Questions about Xray Dupe film

Discussion in 'Alternative Processes' started by Peter Schrager, Nov 10, 2010.

  1. Peter Schrager

    Peter Schrager Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,066
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Location:
    fairfield co
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Someone here sent me an email about processing the dupe xray film
    by mistake I erased the message from my email inbox
    whoever you are please resend the message so I can respond!!
    thanks, Peter
     
  2. davido

    davido Subscriber

    Messages:
    502
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Location:
    toronto, ont
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    hi peter

    we had an exchange of emails quite a while back re: xray dupe, so it was probably someone else you are referring to?
    How is going with the xray dupe film? I haven't had a chance to do much with it in the last while, be interested to hear what your experiences have been.
    I would love to find it in larger sizes. I have some 10 x 12 but it does come larger. I bought mine on ebay and it was cheap. Have not seen any there recently.
    I'm also thinking of ways of super-charging my enlarger to get more light out of it. This film seems to want lot's of light.


    david
     
  3. jp498

    jp498 Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Location:
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  4. BetterSense

    BetterSense Member

    Messages:
    3,127
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    North Caroli
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Let us know! Very interested in the possibility of making enlarged negatives directly from 4x5 color negatives.
     
  5. Ektagraphic

    Ektagraphic Member

    Messages:
    2,910
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    Location:
    Southeastern
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Does Kodak still make X-Ray film?
     
  6. Andrew O'Neill

    Andrew O'Neill Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,163
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Location:
    Coquitlam, B
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I've used xray film (green latitude) as a dupe film to enlarge my 4x5 negs to 8x10very successfully. Had to make positive, then contact print to get the negative. I use pyrocat-hd.
     
  7. davido

    davido Subscriber

    Messages:
    502
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Location:
    toronto, ont
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    thanks for letting us know about this cxs stuff. It seems fairly reasonable for xray film (direct from a supplier). I keep looking a ebay for the cheap stuff.
    Let us know how is goes. From my experience it needs lots' of exposure, strong developer and fairly short times. I have only used the fuji brand but I'm guessing this will be fairly similar.

    david
     
  8. gmikol

    gmikol Member

    Messages:
    304
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Vancouver, W
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I've tried the dupe film from Ultrafine, but it has a fairly heavy blue base that makes it hard (for me) to judge the negatives by eye.

    I've got a couple of questions for you about this stuff:

    1) I've heard that some xray dupe films have a clear base. Is the stuff you got clear base or blue base?

    2) What's an approxmiate exposure time (enlargement factor, light source, lens/aperture)?

    3) Is it really white light sensitive? i.e. no safelight? If would a red safelight be OK?

    Thanks--

    Greg
     
  9. michaelbsc

    michaelbsc Member

    Messages:
    2,106
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Location:
    South Caroli
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My question would be whether it is a direct positive in ordinary B&W chemicals. I cannot look at the link from my mobile.

    I have some blue sensitive stuff with costing on both sides. It is cheap compared to Kodak of Ilford, but the time required to strip the back side emulsion offsets the cost saving unless you don't value your own time. I do kind of like the blue sensitive only part if you want "the old timey" look.
     
  10. jp498

    jp498 Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Location:
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I went for the white sensitive instead of uv sensitive so I could use it with an enlarger rather than a uv contact printing box.

    I'll be testing whether it's safelight safe, whether it comes out positive in normal chemicals, what sort of exposure is needed, what sort of developing works nice for contrast options, etc... If it comes out positive, it might be a nice analog alternative to pictorico/epson. if it comes out negative, it might be another option for ULF/pinhole capture or two-step negative enlargement.
     
  11. jeffreyg

    jeffreyg Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,377
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Location:
    florida
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Being a dentist and a pt/pd printer I am very familiar with x-ray duplicating film since we also use it to actually duplicate x-rays. The film I use is Kodak XOmat-2 and process it with Kodak GBX developer and Fixer (water as the stop). The chemistry lasts about a month once it is diluted. Agfa made x-ray duplicating film as well and may still have that in their product line. The film is a reversal film in that chemistry and produces a negative from a negative. It is very simple but the film is very slow and somewhat expensive. Be sure to put the original negative upside down in the negative carrier in your enlarger. You should use a red safelight. The film is notched so the emulsion side is up when the notches are on the upper right corner. Burning yields a "lighter" negative and darker print area and dodging yields a lighter negative and darker print area. It is easy and gives great results.

    http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
     
  12. Peter Schrager

    Peter Schrager Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,066
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Location:
    fairfield co
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    repeat what Jeffrey has said...but I develop the film in HC-110 1:3 between 2 and 4 minutes at 75 degrees....the film is not expensive and I have gotten some off of ebay
    I use fuji but Kodak also makes it but only up to 8x10
    suffice to say you will have to work out the times
    using an enlarger with the biggest light source will speed up the process
    I have an old 5x7 B+J fitted with a zone VI head (non VC) and the exposure times are around 2 minutes; otherwise you are looking at about 4 minute exposure times
    Best, Peter
     
  13. michaelbsc

    michaelbsc Member

    Messages:
    2,106
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Location:
    South Caroli
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I assume that regular chemicals makes it regular film and the reversal action is from the GBX chemicals?
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. jeffreyg

    jeffreyg Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,377
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Location:
    florida
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Michael,
    I'm not sure that is the case. As Peter mentioned he uses HC-110. I'm used to using it with the GBX also developing for about 3 minutes. I always have a supply of GBX so I haven't tried to experiment with other developers. Agfa had larger sized film but I'm not sure they still do and I wasn't familiar with Fuji's medical films. I did make some larger prints on Agfa a few years ago but I am partial to smaller prints in that medium.

    http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
     
  16. davido

    davido Subscriber

    Messages:
    502
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Location:
    toronto, ont
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I have used the Fuji MI-Dup with Dektol (as it's more concentrated than film developer and therefore quicker). So just regular developer works to create a duplitcate. I'm not sure how this works but it does.

    david
     
  17. fschifano

    fschifano Member

    Messages:
    3,216
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Valley Strea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    No, that wouldn't be the case. Direct positive materials are made differently, but normal processing chemistry is used. Case in point are the direct positive papers by Ilford. They make direct positive images when processed in normal paper developer. See the . True reversal processing requires more steps: First developer, bleach, re-expose, second developer, and fix.
     
  18. michaelbsc

    michaelbsc Member

    Messages:
    2,106
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Location:
    South Caroli
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well, that's good news.

    I wonder what the base is made from, and whether it is dimensionaly stable enough to make a tricolor separation matrix.
     
  19. jp498

    jp498 Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Location:
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Just a quick and incomplete update.

    I took a sheet out of the bag and cut it into test pieces. It is notched in the upper right hand corner when the emulsion is facing you, just like normal LF sheet film. It has a brick red coating/dye on it that comes off in processing.

    First test was for the safelight. I put an 1a (red) 10x12" filter in my safelight and put the film under it for 4 minutes with a pair of scissors on top of the film. No photogram was created when it was developed, and it came out black, so I consider it red safelight safe. I didn't try my normal OC safelight filter for lack of time and because most of the safelights advertised on the medical xray supply websites seem to be red. I'll try the OC (orange) another time.

    The film produces a positive image in normal developers.

    I put a medium format negative in my enlarger and exposed it at f5.6 for some test strips. It appears something in the 2-4 minute range is about right for exposure. Normally at 5.6, that would be a 3-4 second exposure! I usually enlarge at f11 or so to produce less deviation in time on normal paper. I'll know exactly how slow things are with this film tomorrow when the negatives are dry and I can look at the all together on a window or light table. I'll produce some photos for here of that if it looks nice or educational.

    For chemicals I tried both dektol and xtol for developer. The red coating/dye came off a bit in the dektol and stop producing a pinkish/magenta cast in that liquid. I hope it doesn't transfer that to the paper next time I use the developer. I also tried xtol for about 3 minutes, and the xtol seems to be a little more effective/higher contrast. Again, we'll see better tomorrow when the film is dry. I did not try any prewash. For stop, I used a dilluted indicator stop bath. For fixer I used normal mix of foma fixer that I'd use for paper. When developing in dektol, the image darkens while in the developer like you'd expect when processing paper. When in xtol, it does the darkening in the fixer like you'd expect with film.

    There is a slight blue tint to the finished negative, much like you expect to see on a normal xray image, or sort of like the fomapan 400 film I think. I don't think this will be a problem if the negatives are used for alt process, as the pale blue should be pretty transparent to a UV sensitive paper.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2010
  20. BetterSense

    BetterSense Member

    Messages:
    3,127
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    North Caroli
    Shooter:
    35mm
    So did you buy all 100 sheets for $63? Are you going to use them all, or would you be interested in selling some?
     
  21. gmikol

    gmikol Member

    Messages:
    304
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Vancouver, W
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Thanks for the update, jp...I hope you keep updating this thread as you learn more. I definitely wouldn't call the blue tint on the Ultrafine dupe film to be "pale blue"...it's much stronger tint than that. I think I'll try some of the cxs stuff the next time I'm ready to take a swing and duped negatives.

    --Greg
     
  22. jp498

    jp498 Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Location:
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    CXSLFLQG for $170 is what I bought. It's more expensive because it's duplicating film not regular negative film. Still it's <$2 a sheet for 14x17 film, less than what most of would spend on 16x20 paper. I'd share (at pro rata cost), but I don't have extra packaging.
     
  23. jp498

    jp498 Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Location:
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    OK... Here's this weekend's testing. I picked a negative that is supposed to be kinda dark and forboding woods. A little weak some might say; delicate dusk gloom carefully captured in my mind. I think the fresh dektol came out a little too contrasty/dark, and the straight xtol might have either overdeveloped it or needs less time. The nicest mix seemed to be 3 minutes of xtol+dektol (spend some time in each developer) I haven't had a chance to contact print cyanotype/vandyke from these yet; I suspect other images would be better suited that medium. Next time, I'll add to the experimenting some worn out dektol and some diluted xtol.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I'm pleased with the results of 1 hour and 1 sheet of film's testing!
     
  24. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That's what I'd like to know as well. A direct positive could come in handy when making separations from various sources.
     
  25. R Shaffer

    R Shaffer Member

    Messages:
    167
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Location:
    Santa Cruz,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks for posting these. Very interesting. Have you tried doing any alt through the film? I would be curious as to what sort of exposure is required. The blue base looks like it might add a lot of exposure.

    To my eye, the xtol-dektol does not look quite contrasty enough for VBD. The straight dektol looks good and beefy.

    I'll be interested in seeing your test prints.
     
  26. Peter Schrager

    Peter Schrager Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,066
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Location:
    fairfield co
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    the reason I use diluted HC-110 is because it is totally consistant...if you want results that are repeatable then find a developer that is going to do this for you...another one I could recommend is Iford PQ
    builds density like a bitch but is a liquid and can go bad if not used up
    the HC-110 will give the results you need and do it over and over once you figure out what works for you
    seems rather simple to me...why try to add variables??
    Best, Peter