Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

(Posted previously) I have just finished running (now drying) eight rolls of Eastman XX, which I processed in an old eight-reel Nikor tank. I used the soup I tried just previously, which seems to work quite well:

1900 ml water at 20C
32 ml HC-110 straight syrup
20 ml straight Rodinal
water at 20C to make 2000ml

Processing time was 11.5 minutes at 20C, with 20 sec initial agitation, then 5 inversions per minute thereafter. Negs look very smooth, great middletone and highlight detail, and with sufficent exposure, plenty of shadow detail. One extra stop seems to look better to me than exposing it per meter readings (eg: 1/250 at f/11 looks better to me than 1/250 at f/16 in full sun). I habitually shoot two frames, most often I prefer the one with the extra exposure. These rolls are all shot with my Canon RF's, and Minolta SRT's. Everything appears really excellent looking very quickly.

Still have 20+ rolls to process, need to get crackin' on that. Helpful that my basement is now at 20C ambient.

__________________
 
Nokton48 said:
(Posted previously) I have just finished running (now drying) eight rolls of Eastman XX, which I processed in an old eight-reel Nikor tank. I used the soup I tried just previously, which seems to work quite well:

1900 ml water at 20C
32 ml HC-110 straight syrup
20 ml straight Rodinal
water at 20C to make 2000ml

Processing time was 11.5 minutes at 20C, with 20 sec initial agitation, then 5 inversions per minute thereafter. Negs look very smooth, great middletone and highlight detail, and with sufficent exposure, plenty of shadow detail. One extra stop seems to look better to me than exposing it per meter readings (eg: 1/250 at f/11 looks better to me than 1/250 at f/16 in full sun). I habitually shoot two frames, most often I prefer the one with the extra exposure. These rolls are all shot with my Canon RF's, and Minolta SRT's. Everything appears really excellent looking very quickly.

Still have 20+ rolls to process, need to get crackin' on that. Helpful that my basement is now at 20C ambient.

__________________
Click to expand...

Thanks. Good info. I'll try it! Base EI was 250?
 
shot this at Talad Rot Fai (Train Market), a night market in Bangkok.

M6. CV 21mm. EK5222@1600. ilford DDX 14 mins @20C

7603681310_bef8771c91_z.jpg
 
I have been shooting Double-X at 250 (Rodinal 1+50 for 7 minutes) or 650 (Diafine). After reading that some of you have treated this film like Tri-X, I decided to shoot a roll at 400 and develop it for 11 minutes in HC-110 dilution H, which is what I do with Tri-X. The negatives were about one stop more dense than what I am accustomed to but they printed quite easily. Here are two samples:

attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Great River dock- small - 5222.jpg
    Great River dock- small - 5222.jpg
    30.2 KB · Views: 1
  • Kiki's - small -5222.jpg
    Kiki's - small -5222.jpg
    34.6 KB · Views: 1
Trius said:
Rich: Have you tried stand or agitation only every 3 minutes? Especially with 1:50 (or 1:25) agitation can really add to grain and contrast.

Damned sharp, though!
Click to expand...

The grain I see here is not bothering me but I will try your suggestions on the next couple of rolls thanks.
 
Movie films are often said to be a poor medium for photography because of their thin coating (they a prone to scratch), gelatin specks, and other surface blemishes.

Since many of you are heavy users of Kodak Double-XX, I have a very simple question to ask you: Is it true ?
Did you really experienced such problems ? how often ? Did you get some some photographs ruined juste because of an unexpected blemish of the film ?

Thank you in advance for sharing.
 
I did have coating defects on a few frames (out of ca. 250 ft), but it's not as bad as other movie stocks.

I had emulsion defects on Arista 400 Premium stock too though, but since everyone says it's the best thing since sliced bread it must be me 😛
 
I have shot a lot of XX and rarely have I had a problem. The occasional "gelatin" speck - but not often. The later version of the XX with the slippery base is better. No signs of any surface defects.
It is a film that is a bit sensitive to handling when wet - easy to scratch or even chip - but with some experience you will get the hang of it.
Still my favorite medium speed emulsion - usually rated @ 320 or thereabouts.
 
I live in GTA and got my XX from Kodak.



Kodak Canada Inc.
6 Monogram Place
Toronto, Ontario.
M9R 0A1

1-800-621-film
416-761-4646
 
Tom A said:
I have shot a lot of XX and rarely have I had a problem. The occasional "gelatin" speck - but not often. The later version of the XX with the slippery base is better. No signs of any surface defects.
It is a film that is a bit sensitive to handling when wet - easy to scratch or even chip - but with some experience you will get the hang of it.
Still my favorite medium speed emulsion - usually rated @ 320 or thereabouts.
Click to expand...

Thanks to all for your answers !
 
Having recently been using XX with some of the more exotic formulations (Dr. Blood, Beutler/Leica, HC-110w/Rodinal), I am now ready to return to my standard XX Developer, which is ADOX Borax MQ. Preparing a fresh two-litre mix of Adox, and some fresh Adox Replenisher.

Still have a backlog of sixteen-seventeen rolls of XX and Neopan 400, so this is what I will go with. My favorite XX developer, and a standard one. Also good for sheet film and roll films of most kinds, that make it into the "in" box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom