Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

Tom,

most interesting....

UN54 compares to Plus-X
UN74 (ASA 400) compares to Double-X.

2 questions:

a. is B&H perforation compatible with 35mm camera perforation ?

" one type, made by Bell & Howell, was adopted by most of the world for use as the negative film in 35mm cinema cameras. The other type, called "Kodak Standard" (KS for short), was mainly used in still photography and in answer prints for use in 35mm projectors (in theaters). I"

huh ?

b. Any comments on Lab (Positive )film and Duplicating films ?

Thanks for the great find!

raytoei
 
The B&H perfs work fine in 35mm cameras. The spacing is exactly the same, the only real difference is the sharp corners in the B&H perfs vice the ones which most still 35mm film has. The only problem you may encounter is that towards the end of a roll, if you don't catch the tension on the winder, you could more easily tear the film at the hole. For cameras like the Hexar RF which measure frames by optically scanning the perfs, you may have an issue since there is a minute difference in size of the perforation so spacing might be affected. I'm not sure. Kind of wish I still had my Hexar to test this out...

Phil Forrest
 
It varies. There are cameras that don't like BH perf, for instance Horizont panoramics. Leica M are fine on the other hand.
 
The only problem I have had with advance mechanism and sprockets are in Horizon 202's, my TX1 (X-pan) would do it well most of time - but occasionally it would space the negs a bit far apart. Any motorized camera, Nikon F with F36, F2 with Md1, F3with Md4 and Leica SL/SL2 Mots varied. Some would work fine and one of the SL2 Mots would happily shred the film, the other one worked fine! Just run a test roll and see what works and what doesn't.
The ORWO 74+ is good, that extra 1/2 stop (roughly) can help. The base is a bit stiffer than the XX and I have had a couple of rolls "chipping" - i.e small pieces of film being torn off. Could also be my own fault - sloppy cassette loading.
I am looking forward to getting a chance to run the Orwo 54+ - but need a bit better weather. Today it is 1/250 at f1.4 with 400 iso.
All in all, the ORWO is a really good alternative to the XX and hopefully the 54+ will be a good replacement for the now defunct EK 5231 (+X).
 
Wow.....
I just got done scanning this whole topic...
And, since I will be getting 5 rolls of 5222 in a week or 2, I came to the conclusion that I will try it D76 1+1, for 10min with a fairly standard agitation (20s/5s per minute till done). At ISO 320....

Bookmarked a few great places too.... Eastman Double X 5222, on Flickr and the Project Eastman 5222 website....

I typically shoot LP400, or Fuji NP400, But, I must give this a try...
I have Rodinal also, but, I think I will like D76 1+1 grain better.
 
6576523219_5b8af82a7c_b.jpg


ORWO 74+ in Adox MQ for 8.5 min. This was done with a M6 Millennium and the incomparable Summilux 50 mm f1.4 Asph. Shadow light - overcast. Nice, smooth tonality and remarkably fine grain.
This was rated @ 320 iso and shot according to the cameras meter setting.
 
6576521061_a72c680425_z.jpg


Very bright sunshine. Here I did over-ride the in camera meter and opened up 1/2 stop as it wanted to turn the white wall a medium grey! (1/500 and between f11 and f16). Adox 74+, Millennium M6 and Summilux 50f1.4 Asph. Again film rated @ 320. Need to shoot some stuff at 400 iso now.
 
6621297389_6be9946239_b.jpg


I am trying out the ORWO UN 54 - rated at iso 100. My hope is that it would work as a replacement for the now defunct EK 5231 (+X).
First roll was done in Adox MQ at 6.5 min. This was at the tail end of the run (50 rolls had gone through the Adox already). Contrast is a bit low - but then it was pretty gloomy light too. Cant wait to try it with Beutler 1:1:10 - once the sun comes out!
Grain is OK, not super fine grain, but neither was the EK 5231. Tonal range looks OK, even in flat light. Could be the answer to replace the EK 5231 - and if it is, this time I am stocking up for the summer (or several summers!).
 
Tom A said:
Could be the answer to replace the EK 5231 - and if it is, this time I am stocking up for the summer (or several summers!).
Click to expand...

A 100-400 all purpose film would hit the spot! Is there a chance that we could do a group buy for a discount? I'm down to my last reel and would also be making a purchase of several summers.

Cheers,
Gary
 
newsgrunt said:
Tom,

I haven't had any opportunity to see actual prints made from 5222. How do prints look tone wise ?
Click to expand...


It prints very much like TriX. The contrast is medium and most of the time it works at filter grade #2-2.5. Grain is OK - by no means a fine grain film, depending on the developer acutance is good.
Where it shines is in the mid-tones - very smooth and detailed. Shadows hold up well - but again that depends on developer/exposure. It will retain details in the highlights well, better than most modern films - even with rather sloppy exposure.
 
Hi. I see the tread went alive again.
Haw hard is to get rid of the pink hue ? Is this the same antihalation layer like in Tmax films ?
 
6624863525_15e56257ee_z.jpg


My ORWO UN f4 100 iso test kit. A Nikon S3 Olympic with the 2005 Nikkor 35f1.8 and some Nikon cassettes loaded up. The filmbase on the 54 seems a bit thicker than the 400 iso Orwo 74. Now all I have to do is wait for the damned rain to stop and shoot with it. Next set will be done with D96 and after that in Beutler 1:1:10, probably for 6 or 7 min. which was the EK 5231 time.
There is a logic behind the use of the nikon here - it does eliminate me staring at various IXMOO cassettes going "Oh, which one has 100 in it and which one has 400 in it".
 
Thank's guys. I know that, I have experience with Tmax-es, but this is harder, or Duble X exhausts fixer even faster then Tmax 400. Thank's, that assures me, it is removable, I will keep trying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom