Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

Dan,

I have been thinking about the last developing I just finished with Eastman 5222. Using D76, what is the best way to decrease grain? Change dilution, change agitation?

If I can get an F mount lens with smoother bokeh, I will be halfway there as far as smoother oof areas is concerned, and I think it won't be much of an issue.
 
dave lackey said:
Dan,

I have been thinking about the last developing I just finished with Eastman 5222. Using D76, what is the best way to decrease grain? Change dilution, change agitation?

If I can get an F mount lens with smoother bokeh, I will be halfway there as far as finer grain is concerned, and I think it won't be much of an issue.
Click to expand...

My anecdotal experience is that less agitation certainly helps keep down the grain (although decreases contrast); I've had some success with 1:3 D76 as well, but YMMV. Here's an example with every 3 minute agitation with 1:3 D76:
chinese vendor by bc50099, on Flickr

Keep trying til you find the combination you like - after all, you're the best judge!

BC
 
dave lackey said:
Dan,

I have been thinking about the last developing I just finished with Eastman 5222. Using D76, what is the best way to decrease grain? Change dilution, change agitation?
Click to expand...


Dave,
I would only change one variable at a time.
XX is inherently grainy, yet it can be adjusted to a degree.
actually I kind of like the 50's roughness of it.

Stay with D76.
 
Nokton48 said:
Dave,
I would only change one variable at a time.
XX is inherently grainy, yet it can be adjusted to a degree.
actually I kind of like the 50's roughness of it.

Stay with D76.
Click to expand...

Yes! The 5222 grain is really good and adds character IMO. My problem is matching the lens for the oof area effect I desire. In the Leica lenses, I have that one set. Very happy with my M3 and M6 lens availability although very limited. The F-mount lenses not so much... yet. Bokeh seems a bit nervous for my eyes.

I am delighted that I am now developing my own film. D76 is the chosen developer for a long time then we shall venture out!😀
 
OK a while back I promised I'd post some Double-X pictures, even though they were taken with an SLR (Canon F-1) and not a rangefinder. So here they are. These are scans of real 11x14 prints. I'm also printing Double-X pictures full-frame on 20x24 paper (yes, 20x24!) and they still look fine. The grain is not objectionable at all. I did not expect this, after all the horrific grain I saw when scanning Double-X negs in the past, but there really is something to the stories that it scans grainy but prints nicely. No, I don't know how that's possible either.

I meter at 400 when shooting, then develop in D-76 1:1 for 10 minutes. The negatives are nice and dense, and print very well. I have a bunch of other stuff but these are just 4 random ones I scanned as examples.

I use Shirley-Wellard cassettes, and had issues getting one of them set up for my camera, which is why the sprocket holes intrude on the one picture. That's all been sorted out now...

Duncan

brick_and_metra.jpg



tanks_and_pipes.jpg



dirt_dragon.jpg



emily_smile.jpg
 
Yes, 68 degrees F, agitate every minute.

I've tried other developer combinations that didn't help with the grain, but that was back when I was scanning the negs. I should pull out that film and try printing some of them, to get a better idea...but I absolutely love the results in D-76 so I haven't bothered.

Oh, full disclosure: I'm actually using ID-11, not D-76. It's supposed to be identical, but just in case it's not, I figured I'd mention that.

Duncan
 
dave lackey said:
Yes! The 5222 grain is really good and adds character IMO. My problem is matching the lens for the oof area effect I desire. In the Leica lenses, I have that one set. Very happy with my M3 and M6 lens availability although very limited. The F-mount lenses not so much... yet. Bokeh seems a bit nervous for my eyes.
Click to expand...

Have you tried a 50/1.8 Series E, or 35/2-O?
 
bcli said:
It will be great to see your images Dave!

BC
Click to expand...

Cool, yes, me, too!

I have found a sweet matchup with Double X and the FM3a with the 45/2.8 P lens.

The Series E lens has in the past produced similar sharpness and nice oof areas. So now is a good time to compare those. As soon as the rain stops here in a couple of days I will revisit the same locations to shoot.:angel:
 
Ok, it is sometimes better to show images that may not be one's best to work through the variables and come up with the right combination of one's efforts.

I developed a single roll of Double X last week with D76 1+1, gentle agitation and times as shown on the Massive Development Chart app. The F6 did admirably well exposing and the AF Nikkor 50 1.8 was... well, okay and sometimes not okay.

Here are a few where I am getting results not entirely consistent with my results with the FM3a and 45/2.8 P lens:


attachment.php


attachment.php


attachment.php


The bokeh in the last one seems a bit nervous to me.
 

Attachments

  • FINAL Dave with F6 June 2015 2 rff.jpg
    FINAL Dave with F6 June 2015 2 rff.jpg
    125.6 KB · Views: 2
  • FINAL Hawk with Nerf Gun June 2015 rff.jpg
    FINAL Hawk with Nerf Gun June 2015 rff.jpg
    143.2 KB · Views: 2
  • FINAL 2 Horse and Truck Art Newnan Square June 2015 rff.jpg
    FINAL 2 Horse and Truck Art Newnan Square June 2015 rff.jpg
    134.4 KB · Views: 2
Hi Dave:
I like all your shots, but I'm not sure what effect you are trying to achieve with your lenses in the out of focus areas (shorthand bokeh) - is it something like this, with a 28mm lens (one stop from max aperture)

stems by bc50099, on Flickr
or like this, with a 18-35mm (at about 25mm) zoom Nikkor (max aperture)?

Bokeh thru palm by bc50099, on Flickr

As you note, the tonality seems diverse enough with the Double X.

BC
 
BC,

Good question.🙂 For me, of course, the 200/2.0 is the ultimate for creamy smooth bokeh. But, without funds, just a dream.😱

I am beginning to think that I can get close to the Nokton 50mm/1.5 that I am using on my M6. The best example is unfortunately one I choose not to publish as it is in my personal category. Then, again, I have gotten great results from the Series E 50 and the 45/2.8 P. In fact they seem to be indistinguishable outside of the slightly different field of view.

For this AF lens, I am just not quite with it when looking at harsh trees in the background, or even some of the footballs of light. Researching images on Flickriver, I have found the 50/1.4 G lens to be pretty darned to close to what I am looking for. Reckon I need to sell something to get it though.😡

http://www.flickriver.com/groups/afs50mmf14/pool/interesting/

Nice photos you posted, by the way.
 
Two years ago with the M3 and Eastman 5222. I cannot remember which lens but I believe it was the Summar 50. I love the retro look:

Leica M3:
attachment.php



attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Kember at Brusters 2013 rff.jpg
    Kember at Brusters 2013 rff.jpg
    130.3 KB · Views: 1
  • Courthouse Statue 2013 rff.jpg
    Courthouse Statue 2013 rff.jpg
    130.1 KB · Views: 1
Very nice, Dave. I really like your first shot and the feel it gives; nicely done. I recently used my Summarit (f/2 open) and got similar backgrounds to yours (but much less contrast) as in the second shot. I actually like my 135mm f/4 Serenar for selective focus on an M4, but I'm sure it's also a contrast thing to my mind's eye:
fleur by bc50099, on Flickr

BC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom