Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

Tom A said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Tom. I really like this film. I made some pictures with Double-X@400 and developed in same tank I did the test roll. Here are the pictures.

8284553885_06521515b6_b.jpg


8285615952_5540e22cb6_o.jpg


8285616538_66375dab52_o.jpg


8285619916_320ba2e57f_o.jpg


8285622038_3c2f942f14_o.jpg


Shot in a diffuse light, got some low contrast pictures that I could enhance via curves and level to results that pleases me. The way I scan the negatives really is low contrast, so we can´t imagine how the image will be when properly enlarged.

The dog isn´t so patient, but sometimes she poses for me.

And I don´t look for too much fine grain, I prefer a nice grey and sharper images...
 
Luiz, I agree - it is better to aim for low/medium contrast as you can kick up the values with Lightroom,Photshop etc - but dropping contrast from high to medium is more difficult, if you want to retain a more realistic look. The Diafine always reminds me of the 60's "chalk and soot" look - but you seem to have "tamed" it. Probably time for me to try it out again. I have a shelf that is filled with obscure and obsolete developers, Microphen, Harvey 777, Accutol etc - and some Diafine. Time to use it up!
 
Luiz,

thanks for sharing the results. when you inspect the
negatives, do they look thin for the iso 800 - 1600 ?
ie. do they look underexposed from a negative point of view.

raytoei
 
Tom A said:
Luiz, I agree - it is better to aim for low/medium contrast as you can kick up the values with Lightroom,Photshop etc - but dropping contrast from high to medium is more difficult, if you want to retain a more realistic look. The Diafine always reminds me of the 60's "chalk and soot" look - but you seem to have "tamed" it. Probably time for me to try it out again. I have a shelf that is filled with obscure and obsolete developers, Microphen, Harvey 777, Accutol etc - and some Diafine. Time to use it up!
Click to expand...

Tom, Remember that's the homemade formula.
Seems that I inspired you... nice!
Waiting for results.
 
raytoei@gmail.com said:
Luiz,

thanks for sharing the results. when you inspect the
negatives, do they look thin for the iso 800 - 1600 ?
ie. do they look underexposed from a negative point of view.

raytoei
Click to expand...

The negatives seems to be nice, but there are no pictures taken at night yet. In some of them the darkest areas are thin but seems to retain some detail (zone 2 1/2 maybe). i shoot some pictures at night in another roll but I don't remember the EI. There was too dim light and I overide the lightmeter and used the 1/15 f1.4.
Need more tests.
 
SyPat said:
And what about resolution/sharpness ?
In my opinion, the price to pay for the outstanding tonality and flexibility of 5222 is sharpness, which is the room to be improved when developing.
Click to expand...

Seems just right to me at scanned images, but I didn't enlarged any negative yet.
 
So I just shot a small roll of double-x at ISO3200, I think I'm in love! I only have an epson v300 scanner but I cant see anything wrong or worse then my ISO250 scans. Might need to tweek the developing time or camera a little. Exposure might be more in the iso 2500 mark, Anyway I've uploaded them to the flickr group.

DDX @ 20min


The Origonal by getfixed, on Flickr


Lucky Self Portrait by getfixed, on Flickr
 
8316930562_6c169bbb92_c.jpg


Looked in the darkroom and I had a small volume of Rodinal (a.k.a dregs!) and some Microdol X mixed up. Of course, one starts wondering what happens if you mix them?
This is XX in Microdol X -dluted 1:1 in Rodinal 1:100. I left the time the same, 17 min. My last batch of XX in Microdol was a bit "flat" with this mix punched up the contrast a bit. Speed seemed to be around 320 iso.
Leica M2 and Summicron 90mm f2.0 (1970's version) probably at f2.8 or f4.0.
 
8354726731_4f264e458d_c.jpg


Some more XX "mixed" soups. This is Microdol X 1:1 and HC 110 1:100 for 17 minutes. Film is rated as per usual at 320 iso. Looks quite good, negs had a fried look to them, but scanned well (no "post" processing). Leica M2 and Nokton 40 mm f1.4 MC
 
Thanks, Phil.

M6J 502.8 XX iso 1600

8293053878_d8f3bb8b06_c.jpg


Is it true that Mr. Pitt took pic of his pregnant GF with XX and M camera years ago?


8362947402_29b76a804e_c.jpg


.
 
Being a follower of this thread for a long time. I finally made a decision to shoot this film.

I just ordered a can of 400ft Eastman Double-X 5222. Now need to wait for 2 weeks before it arrives.

It's time to shop for reloadable cassettes. 😎
 
Vincent, I had a look at your Flickr page and I have to say that some of those are photos I'm almost jealous of. That is, the way you capture your family is so relaxed and natural that you are making amazing photos of just regular moments in life. Really beautiful images just from the ones I've seen. And portraiture with an X-Pan! Of children, no less! Kind of amazing I think and I hope we get to see some of that XX soon!

Phil Forrest
 
Hi Philip! 🙂

Thanks! You are so flattering! Really appreciate your encouragement and kind words. I have no time for street photography nowadays. Any free time after work is all spent with my loved ones.

The XPAN really ROCKS! It's my fun camera.

I am really excited about the XX. Looking forward to its arrival. I am also planning to mix my chemicals too. Going to mix some ADOX BORAX MQ.

Meanwhile I shall sit back and enjoy what you, Tom A and gang do with the XX. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom