Shooting Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

AnalogKyle said:
The lens is big, very big. For some reason, I thought it was going to be similar in size to my Voigtlander 40mm F1.2, it is not. Yeah, I could have actually read measurements, looked at images of it on a camera on the internet but, I did none of those things, really.

In use, it is perfectly fine, manageable, a bit weighty but overall fine. I'm trying to get out and use it more because its a wonderful lens when I actually develop/scan images from it. It is just so large that unless I am physically carrying it, as when it is on a strap it tilts forward. Would I buy the lens again? Probably not. I would likely get the ultron, as it, most likely, is a bit smaller.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for your help.
 
Nine months on Double-X using D23 and D96.
Some examples:

Double-X in D23:
Chain, in full early fall sun
Corrugated Metal Wall, in full afternoon sun
Double-X in D96:
Dog, indoor later afternoon reflected light 1/30,
Leaf and Cat in late afternoon winter cloudy day light.
Arm, late afternoon Fall
Leaves, late afternoon sun fall
Fence, late afternoon sun winter
 

Attachments

  • 2023-13-11c.jpg
    2023-13-11c.jpg
    357.1 KB · Views: 51
  • 2023-14-22.jpg
    2023-14-22.jpg
    307.4 KB · Views: 53
  • 2023-37-18.jpg
    2023-37-18.jpg
    291.4 KB · Views: 53
  • 2023-38-05C.jpg
    2023-38-05C.jpg
    332 KB · Views: 51
  • 2023-41-25C.jpg
    2023-41-25C.jpg
    312.9 KB · Views: 58
  • 2023-43-31.jpg
    2023-43-31.jpg
    297.3 KB · Views: 56
  • 2023-44-16C.jpg
    2023-44-16C.jpg
    376.9 KB · Views: 54
  • 2023-44-21C.jpg
    2023-44-21C.jpg
    344.7 KB · Views: 50
Last edited:
I get very good results with Rodinal. It is cheap, stores forever and prodces really superior images. I normally dilute it 25:1 for ISO 250.
 
Saganich said:
Nine months on Double-X using D23 and D96.
Some examples:

Double-X in D23:
Chain, in full early fall sun
Corrugated Metal Wall, in full afternoon sun
Double-X in D96:
Dog, indoor later afternoon reflected light 1/30,
Leaf and Cat in late afternoon winter cloudy day light.
Arm, late afternoon Fall
Leaves, late afternoon sun fall
Fence, late afternoon sun winter
Click to expand...
The tonality of the 'Arm, late afternoon Fall' is really appealing. What are your thoughts after comparing the two developers? I can't see a lot to choose between them based on this selection of (very nice) images, but maybe you can? D-96 is a more complex formula - is it worth the extra effort, would you say?
 
I'm shooting today with my Makina II with 100mm F2.9 (soft) standard lens, great for lower light. At EI 200 reading with Minolta Autometer, I'm at 1/50th at F11. Took a second one 1/50 at F8, I generally like a bit of overexposure. Extra density is easy to burn through in the darkroom, or now I'm starting to digitize negatives.

XX in a larger camera (medium format strut 1930's II), is like a similar buzz to shooting with a Leica Barnack, but in the superior larger format. Olde Plaubel Makinas have Leica quality IMO. Some hate the 100mm F2.9 but I think it has charm as you use it on. For sharp stuff I favor the 1958 Makina IIIR with the 100mm F4.2 Orthometar, their sharp lens for commercial photography and general usage. Great for traveling. Razor sharp results with that one.

They do look like stills from a movie but with better quality.

The Reporters Camera IIIR F4.2 283 Tripod Attachment by Nokton48, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Nokton48 said:
Extra density is easy to burn through in the darkroom, or now I'm starting to digitize negatives.
Click to expand...
Many readers of this forum are in the early stages of exploring analogue photography. It is rather misleading to plant this notion in their minds. Over-exposure is better than under-exposure, but it’s not a harmless ‘one more for luck’ kind of precaution, it can lead to much frustration in both darkroom printing and scanning.
 
Jonathan R,

Since starting this thread all that time ago, I've gone through quite a few cans of XX. One stop overexposure seems to be well within the latitude range of the film IMO. Of course you're correct, overexposure can be as bad as underexposure, I've always been able to satisfactorily print about everything I've exposed. Consider that I am using very olde, ancient to some cameras. Also not using a meter generally, as they would do back in them days. In daylight I use sunny sixteen which is super consistent. When overcast comes in, it is difficult to properly guess the exposures. In some cases I will add another shot, if the subject is strong enough and is stationary. I simply prefer to have a choice when I evaluate the negatives, sometimes I do prefer the denser frames. It's just the way I've always worked. Film is expensive but not that expensive. Medium format XX is even more expensive, but still I bracket important frames if I feel the need.

One thing I have always loved about XX are the enhanced midtone values, which render particularly well IMO. Just the "overall look" of it.
 
Last edited:
Jonathan R said:
Many readers of this forum are in the early stages of exploring analogue photography. It is rather misleading to plant this notion in their minds. Over-exposure is better than under-exposure, but it’s not a harmless ‘one more for luck’ kind of precaution, it can lead to much frustration in both darkroom printing and scanning.
Click to expand...

Concur. The goal from the beginning is to learn how to control exposure and development to yield the best possible printable negatives.

(I wish I'd learned this earlier than sloppy through unthinkingly following manufacturer's data sheet.)
 
It's almost impossible to replicate another photographer's developing technique, too many variables to match. Do you time from starting to pour or at the end, what water quality have you, is your thermometer calibrated, how are you assessing the results (using a densitometer- is it calibrated?)

having said that Thornton Two bath is one I have never used, you have set me off now, I have the book on the shelf14678280485_b76f403703_c.jpg
 
Jonathan R said:
The tonality of the 'Arm, late afternoon Fall' is really appealing. What are your thoughts after comparing the two developers? I can't see a lot to choose between them based on this selection of (very nice) images, but maybe you can? D-96 is a more complex formula - is it worth the extra effort, would you say?
Click to expand...
It's a tough call. The ease of D23 keeps me using it, but D96 has nicer tonality I think. I'll have to review the last 6 months, which have been all D23 and XX, with this question in mind.
 
Saganich said:
It's a tough call. The ease of D23 keeps me using it, but D96 has nicer tonality I think. I'll have to review the last 6 months, which have been all D23 and XX, with this question in mind.
Click to expand...


I like D-23 in some applications for large format. For example, I use it 1+9 with 2g/l of sodium hydroxide added for semistand development for an hour. It yields very sharp negatives.

But, with smaller formats, D-23 in any formulation I have tried shows too much grain for my taste. So, for 120 and 35mm, I prefer to use Pyrocat-HD. The stain tends to mask grain nicely. Double X also responds very nicely to this developer.
 
I like Double-X, especially to improve the contrast at cloudy days. I have good results with fine grain and high sharpness in Adox XT3 (Xtol), 1+1, 10 minutes. Or 1+3, 16 minutes, for less contrasty negatives.

Harbour Duisburg, Germany.

1718229840666.jpeg

1718229876370.jpeg

Canon 7s, Canon 1.8/50, red filtre. Double-X (from Analog Amsterdam), Adox XT-3, 1+2, 14 min.
Flatbed scan from silver gelatine RC print.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom