Exposing Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

Ok, I am completely confused at the moment regarding the availability of buying Eastman 5222 XX film. I sent an inquiry to the customer service email address listed on the Kodak film catalogue online:

“Hi, after finally using all of my Eastman 5222 Double X 35mm film, I am really hoping to order another 400’ roll of the film but I cannot find it at the usual photo shops.
I see it is listed in your catalog of films and I’m contacting you to see if I can order another roll.

Thank you in advance for your kind assistance, as always,

Dave”

___________________

This is the response I just received:

“Hello,
There is now an approval form for 35mm. Please fill it out at your earliest convenience and I can send it to management for approval.

Our management would like to review your project details.

Please note that this film is manufactured only for use in motion picture productions.

Nick Poehlmann
Customer Service Representative
|
Customer Engagement
Eastman Kodak Company
gcg-customerserviced@kodak.com
|
t: 800-356-3259 / Prompt 3
www.kodak.com

IMPORTANT: This email is from outside Kodak. Do not click links or enter passwords. Please be very careful”
______________

So, is it now a fact that a buyer must be approved to buy their film and their approval is contingent that it is to be used for approved projects?🤷‍♂️

Dave
 
dave lackey said:
Ok, I am completely confused at the moment regarding the availability of buying Eastman 5222 XX film. I sent an inquiry to the customer service email address listed on the Kodak film catalogue online:

“Hi, after finally using all of my Eastman 5222 Double X 35mm film, I am really hoping to order another 400’ roll of the film but I cannot find it at the usual photo shops.
I see it is listed in your catalog of films and I’m contacting you to see if I can order another roll.

Thank you in advance for your kind assistance, as always,

Dave”

___________________

This is the response I just received:

“Hello,
There is now an approval form for 35mm. Please fill it out at your earliest convenience and I can send it to management for approval.

Our management would like to review your project details.

Please note that this film is manufactured only for use in motion picture productions.

Nick Poehlmann
Customer Service Representative
|
Customer Engagement
Eastman Kodak Company
gcg-customerserviced@kodak.com
|
t: 800-356-3259 / Prompt 3
www.kodak.com

IMPORTANT: This email is from outside Kodak. Do not click links or enter passwords. Please be very careful”
______________

So, is it now a fact that a buyer must be approved to buy their film and their approval is contingent that it is to be used for approved projects?🤷‍♂️

Dave
Click to expand...
I am lucky I bought so much “unapproved” Double XX quite recently (before the price increase) 🙂
 
Turns out the two Kodaks are at odds with one another. One makes film and sells it for motion picture use. The other sells/markets the film that the other makes for stills use.

It's like buying farm diesel to use for your daily commuter (they don't want you to do that).

We ought to start a "film production company" on paper and buy what we need. There's no way they'll get wise to that? Right?!? 🤣😭
 
dave lackey said:
So, is it now a fact that a buyer must be approved to buy their film and their approval is contingent that it is to be used for approved projects?🤷‍♂️

Dave
Click to expand...

Unfortunately yes, they announced this change a few months back iirc. They no longer wish to sell their motion picture films for still photography use (except, I think, via Cinestill as a reseller.) This is the case for all the movie films, I think. Their "approval" will be contingent on the order coming from an approved film production house or at least convincing them you're going to use it for movies.

I think it's an unfortunate development given the state of film supplies in general, but at least we have a new medium speed film in Kentmere 200, and from a company which actually wants to sell to photographers.
 
Seems poor business sense to me. If folk want to buy 5222 in preference to Tri-X because it is cheaper, or just because it's different, why not sell two ranges like Harman do (Ilford and Kentmere)?
 
Thank you. I did not perform a direct comparision. My impression is as follows:

Double-X and Kentmere 200 are similiar concerning speed, contrast and the inferior or even missing anti-halation. However, Double-X has less halation than Kentmere 200. The grain of Double-X is more pronounced, but not annoying. Kentmere 200 has a wider exposure latitude than Double-X.

When Double-X will become unavailable for still photography, I am going to replace it with Kentmere 200 without any pain. The character of Double-X is nice, but I am sure it is quite similiar to Kentmere 200 or even Tri-X. There are too many myths around concerning the specific look of Double-X.
 
While I find XX interesting, it's still nowhere near what my favorite was - PlusX - and while I can develop at home, I do not have an acceptable scanning solution (I've tried a number and they don't work for me).

Instead I've learned to live with C41 in the form of Ilford XP2+ and my local lab's scanning &, on the occasions I want it, printing. The look of the chromogenic film, when I do my part correctly & usually with a Yellow filter involved, comes close to what I used to get with PlusX at EI400 in Diafine.
 
Limited experience with XX, but I prefer Foma 200 in this speed. And it's a lot less expensive.

I find 400' bulk rolls a real hassle to load by hand. It takes too long to load it all in one sitting (for me). One time I had three 400' bulk rolls from Orwo, and not only was there a QC issue, but it took 3-4 days in a dark closet. I ended selling the remaining two. Since then I've seen 400' bulk loaders which are modified Arista loaders. If I still used those types of cassettes, I'd give the 400' bulk loads a try because they come with a big cost saving.

Ha, ha, real savings come with the 1000' but loads!!!
 
Timmyjoe said:
Yeah, Plus-X was great. My second favorite, to my favorite, APX-100 by Agfa. It's such a shame these old, slow, B&W emulsions are gone. They were really something.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...
Yes Plus-X was a great film. Fast enough, fine grain enough for big enlargements, and it had a great look all its own. Plus-X should never have been discontinued!

Are you paying attention, Kodak?
 
Timmyjoe said:
Yeah, Plus-X was great. My second favorite, to my favorite, APX-100 by Agfa. It's such a shame these old, slow, B&W emulsions are gone. They were really something.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...
Adox CHS 100 II is extremely similar to original APX100. Tonally, pulled TMY / TMax 400 is the closest to Plus-X.
 
I still have 400 feet of 5231 Plus-X, bought when following TomA's lead, have most of it left.

I started this XX thread back then. Every developer known to man has prolly been discussed with examples posted. Good info to data mine.

Motion picture industry used millions of feet of XX. Remember this link? My favorite Bond movie with XX intro:

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