The data sheet published by Kodak for its green sensitive X-ray film describes it as orthochromatic. They use that exact word. The data sheet also has a spectral response curve. It looks much like the response curve for orthochromatic films. I understand this thread is about Fuji film, not Kodak, but users at the LF forum have reported similar results. I expose Kodak green X-ray film through a yellow #11 filter and get results similar to black and white negative film, except light greens are brighter, and reds are dark, but overall tonality is similar.
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
Happiness is a load of bulk chemicals, a handful of recipes, a brick of film and a box of paper. - desertrat
I wonder how much of Adams' early work was done on ortho film. I'm going to be using the Fuji green stuff because it's so cheap on ebay. I bet on most of my scenic work I'll hardly tell the difference from not having the expensive pan. Except on a red barn or something. But not many barns are red anyway. I think this is a workable idea.
one only has to look at Holden Richards' work to see that xray film can produce exquisite results.
it is slightly absurd to argue that it is unusable for normal photography when the empirical evidence is otherwise!
The following is from an article discussing a typical green sensitive X-ray film. Emphasis is my own.
"Green-sensitive universal X-ray film
A general X-ray film designed for use with green emitting intensifying screens. The system speed of this film has been adapted for specific applications, according to the international guidelines. The toe of the sensitometric curve has a form which provides a high contrast in the low densities of the image."
I am always suspicious of using something for an unintended purpose. The spectral response given in the article shows an unusually tall peak at 560 nm. This peak is much higher than would be seen in an ordinary ortho film. Obviously this is done to match the output of the phosphor. Therefore greens will be rendered much lighter than usual. Just what the effect will be of the distorted contrast is another matter.
The response to the OP by Fuji sent up a warning flag to me. They were uncomfortable selling the film for non X-ray use. Still the price is low enough to cover a lot of testing.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Well I admit it's not exactly what I would have preferred. But at the prices for regular pan 8x10, what is a body supposed to do? It already costs a fortune in gasoline alone to go through the country scoping out pictures. Then add 5 or 6 dollars a sheet for film, and the mortgage doesn't get paid. Or I can sit here and save all that money, looking at my pretty Horseman sitting up on the tripod in the living room. Not much choices, eh?
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
The Fuji salesman was even so kind to phone me. I think his fear was (also) that I was ordering something I didn't understand: he asked what I was going to use it for and how I wanted to develop the film since it is originally intended for medical use. He knew I wasn't a doctor. I told him it would be done with "ordinary" B&W developers and that there were good examples at the forum. This was quite new to him. It's my guess he never considered the possibility of using the X-ray film as a "normal" photo negative.
So it will be a nice way to test & learn LF photography and tray development, since this is new to me.
I also got me some Maco Genius film 18x24 very cheap. I made my first shots this week and will try tray developing this weekend for the first time. If it works out all right, I'll use the negatives in a course for Casein Printing in 2 weeks time.
And when I'll get the hang of it, I'll also use some Ilford FP4+ film later, I'm going to order through the Ilford ULF 2013 run.
"Have fun and catch that light beam!"
Bert from Holland
my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup
* I'm an analogue enthusiast, trying not to fall into the digital abyss.
* My favorite cameras: Nikon S2, Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T, Nikon F4s, Olympus Pen FT, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras.
Here's my take on it: When you sit around and don't take pictures much, you get out of the groove. So get a box of 8x10 x ray film off ebay and some pyrocat, and get out there and burn through that cheap stuff. By then, you get back in the swing, and THEN start in on the high-dollar stuff.
Actually, from what I've read about this film, I am way more concerned about the apparent fragility of the emulsion during processing (and the fact it's on two sides) than I am about the spectral response. I don't own, and have no other reason to own fancy tanks and hangers in 8x10, so I'll be wrestling with plastic bags or smooth trays or whatever.
I have no illusions that the results are going to look "exactly like Delta 100," but I expect to get some useful results using my recently built pinhole camera. In my own quirky opinion, the pinhole process is riddled with enough compromises that one more won't matter. The hundred sheets of 8x10 HRT-Green cost me about $45US shipped to my door from an ePrey vendor. I'd far rather play around at less than $0.50 a shot than four or five dollars per. It's really that simple!
(If I ever get past the current crush of yard work, I may yet get some hard evidence! )
It's not bad stuff. You can process it under a safelight. The emulsion is extremely soft when it's wet. Even trays with slots can scratch it. I process it in HC-110 or Xtol.
"Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."