Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

I really enjoy the look of Double X, how hard is it to get the 400ft rolls onto bulk loaders? I have never bulk loaded film before, so I definitely don't want to ruin a bunch of film. Thanks,

Jordan
 
jkjod said:
I really enjoy the look of Double X, how hard is it to get the 400ft rolls onto bulk loaders? I have never bulk loaded film before, so I definitely don't want to ruin a bunch of film. Thanks,

Jordan
Click to expand...

Not hard to do. You need a lightight room with a table, and a plastic core from some other roll of 100' bulk film. I have saved a bunch of these, myself.

Just tape it on the core and roll it up on top of the table. It is a tedious process in the dark, but not too hard to do. When you get the core to the right size for your bulk loader, simply cut it and bag up the rest of the 400' roll. Of course you can also do this inside a large changing bag, or a film tent, if you have one.

Then load the 100' roll into the bulk loader and you are good to go 😀
 
SCOTLAND VOTES (YES perhaps)

15215939465_91754b95e4_c.jpg


We saw lots of posters both for and against on our recent trip, this was the one I chose to share.
Pyrocat HD semi stand 1:1:100 15mins total Kodak 5222 @400 (It was 400iso because it was an IXMOO supposedly loaded with ORWO 74, only found the surprise after processing the rest were ORWO!!)
 
How much is this film nowadays? I see varying prices from cinestill, film photography project and filmemporium.

Is advisable to get it directly from Kodak?
 
bucs said:
How much is this film nowadays? I see varying prices from cinestill, film photography project and filmemporium.

Is advisable to get it directly from Kodak?
Click to expand...


OK.....

Just got off the phone with Kodak at 1-800-621 FILM.

400' of Eastman 5222 is in stock, and costs $234.43.
They are very friendly and take VISA, and ship amazingly fast.

Since you can get about (85)-36 exposure rolls from 400',
that makes your cost for the raw stock about $2.75/36 exp roll.

Personally I would not mess with short or long ends.
 
I always want to try double-x but fail to see the reason given the cost of it today - it is even more expensive than 400ft hp5 plus from B&H/Acorama/etc!


Nokton48 said:
OK.....

Just got off the phone with Kodak at 1-800-621 FILM.

400' of Eastman 5222 is in stock, and costs $234.43.
They are very friendly and take VISA, and ship amazingly fast.

Since you can get about (85)-36 exposure rolls from 400',
that makes your cost for the raw stock about $2.75/36 exp roll.

Personally I would not mess with short or long ends.
Click to expand...
 
newtorf said:
I always want to try double-x but fail to see the reason given the cost of it today - it is even more expensive than 400ft hp5 plus from B&H/Acorama/etc!
Click to expand...

I have to say, that is the part I don't understand either. I enjoy following this thread, but don't see anything that is an improvement over HP5 or TX. I like cheap film and have fun trying different things, so have been using a lot of Kentmere 100. I may try their 400 again sometime, but when I'm up to the current XX price per 100 ft I use the money to put some TX or HP5 in the freezer.

The hot dog stand picture above does have exceptional tones and if that was the only picture available I bet you could see a bunch of XX with it, but that is clearly the light and the photographer more than the film emulsion.

So what does XX offer for the $ ? I hope that doesn't sound negative ;-), but just wonder what makes it worth the effort.
 
Mark C said:
(...)
So what does XX offer for the $ ? I hope that doesn't sound negative ;-), but just wonder what makes it worth the effort.
Click to expand...

Really superb mid-tone gradation (better than HP5/Tri-X IMHO) and unbeatable flexibility. All over parameters (sharpness, grain, quality of fabrication) are at the same level than HP5 or TX.
 
newtorf said:
I always want to try double-x but fail to see the reason given the cost of it today - it is even more expensive than 400ft hp5 plus from B&H/Acorama/etc!
Click to expand...

The cost is not -that- much more per roll. I don't buy film strictly by price point. There are many other factors. B&H I see now charges $99.95 for 100' of Tri-X so XX is now way cheaper than that.

I prefer the XX over Tri-X for most uses. I prefer it's tonality and granularity.
 
I bought all my TX at even a lower price than HP5. So there is no reason for me to spend more on XX. 😉

And strangely, I find people favor my flickr photos with high contrast way more than those with more midtone. :bang:

Nokton48 said:
The cost is not -that- much more per roll. I don't buy film strictly by price point. There are many other factors. B&H I see now charges $99.95 for 100' of Tri-X so XX is now way cheaper than that.

I prefer the XX over Tri-X for most uses. I prefer it's tonality and granularity.
Click to expand...
 
Does anybody have curves for the film? I thought it was pretty similar to TX in gradation.

I've got a lot of interesting films in the freezer; maybe I can trade for some XX to try.
 
This one shot at sunny sixteen 400iso, in an IXMOO I thought was ORWO N74, well they are both movie films 🙄

Underexposure suits this shot, mostly they were "in the middle" that's the beauty of sunny sixteen, never wrong.😀 Much more and would have lost the clouds.

pre-soak then semi stand for 18mins Pyro-HD Home Brew


Lonely tree Kodak 5222 Pyro HD Loch Lomond Scotland by Man with Red Eyes, on Flickr
 
But I've asked also for Eastman 5231 (lot of very mixed short end) and orwo UN54 (new and much cheaper).
Which I should choose between 5231 and UN54?
Click to expand...

UN54 is iso 100 only. Their N74+ you can expose like Double X 5222 between iso 200-800(1600).

The film is ready made sold under Bergger BRF400+ and just a quick test:

15225485062_296cc07651_z.jpg


Elmarit 21mm. Souped in HC-110 dil.B 8:30 minutes (20C) a bit different then the official (Bergger) website for this BRF400 plus 35mm film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom