Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

frobozz said:
I'm shooting all my Double-X in an SLR, which is why I haven't been posting any example pics to this thread. It wouldn't seem right! But this is hands-down the best thread about 5222 anywhere on the internet, so I at least check in from time to time.
Click to expand...

Hey Duncan,

Don't feel you have to shoot with a Leica to post here! When I started this thread, I had three Leicas, but I have moved on. Now I use my venerable Minolta SRT's. So please feel free to post away! Nobody will mind 😉

Good info about the Watson's. Please continue to post.
 
I agree, post away! I do even though my photos don't really stack up against most of the other content on this thread - but I have gotten such a wealth of information from this thread that I thought that maybe someone could at least use my developing times as a reference.
 
Nokton48 said:
Hey Duncan,

Don't feel you have to shoot with a Leica to post here! When I started this thread, I had three Leicas, but I have moved on. Now I use my venerable Minolta SRT's. So please feel free to post away! Nobody will mind 😉

Good info about the Watson's. Please continue to post.
Click to expand...

Yes!! Please post your photos as I am not as much interested in how the film looks from any particular camera/lens as much as I am about the results that YOU have obtained with this film. I, too, switch between my Leicas and Nikons!
 
Aw, gosh, OK, I'll post some later.

One item of note: I had heard people say that some of the graininess of Double-X, which I do find to be a bit much, comes from scanning it. They say when you print it, it doesn't look nearly as grainy. I thought that was ridiculous... until I started printing my negatives. Wow! It's gone from being an interesting film to pretty much all I've been shooting. And the fact that the negatives are physically soooo dead-flat helps even more in a negative carrier than it does in a scanner! How come all film isn't that flat?

Duncan
 
Nice work you folks are doing with this interesting film.

One reason some of us became interested was its bargain price.
Sadly the price advantage no longer seems to be there.

Chris
 
I think the days of 17 cents a foot sadly are behind us. However when you think of the history of it, is this not why Oscar Barnack developed the 35mm Leica? To utilize scraps from the motion picture cameras. Scratches, dust and fogging are reasons to buy fresh new film stock, not short or long ends.
 
Nokton48 said:
I think the days of 17 cents a foot sadly are behind us. However when you think of the history of it, is this not why Oscar Barnack developed the 35mm Leica? To utilize scraps from the motion picture cameras. Scratches, dust and fogging are reasons to buy fresh new film stock, not short or long ends.
Click to expand...

It may not be 17 cents/foot but the price is more than reasonable given today's market. Cheaper by the bulk roll for sure. One thing that attracts me is the ability to basically put up enough film in bulk and have my own supply for a very long time. Developing my own and scanning my own. Pretty much self-sufficient and that has my attention! Especially considering the excellent qualities of the film, the flexibility, the tones and overall results.
 
frobozz said:
One item of note: I had heard people say that some of the graininess of Double-X, which I do find to be a bit much, comes from scanning it. They say when you print it, it doesn't look nearly as grainy. I thought that was ridiculous... until I started printing my negatives. Wow! It's gone from being an interesting film to pretty much all I've been shooting. And the fact that the negatives are physically soooo dead-flat helps even more in a negative carrier than it does in a scanner! How come all film isn't that flat?
Click to expand...


This is an timely interesting observation to me, since I am preparing to reset up up my B&W wet darkroom. I do remember that TomA has said he could pull 11x14s from XX that were very pleasant to look at. Perhaps the scanning is more severe than wet printing?

I know of no films that dry as flat as XX. Definately a big advantage.
 
Nokton48 said:
This is an timely interesting observation to me, since I am preparing to reset up up my B&W wet darkroom. I do remember that TomA has said he could pull 11x14s from XX that were very pleasant to look at. Perhaps the scanning is more severe than wet printing?

I know of no films that dry as flat as XX. Definately a big advantage.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a huge selling point for me. Makes storage and printing that much easier. My wet prints from XX have been very good as well, although I can't really complain about scanning and grain either. I've been using XX exclusively for a couple of years now and am dreading the day when kodak decides to kill it.
 
The flatness of a film depends on these point:

1. Base material: Tri-Acetate or Polyester.
2. The drying speed of the film, humidity.
3. The type of weight you hang on the film.
4. The type of wetting agent used.
5. Single or double non-curling layer on the film.

In the best way a Tri-Acetate film with double non-curling, humidity 50%-60%, 100g weight, room temperature (20C) and a first class wetting agent, e.g. Rollei SWA.
 
Fotohuis said:
The flatness of a film depends on these point:

1. Base material: Tri-Acetate or Polyester.
2. The drying speed of the film, humidity.
3. The type of weight you hang on the film.
4. The type of wetting agent used.
5. Single or double non-curling layer on the film.

In the best way a Tri-Acetate film with double non-curling, humidity 50%-60%, 100g weight, room temperature (20C) and a first class wetting agent, e.g. Rollei SWA.
Click to expand...

Very timely post; I was wondering about this today. Which films are Tri-Acetate-based?
 
Nokton48 said:
. I do remember that TomA has said he could pull 11x14s from XX that were very pleasant to look at. Perhaps the scanning is more severe than wet printing?
Click to expand...

I have an 11x14 wet print of this one sitting on our refrigerator right now. The grain is visible but for me at least, it works with the subject matter. In case it matters I rated it at 650 and developed it in Diafine as I usually do with XX.

Film flatness is not usually an issue because I do my scans from 5x7" wet prints.
 

Attachments

  • K4A_5222_001s.jpg
    K4A_5222_001s.jpg
    91.8 KB · Views: 0
I just ordered 700ft of this thing, 2x400ft rolls of which I am sharing a 100ft piece out to a friend. This shall turn me into a film waster!

Have shot a roll prior to the purchase and quite liked it. Messed up the development a little I think yet still the photos printed just fine!

Anyone develops XX in TMAX Developer? If so, could you give some advice? I mix mine 1:4 and reuse for 12 rolls by adding a minute at the 5th and the 9th roll respecively. It works great for TMAX and TriX films. If I push - I discard the developer after 1 use.

Ben
 
bence8810 said:
I just ordered 700ft of this thing, 2x400ft rolls of which I am sharing a 100ft piece out to a friend. This shall turn me into a film waster!

Have shot a roll prior to the purchase and quite liked it. Messed up the development a little I think yet still the photos printed just fine!

Anyone develops XX in TMAX Developer? If so, could you give some advice? I mix mine 1:4 and reuse for 12 rolls by adding a minute at the 5th and the 9th roll respecively. It works great for TMAX and TriX films. If I push - I discard the developer after 1 use.

Ben
Click to expand...


I bought some TMax developer at Midwest Photo last weekend. Actually I bought it to use with some 120 Ilford Delta 3200 and I want to try it for that. But I think it will work with XX, I have not been disappointed (really) with any developer I have tried, that I can recall.

XX I treat like Tri-X. I often shoot them together, some XX and some XXX, and often develop them together in the same tank. I suspect that if you treat it like XXX you will be close. At least you will be somewhat close, and the stuff is very forgiving.
 
Nokton48 said:
I bought some TMax developer at Midwest Photo last weekend. Actually I bought it to use with some 120 Ilford Delta 3200 and I want to try it for that. But I think it will work with XX, I have not been disappointed (really) with any developer I have tried, that I can recall.

XX I treat like Tri-X. I often shoot them some XX and some XXX, and often develop them together in the same tank. I suspect that if you treat it like XXX you will be close. At least you will be somewhat close, and the stuff is very forgiving.

Since it's a push developer you will need to increase the film speed.
Click to expand...

Hello there,

I am also planning on mostly shooting it at 400 once I get my supply and on the Massive Dev Chart I see I should develop it for 6 minutes just like TriX so you are right on the money with that!

The first roll I shot I used EI250 and therefore assumed I should develop it for 5 minutes by default. Since it was the 10th film for my TMAX Developer batch (1+4 - reuse for 12 rolls) I developed it for 7 minutes as I add an extra minute at the 5th and 9th rolls respectably. Too many variables I know... and also the film was about 4 years expired 🙂

Having said that - the negatives looked fine but somehow required about 1stop increase when wet printing. If I took a similar looking negative from TriX and DoubleX, the Trix I'd enlarge with f16 5sec and the XX with f16 10sec.

Somehow the double X was more dense.
As I've only shot one roll to date I won't come to conclusions.
With the 700ft ordered I'll have enough time to practice and will surely be posting back. Should get the film in 5 days or so - the cherry trees are almost in full bloom in Japan - need to cut the film and do some proper film wasting.

How do you guys cut the 400ft rolls? I know it needs perfect darkness etc but in terms of measuring the 100ft length and what do you spool it onto etc?

Thanks,
Ben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom