Hi: the film may have been exposed to UV light simply because UV light is more intense than visible light. Even though we can not see UV light it is more instense than visible light. We get sun-burns from UV light.
Exposing to UV would give a much quicker exposure time. I have read that X-ray film has been used for pinhole photography. An earlier post suggested in a positive because of its processing method. Most standard film can be reversed processed ie a direct positive. A standard developer may work. X-ray film is supposed to be somewhat contrasty. I read that selectol an old soft print developer gave good results. Also read that X-ray film often had emulsion on both sides of the film. Some people made cameras with pinholes on the front and back of the camera and placed film in the middle. They would make a double exposure creating an image with views from opposite persepctives - sort of like Picasso perhaps. If its not too expensive give it a shot :) Gord On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Uptown Gallery wrote: > The Xray tech told me it was exposed to UV light in his machine, but > textbooks say all film is sensitive to UV (unless there is something made to > be insensitive to UV), so it may just be that that's the way they copy xray > negatives for efficiency. > > Murray > > > _______________________________________________ > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??????? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???????/discussion/ > --------------------------------------------------------- Gordon J. Holtslander Dept. of Biology hol...@duke.usask.ca 112 Science Place http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg University of Saskatchewan Tel (306) 966-4433 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Fax (306) 966-4461 Canada S7N 5E2 ---------------------------------------------------------
