Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

Hi All,

I've read all I can get my hands on here about the XX and I think I'm going to be getting my hands on some soon. I really love the look it gives. I'm kinda new to developing though and I have a few questions about the replenisher for the Adox developer:

The formula says to use 20ml of the replenisher per roll. So I'm taking that as if you do a 5 reel tank you put 100ml of the replenisher in the developer, right?

I get the idea is to keep the concentration of the developer the same, the replenisher replaces the developer that was exhausted in it's reaction with the film but doesn't adding the replenisher increase the volume of the developer? Is that accounted for or do you have to reduce the volume of the developer before you add the replenisher so it stays at 1 L?

I've seen Tom reference that you can get about 50 rolls from the developer replenisher combo so I'm assuming that once you use 1L of replenisher up with 1L of developer you dump the developer and make a new batch of developer/replenisher, correct?

I'm probably waaaay over-thinking this (a problem I have), I just want to make sure I have it right so I can just shoot, develop, print and not worry.

Take care,

Jim
 
"20ml of the replenisher per roll"

Yes,

I do 4 rolls at a time so I use 80ml of replenisher.

"1L of replenisher up with 1L of developer you dump the developer and make a new batch"

Yes, That is what I do.

"get the idea is to keep the concentration of the developer the same, the replenisher replaces the developer that was exhausted in it's reaction with the film but doesn't adding the replenisher increase the volume of the developer? Is that accounted for or do you have to reduce the volume of the developer before you add the replenisher so it stays at 1 L?"

I pour the replenisher into the empty, 1/2 empty bottle of developer during development and the developer that won't go back into the bottle gets dumped. Usually it is only a little developer if any, that way i keep the developer at one liter size.

Others may do it differently, hope this helps.


Leo
 
I use the same system as Leo, except that I use 1500 ml Paterson tanks. I pour 1500 ml of Adox in a jug, pour it into the developer tank, put 100ml of the replensiher in the jug and when i pour the 1500 ml back into the jug, just pour off the 40-50 ml that is added to the original volume. You tend to loose about 10-15 ml per film and the replenisher substitutes the lost volume as well as adding fresh chemistry. I usually make up 2000ml of developer and a 1000 ml of replenisher and when the latter is used up, I dump it all and make up a new batch.
I do recommend that you filter the developer every 15-20 rolls (coffee filter) as there tend be a lot of "crud" accumulating in it after a while (dust, felt trap threads etc).
I am very impressed with the combination of Adox/XX. reasonably fine grain, very good mid tones and great shadow details. It is also quite a forgiving combo - it does resemble the old Verichrome Pan in that aspect. You can REALLY mess up with guestimating exposures and still get a printable negative.
Later this spring I will try it with some other films, but for the moment I am on a XX "rush".
 
Thanks Tom! I've been reading about this film with interest but all of your images with it on flickr are what pushed me over the edge. I can't wait to gather my supplies and get started.

Take care,

Jim
 
I just got access to a Konica/Minolta 3200dpi negative scanner and my first couple tests show that it does a much better job than my old Epson flat bed in regards to both sharpness and contrast. The histograms from the raw scans are a lot more even now. I'm going to have to go back and re-evaluate the rolls I've shot so far, and see what they really look like. Eventually I'll be able to make wet prints in the darkroom upstairs, but I've still got some rennovations to do that bathroom before it's ready to set up. Scanning seems like a good way to proof, which is good because I doubt I'll go out and buy any more real photo paper after my current stash runs out.

Up to now I've done TMAX developer, D76 1:1, and Rodinal 1:50. I'm getting ready to mix up another bottle of developer, either Microdol-x or Acufine. Never used either before, but I'm itching to try something new. I think the next couple rolls of 5222 will go through the "evil" OM, but I promise to keep an M2 in the bag as well, just in case...
 
I do four rolls at a time, so I just dump 80cc of ADOX Replenisher into the two-litre Coke Classic bottle, after the run. It dosen't overflow the bottle. I would guess a bit of the liquid is lost per roll, due to being absorbed by the film itself. Anyway, it's working really well for me, has anybody else noticed how often this developer needs to be filtered? I do this before each run, without much fuss. Just run it through a coffee filter, so it's nice and clean.

I have a new 35mm lens coming to test myself, and I'm very excited about it. It's a Jupiter-12 35mm f2.8 copy of the Contax 35mm Distagon. Should be very cool with the retro-XX. Bought it from Fedka, to compliment my Jupiter-9 85mm f1.9 (Sonnar Contax copy).

Need to get out and shoot some XX film, there's presently a snow-squall moving through central Ohio.
 
We should probably agree on a tag for the Double XX. Tag it with DoubleX and there is some interesting stuff from you and a guy in Taiwan. I have been using both the 5222 tag and the Double XX tag on my stuff until I got tired of the 5222 moniker. If we all use the "Double XX" tag it will be easier to see what is being posted as XX'ers downloading.
 
tom,

Really good points. I now have a flickr account. I will get some on it. I have been shooting more and not getting to the finished stage. I like your idea of tagging them Double XX so everyone can find them.

Maybe tonight I will have some up, but now I have to go out and shoot.

Leo
 
In the 1950's, and probably earlier, Kodak was marketing a 35mm film in cassettes, as well as in roll and sheet film sizes, called Kodak Super Double-X Pan. Within a few years of the introduction of Tri-X Pan in 1954 the Super Double-X Pan was dropped from the line-up. Still camera films are marketed as Kodak while motion picture films carry the Eastman name. Does anybody recall why the Double-X survived as a M.P. film while Tri-X took over the still market?
 
I agree we need a tag for Flickr- but to me "DoubleXX" is confusing for anyone not familiar with our naming convention. "DoubleX", or "Eastman5222" might be more accessible for others.

I'm partial to including a 5222 designation, as Double X is not recognized by as many filmstock houses, and there is 7222 (the 16mm variant).
 
anyone who deals with this stock professionally is only going to recognize it by its eastman catalog designation of 5222, every motion picture stock has a similar designator and you'll be getting this stuff from the motion picture industry so...
 
Tom and Leo-

I just took the initiative and set up a Flickr group for us- Eastman Double-X

I set the rules to include a request for the tag "Eastman Double-X," however I think we should have a discussion about the naming convention. I want to make sure it works for everyone, and is as descriptive as possible for those not familiar with this film, if they want to find it.
 
"Eastman 5222" is what it is.

I've not posted any XX photos (yet) but I've got over 20 pages of XX negatives so far, and alot more coming up in the future. I did setup a Flickr account last night for myself, but I like the idea of an XX group 🙂 Can you add me to the group?

Also, can anybody recommend a good (not too expensive, please!) scanner for 35mm negatives? Could be new or used. I need to get going with this, also.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dourbalistar
Eastman Double-X available in 120 format!
Replies
1
Views
502
Phil_F_NM
Phil_F_NM
N
Availability of Double X (Eastman 5222) in Europe/France ?
Replies
5
Views
1K
M like Leica M6
M
Back
Top Bottom