Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

I followed this thread for awhile but somehow got sidetracked. In the meantime, however, I have tested and tuned XX in Edwal 12, and the results are stupendous.

The one troubling aspect of this film is having to number the frames myself. I'm getting used to it.
 
Last edited:
that looks real nice. do you have to make edwal 12 yourself or is it commercially available in a package? google didnt solve that one for me.

you get used to numbering, especially if you shoot enogh to where you are numbering regular film anyway. If you want to get lazy abotu it you really only need to do the first frame on every strip.
 
WoolenMammoth said:
... do you have to make edwal 12 yourself or is it commercially available in a package? google didnt solve that one for me.

you get used to numbering, especially if you shoot enogh to where you are numbering regular film anyway. If you want to get lazy abotu it you really only need to do the first frame on every strip.
Click to expand...

You have to make it up. It's quite an interesting concoction. I'm not sure whether PF has a kit. Might be worth a look. They have the raw supplies. I make all my own developers, so I don't generally pay much attention to what is out there in the commercial sector. If you want the formula, I can pm it to you.

I shot bulk loaded 2475 Recording film for many years and numbered all the frames on it, too. It's ok, if you have room enough on the lightbox, which, for me, is a rare condition.
 
This is just lovely stuff ! I got some from Leo, pre-rolled.
Leica M5, ZM 50mm F2.
ISO 400, souped in Diafine !

Not the greatest composition etc., but I just wanted to test the film- I'm going to be buying more !!

3158378796_fe9123f442_o.jpg


3157547331_15d6d929db_o.jpg


3157547563_c5775f91ea_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yup, Subhash and I are going to be ordering some 400 ft. rolls of the stuff. In the meantime my half of the pre-rolled-by-Leo batch of film should arrive tomorrow. I guess I'm going to have to pick up some Diafine too. I love that look!

I don't pay any attention to printed frame numbers. I number the glassine sleeves, and I have a piece of black tape across one end of my contact sheet glass, leaving a place to write matching numbers on the contact sheet. The first frame below the number is A, the next B, etc. If somebody tells that they want a print from negative #18407-D l know exactly which one it is without any frame numbers being involved.
 
Last edited:
Is there any chance I could buy 100ft from someone who is buying the big spool? I can send an empty spool and can for the 100ft. 🙂
 
Chris,
Have you considered doing what Al and I have done ? We got 20 Rolls @ $2 each + shipping $12 for the lot, from Leo. He was prompt, the rolls were in great shape, and the film without fog etc. Since "short ends" are difficult to find, that is not a bad option.
I would be happy to share a roll, but have no idea how difficult it is to put it on another big spool. Maybe Al knows better.
Subhash
 
bowzart said:
I shot bulk loaded 2475 Recording film for many years and numbered all the frames on it, too. It's ok, if you have room enough on the lightbox, which, for me, is a rare condition.
Click to expand...

man, that about made me cry, I would do anything for a few hundred feet of recording film, that stuff was insane.
 
I also purchased some from Leo. Great stuff! I haven't got a chance to process my film yet, can't wait... first I am gonna give HC110 dilu.H a try.
 
With the right equipment it wouldn't be all that difficult to make 100 foot spools off of a 400 foot roll. Since the film is just on a core we'd need to buy a split spool, where one flange comes off, then a pair of movie editing rewinds. Trying to do it by hand would be insane and the economics of buying all that suff just doesn't make sense.

2475 Recording and its succesor, 2484 I think, were on a thin Estar base which loved to curl and was a bitch to handle. The Royal-X Pan Recording from before 2475 was grainy as hell but you could get a half way decent negative at 3200 in Acufine and a useable one at 6400. The images had a really nice look to them. I still have a Royal-X Pan print framed on my wall that I shot and printed back in 1962, probably with a Canon 35/1.8 on a Leica III-C. Two discontinued Eastman motion picture films that I miss are XT Pan, essentially the movie version of Panatomic-X, and 4-X Pan at ISO 500.

It was a lot easier to find motion picture stock thirty years ago because they were still shooting B&W movies! Short ends were two cents a foot at a time when 100 t. rolls of Tri-X went for about ten dollars.
 
Last edited:
Kodak 2485 Recording Film is what I remember using in that era, and I also bought quite alot of 2475 in regular 36 exp kodak packaging. Used to process it twice, in the Diafine, to get a nice beefy-looking 6400EI image. When not ultra-pushing it, I used DK-50, for more normal EI but still super-grain rendering. Sure wish it was available today. Miss it alot.
 
bowzart said:
I followed this thread for awhile but somehow got sidetracked. In the meantime, however, I have tested and tuned XX in Edwal 12, and the results are stupendous. Check the highlights:
107552514

107552514
107552514
http://www.pbase.com/bullis/image/107552514


Would you mind posting the formula on this thread?
Click to expand...
 
Al Kaplan said:
With the right equipment it wouldn't be all that difficult to make 100 foot spools off of a 400 foot roll. Since the film is just on a core we'd need to buy a split spool, where one flange comes off, then a pair of movie editing rewinds. Trying to do it by hand would be insane and the economics of buying all that suff just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

seriously. people on this forum make way too much noise about how difficult it is. I load from 400 foot rolls in a changing bag and its just not any kind of big deal to even mention. I dont even use cores, I just roll off enough film from the 400' roll to fit in my bulk loader. If you dont use a core you only have to load it up three times. Ive never gotten any scratches on my negs from working like this and have loaded, at this point, thousands of cassettes. thousands. this has been my primary stock for a very very long time.

btw, my results with rodinal are very consistent with the photos posted above me here, I dont think rodinal is a very good developer for this stock at all. Tried for a while to make it work at 1:25, 1:50 and 1:100 and never found anything that I thought looked too good compared to other stuff. If you guys are shooting it at 250, try ddx.
 
[/quote] I dont think rodinal is a very good developer for this stock at all. Tried for a while to make it work at 1:25, 1:50 and 1:100 and never found anything that I thought looked too good compared to other stuff. If you guys are shooting it at 250, try ddx.[/quote]

After taking a second look at the negatives I've made recently from my first XX Rodinal run (1:50/20C/11 mins) I'm not going to even try this stuff again w/XX. I have four -important- Holiday rolls to process, and I'll go back to the ADOX Borax MQ (still my current XX fave). And I'm not that impressed with the TD-201, compared to the ADOX, either.
 
nokton-

making your own developer is some seriously bold stuff 🙂 I could never put my finger on exactly what I didnt like about rodinal but I just never found it to work. DDX is marvelously punchy with this film at 250. Ive been wanting to try ilfotec for a long time and have never gotten around to it.

Totally changing gears, I was just looking at rollei r3, I wonder if that film would be a suitable echo for kodak recording. Appears to have somewhat similar properties. I think I might order some from freestyle and try.
 
Woolenmammoth,
I have three bottles of DDX around, I like to use it with Fuji Presto 1600. What time/temp looks good with XX/DDX, maybe I'll try that next. It's kinda expensive to use IMO. I like -punchy- negatives, always have. That's why I like the ADOX Borax, getting punchy results with that. Rodinal negs look -flat- to me, very sharp, but no real d-max in the film.

I'd try the R3 in DK-50, that was always my favorite 2475 soup. That, and processing it (twice) in Diafine. Got a true 6400EI that way.
 
Last edited:
I used to run ddx 1-4 at around 7 minutes, thats a good starting point to test. Its definitely expensive, but at 250 in bright sunlight, I liked it alot for this stock. Rodinal negs are flat, but there's something else too, the mid curve is just loooong and wierd.

how would you process twice with diafine? never even thought of that. Do a water wash after B and then back into the A bath for a second round?

I just ordered some r3 with the rhs. From what I could search on flickr it doesnt look to have anything like the grain of the old recording film but it migth be cool anyway. That recording was just right before my generation, I wish I had shot more of it when I was in high school. Oh well.
 
WoolenMammoth said:
how would you process twice with diafine? never even thought of that. Do a water wash after B and then back into the A bath for a second round?
Click to expand...

Yes, you got it right. I did use it in High School, for press photography. A five minute water rinse after the first "A-B", then another round of "A-B". Then finish as usual. The Old Double-Diafine Trick. Worked just great with 2475. I saw it in MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY about '74-'75, with actual test photos. Always carried an extra body loaded with 2475, for -no light- shooting. Worked just great.

I agree maybe it's got toooooooo long a straight-line for the Rodinal. Maybe something else is going on, too? OK results, but I've had better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom