Shooting Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

traveler_101 said:
Ok, but is HC-110 the only alternative for this film? What about XTOL, for example?
Click to expand...

Look back thru this thread, there are many developers folks use with Double XX (5222). I mainly use HC-110, (64:1 dilution H?) whenever I shoot it at ISO 320 because it is very convenient. When shot at ISO 1600 I use D-76 1:1.

Best,
-Tim
 
I quite like the look of Eastman 5222 film in HC110.

For you 5222+HC110 users, what is your favorite EI, dilution and time combination?
Also please let me know if you presoak.

TIA,
Chris
 
ok, before diving into 100', i bought a few rolls from FPP.

The main developer I use is Ilfotec-DDX. Any recommendations for development times shooting at 250?

I've seen a few people post DDX pictures on this thread, but couldn't find any times. Thanks.
 
ChrisPlatt said:
I quite like the look of Eastman 5222 film in HC110.

For you 5222+HC110 users, what is your favorite EI, dilution and time combination?
Also please let me know if you presoak.

TIA,
Chris
Click to expand...

HC110 1:60 or 1:50 sometimes (about H) just easier to measure
11.5 mins @250iso
No pre-soak.
There are perhaps valid reasons for pre-soaking using Pyrocat HD, indeed Sandy King does recommend it but is a rotary processor which changes things. That is because Pyrocat HD begins to work very rapidly and theory says pre-soak should ameliorate streaking.
I have run both ways several times, often because I forgot the pre-soak, with no visible difference.
I do not use it routinely with any developer with 5222.
Ilford films (I know OT) have a surfactant in the emulsion and will not require a pre-soak at all.
Pre-soaking is usually a topic that encourages entrenched positions and perhaps should be avoided.
 
Jhausler said:
ok, before diving into 100', i bought a few rolls from FPP.

The main developer I use is Ilfotec-DDX. Any recommendations for development times shooting at 250?

I've seen a few people post DDX pictures on this thread, but couldn't find any times. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Ilford DDX is a push developer. I use it very successfully with Delta 3200. DDX is expensive to use! Digital truth has data for DDX/XX EI 3200 here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchar...X&Developer=Ilfotec+DD&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C Seriously, if you want 250 try D76 or HC110 as a start. Or something similar. Just about any developer will react well with this film. If you want a lower contrast developer try Kodak D-23 (that's just sodium sulphite and Metol). Mix it yourself, you can use measuring spoons.
 
Nokton48 said:
Ilford DDX is a push developer. I use it very successfully with Delta 3200. DDX is expensive to use! Digital truth has data for DDX/XX EI 3200 here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchar...X&Developer=Ilfotec+DD&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C Seriously, if you want 250 try D76 or HC110 as a start. Or something similar. Just about any developer will react well with this film. If you want a lower contrast developer try Kodak D-23 (that's just sodium sulphite and Metol). Mix it yourself, you can use measuring spoons.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I got turned onto DDX because I understood it to be "full speed". I do like the results with the films I shoot at 400. I havent found DDX to be that expensive, but I do make a liter of working solution and reuse it 6-8 times. Aside from it i've only ever used Ilfosol 3 and Rodinal.

Is it just that no one has really tried DDX or would there be negative outcomes?

I'll look into hc110 or d76. Thanks!
 
The only downside to D76 and XX is that the stock solution will only last about a month before starting to go downhill. But I prefer it's tonality, I have tried a lot of developers with XX. The upside to HC110 is repeatability and the fact that a bottle will last at least ten years without any fluctuations in results. Most here mix it straight from the syrup (No water, glycol based dev).
 
Nokton48 said:
The only downside to D76 and XX is that the stock solution will only last about a month before starting to go downhill.
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to: some of these and some of this will allow it to last a very long time. If you are extra careful in mixing and decanting it so as not to introduce air bubbles you'd get 8 months storage in an 8oz. bottle easy.
 
yeah... starting to sound more like a hassle and HC110 looks more expensive than DDX.

No ideas on DDX from anyone then? i dont mind venturing a guess.. maybe i'll try to extrapolate some numbers and see what happens.
 
Jhausler said:
yeah... starting to sound more like a hassle and HC110 looks more expensive than DDX.

No ideas on DDX from anyone then? i dont mind venturing a guess.. maybe i'll try to extrapolate some numbers and see what happens.
Click to expand...

I've not tried it in DD-X, but you've given me the idea to try some ORWO N74 in DDX, thanks! I only run XX in HC-110b, as I like what I get just fine.
 
HC110 seems expensive due to initial cost, but it is probably the
most economical developer in the long run for the average user.

Chris
 
If it attracts water it will go bad so if you are going over a half bottle HC-110 better repack the rest in two smaller glass bottles.
 
Fotohuis said:
If it attracts water it will go bad so if you are going over a half bottle HC-110 better repack the rest in two smaller glass bottles.
Click to expand...

I have never had this problem. The last time that I finished off a bottle, I used it until there was just a tiny amount of HC-110 coating the bottom of the bottle. It was bright red and it still worked.
 
Same here. Currently using the last of a bottle I bought in 2009. It's pretty dark, but has been kept in a plastic bottle since I bought it and it still works fine.
 
If you have a densitometer and measuring curves you can see very easily the differences when HC-110 (and even R09/Rodinal) is getting old over 4 years. It is NOT the same anymore, however of course it will produce an image on your B&W film .... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom