jb17kx
Established
Alas that was on eBay, and that seller's not had any more since. I might have to probe a few contacts I have in the police to see if they can get some direct from Kodak A&I.
Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica
- Thread starter Nokton48
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 540K
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I have been experimenting with Rodinal 1:100 stand developing - or rather semi-stand developing in this case. 25 minutes with a "flip" of the tank at 5 min and 15 min. Grain is distinct, but not intrusive. Contrast is OK (no tweak in LR - straight scan).
M2 and 50f2 Planar - probably 1/250s and f4. That is a damned good lens too. XX rated at 320 iso.
Last edited:
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Many thanks for this, I suppose a clip test is going to come back to age the film before shooting "properly". Although no one has posted any comments about ageing effects it is still good to know.
What is the expiry date related to the age ie the shelf life given by Kodak?
ChrisN
Striving
I have been experimenting with Rodinal 1:100 stand developing - or rather semi-stand developing in this case. 25 minutes with a "flip" of the tank at 5 min and 15 min. Grain is distinct, but not intrusive. Contrast is OK (no tweak in LR - straight scan).
M2 and 50f2 Planar - probably 1/250s and f4. That is a damned good lens too.
Tom - do you see any advantage in this technique as a means to control over-development of the highlights?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
ORWO UN 54 @ 100 iso in Rodinal semi stand development 1:100 for 25 min and a twist/flip at 5 and 15 min. Works well in this combination. The shop window is quite dark (1/15s @ 2.5).
Nikon S3 and old, heavy chrome Nikkor 35f2.5.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Chris, it responds well to a slight over-exposure and the highlights stay printable. With "normal" 400 iso film in grey, overcast weather it can be a bit flat though.
Kind of boring to use as you have to hang around the darkroom for a considerable time, waiting for the 5 min and 15 min intervals.
My next trial is going to be with Pyrocat HD. Have to mix it up today and finish off another 2-3 rolls of XX and ORWO 74 for that.
Kind of boring to use as you have to hang around the darkroom for a considerable time, waiting for the 5 min and 15 min intervals.
My next trial is going to be with Pyrocat HD. Have to mix it up today and finish off another 2-3 rolls of XX and ORWO 74 for that.
jb17kx
Established
Oh yes, naturally a clip-test is necessary to give the best idea of the actual age effects on the film, but once you have the clip-test - and if it's a long enough clip - then you can use the date cipher as an addition piece of information (like "wow, how badly was it stored to go this bad in three years?!")
As to converting it to an actual expiry date, I tend to just use a blanket three or four years. It's hard to say though - some films are known to have shorter shelf lives and so accordingly expire "early", others last a long time, and still others might just be frozen for a long time after manufacture (as I recall was the story with the last batch of Tech Pan - it was made and then frozen as a bulk roll for some years before being cut down, and the expiry is then calculated from that initial un-freezing).
elmoG
Established
I have been experimenting with Rodinal 1:100 stand developing - or rather semi-stand developing in this case. 25 minutes with a "flip" of the tank at 5 min and 15 min. Grain is distinct, but not intrusive. Contrast is OK (no tweak in LR - straight scan).
M2 and 50f2 Planar - probably 1/250s and f4. That is a damned good lens too. XX rated at 320 iso.
It is very nice, Tom.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
First try with ORWO 74 in Pyrocat HD semi stand (agitation @ 4/8/12 min) total time 15 min.
Looks a bit less contrasty than XX in the same soup. Partly due to the use of a metered camera (M6 TTL) as I allowed the camera to set the exposure without my interference.
The Pyrocat is one of my favorite soups. High acutance, reasonable grain and quite economical to use - 500 ml of A and B will process 160+ rolls.
It can also take a lot of over development without screwing up contrast too much. I did 5 rolls in this batch. my last one of the ORWO 74 and 4 more of XX.
Still have 2 rolls of the ORWO UN 54 left - will try that in the Pyrocat HD - once the sun is out.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Out with one of my last few rolls today. I did just get some Neumade rewinds, so I may actually finally almost be in business with a 400' roll.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
In Vancouver?
jb17kx
Established
But it's not Kodak XX, it's Kodak (or more properly Eastman) DXN.
It says it right on the label - EASTMAN DOUBLE-X Negative Film 5222 DXN, just as it can say EASTMAN PLUS-X Negative Film 5231 PXN, or KODAK PLUS-X Reversal Film 7265 PXR, and so on and so forth.
elmoG
Established
Thx Phil & jb17kx.
XX Hc110 + Rodinal
.
XX Hc110 + Rodinal
.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Like I said, no one ever said Super XX.
Do these semantics really matter that much?
I'll answer that. No.
Phil Forrest
jb17kx
Established
Well, XX was the letter code for Super-XX, along with SXX depending on what reference you consult and when you make said consultation.
I couldn't care less what name or code you use in your own filing, but when you're posting is it that hard to use the proper name and code that Kodak have established?
Many people use those codes to search for threads or images. Imagine how the usefulness of that activity would vanish if people decided that they wanted to refer to Tri-X as XXX or T-MAX 400 as TM-4 or Provia 400X as P4X, and so on.
The film's name is Double-X, and people don't seem to have any trouble using that, or its number code "5222". What's wrong, then, with the proper letter code of "DXN"?
I couldn't care less what name or code you use in your own filing, but when you're posting is it that hard to use the proper name and code that Kodak have established?
Many people use those codes to search for threads or images. Imagine how the usefulness of that activity would vanish if people decided that they wanted to refer to Tri-X as XXX or T-MAX 400 as TM-4 or Provia 400X as P4X, and so on.
The film's name is Double-X, and people don't seem to have any trouble using that, or its number code "5222". What's wrong, then, with the proper letter code of "DXN"?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I have simplified it - I tag my Flickr posts as "EK 5222" or "Kodak Double X" and so does most of the members in the Double X group. It is just a matter of convinience when you are looking for samples shot with the emulsion.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Still trying to get the ORWO UN 54 (@ 100 iso) to behave like the EK 5231. The Pyrocat HD does give a nice subtle tonality and it is getting pretty close to the 5231. Grain is very fine and it does have a good latitude - almost a Verichrome Pan look to it.
ORWO UN 54 in Pyrocat HD semi stand development 13 min (agitation for 5-7 seconds every 3 minutes). Nikon S3 and Nikkor 35f1.8 SP 2005 version - this a modern multicoated version of the classic Nikkor 35f1.8.
elmoG
Established
This was my first frame of XX two years ago.
.
.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I have been going back to my all time favorite developer - Sandy King version of Pyrocat HD. It does give a very nice tonality to XX. I usually do it as a semi-stand developer, but occasionally I do it as a "standard". In this case 13 minutes, with 30 sec. initially and two inversions every 60 sec. Very economical as 500 ml of A and B is enough to do 150-160 rolls, though you have to shoot a lot. It tends to slow down after 2-3 month.
Zeiss ZM and Canon 50f1.4 Ltm. Film rated at 320 iso