Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

[Nokton48]

Easton Stilt Girl 21mm Rokkor QH XX 3 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Taken on a "short end" from a Hollywood movie camera. Left over scrap film bought cheaply. Replenished straight Legacy Mic-X, several years olde, this stuff does not seem to go bad!
5x7 Arista RC #2 Multigrade print developer. Minolta SRT locked up mirror, 21mm F4 QH Rokkor Minolta Yellow Filter, and 20mm MD F2.8 Lens Hood. A nice rig that replaced my 19mm RF Canon lens adapted to SRT mount. This is a great lens with XX 🙂

A bit of Reportage, I yelled "One Two Three" and we coordinated. Was fun to do.

 

[yossi]

Happy Chinese tourists at The Chinatown, Singapore.

Leica M6/8E 35mm Summicron. This is my first attempt to push Kodak Double-X to ASA800. Developed in HC-110B.

 

[Nokton48]

73mm Orthar Makina IIIR Eastman 5222 XX by Nokton48, on Flickr


I've been running a few rolls of 120 Eastman 5222 Double-X in the Plaubel Makina IIIR, with the wide 73mm Orthar and correct vintage Makina Wide Finder. It's a HEAVY BEAST, kinda liberating in the sense I use it Sunny 16 (no meter) like they did it in the olde times. It works in a very precise way as a point and shoot. To use it, you pull the rangefinder out to regular position, then transfer that distance to the wide focusing scale, and voila you are in business. You can get used to doing it. Also I have to view the finder without my eyeglasses, but it is a beautiful precise view once you do that! Like the Leica Barnack type cameras, this one takes you back to the basics of photography. I'm enjoying using it, 5222 is a good choice for retro late 1950's film type, same age as the camera. Sometimes I do add the Makina Yellow Filter.

 

[chuckroast]

73mm Orthar Makina IIIR Eastman 5222 XX by Nokton48, on Flickr


I've been running a few rolls of 120 Eastman 5222 Double-X in the Plaubel Makina IIIR, with the wide 73mm Orthar and correct vintage Makina Wide Finder. It's a HEAVY BEAST, kinda liberating in the sense I use it Sunny 16 (no meter) like they did it in the olde times. It works in a very precise way as a point and shoot. To use it, you pull the rangefinder out to regular position, then transfer that distance to the wide focusing scale, and voila you are in business. You can get used to doing it. Also I have to view the finder without my eyeglasses, but it is a beautiful precise view once you do that! Like the Leica Barnack type cameras, this one takes you back to the basics of photography. I'm enjoying using it, 5222 is a good choice for retro late 1950's film type, same age as the camera. Sometimes I do add the Makina Yellow Filter.

Would love to see resulting images, not just the camera 😉

 

[stevierose]

I've been following this thread for quite awhile, liked what I have seen, and bought a 400 foot roll of XX with my EDU discount from BH. Could use some advice. What is your favorite developer(s) for this film? At the moment I have on hand a number of bags of Xtol, Clayton F76+ (also sold as Arista Premium developer and Photo Formulary FA-1027) and one bag of D96 but am open to suggestions. I have started using a Jobo to develop my BW film because I have severe arthritis in my hands which has made manual agitation difficult and painful. If any of you develop XX in a Jobo do you reduce the manual agitation times by some %? Do you pre-wet the film like Jobo used to suggest?

 

[Sanug]

I shoot XX at box speed and develop in Adox XT-3 (aka Xtol) 1+1, 10 min.. No prewashing required.

It is a great film especially at a cloudy day or even bad weather. XX pronounces the contrast.

 

[Jonathan R]

If you’ve been following this thread for a while, you’ve probably spotted a look that you like. So why not go with that developer? Or just use what you’ve got and see if you like the result?

 

[Freakscene]

I've been following this thread for quite awhile, liked what I have seen, and bought a 400 foot roll of XX with my EDU discount from BH. Could use some advice. What is your favorite developer(s) for this film? At the moment I have on hand a number of bags of Xtol, Clayton F76+ (also sold as Arista Premium developer and Photo Formulary FA-1027) and one bag of D96 but am open to suggestions. I have started using a Jobo to develop my BW film because I have severe arthritis in my hands which has made manual agitation difficult and painful. If any of you develop XX in a Jobo do you reduce the manual agitation times by some %? Do you pre-wet the film like Jobo used to suggest?

Xtol or X-T3 work great with 5222. If you go to the original Xtol tech doc: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j109-1998_04.pdf and then look at the rotary Xtol data sheet: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j108-1996_09.pdf you can work out how much the rotary times differ from tank development (if I recall correctly it is about 20% less time for rotary development than for small tank periodic agitation) - maybe use Tri-X 400 as a close example. Then find a published starting time for 5222 for Xtol/X-T3 at your chosen dilution (I really encourage you to dilute it at least 1+1), modify it by the same proportion and use that as your starting time for rotary agitation.

Just remember that you should use a minimum of 100mL of Xtol stock per roll - less may work but it might also give you unevenly developed negatives or be more likely to fail. You might need the large drums if you want to develop a lot of films in high dilution Xtol.

Thanks to @Tim Gray for hosting those docs.

 

[stevierose]

Xtol or X-T3 work great with 5222. If you go to the original Xtol tech doc: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j109-1998_04.pdf and then look at the rotary Xtol data sheet: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j108-1996_09.pdf you can work out how much the rotary times differ from tank development (if I recall correctly it is about 20% less time for rotary development than for small tank periodic agitation) - maybe use Tri-X 400 as a close example. Then find a published starting time for 5222 for Xtol/X-T3 at your chosen dilution (I really encourage you to dilute it at least 1+1), modify it by the same proportion and use that as your starting time for rotary agitation.

Just remember that you should use a minimum of 100mL of Xtol stock per roll - less may work but it might also give you unevenly developed negatives or be more likely to fail. You might need the large drums if you want to develop a lot of films in high dilution Xtol.

Thanks to @Tim Gray for hosting those docs.

Thank you. I was thinking about doing that kind of extrapolation, and your suggestion has reinforced that.

 

[Jonathan R]

Xtol or X-T3 work great with 5222. If you go to the original Xtol tech doc: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j109-1998_04.pdf and then look at the rotary Xtol data sheet: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j108-1996_09.pdf you can work out how much the rotary times differ from tank development (if I recall correctly it is about 20% less time for rotary development than for small tank periodic agitation) - maybe use Tri-X 400 as a close example. Then find a published starting time for 5222 for Xtol/X-T3 at your chosen dilution (I really encourage you to dilute it at least 1+1), modify it by the same proportion and use that as your starting time for rotary agitation.

Just remember that you should use a minimum of 100mL of Xtol stock per roll - less may work but it might also give you unevenly developed negatives or be more likely to fail. You might need the large drums if you want to develop a lot of films in high dilution Xtol.

Thanks to @Tim Gray for hosting those docs.

Is it possible to put into words what XTOL does for Double-X that other developers don’t? I have no experience with it, but I see that Kodak claim enhanced shadow contrast and improved highlight detail “with some emulsions”. So is it a compensating developer, and would you say that’s what Double-X needs?

 

[Sanug]

XX works quite contrasty. If you shoot under sunlight conditions, I even recommend 1+2 or 1+3 dilution (14/16 min.). And with Xtol/XT-3, you will receive a good sharpness and fine grain. In Rodinal, XX might become quite grainy.

Anyway, I like the overall quality and the versatility of XT-3 very much. I don't use any other developer anymore.

 

[Freakscene]

Is it possible to put into words what XTOL does for Double-X that other developers don’t? I have no experience with it, but I see that Kodak claim enhanced shadow contrast and improved highlight detail “with some emulsions”. So is it a compensating developer, and would you say that’s what Double-X needs?

Xtol is an ascorbate developer. Ascorbates develop silver very efficiently, and ascorbate developers break the speed-grain window of traditional developers and provide about a third to a full stop more speed with most emulsions. The improved shadow detail comes from better speed and the improved highlight detail comes from the marked s shape in the characteristic curve.

Xtol was reformulated by Kodak after they switched contract manufacturer when Tetenal went broke. Some recent batches have had problems.

X-T3 is an ascorbate developer by Adox that behaves for all purposes identically to Xtol. Adox has better packaging than Kodak, and a proprietary process that decreases aerialisation of fine particles. Both advantages.
Long Xtol rant by me: [Leica] Long Xtol rant
Other Xtol information from Michael Covington: Kodak Xtol Developer - Unofficial Resource Page

Tonally, Xtol produces negatives with nice even tones, that can be printed a lot of ways. The tones are similar to those of D-76. There are some here who will tell you that the negatives it gives are ‘boring’ and maybe they are, but I like negatives with even tonality that give a lot of possibilities for printing. I particularly dislike negatives developed in ways that lower the mid tones. Xtol provides nice, bright, open tones.

The photos below are Neopan 400 in Xtol 1+3 and Acros in Xtol 1+1.

 

[stevierose]

Xtol is an ascorbate developer. Ascorbates develop silver very efficiently, and ascorbate developers break the speed-grain window of traditional developers and provide about a third to a full stop more speed with most emulsions. The improved shadow detail comes from better speed and the improved highlight detail comes from the marked s shape in the characteristic curve.

Xtol was reformulated by Kodak after they switched contract manufacturer when Tetenal went broke. Some recent batches have had problems.

X-T3 is an ascorbate developer by Adox that behaves for all purposes identically to Xtol. Adox has better packaging than Kodak, and a proprietary process that decreases aerialisation of fine particles. Both advantages.
Long Xtol rant by me: [Leica] Long Xtol rant
Other Xtol information from Michael Covington: Kodak Xtol Developer - Unofficial Resource Page

Tonally, Xtol produces negatives with nice even tones, that can be printed a lot of ways. The tones are similar to those of D-76. There are some here who will tell you that the negatives it gives are ‘boring’ and maybe they are, but I like negatives with even tonality that give a lot of possibilities for printing. I particularly dislike negatives developed in ways that lower the mid tones. Xtol provides nice, bright, open tones.

The photos below are Neopan 400 in Xtol 1+3 and Acros in Xtol 1+1.

View attachment 4841711

View attachment 4841712

Very useful information! The production of Kodak branded photo chemicals in the US has been taken over by Photo Systems Inc (PSI) in Dexter, Michigan which is a 20 minute drive from my house. They've been manufacturing quality chemicals for over 40 years including many of the C41 and E6 kits that are re-branded and sold by other companies. They know what they are doing and I expect that the quality issues of the last few years are no longer true, though I haven't tried them all yet. Graphic Chemical Manufacturing | Dexter, MI - Photo Systems Inc.

 

[Freakscene]

Very useful information! The production of Kodak branded photo chemicals in the US has been taken over by Photo Systems Inc (PSI) in Dexter, Michigan which is a 20 minute drive from my house. They've been manufacturing quality chemicals for over 40 years including many of the C41 and E6 kits that are re-branded and sold by other companies. They know what they are doing and I expect that the quality issues of the last few years are no longer true, though I haven't tried them all yet. Graphic Chemical Manufacturing | Dexter, MI - Photo Systems Inc.

They have indeed, but it means that Kodak Xtol now = Legacy Pro Eco Pro. And it is slightly different to the original Xtol.

We discussed it at the time: XTOL Mishap

I like Adox X-T3 better than Xtol, for a number of reasons, although it is only marginally different.

 

[Jonathan R]

Xtol is an ascorbate developer. Ascorbates develop silver very efficiently, and ascorbate developers break the speed-grain window of traditional developers and provide about a third to a full stop more speed with most emulsions. The improved shadow detail comes from better speed and the improved highlight detail comes from the marked s shape in the characteristic curve.

Xtol was reformulated by Kodak after they switched contract manufacturer when Tetenal went broke. Some recent batches have had problems.

X-T3 is an ascorbate developer by Adox that behaves for all purposes identically to Xtol. Adox has better packaging than Kodak, and a proprietary process that decreases aerialisation of fine particles. Both advantages.
Long Xtol rant by me: [Leica] Long Xtol rant
Other Xtol information from Michael Covington: Kodak Xtol Developer - Unofficial Resource Page

Tonally, Xtol produces negatives with nice even tones, that can be printed a lot of ways. The tones are similar to those of D-76. There are some here who will tell you that the negatives it gives are ‘boring’ and maybe they are, but I like negatives with even tonality that give a lot of possibilities for printing. I particularly dislike negatives developed in ways that lower the mid tones. Xtol provides nice, bright, open tones.

The photos below are Neopan 400 in Xtol 1+3 and Acros in Xtol 1+1.

View attachment 4841711

View attachment 4841712

Thank you! That’s exactly the kind of answer I was hoping for, and hopefully what @stevierose needed too.

I use Barry Thornton’s 2-bath for everything these days. Having done my tests, I rate Double-X at 320 ISO, given my equipment, materials and metering habits. So that’s a small speed increase over what most folk seem to agree on (200 ISO), arguably comparable with what Xtol gives. BT2B is a compensating developer, so the highlights are restrained and printable. I don’t see the easily-blown highlights that others mention. Shadow detail is very nice and sharpness is excellent.

What I don’t much like about the Double-X/BT2B combination (although this could easily be incompetence on my part) is that mid-tones often seem unnaturally light silvery grey when shadows and highlights are correctly rendered. You can see something of that in my earlier post here, though I’ll try to find a better example. What I’m not clear about is whether that’s a characteristic of Double-X in any developer, or just Double-X in BT2B. It’s not something I see with FP4+ or HP5+ in BT2B.

 

[Freakscene]

Thank you! That’s exactly the kind of answer I was hoping for, and hopefully what @stevierose needed too.

I use Barry Thornton’s 2-bath for everything these days. Having done my tests, I rate Double-X at 320 ISO, given my equipment, materials and metering habits. So that’s a small speed increase over what most folk seem to agree on (200 ISO), arguably comparable with what Xtol gives. BT2B is a compensating developer, so the highlights are restrained and printable. I don’t see the easily-blown highlights that others mention. Shadow detail is very nice and sharpness is excellent.

What I don’t much like about the Double-X/BT2B combination (although this could easily be incompetence on my part) is that mid-tones often seem unnaturally light silvery grey when shadows and highlights are correctly rendered. You can see something of that in my earlier post here, though I’ll try to find a better example. What I’m not clear about is whether that’s a characteristic of Double-X in any developer, or just Double-X in BT2B. It’s not something I see with FP4+ or HP5+ in BT2B.

How did you determine that 320 was your speed? How long do you give in the A bath? Too bright highlights suggests too much density. You could expose a little less, or develop a little less. But 2 bath processes do have a specific look, and 5222 does tend to have open midtones and bright highlights. Thornton’s 2-bath is a modified divided D23. For a more conventional look you could try divided D-76 with hydroquinone in the first bath.

David Vestal’s divided D-76

Split D-76, From Vestal's book, "The Art Of Photography".

Solution A
Water 3L
Metol 8g
Sulfite 200g
Hydroquinine 20g
Water to make 4L

Solution B
Water 3L
Sulfite 200g
Borax 8g
Water to make 4L

Dissolve in order. Use as a 2 bath developer.

You can also pseudo-divide Xtol - try 3-4 min in Xtol stock then 3-4 min in an alkali like the b bath from Thornton’s or the divided D-76. It works well, but the midtones can compress.

 

[Jonathan R]

How did you determine that 320 was your speed? How long do you give in the A bath? Too bright highlights suggests too much density. You could expose a little less, or develop a little less. But 2 bath processes do have a specific look, and 5222 does tend to have open midtones and bright highlights.

I determined 320 ISO by photographing a lightly textured surface at zone 7 and variations around that, then printing using my previously calibrated materials and procedure.

I give Double-X 4.5 min in Bath A (same in B) at 23 deg C. I have tried ringing the changes around that, but this seems perfect. I don’t get over-bright highlights (I think you misread that) - they are nicely restrained and my negs generally print easily on Grade 2 or 2.5 with excellent shadow detail and without needing to burn in highlights. That confirms that I have the ISO where it should be, I think?

I hadn’t realised that there is a specific look of 2-bath developers. How would you describe it? I feel I am very poor at recognising and articulating tonal characteristics.

 

[Freakscene]

I determined 320 ISO by photographing a lightly textured surface at zone 7 and variations around that, then printing using my previously calibrated materials and procedure.

This is a good start. The problem with this approach - working only from zone 7 - is that you are working from one specific speed/tonal band rather than getting the overall tonality how you want it.

I give Double-X 4.5 min in Bath A (same in B) at 23 deg C. I have tried ringing the changes around that, but this seems perfect. I don’t get over-bright highlights (I think you misread that) - they are nicely restrained and my negs generally print easily on Grade 2 or 2.5 with excellent shadow detail and without needing to burn in highlights. That confirms that I have the ISO where it should be, I think?

What I was referring to was anything above the midtones jumping - you called it:

mid-tones often seem unnaturally light silvery grey when shadows and highlights are correctly rendered.

Your upper mid tones are compressing into the highlights. If you wet print, it is hard, but if you scan you can just use the curves to place them where you want them.

I hadn’t realised that there is a specific look of 2-bath developers. How would you describe it? I feel I am very poor at recognising and articulating tonal characteristics.

Your photos show it clearly - open shadows, bright silvery mid-tones that are often not particularly differentiated, and well-controlled (sometimes almost too-low contrast) highlights. The divided D-76 and pseudo-divided Xtol will give better midtone differentiation, but in a lot of lighting conditions you often get that midtone compression. Ultimately I worked different ways, but I really like the approach where it is critical to keep details in highlights.

 

[Jonathan R]

This is a good start. The problem with this approach - working only from zone 7 - is that you are working from one specific speed/tonal band rather than getting the overall tonality how you want it.



What I was referring to was anything above the midtones jumping - you called it:



Your upper mid tones are compressing into the highlights. If you wet print, it is hard, but if you scan you can just use the curves to place them where you want them.


Your photos show it clearly - open shadows, bright silvery mid-tones that are often not particularly differentiated, and well-controlled (sometimes almost too-low contrast) highlights. The divided D-76 and pseudo-divided Xtol will give better midtone differentiation, but in a lot of lighting conditions you often get that midtone compression. Ultimately I worked different ways, but I really like the approach where it is critical to keep details in highlights.

Thanks, that’s very helpful. So if I understand correctly, you saying that the curve is starting to shoulder in the upper mid-tones, and that this is the result of the intentional developer scarcity that happens in Bath B of a 2-bath system? If that’s the case, then no change in ISO and/or development time is going to help, because if I reduce exposure to bring midtones back onto the straight line part of the graph, I will lose shadow detail; and if I increase development in Bath A, I will have overly dense (and probably grainy) negatives.

So returning to the Double-X theme of the thread, you would say that Xtol is a better match for it because it does shoulder but leaves a longer straight-line section? Is that right?

Thanks again, you have given me much to think about.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Thanks, that’s very helpful. So if I understand correctly, you saying that the curve is starting to shoulder in the upper mid-tones, and that this is the result of the intentional developer scarcity that happens in Bath B of a 2-bath system? If that’s the case, then no change in ISO and/or development time is going to help, because if I reduce exposure to bring midtones back onto the straight line part of the graph, I will lose shadow detail; and if I increase development in Bath A, I will have overly dense (and probably grainy) negatives.

So returning to the Double-X theme of the thread, you would say that Xtol is a better match for it because it does shoulder but leaves a longer straight-line section? Is that right?

Thanks again, you have given me much to think about.

Freakscene will correct me, but I would expect that reducing time in Part A might lower the curve a bit, albeit at the expense of the highlights? The upper mid tones have developed more density than you desire, so need less development. Probably, your shadows won’t be affected much (or at all) as they will be fully developed more quickly and with less developer in any case.

However, I haven’t enough time with 2 baths to be sure and so look forward to more and reliable info.