Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
- - - - -

x-ray films vs direct imaging

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
17 replies to this topic

#16 shane



  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 07 June 2010 - 10:13 PM

The benefit of the digital pictures is that they are effortlessly moved and you can convey out some quantitative investigation on them more effortlessly too. I acquiesce the sensitivity of the movies can occasionally be better, but its not been an topic for me. I'm attractive altered to the Digital imaging now.

#17 alinud



  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 21 January 2011 - 02:09 AM

I never develop X-ray film. Could you give me a protocol or same advice?

#18 Inmost sun

Inmost sun


  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 19 February 2011 - 06:57 AM

Modern camera-based systems are to prefer since developing immunoblots have a longer linear range of detection; besides, classical films need a threshold level of light for darkening; a third advantage is that normally camera-based systems are offered with a professional gel documentation and analysis software

Hi guys,
I've been asked to source all the equipment and reagents needed to set up western blot in the lab, starting from scratch (all we have is a Nupage electrophoresis tank). I know my preferences for transfer system, membranes, reagents.... but I'm having doubts on the developing method. In the past I've always used ECL and x-ray films, but I know more and more labs these days favour other chemiluminescent reagents and imaging as you get a better control on exposure and a better dynamic range.

So here's my question.

What method do you use to develop a western? :lol:

Please share your opinions

Thanks! :lol:

Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.