X-Ray Film, Not Just for Shattered Ulnas Anymore!

Above: The aforementioned Ulna 0__0 If you thought X-Ray film was just for this kind of stuff, keep reading, you may be surprised!

A couple of weeks ago, I posted about the crazy notion that I would start shooting with X-Ray film. Yes, that's right, the same stuff that enabled you to look at your first broken bone can be loaded and shot onto just like any other B&W film. Pretty cool, huh? Well let's take a look at some of the other things that makes X-Ray film it's own unique shooting experience:

1. The Cost - This stuff costs ~ $0.33/sheet in 8x10 after taxes and shipping. Compare that to a premium B&W emulsion such as Kodak TMax 400 at ~ $8/sheet or Ilford HP5+ (my goto film) at ~$4/sheet.
2. The Look - X-Ray film comes in two basic flavors, blue sensitive and green (with some blue) sensitive. Blue sensitive reacts to light similarly to very early B&W films in the look of the final image, while the green sensitive film has a very nostalgic orthochromatic film look (think 1920's B&W).
3. The Feel - Since neither kinds of x-ray film are sensitive to red light, you can load, unload, and even process this film under a red safelight! It almost feels like cheating, coming from spending hours in complete darkness shuffling around film in trays.

The best resource for X-Ray film! (click image

So why isn't every photographer out there shooting this super-cheap "wonder film"? Well, that's because it has it's own set of equally unique flaws that make it more of a specialty film more than an all-purpose film like today's emulsions. For starters it's a little finicky to process, having light sensitive emulsion on not one, but both sides! This means that if you're used to developing sheet film in trays in stacks of 4-10 sheets, forget about it. Processing x-ray film like that would give you more scratches on the film than if you let your cat try and process your regular film by hand.

To add another layer of complexity to this persnickety film, you have keep in mind the color of objects in the picture before photographing it.

My first image shot on X-Ray film

Let's say you're shooting a still life of a green apple and a red apple with green sensitive film. To a standard B&W emulsion, the apples would both appear as middle grey tones, the green apple being just a hair lighter than the red. On green sensitive x-ray film, however, the green apple would be a very light grey tone, with the red apple going a very intense dark grey, almost black. Red, being the compliment of green, will barely be recorded by green sensitive film while green light itself will be recorded even lighter than if using a modern/panchromatic film. The best way I've found to counter this color-visualization problem is to quickly "flick" a green colored filter in front of one eye to see how the light is captured. Why do you have to "flick" the filter? Human eyes are crazy adaptive to changing light situations, and it's very easy to fool our eyes into seeing tones that won't really be as light/dark as we perceive them after adapting to a colored filter.

Shot @ ASA 100 w/ Yellow filtOnce the two issues above have been worked out, there's still the issue of film speed and development to handle! Since there's no real base-line ASA listed for x-ray films, it's anybodies guess as to how to shoot them, let alone process them. The popular opinion of the moment favors two very distinct shooting styles with this film. One camp shoots the film for traditional silver printing and scanning by shooting the film at a low ASA of 50-64, then stripping one of the sides of emulsion, ala Fuji FP-100c negative reclaiming. The other camp shoots the film at a slightly higher ASA 100-200, and keeps both sides of the emulsion intact, to keep that larger negative density for alternative photographic processes such as carbon, platinum/palladium, albumen, and more. My first image (above), was shot at ASA 50, and came out way, WAY too dense to do much of anything with on silver gelatin papers. Considering just how overly dense it was, carbon printing and more contrast-needy alternative processes may be the only way to print those kinds of negatives. Personally, I've found shooting somewhere between ASA 100-200 gives me acceptable prints with silver, and ample density for carbon printing. And with the addition of a yellow filter (see image right), even more contrast can be controlled, and a little darkening of the sky can be obtaining with this naturally contrasty x-ray film. That's all the work done in-camera, now to bring it all together in the darkroom.

The final step in taming x-ray film involves very careful handling and processing. Two sides to the emulsion means 100% more chances for scratches on the film, both when dry loading the film, and when wet processing. It helps being able to do all of this under a red safelight, but still exercise caution with this film. I always wear gloves loading, unloading, and processing, to make sure I don't cover the film with fingerprints that'll show up in the final print. Next comes the issues of scratch-free development. There are three main approaches to doing this: processing one sheet at a time in flat bottomed trays, processing one sheet at a time in ziplock bags, and processing with stainless steel film hangers. At the moment, until I've got the rest of my 8x10 hanger kit assembled, I'm stuck tray processing one sheet at a time. In order to save chemistry, I've been using 1L of Pyrocat HD, 2:2:100 for a run of four sheets. Highly dilute, compensating developers are recommended for x-ray film, as it is very contrasty in nature, but I've seen acceptable results obtained from D-76, to Rodinal, all the way to standard x-ray developer. The other bonus to using a staining and tanning developer such as Pyrocat HD, is that it hardens the emulsion throughout processing, reducing the chances for scratching during stop, fixer, and washing.

That's about all I have to offer on x-ray film at the moment. If you haven't tried some of this very unique, affordable film, trying 100 sheets of it in 8x10 costs less than a tank of gasoline, and gives you a lot of room for experimentation. If you'd like to know more about shooting with x-ray film, or would like to see some more examples, please visit the two links below: (also consider registering with the Large Format Photography Forum)

X-Ray Film Examples and Comparisons

Images Shot on X-Ray Film

Thanks for stopping by, and long live film!

The 52 Project, Week 19: "What is This? I Don’t Even..."

Today’s blog post is going to start with a short story.

Over a century ago, in a world far less digital than our own, this new documentary phenomenon known as photography was moving at an uncontrollable pace. Art critics were calling for all artists to drop their brushes and pencils, for what they could conjure up in hours/days/weeks/years could be reproduced in a fraction of the time. In another part of the country, middle class and lower income families were taking advantage of the convenience of photography to create a relatively inexpensive family portrait. Heck, people were even taking photos of non-studio subjects just for their aesthetic appeal. Madness, I know.

Now that you can visualize such an exciting time, take a look at the image below. This 1905 Century No.2 view camera embodies the industrious spirit of its era. That’s right, I said view camera. This thing is nothing more than wood/metal, glass, leather, and ingenuity!

Kodak Century No. 2, courtesy of Pierce Vaubel.

If you’d like to learn more about view cameras, here are some great sites to check out:

LargeFormatPhotography.info - if they don't have it, nobody else does either.

ViewCamera.com - the Journal of Large Format Photography

KenRockwell.com - great place to see 4x5 and large format landscapes

Photo.net - choosing a large format camera

Still scratching your head on how this thing works? Here's an entertaining look at the whole process:

Reasons that I’m using a view camera:

1. Resolution - at bare bones scanning levels, I’m getting 80Mp files. Cranking up the DPI can yield upwards of 3 Gigapixels!
2. Dynamic Range - ever wonder how images managed to look stunning prior to the Photoshop CS line? Look no further than sheet film.
3. Speed - or lack there-of. This beast with tripod and film holders clocks in just above 50lbs. Setting up and focusing at my fastest is somewhere around 10 minutes. And at about $5/sheet of film, I’m not going to be shooting more than a handful in a given day/week.
4. Complete Control - Perfect control of perspective, Zone System metering, custom image processing, and of course with said control, several hundred ways to equally screw up an image. x__x
5. Young Chicks Dig Retro - If by young and chicks you mean old and balding men, of course. Either way, it’s fun to have a small crowd gather round every now and then.

Now for the anti-climactic finish to all this awesome 8x10 buildup.

The sharpness Duke, the sharpness!Scan 1: Out on the reservoir

Perspective? Check. Sharpness? Check. Handful of mistakes? Double check. By no means is this a good or usable shot. This is, however, an exercise in the power, depth, and range of the 8x10 format. And as I’d later find out, part of a continuing series of photos teaching me how to properly load a film holder and tray agitate my negatives. >__<

Something Good: Light actually managed to hit the film in a manner that produced something resembling an image. This means I haven’t wasted $5.

Something Bad: Knowing from this image that there’s little turning back to traditional photographic formats.

Something Learned: I’ve just started a greater learning process that I might not complete in a satisfactory manner in my lifetime. 0_____0

Next Week: A more detailed explanation of how things are going to be run around here, in lieu of this new piece of photographic equipment. 

Where the Hell Have I Been? The 52 Project, and More.

Right, so, the past month hasn't exactly been the kindest to me, stress-wise, but now I feel a little more on-track, focused, and ready to get back out doing what I do best. What happened? Employers, wishy-washy clients, and an overload of "pro bono" work finally got the best of me when it came to working up some blog posts. And though they may not have the same tech-junkie tone to them, I assure you they're still coming from the same overly-opinionated guy. ^_^

So what's new? No I'm not talking about photography news, there's plenty of other outlets for that; this post is going to be fairly egocentric, so let's get to it. New in my life this past month: more individual freedoms as to Mat Marrash Photography, the purchase of a film camera, and the considerable slowing-down of my photographic processes. Yes, that's right, a film camera; and not just any film camera, the medium format legend, the Hasselblad 500C.

My "New" Hasselblad 500C, Fantastic Camera, Stunning Imagery!For starters, yes, this camera is old. It is, in fact, six years older than my mother (and probably better condition since it hasn't had two kids :p ). Why would any rational, tech-minded person do such a thing? Simple reasoning, there's nothing I can find for less than $10k in the digital world that comes close to the feeling I get when I see the big, beautiful 2 1/4" negatives that come out of this camera. So what does this new addition to my photo lineup mean to you, the readers? It means two things, firstly that yes, I will be talking about how much film is aiding my lifelong study of photography, and secondly, that the photos you see from now on will be a mix of film and digital, with a stronger emphasis on quality over quantity. This baby only gets 12 shots per roll of 120 film, and with two film backs, I've got 24 shots to get something good before a 2-3 minute down period of speed reloading. Quite a drastic change from the 1D Mark II which doesn't even fill it's buffer until 26 frames have gone through, a 3.25 second process.

A random but adorable Pembroke Welsh Corgi at Findlay's Riverside ParkNow onto the processing aspects of film, or total lack-there-of. The image you see to your right has had NO processing, only cropped from how it was scanned; hell, there's even some scratches and dust because I was too excited to get these things online! Why should I care that there's no processing involved? The past two years of my photographic life have been spent worrying about a suitable editing workflow. JPEGs and RAWs out of camera just have no chance of looking like this! Even with the help of some store-bought presets, there's a good chance this look can't be achieved without considerable effort, time, and extra money. And as of lately, these are things I'm finding I have less and less of. It's relieving and equally terrifying that all I have to do is finish a roll, mark it, and send it off to the lab, (now if I can find a lab that doesn't terrify me with the consistency of their results).

So film is slower, not instantaneous, and every single aspect of the camera is manual, what is there to like about film? Exactly that, slowing down is the key. I thought it would take longer to happen, but I'm sick of going to a sporting event with reasonable expectations of coming back with several hundred images, only to cull down to the first hundred. It feels cold, sloppy, and frankly, unprofessional. I've always liked to be more deliberate with my images, and 12 shots to get a keeper or two sounded right up my alley. Little did I know my keeper rate would be much higher than the 10-20% I've been used to with digital. Here's some examples from my first two rolls of film through the Hasselblad 500C. 11/24 isn't bad, especially considering that the first roll was improperly wound, resulting in another 3 keepers that just wouldn't scan properly due to inadequate negative spacing >__<.

What good can come from slowing down, spending less time on digital, and more time on film? To be honest, I'm not entirely sure, but I hope that with a good year of consistently trying it, something cool is bound to happen. Enter "The 52 Project"

Over the next 52 weeks, I plan on:

1. Shooting at least 1 roll of 120 film per week.
2. Processing the film at a lab for the first 10 weeks, then by hand.
3. Scanning and uploading at least 3 images from each roll to Flickr.
4. Updating the Blog on my progress of The 52 Project.

It's a hefty order, but I'm up to the challenge and will start with the postings next week! Technically, I've already got enough finished rolls to cover me for the next 2 weeks, but I'll be fair and try to have genuinely new stuff for each week. Personally, I like the idea of a 365 challenge, but with the nature of film, processing, scanning, etc., it seems a little more reasonable to have results for once a week rather than every day.

For those wondering if I'll still have other content besides The 52 Project, of course I will! It may not be as frequent, but there's already some blog posts on the back burner and I plan on having a lot of nicely spaced content throughout the next month or so. So stay tuned, things are going to get VERY interesting!