Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,499   Posts: 1,543,207   Online: 1055
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,169
    Images
    2
    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/

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    fairfield county, Ct.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,817
    Images
    24
    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
    website down for maintenance!

  3. #13
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    I assume that regular chemicals makes it regular film and the reversal action is from the GBX chemicals?
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,169
    Images
    2
    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/

  5. #15
    davido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    toronto, ontario canada
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    461
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    I assume that regular chemicals makes it regular film and the reversal action is from the GBX chemicals?
    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

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    I assume that regular chemicals makes it regular film and the reversal action is from the GBX chemicals?
    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.
    Frank Schifano

  7. #17
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    I assume that regular chemicals makes it regular film and the reversal action is from the GBX chemicals?
    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.
    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.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  8. #18
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    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 jp498; 11-13-2010 at 09:29 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,863
    So did you buy all 100 sheets for $63? Are you going to use them all, or would you be interested in selling some?
    f/22 and be there.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, WA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    302
    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

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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