Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

Does anyone know why this was only made in 35mm? It seems to me this would be the perfect film to be produced as sheet film, the grain becomes less important and yet the beautiful textures of grey would be amazing on 4x5 and 8x10.

I mean even if it were made in 70mm would be better to kill the grain, and that's movie stock size.

Really want this in 4x5 🙂

~Stone | Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
 
9397480172_d48f21729a_c.jpg


Like most "old style" emulsions, the XX is developer sensitive (and exposure sensitive - over expose and the grain gets rough). I have tried most developer combinations with the XX and the MQ type seems to give the best balance between grain and exposure latitude.
This shot is with D23 two bath developer. A bath is stock D23 for 4 minutes constant agitation and B is Borax (20 grams per 1000 ml water) as stand - no agitation at all. Grain is there, but it is no worse than most 400 iso black/whites and the slightly softer definition of the D23 works (it is just metal and a lot of Sodium Sulphite - which does "mush" up the grain a bit).
M2 and Zeiss Distagon 18mm f4.0.
 
"Casino Royale" was my favorite Bond movie (I have the entire 007 collection). Now my favorite is "Skyfall". I had never seen the deleted scenes from the Youtube video, so Thanks for that.

According to the Cinematographer, XX was used in opening scene of "Casino Royale" as an homage to the Cold War Spy Movies of the early 1960's. http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/December2006/CasinoRoyale/image450.php


dave lackey said:
So, the intro to Casino Royale was shot on XX film...with the results in that intro this film is magnificent!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNvzNWuzI9Y
Click to expand...
 
Tom hicks said:
here is some DBL-x stuff I shot I shot about two years ago .

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109314
Click to expand...

Hey There Tom,

As I said back then, very nice combo! In fact, I ran with it for my own uses. I use straight Microdol-X for XX and really like the tonality I'm getting. Probably helps a bit with the inherent graininess, as well, I would guess. Might lose a tiny bit of emulsion speed too, but I tend to give the film a lot of exposure, bracketing extra frames with added exposure, to be -absolutely- sure I get something usuable. Sunny 16 is fine, it's overcast and tricky interior lighting that I find most benefit from my bracketing. Exposure variation can have a lot of different scenarios that can compound under actual shooting conditions. I prefer to know that I have nailed every single shot.
 
StoneNYC said:
Does anyone know why this was only made in 35mm? It seems to me this would be the perfect film to be produced as sheet film, the grain becomes less important and yet the beautiful textures of grey would be amazing on 4x5 and 8x10.

I mean even if it were made in 70mm would be better to kill the grain, and that's movie stock size.

Really want this in 4x5 🙂

~Stone | Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
Click to expand...
It is a motion picture film not really intended for regular photography. For that Kodak is making PX (gone) and TX. But I would agree, if Kodak is to make one only emulsion (in every format) I would like it to be DXN. Despite notion that it is a formulation from 50-ties (so is TX) film appears extremely modern, very flexible, made on top quality base with antyhalation layer taken (it is only my guess) from Tmax film. It could be grainy but with proper processing grain and sharpness can match Tmax 100.
 
timor said:
It is a motion picture film not really intended for regular photography. For that Kodak is making PX (gone) and TX. But I would agree, if Kodak is to make one only emulsion (in every format) I would like it to be DXN. Despite notion that it is a formulation from 50-ties (so is TX) film appears extremely modern, very flexible, made on top quality base with antyhalation layer taken (it is only my guess) from Tmax film. It could be grainy but with proper processing grain and sharpness can match Tmax 100.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand the whole "intended for motion picture stock" why is it supposedly better as an MP film? Says who? Lol

It would be absolutely BEAUTIFUL in 4x5...

~Stone | Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
 
StoneNYC said:
I don't really understand the whole "intended for motion picture stock" why is it supposedly better as an MP film? Says who? Lol

It would be absolutely BEAUTIFUL in 4x5...

~Stone | Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
Click to expand...

It comes in a thousand foot roll, which is what you load into a Panavison 35mm motion picture camera. I don't believe they ever refined the emulsion formulation (much) ever but later on they incorporated an anti-static film on it to facilitate smoothly running through precision Hollywood movie cameras at very high speeds.

Union rules out there (I believe) are that magazines not used are emptied out if not used up. with Millions at stake I guess I can understand that rationale. So a lot of this stuff has ended up on the set floor, or scarfed-up by Grips and Gaffers that have 35mm still cameras (and Barnacks) 😀
 
Nokton48 said:
It comes in a thousand foot roll, which is what you load into a Panavison 35mm motion picture camera. I don't believe they ever refined the emulsion formulation (much) ever but later on they incorporated an anti-static film on it to facilitate smoothly running through precision Hollywood movie cameras at very high speeds.

Union rules out there (I believe) are that magazines not used are emptied out if not used up. with Millions at stake I guess I can understand that rationale. So a lot of this stuff has ended up on the set floor, or scarfed-up by Grips and Gaffers that have 35mm still cameras (and Barnacks) 😀
Click to expand...

Haha or me (I've got some "cutting room floor" Vision3 500T in my camera right now) I work on set so I know about the throwing it away thing.

What I meant was, who says one LOOK is only for movie film. Why can't they cut 4x5 sheets of Kodak XX? That's what I mean, I mean, it would have to be formulated for a heavier base, but it looks so beautiful, why wouldn't Kodak ever produce it as a still film, it seems counter intuitive to NOT produce a famed film with a better look than other films.

~Stone | Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
 
StoneNYC said:
Haha or me (I've got some "cutting room floor" Vision3 500T in my camera right now) I work on set so I know about the throwing it away thing.

What I meant was, who says one LOOK is only for movie film. Why can't they cut 4x5 sheets of Kodak XX? That's what I mean, I mean, it would have to be formulated for a heavier base, but it looks so beautiful, why wouldn't Kodak ever produce it as a still film, it seems counter intuitive to NOT produce a famed film with a better look than other films.

~Stone | Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
Click to expand...

If Kodak introduced it in 4x5 or 70mm type II perfed I would order a few cases of each.
 
sepiareverb said:
Depends who one asks.

From the MSDS quoted above:



The EU seems to find it somewhat more problematic, but comparing to the ingredients in D76 via an MSDS from Kodak via Freestyle at least one component of D76 doesn't seem significantly different. Again, my opinion. Granted there are more ingredients in D76, so those ingredients are less concentrated than straight pyro. Read the MSDS sheets for the chemicals you use, know how to handle what you use properly, and determine what risk you find acceptable.
Click to expand...

Just saw this. Pyro is nasty stuff and I would be very careful around it. Heres the MSDS from Sigma

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/p0381?lang=en&region=US

you be the judge
 
StoneNYC said:
I don't really understand the whole "intended for motion picture stock" why is it supposedly better as an MP film? Says who? Lol

It would be absolutely BEAUTIFUL in 4x5...
Click to expand...
DXN has lower contrast than typical still camera films as it is intended to be contact copy with some increase in contrast. All this is a system (exposure, development, copying ) and doesn't make sens to us. For us DXN has as many looks as we want, very, very flexible emulsion. If you want it in 4x5 you have to change Kodak's CEO and get one with imagination.
 
clayne said:
There are so many other films besides XX I'd rather see in 4x5 or sheet. It's a cool film but it's rather pedestrian.
Click to expand...

Verichrome was "Pedestrian" and still an amazing film. XX does have low contrast, something most other films don't have, and the look gives a "glow" about it unlike others. XX is about as pedestrian as Acros100 is...
 
I have just run some 5222 through TD-201, my first run of the combination.
3min A&B with continuous agitation. Rated at sunny sixteen 250/320 iso from the negatives looks like 400 would be better. I will run some test brackets to determine.
Very happy, with the grain in particular.
More on my Flickr as below and as I found TD-201 had no group I started one, any film in that developer.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/2288124@N23/


9519766105_f233b96494_c.jpg


A door in Lytham UK. The path is made from pebbles off the shore, commonly done in the town, larger ones in walls as well.

Leica M2 Summicron 28mm Asph.
 
ChrisLivsey said:
I have just run some 5222 through TD-201, my first run of the combination.
3min A&B with continuous agitation. Rated at sunny sixteen 250/320 iso from the negatives looks like 400 would be better. I will run some test brackets to determine.
Very happy, with the grain in particular.
More on my Flickr as below and as I found TD-201 had no group I started one, any film in that developer.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/2288124@N23/

A door in Lytham UK. The path is made from pebbles off the shore, commonly done in the town, larger ones in walls as well.

Leica M2 Summicron 28mm Asph.
Click to expand...

This looks wonderful, the pebbles and reflections in the windows are a dream
 
Double-X and colored filtration

Double-X and colored filtration

This is an experiment about EK 5222 and colored filters. The lense is an Heliar 3.5/50mm (Leica mount) and the filters are Zeiss coated made for Contaflex around 1955-1960 (I'm not aware of other choice for the 27mm screw).

The light on grass was quite harsh (it was 2 p.m.). All the shots were scanned in one file. From left to right, you can see:

1 no filter
2 medium yellow (+1 EV)
3 light green (+1 EV)
4 orange (+1 2/3 EV)
5 red (+2 1/3 EV)
showphoto.php

U46643I1377439472.SEQ.0.jpg


The results are not spectacular: there are some differences but they are subtles. Shadow details remain good except with red. Curiously enough, the foliage seems to be more differenciated with the yellow filter than with the green one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom