Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

Impressive results Tom with the 777 developer.

I have made some addition tests with the Windisch W665, containing ortho- Phenylene Diamine instead of para- Phenylene Diamine in the 777.

Same trick after "the ripening" process.

But available in Europe only. Apart from the Fomapan Creative 200 also the Bergger BRF400+ (also a type of cine film) reacts very good on the W665 developer.
 
The Deep South monsoons are forecast to end on Monday... the rains for the last two weeks have pretty much put the damper on shooting my XX!

Hopefully I will shoot a roll this week and pick up some D76 to have another go at developing my own. The Massive Development app gives me a stock (no dilution) and a 1:1 dilution option. What is the difference? I will be shooting at the rated 200 on the first roll.

Just trying to get a feel on what to expect as I begin to adjust from my baseline.
 
Anyone using XTol to develop XX?
Saw only one reference on the Massive Chart for Eastman 5222 - states 10 minutes for 1:1 at EI250. I am shooting at 400....
Any tips are welcome.

For reference - I've developed two rolls in Rodinal at 1:50 11 minutes with little agitation at the top of every minute, the negative looks really nice and easy to print.

Thanks,
Ben
 
dave lackey said:
The Massive Development app gives me a stock (no dilution) and a 1:1 dilution option. What is the difference?
Click to expand...

Stock solution, mix it up according to directions. You can re-use it, and replenish it, or extend the times as the solutions get older. I prefer to replenish.

1:1 Solution, dilute the stock (1 part stock, 1 part water). Use it once, and then pitch it. Some prefer this method. Also developing times are longer 1:1, which can be a big advantage depending on temperature.

That's about it.
 
Apart from the relative short life span for Xtol (4-6 months) , it is a very nice type developer. I am normally use it as one shot in 1+1 or in rotary 1+2 dilution.
If a 5 ltr. is too much you can use the simmilar Fomadon Excel W27 developer in a 1 ltr. packing.

If you do not want to mess around with powders, PC-TEA (Pat Gainer) is a good alternative, much better keeping quality but a bit more grain. Ilfosol-3 as liquid too but tricky if it is fresh or not. After 4-6 months it can be off like most Ascorbic Acid type developers.
 
Fotohuis said:
Apart from the relative short life span for Xtol (4-6 months) , it is a very nice type developer. I am normally use it as one shot in 1+1 or in rotary 1+2 dilution.
If a 5 ltr. is too much you can use the simmilar Fomadon Excel W27 developer in a 1 ltr. packing.

If you do not want to mess around with powders, PC-TEA (Pat Gainer) is a good alternative, much better keeping quality but a bit more grain. Ilfosol-3 as liquid too but tricky if it is fresh or not. After 4-6 months it can be off like most Ascorbic Acid type developers.
Click to expand...

Hi there,

I shoot enough so the 5L will not be an issue - will go through it in 2-3 months.
The problem is I don't know what time to use with XX. It's the very first time I used XTol and my negatives went very dense! Yesterday I scanned them in and saw a lot of blown highlights. This could be due to the fact I scan with a Pakon and I have very little control over settings. Normal negatives scan just fine though.
Then I printed a frame and I noticed I needed 2 stop increase in time as compared to my previously developed negatives (XX in Rodinal).

I used the times given by the Massive Dev chart. 10 minutes with Xtol 1:1 at 20C.

Thanks for any pointers!
Ben
 
Try looking at the XTOL times for Tri-X.

I've not used XTOL myself but I develop Tri-X and XX in the same tanks, at the same time.

Perhaps this will help.
 
Looks really good !! I really should try the 777 at some point, bought some of it years ago but never mixed the solution...



Tom A said:
14027515019_4cdf153b43_c.jpg


The Harvey 777 works very well with the XX. This is after the 'ripening" process, and maybe 20 rolls in. Leica M2/M-Nokton 50mm f1.5. Film was rated at around 320 iso - sunny f16 so not that precise.
I did go through a batch of 777 last year - did more than 100 + rolls in a gallon batch.
Click to expand...
 
17213097051_09866c290b_c.jpg


XX in Rodinal, 1:100 for 40 min. stand devlopment. "Kicked" the tank a couple of times at 15 and 30 in - mail to get rid of edge frying effect.
This is with the new Zeiss ZM Distagon 35mm f1.4 on a M2. The combination of the edginess of the XX/Rodinal and the extreme spareness of the lens is almost too much!
 
I have a few questions:

- is it true, that XX dries flat?
- how different is it from Tri X?
- why special developers should be necessary - are the results in D76 1+1 not good?
- how does it react to push/pull, and what is the effective EI in commercially available developers?
- is there anybody who resells XX directly in cassettes?

Thanks

Marek
 
-XX deies flat - easy to scan or stick in an enlarger.
-It has a more extended mid-tone range than TriX - but shadows stay pretty solid, highlights hold up well.
- You don't need special developers, good old D76 works fine. It seems to prefer MQ developers, but you can use just about any developer with good result.
- It will pull fine (100/200 iso) but I find it it is not as good for pushing. I use 320 iso as my "standard" iso for it - which corresponds to about a 3/4 stop push. Any more than that, it tends to get really grainy.
- Don't know if anybody is repooling it it for regular cassettes. I have always bought it in 400ft cans.
Only caveat with XX is its tendency to rip a bit easier than say TriX. It is designed to go through a movie camera, under more or less constant tension. It is also "slippery" as it is treated with low friction in mind. Be sure to tape the film securely to the spool when rolling it into the cassette.
If you are using the 400ft rolls - be prepared that the last 30-50 ft are very "spring" like as they have more curl than the rest of the roll.
Like any new to you film - it takes a while to shoot oneself in with it - but once done, it will deliver consistent results.
It is not a fine grain film - but neither is TriX/HP5 etc - it is biased towards grey tones, not grain.
. Another advantage: The Double X site here on TFf is probably unique - there is more samples and information about XX than anywhere else.
 
Fotohuis said:
It is called: GRAIN !
Click to expand...
Yes, the Rodinal does give a pronounced grain - but it looks really sharp. I don't think that any print bigger than 11x14 would look good. With stand develop you also get a pronounced adjacency effect that looks like the edges of anything is carved out with a scalpel. I think that the best result for "pictorial" quality would be D76/D96 or the Harvey 777 and of course Pyrocat HD.
 
mfogiel said:
I have a few questions:

- is it true, that XX dries flat?
- how different is it from Tri X?
- why special developers should be necessary - are the results in D76 1+1 not good?
- how does it react to push/pull, and what is the effective EI in commercially available developers?
- is there anybody who resells XX directly in cassettes?

Thanks

Marek
Click to expand...

What Tom said! I use d-76 1:1 and am quite pleased with the results. See post #1608 for my results rated at various EI. I have wet printed a few from rolls rated at 800 and they turned out great
 
17224416901_e08f56409f_c.jpg
This from a batch of films shot in the last couple of days. XX rated at around 320/400, developed in Adox MQ home brewed. High contrast, but note that the bright white sign holds up well and is eminently readable - while the shadow are fine. The surround is painted flat black.
Leica M2, Summicron 35mm f2.0 Aspherical, XX in Adox MQ (similar to D76) for 9 min.
 
This is Harvey's 777 35 rolls in:

16625303660_f4af09a67f_c.jpg


I left mine for three weeks, in the dark, and it's sulking or not well. I lost 5 rolls which barely had an image at all. Tom suggests I may have missed replenisher but I am pretty good at that and it has gone much darker. The plan is to add a good shot of replenisher and see what occurs. This shot was when it was working beautifully. Conversely the XTOL is fine but that's only a month or so in use. No point posting that couldn't be clearer, except you can see the film bits floating !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom