Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,741   Posts: 1,515,567   Online: 942
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    10
    Images
    2

    Xray film for enlarged negatives

    Hello all. I am attempting to use what seems to me to be repackaged x ray film for the production of albumen prints...with occasional success, but more often not. This film is sold as "continuous tone duplicating film". It is a positive to positive process. In other words, when a negative image is projected on to the film it results also in a negative.
    If anyone here has used this film for this purpose I would really be interested in your experience. Specifically, I am wondering if using x ray film to enlarge an original negative already designed for albumen is a better idea then trying to manipulate the x ray film during exposure and development. Thank you.

  2. #2
    Mike Wilde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Misissauaga Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,939
    Images
    29
    I have used , but not fully calibrated, a dupe film sold by Photo Warehouse, meant for duping x-rays.

    It is blue sensitive only, and has a rather strong blue tint to the film base. It is slow, ie needs plenty of exposure, but processes positive to positive.

    It is described as being suitable for Rapid Access development. I am not quite sure what that means outside of the medical/dental field, so I just process it in dilute paper develop for my works so far.

    When I calibrate, I use a step wedge in the margin of the exposure to help me guage more definitiely the effect of differing exposure and development regimes, in terms of developers, dilutions, time and agitation effects. Make and keep notes with your negatives.

    If you don't have a small setp wedge, try using an old Kodak projection print scale. - It is a crude step wedge in it's own right.

    I would suggest that if it is a dupe film, it is a low contrast type of film compared to conventional camera films. Usually for dupes you don't want to gain contrast, but keep what you have. The inherent contrast of the film can be manipulated to some degree by developer dilution , time and agitation.

    Your approach of starting with negatives that meet the contrast range requirements of the albumen process then duping would seem to be a good idea as a starting point.

    Once you have mastered making enlarged same contrast dupes, then you can incrementally move on to try to expand contrast in the dupe step.
    That would let you take a negative developmed to suit silver gelatine and presumably expand it to suit albumen.

    I have also fiddled with real x-ray film for enlarged negatives. It is double coated on both sides of the support, so sharp focus is a challenge. Also the surfaces are relatively soft, and liable to scratching in tray processing. It has a heavy silver load, so it exhausts fixer quite quickly. I think mine is blue green sensitive. I have not worked with it much yet.
    my real name, imagine that.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,142
    Images
    2
    I'm not sure exactly what film you have but I have used x-ray duplicating film to enlarge negatives for pt/pd printing for many years. It produces a negative from a negative. It is an excellent film despite being very slow and on the expensive side. I use it with Kodak GBX dev. and fix with water as the stop bath. What I use requires a red safe-light. Remember more exposure yields a lighter negative and thus a darker print. I find the dup. film to be superior to digital negatives. Consider the chemistry as a factor in your "occasional success".

    Because you can't really tell if you got it right until you make your final print there will be a learning curve to read the negative. Use the successful ones as a guide for tonality. Manipulating the film (burning/dodging) is like making a print but because it is a reversal film you just do the opposite. I would expect it to work as well for albumen prints as for pt/pd.

    http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,142
    Images
    2
    An added note, Mike, the x-ray dup film I use Kodak X-Omat 2 with the GBX chemistry is slightly more contrasty than Delta 400 and HP5 in my hands.

  5. #5
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,885
    Images
    6
    You might want to try Fuji HRT. It's cheap and green sensitive and you can work under a safelight. They sell it on eBay. I rate mine at ASA 200 when souped with xtol.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  6. #6
    davido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    toronto, ontario canada
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    461
    Images
    17
    I started using x-ray dupe for making enlarged negs a while ago and still fine tuning it. I've been using Fuji Mi-Dup
    As this film needs a lot of exposure and strong developer (I'm using almost straight stock dektol), I'm finding that starting with a contrasty negative is easier; otherwise I'm thinking it would be hard to build up the contrast from a 'normal' negative.
    I have been using RC paper to do test contact prints from the test enlarged negs. Printing them using a Grade 0 filter. That aproximates how contrasty the negative should be for most alt processes (at least the iron ones- I'm not sure about albumen).
    So, starting with a high contrast original and then fine tuning the enlarged negative has been working with me.

  7. #7
    davido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    toronto, ontario canada
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    461
    Images
    17
    "I find the dup. film to be superior to digital negatives.'

    Jeffrey, Just curious how you find it more superior?
    I have also worked with the digital version and, from my limited experience, they don't seem as sharp as film. Is this your experience?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    10
    Images
    2
    Thank you all for your help. This x ray film I"m using, if that is what it is, is the film from Photo Warehouse. I have gotten better results from the x ray film than from trying to control the contrast with litho film. I have also experimented with digital negatives, but I'm thinking the printer I currently have will simply not produce enough density. The Photo Warehouse film is relatively inexpensive and produces good negatives, but it is not a variable contrast material and it is, I think, a matter of dialing in exposure and development.
    The real problem is that it requires somewhat long exposure, and I"m thinking that using x ray film to enlarge original negatives made for albumen will create even longer exposure. My enlarger head is already only slightly less hot than the surface of the sun .
    Is there any reason why selenium toning could not be used to increase density or contrast with x ray film?
    Last edited by claras; 03-18-2013 at 09:40 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #9
    Mike Wilde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Misissauaga Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,939
    Images
    29
    Yes, slelenium toning has been suggested for b&w slides in the past. It should work fine for alt process negs.

    If you want more contrast, why not just develop longer, or in a stronger developer concentration. Trial and error can be under safe light, then do time and temp once you are dialled in.

    Then when it is time to print albumen, dont feel tied to the enlarger as a light source, A bare 40 w incandesant bulb can be a light source for contact speed print processes, and I suspect your albumin coating may be just that.
    my real name, imagine that.

  10. #10
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,885
    Images
    6

    Take a look and I'll let you be the judge

    Quote Originally Posted by davido View Post
    "I find the dup. film to be superior to digital negatives.'

    Jeffrey, Just curious how you find it more superior?
    I have also worked with the digital version and, from my limited experience, they don't seem as sharp as film. Is this your experience?
    This is a cool site.

    http://thelightfarm.com/Map/DigitalN...tivesPart1.htm

    It seems that there's little difference. However, I think digital negs made with inkjet film has revived alt process printing. Making analog dupe negs requires a darkroom. I doing some test with inkjet negs too. The difficulty is matching the alt process with your computer.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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