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 |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Tesselator
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 235 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tesselator wrote:
x-ray film? Isn't an x-ray light source needed?
How would this work if I may ask? |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
luisalegria
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
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 |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Katastrofo
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 10405 Location: USA
Expire: 2013-11-19
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Katastrofo wrote:
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 |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
luisalegria
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
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 |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
mmelvis
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 24 May 2010 Posts: 1326 Location: Florida,USA
Expire: 2015-05-09
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Tesselator
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 235 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:25 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! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
David
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 13 Apr 2011 Posts: 1869 Location: Denver, Colorado
Expire: 2013-01-25
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
David wrote:
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.youtube.com/user/hancockDavidM |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Farside
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 6555 Location: Ireland
Expire: 2013-12-27
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Farside wrote:
Luis, they've got it even cheaper - $26 /100 10x8
http://www.zzmedical.com/zencart/8x10-in-fuji-xray-film-p-384.html?zenid=8a5c951aa13ae190023c8304c9afb4d4
If it wasn't 3000 miles and a shipping cost away, I'd be very tempted.
Some of the caffenol results with this film are very good indeed - even good old D76 does well with it. _________________ Dave - Moderator
Camera Fiend and Biograph Operator
If I wanted soot and whitewash I'd be a chimney sweep and house painter.
The Lenses of Farside (click)
BUY FRESH FOMAPAN TO HELP KEEP THE FACTORY ALIVE ---
Foma Campaign topic -
http://forum.mflenses.com/foma-campaign-t55443.html
FOMAPAN on forum -
http://www.mflenses.com/fs.php?sw=Fomapan
Webshop EU
http://www.fomafoto.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
mmelvis
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 24 May 2010 Posts: 1326 Location: Florida,USA
Expire: 2015-05-09
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
mmelvis wrote:
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 |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Tesselator
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 235 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tesselator wrote:
Yeah, it looks like it could be a very creative film! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
philslizzy
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4743 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:40 am Post subject: Re: Very cheap large format film - x-ray |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
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 |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
wozaczynski
Joined: 17 Dec 2014 Posts: 2 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
wozaczynski wrote:
I know that's quite old post but quite visible on web so it's worth to write here some important information about x-ray film. I'm shooting quite a lot pictures on few different x-ray films. My favourite are Fuji Super RX blue which is double side emulsion coated. There are two kind of most x-ray films - blue and green sensitive. I prefer blue but it's up to personal taste. Double coating is not a problem in my opinion. You can use traditional BW chemistry to develop all the xray, but I would say it's more similar to paper than film developing. Red safe light possible to use especially with blue sensitive film.
You can find some examples of pictures on my blog and to search "xray" there:
www.wozaczynski.com/blog/?s=xray _________________ www.wozaczynski.com |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
visualopsins
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10948 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Welcome wozaczynski! Thank you for informations. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
philslizzy
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4743 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
A lot of x-ray films have two emulsions, one on either side. This can produce interestingly soft results. I think single emulsion films would be better. But they are dearer.
Alas x-ray films are going the way of camera films as digital image sensors are used more in hospitals.
You always have a special developer for x-ray films. Its like a normal film dev.
Iangreenhalgh1 uses odd films including x-ray he, I guess, is the resident expert. _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
wozaczynski
Joined: 17 Dec 2014 Posts: 2 Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wozaczynski wrote:
philslizzy wrote: |
A lot of x-ray films have two emulsions, one on either side. This can produce interestingly soft results. I think single emulsion films would be better. But they are dearer.
Alas x-ray films are going the way of camera films as digital image sensors are used more in hospitals.
You always have a special developer for x-ray films. Its like a normal film dev.
Iangreenhalgh1 uses odd films including x-ray he, I guess, is the resident expert. |
Indeed, a lot of films are double side coated. Maybe under the enlarger it could produce quite a different result, but when scanned - there's no difference between single and double side coated films. The main difference is because xray film is really prone to scratches - so obviously those double coated are much harder to avoid it when tray developed.
Yes - the digital sensors are used mostly in hospitals, but there's huge demand for xray film in veterinary. And probably in some not really rich countries.
Chemistry for xray films is completely different however for photography it's working perfectly with almost every BW developers and fixer. _________________ www.wozaczynski.com |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
uddhava
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 22 Aug 2012 Posts: 3072 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-06-21
|
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
uddhava wrote:
Welcome to MFL forum.
Nice images using x-ray film! |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Oldhand
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 5999 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Surprisingly good images.
Thank you for sharing these.
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
arri
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 13 Jul 2014 Posts: 91
|
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
arri wrote:
I know this thread is very old but I want to show a sample I made this year with a X-ray film.
I used the Fuji UM-MA mammographic film because only the mammo films are single coated and good usable for photography.
The film is orthochromatic with a higher level of sensitivity to blue light, blind for red but green comes really good.
It has a higher contrast than standard taking films but not as high like graphic film.
It can be developed with standard film developers, here I used the Adox Silvermax developer.
I bought a pack of 100 sheets 18x24cm for 48€ and I cut 4 sheets of 9x12cm of it.
This sample were made with an very old and uncoated Emil Suter, Switzerland, "Stella" 5/160mm @f/22
@ISO 80, pre exposured zone II
I show the whole negative, have a look to the upper right corner, this round edges are typical for X-ray films, here only one edge because of the cutted sheet.
![](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51227003570_346b742665_h.jpg) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
DConvert
![Level 3 Level 3](rating3.gif) Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 921 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2021 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
arri wrote: |
I know this thread is very old but I want to show a sample I made this year with a X-ray film.
I used the Fuji UM-MA mammographic film because only the mammo films are single coated and good usable for photography.
The film is orthochromatic with a higher level of sensitivity to blue light, blind for red but green comes really good.
It has a higher contrast than standard taking films but not as high like graphic film.
It can be developed with standard film developers, here I used the Adox Silvermax developer.
I bought a pack of 100 sheets 18x24cm for 48€ and I cut 4 sheets of 9x12cm of it.
This sample were made with an very old and uncoated Emil Suter, Switzerland, "Stella" 5/160mm @f/22
@ISO 80, pre exposured zone II
I show the whole negative, have a look to the upper right corner, this round edges are typical for X-ray films, here only one edge because of the cutted sheet.
|
Thanks for that Arri. Great results.
I take it x-ray film is still available then ![Like Dog](images/smiles/like-dog.gif) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
philslizzy
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4743 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2021 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
Xray film is light sensitive as well as xray.
I used to sell x-ray film and have used it in camera and the darkroom. There are special x-ray film developers but I found it developed just fine in D163 - kodak's paper developer. Fixer is fixer, any works.
As someone mentioned, most xray film has double sided emulsion, this will give a very slight softness as both emulsions will be exposed in a camera. if you are tray developing under a safelight its a good idea to develop it with the (intentionally) exposed surface upwards to get a better idea how its coming along.
Now film speeds were always improving allowing lower powered tubes and faster exposure time - I'm not sure what kind of speeds they are today. I used to pull out the dark slide a section at a time, like doing a darkroom test print, and calculated the speed from there. Watching the development allowed me to fine tune it.
I would develop blind for 4 mins at 20C in x ray developer or a minute and half in D163watching it under the safelight
A safelight we sold was an orange filter. Kodak made them in 10x8" or circular for the beehive lamp.
A red would probably do as daylight processing boxes have a red window through which you could see the film as it's developing.
Making giant positives under an enlarger was the main reason I used xray films.
Hope this helps _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
|