Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,963   Posts: 1,523,260   Online: 1015
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    Jim Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,817
    Blog Entries
    1

    Has anyone tried this film?

    I keep seeing this on the auction site, and the price makes it very tempting.

    7x17 Large Format B & W Sheet Film Silver Rich

    Has anyone had experience with this film?

    Thanks,
    Jim
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]

  2. #2
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,165
    Images
    20
    The auction says it's Kodak Industrex film. I'm not sure what that is, but it's coated on both sides, which sounds like an X-ray film.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #3
    Jim Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,817
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks David - I had similar thoughts.
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Coast Calif
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    64
    Industrex is used for nondestructive testing, that is, x raying welds, castings etc for , well, industry [and all kinds of stuff] It's apparently made to survive abuse and nasty climate conditions. One weird website descibes it as single side emulsion, but the data sheets I've looked at say overcoated 2 sides on sheet film base.
    I surfed for this account the NDT folks use various widths of roll film [60 70 100 mm] and I've not found 70mm recently that didn't have a HUGE minimum quantity. Sadly, Industrex appears to be too thick for camera rolls.
    But it's CHEAP -less than $300 for 150 meters. Then again that's waaay too $much to try for pictorial work without some better idea of suitability for pictorial use. I'll continue to investigate cuz Fuji and Agfa still list similar products. The NDT and health folks just don't speak in terms that pictorialists use. Whudda THEY mean by "high contrast" "high speed" and "fine grain" ? I can accept "fine grain" for basic ortho emulsions, and would guess "high contrast" could be tamed in manual processing with familiar developers like D76 or Xtol- I've made aerial film so behave, but what is "high" for speed.??

    Oh yeah, one last thing, Kodak touts this as T-grain tech
    Hope you try some and report !! :>))

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Coast Calif
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    64
    AND another dang thing
    Agfa's NDT product "Structurix" is available in 200 ft rolls in widths of 5,7,12 and 14 inches.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nanaimo, British Columbia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    907
    Images
    4
    How about a 14x17 roll film camera?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Does Kodak give processing info? Might give an idea if a normal[or low contrast] developer might have a chance taming it.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Coast Calif
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    64
    Hey Justin, when I was revisiting the xray sites I found that "full spinal" film [IIRC 14x36] comes in flat sheets as well as folded in thirds, so how about ULF panoramas too, without those problematic Cirkut motors? Then I found that Fuji sells 17 inch rolls, lets say 20 shots per 100 feet 17x 51............
    Hey Nick
    Some aerial films still have recommendations for near-normal processing, albeit for high CI. I started there and guessed backward for pictorial umbers and hit it. Someplace Jim Galli reported similar results with aero film, and IIRC he just took it on faith (and his usual informed good luck :>) But I have yet to find any official hints for THUS stuff. Over on the other site (?) "Phototone" and others have reported success with "hospital" xray film and standard processing. I imagine industrial use film varies mostly with respect to physical toughness and processing-by-machine abuse: Do it Hot, DO it Fast, Do it HiContrast.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    106
    I work a great deal with x-rays producing art. www.x-rayarts.com and have plenty of experience with x-ray films. It's true that most ,edical x-ray films are coated on both sides but mammography films are single side coated. the catch to x-ray film is it's either high green sensitivity pr high blue sensitivity depending on the application and screen system used. Resolution of x-ray film, particularly double sised, is not as good as say HP5 which I use a great deal in my art. X-ray film for medical use is more light sensitive to the blue or green than to x-rays where as industrial is less sensitive to visible light and more to x-rays. In the medical industry an intensifying screen that fluoresces when struck by x-rays is used in a film holder on each side of the film (double coated film) and the screen either fluoresces blue or green depending on the screen. Most of the exposure is from the light not x-rays. In industrial use the film often has to be wrapped around a pipe or object and no screen can be used. In this case x-ray sensitivity is highest. To my knowledge all x-ray films have odd spectral sensitivity and may not even be orthochromatic. Contrast does tend to be higher and grain is not as good as photographic films. Resolution is lower too and this is why I use FP-4 and HP-5 for my applications where long scale and highe resolution with fine grain are needed to capture the finest details of my subject. My guess is it's not going to be very good for photographic use.

    Aerials films are a better choice but do tend to be contrastier and have low blue sensitivity.

  10. #10
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,348
    Quote Originally Posted by eworkman View Post
    ... "Phototone" and others have reported success with "hospital" xray film and standard processing. I imagine industrial use film varies mostly with respect to physical toughness and processing-by-machine abuse: Do it Hot, DO it Fast, Do it HiContrast.
    Hot and fast and tough will most probably apply to medical films too.
    Ecxept for dental films I guess the majority of medical films are designed for use with fluorescent srcreens.
    I further guess in industrial use there will be less employment of screens which will result in different emulsion design.


    Don,

    I somehow overlooked your post... You said it all.

    However industrial films will need more likely less speed than medical films. Thus an unsensitized industrial film could be less grainy than an unsensitized medical film.
    Last edited by AgX; 03-23-2008 at 10:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin