Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

You can order the film directly from Kodak off their website. I'm not sure about international distribution but it stands to reason that they have to be sending it around the world since it is a very common stock for film studies majors to use. I think all of my motion picture friends in college used this emulsion at least once while they were earning their degrees. (And I JUST graduated in January, so it's still a current emulsion with college film programs.)

EDIT: Ok, it isn't listed on the Kodak Australia site but is a popular educational film so I'd assume it should be available there for school use. The educational sales may have a different distribution chain that may take some digging to find. It might pay to have a friend in the equipment cage at a college with a photo program in this case.

If all else fails, there are always RFF members in the USA who can buy it for you. The only issue is shipping and ensuring it is not x-rayed.

Phil Forrest
 
maddoc said:
55300ft !? That requires some freezer space ... 😎🙂
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I'm a amatuer cook, and have a walk in coolroom, whilst not frozen, in will keep it safe until I can figure out what to do with it!

I'm thinking of getting some 70mm canisters made and selling it like that on ebay to make it available. The main problem of people doing 70mm seems to be the bulk loaders and new cannisters. If I can solve that, it will be time to start hoovering up all the cheap 70mm backs on ebay.

It looks like really interesting film, especially for landscapes where it really does cut through fog!

I posted some photos I found here;

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/112683-kodak-double-x-2405-a.html

Daniel.
 
70mm cartridges were made by Kodak. I think Hasselblad and Linhof took the Kodak Cartridges, and put their names on them. You can get 70mm cartridges on Ebay. I don't use a bulk loader, I had one, and sold it. Easier to just roll the cartridge right off of the big core in total darkness (like what I do with 35mm XX).
 
I roll the cartidges by hand, (with clean, dry hands) in both 35mm and 70mm. It's not perfect, but you can tell by feel, when the spool is about full. Too many windings, and the spool won't go into the outer cartridge. Again, not perfect, but it does work. Also alot of the aerial films are thinner base films, and a lot more than 70 exposures will go in the 70mm cartridges. I have literature from Hasselblad that states that some aerial films are thin enough that you can get up to 250 exposures in a 70mm cartridge. But, of course, the Hasselblad A70 film counter only goes up to 70!

I have a Kindermann 70mm Plastic Developing tank, and it holds up to about five meters of 70mm film, on a large stainless steel reel. I cut the film in strips of twelve after washing, and hang it up to dry. I use Print File 70mm Pages to store the developed 70mm negatives

Of course you can get a 70mm bulk film roller, but after using mine for awhile, I found it really wasn't necessary for me and the way that I work
 
8246791525_a4871c48aa_c.jpg


EK 5222 in Microdol X 1:1 for 16 min. I found a couple of packages of Microdol X in my odd's and end's cabinet - you know, the one that is the receptacle for all loose items in the darkroom (found some Microphen, Perceptol, Harvey's 777 etc too). Decided to try the XX with the Microdol. Looks OK - a bit low contrast - which worked here as the contrast was very high. In bright sunlight, you can stick with 250 iso - in low light I would rate it at around 100-125 iso.
Leica M2 and Summicron 35f2 version 1 (1958).
 
Is calling Kodak the only way to get Kodak-X in Europe? I looked on the Project-Double-X site and it seems that's the only way. How much is a 100/400 foot roll going to run me?
I've also been looking at ORWO N74 (ISO 400, suits my shooting better) as a cine film. Can be pushed pretty well too. 45€/100ft/30m roll in Europe.
 
Tijmendal - you could try That's a Wrap in London (check Google for contact details). They stock Kodak movie film and sometimes have short lengths (400 ft) available. I bought their last (I think) 1000ft of XX outdated erarlier this year. They will ship in europe and are very helpful.
 
haempe said:
Really? When I tried to order I got the message "delivery to your location not possibly" (or similar...)
Maybe I should give them a call?
Click to expand...

Interesting - I'm sure when I sopke to them they would have shipped to the major countries in Europe, maybe just their online shop?

I would give them a call - if they won't ship to you, I would be happy to act as a poste restant if it would help.
 
john neal said:
Interesting - I'm sure when I sopke to them they would have shipped to the major countries in Europe, maybe just their online shop?

I would give them a call - if they won't ship to you, I would be happy to act as a poste restant if it would help.
Click to expand...
Nice, Thank You!
 
john neal said:
Tijmendal - you could try That's a Wrap in London (check Google for contact details). They stock Kodak movie film and sometimes have short lengths (400 ft) available. I bought their last (I think) 1000ft of XX outdated erarlier this year. They will ship in europe and are very helpful.
Click to expand...

Great, I'll try that. How much is a 400ft length of Double-X going to run me (more-or-less).
 
Hello all. My name is Luiz and I´m from Brazil. This is my first post at RFForum, so I´m a bit nervous about my poor English. I wonder if you all will even understand what I´m writing about. In advance I´m sorry for my spelling and grammar mistakes.

I´ve read this thread 2 times, and I´m using Eastman Kodak Double-X since 2010 and feels very happy with the results. I used to develop it with D96 but now I´m trying it with other chemicals, as I had some rolls scratched in my bulk loader (bad technique, I confess).
First of all I was using D23 plus water bath, with not-so-nice results. Now I got all chemistries and tryed it with Diafine formula provided at Anchell´s Darkroom Cookbook. We don´t have the original Diafine here in Brazil. These are the results I got from my test.
I think it´s not necessary to write about this developer as you all may know it, but for those who aren´t aware of Diafine, this is a good review: http://www.blackandwhitefineart.net/2011/01/diafine/

Having a ISO about 250, this negative it´s not a all-around film but I´m looking for a cheaper substitute for Tri-X (US$ 15,00/36 exp roll in Brazil). As this film is thicker than most of negatives I thought it would be a nice candidate for Diafine, that requires the negative to be soaked in bath A to be developed by the alkali in bath B. So, let´s give it a try!

The negative was developed for 4 minutes in every solution and the agitation scheme was 30s initially and 2 inversions every 30s for bath A and 2 inversions every minute in bath B. Don´t ask why I made it different, just seemed to be the right thing to do.

This is the test. I shoot with a Pentax ME Super and a 50 1.4 lens, metered in-camera. The scan is a Plustek Opticfilm 7400 with Vuescan, 2400 DPI, one pass.

A) MDF board (don´t know if you imagine what´s this, it´s a wood-like board used in furniture here in Brazil), metered as medium-gray (zone 5) and closed 2 stops (to zone 3), to see if the negative could retain all details. The intention was to verify the developer´s push capacity. All images are straight out the scan (less contrasted and darker than normal) but there is margin for post-processing on all of them, because there aren´t clipped shadows.

Conclusion: Nice detail retention till "1200" and usable till 1600. Very good for a 250 ISO negative.

B) Low contrast situation: I would like to see detail retention in bright places, grain size/shape, details in darker places and where I could get the most pleasant contrast curve/ISO. Images edited just to get more pleasant, simulating a real world film situation usage.

Conclusion: Low contrast scenes with bright tones predominance could be shooted till ISO 1600. Those situations might not need high ISOS (there is enough light) but we may use ISO 1600 and close the diafragm for depth of field control or high speeds for moving subjects. The best contrast curve was at ISO 800, and the grain was less dominant till 800 also. Again, 1600 might be used.
 
C) Same situation but more contrast scene. Great contrast between dog´s white and dark fur. I wish to evaluate detail retention in dark and bright zones. Pictures edited in Lightroom to get more pleasant.

Conclusion: for situations with more contrast the limiting ISO seems to be 800 or 1-2/3 more stops, as a major concern not to lose important detail in shadows. The hightlights are good in every ISO tested. I need to evaluate better this situations with a modern camera that can handle 1/3 stop speed changes (ME Super changes just full stops in speed)

D) Real (and hard) light conditions, where we don´t have time to think. The goal was to see if the negative could be used in situations with backlight, high contrast and less control over camera. Used Av mode choosing just the ISO and a fixed aperture. The camera would decide the speed by it´s center-weighted meter. I don´t even know what´s the speed chosen by the camera on each shot. This tends to simulate a street shooting situation.

Conclusion: in "emergencies" where we don´t have time to carefully choose settings, like a street or candid shot, we may use ISO 1600 with automatic settings, knowing that we may lose some details but saving the whole picture. Note that the worst picture is ISO 800, where the light doesn´t got the dog´s face (bellow zone 03). In this situations a better light measurement must be made (next test)

E) Real and hard light conditions, but this time measured for zone 03 (wall bellow the plants) and intented to catch all EV range. Unfortunately, there were no detail at the sky at moment of shooting which was at least 6 EVs apart (zone 9). The buildings was metered ad zona 07. The pictures were edited just to be more pleasant.

Conclusion: again, the best contrast curve was at ISO 800. At ISO 400 the contrast was low and should be better ajusted by curves/levels at post-processing. For this film/developer combo the real ISO (best tone curve/scanning) should be 640 ou 800.

Limitations:
This test obviously has limitations.
First of all, there are no images made at night, a typical situation where we should use higher ISOs. I want to test it in future with a good negative (at least a not scratched one) so I can use the images for another purpose than just testing. This would be a real world test.
Second, the cam doesn´t have 1/3 stops speed control. Soon I´ll get a Canon Rebel (electronic) that can change speed in 1/3 stops (and spot metering) that can do a proper test.
Third, the in-camera meter couldn´t be calibrated properly and variations may occur. As this camera is my all-around, at least for me, the test is ok.
Lastly, for enlarging would be necessary to evaluate this data better in contact sheets in future.

General conclusion: It´s possible to use this film in more situations than normal use I do now, like low light/high speed subjects/low aperture zoom lenses using this developer. We may know the limitations but there is a real speed gain and I, as a rule of thumbs, would use this film rated as ISO 640-800 in better litted scenes and 1250-1600 in dark scenes. In extreme conditions like this, ISO 1600 may be used, since you know that limitations imposed by inadequade tone curve, larger grain and shadow tones losses could occur.

I´m surprised with this developer. After all I read about it I thought it would be just another promise, but it seems to be a good speed-gainer and tone-controller.

I´m anxious for your opinion.

Luiz
 
Tijmendal said:
Great, I'll try that. How much is a 400ft length of Double-X going to run me (more-or-less).
Click to expand...

You will need to check with them, but I would guess around £30 plus postage - sorry, can't remember if that was the fresh stock price or the ood - I bought 400 ft od Plus-X as well as 1000ft of XX
 
Luiz, interesting test - the Double X is amazingly flexible, even with stock developers like D76/96. I haven't really tried it with Diafine - but probably should do a run with it some time. It seems to have a bit lower contrast than I like - but that could just be the scans too.
You have a very patient dog too - posing nicely.
Please keep trying out the various developers - XX fans are forever looking for that "holy grail" - the ultra fine grain and blazing speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom