Author Topic: Please explain Eastman Double-X 5222 to me (Read 12878 times)

Urban Hafner · « **on:** October 29, 2014, 05:04:30 PM »

Now that even CineStill is selling that film (at quite a steep price it seems) maybe someone can explain to me why you would use that film. Does it have a unique look? Is it maybe forgiving to shoot? Both?

Hungry Mike · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2014, 05:15:55 PM »

I personally like the look. I think it pushes nicely. I wouldn't say it is better or worse than any other B&W film but I like its qualities.

Untitled by Mike is always hungry, on Flickr

Adam Doe · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2014, 05:17:07 PM »

I don't know if the look is markedly different from any other current black and white stock, only that I really like the results I get from this film. Also I like that it's 200 tungsten / 250 Daylight ISO. It is a bit pricey, so I bought a 100 ft bulk roll to save some money per roll.

gsgary · « **Reply #3 on:** October 29, 2014, 05:44:16 PM »

I don't know yet but I have 300feet so I will have plenty of time to tell you about it

gsgary · « **Reply #4 on:** October 29, 2014, 05:46:24 PM »

Quote from: Adam Doe on October 29, 2014, 05:17:07 PM

I don't know if the look is markedly different from any other current black and white stock, only that I really like the results I get from this film. Also I like that it's 200 tungsten / 250 Daylight ISO. It is a bit pricey, so I bought a 100 ft bulk roll to save some money per roll.

I got my 300feet for £65 delivered it was a bargain HP5 costs me £50 delivered for 100 feet

SLVR · « **Reply #5 on:** October 29, 2014, 06:42:48 PM »

I found when I was shooting through my XX that I just liked the versatility of the film. I could shoot it anywhere from 200 to 1600 and with proper development compensation get great results. However developing in rodinal even with stand development can be tricky and quite grainy. I would stick to D76 or Xtol as a developer because they soften the grain.

@200

@400

@800

@1600

jharr · « **Reply #6 on:** October 29, 2014, 07:41:22 PM »

Why would you want to soften the grain!!??

(not XX)

Jasmine II by James Harr's Photos, on Flickr

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #7 on:** October 29, 2014, 09:25:18 PM »

Quote from: TinTin on October 29, 2014, 06:42:48 PM

I found when I was shooting through my XX that I just liked the versatility of the film. I could shoot it anywhere from 200 to 1600 and with proper development compensation get great results. However developing in rodinal even with stand development can be tricky and quite grainy. I would stick to D76 or Xtol as a developer because they soften the grain.

Those are some great shots Tintin! I can see why you like the film (esp. at 400). Is there any site that lists development times?

Adam Doe · « **Reply #8 on:** October 29, 2014, 10:11:13 PM »

http://www.project-double-x.org/devdata.html

gsgary · « **Reply #9 on:** October 29, 2014, 10:48:12 PM »

Massive dev chart they even have one for iso6400 in rodinal 1+300 8 hours

Indofunk · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2014, 01:02:31 AM »

Quote from: Urban Hafner on October 29, 2014, 09:25:18 PM

Quote from: TinTin on October 29, 2014, 06:42:48 PM
I found when I was shooting through my XX that I just liked the versatility of the film. I could shoot it anywhere from 200 to 1600 and with proper development compensation get great results. However developing in rodinal even with stand development can be tricky and quite grainy. I would stick to D76 or Xtol as a developer because they soften the grain.

Those are some great shots Tintin! I can see why you like the film (esp. at 400). Is there any site that lists development times?

Yeah, that 400 shot looks great! Though I can't tell if that's because I like the film/developer or just because i like the shot

Ezzie · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2014, 07:02:51 AM »

I rather like it too. This is box speed in Hc-110 dil-H

Angel by Eirik0304, on Flickr

SLVR · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2014, 12:25:29 PM »

Quote from: Urban Hafner on October 29, 2014, 09:25:18 PM

Is there any site that lists development times?

I found a lot of project XX times were very wrong. Here's my times.

Rodinal:
@200 stand dev 17 min 1:100
@400 stand works at 1h but thick, I think could use less time. Needs experimentation 1:100
@800 1h looks good 1:100
@1600 2h 1:100, flawless. Works every time. Stand.
* these were all semi stand, 3inversions off the top, 1 inversion at the midway point.

@200 rodinal 1:50, 11min 20*c also works but grainy.

Xtol
@200 8min 1:1 20*c
No other times for faster speeds.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2014, 12:39:34 PM »

Thank you Tintin! I wasn't even going to ask about development in Rodinal 1:100 as it appears that not many people do it. But it's my preferred method (as I'm lazy). Good to know then times!

SLVR · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2014, 02:38:10 PM »

Its strange because 1:100 1h is toted as the be all end all for most films but for XX it just isn't the case. Your negs will come out thick. Almost unusable @ 200. From what I recall 400 was thick too at an hour. I believe the only reason that that specific example came out so well was because it was underexposed. I would start at 40min and fine tune from there.

I only have a couple rolls of XX left as ive worked my way through my 200 ft of it. I'll likely end up keeping it for push. Its really something else at 1600.

gsgary · « **Reply #15 on:** October 30, 2014, 02:49:54 PM »

Quote from: TinTin on October 30, 2014, 12:25:29 PM

Quote from: Urban Hafner on October 29, 2014, 09:25:18 PM
Is there any site that lists development times?

I found a lot of project XX times were very wrong. Here's my times.

Rodinal:
@200 stand dev 17 min 1:100
@400 stand works at 1h but thick, I think could use less time. Needs experimentation 1:100
@800 1h looks good 1:100
@1600 2h 1:100, flawless. Works every time. Stand.
* these were all semi stand, 3inversions off the top, 1 inversion at the midway point.

@200 rodinal 1:50, 11min 20*c also works but grainy.

Xtol
@200 8min 1:1 20*c
No other times for faster speeds.

Do you wet print or are these times just good for scanning

SLVR · « **Reply #16 on:** October 30, 2014, 02:58:18 PM »

never wet printed these. Maybe I'll have to bug McDuff to let me in the darkroom to find out.

I keep hearing that people "optimize" for scanning by yielding a thinner neg. I don't bother with this and try to keep my neg all looking like they should wet print fine.

Indofunk · « **Reply #17 on:** October 30, 2014, 03:10:14 PM »

Quote from: TinTin on October 30, 2014, 02:38:10 PM

Its really something else at 1600.

Well ok now I want some

gsgary · « **Reply #18 on:** October 30, 2014, 04:25:10 PM »

Quote from: Indofunk on October 30, 2014, 03:10:14 PM

Quote from: TinTin on October 30, 2014, 02:38:10 PM
Its really something else at 1600.

Well ok now I want some

All mine

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #19 on:** October 30, 2014, 05:09:12 PM »

How are you going to get it into 35mm canisters? IIRC the daylight loaders only take 100ft?

gsgary · « **Reply #20 on:** October 30, 2014, 05:21:51 PM »

Quote from: Urban Hafner on October 30, 2014, 05:09:12 PM

How are you going to get it into 35mm canisters? IIRC the daylight loaders only take 100ft?

In my new darkrook

jharr · « **Reply #21 on:** October 30, 2014, 05:34:07 PM »

Quote from: Urban Hafner on October 30, 2014, 05:09:12 PM

How are you going to get it into 35mm canisters? IIRC the daylight loaders only take 100ft?

You can either roll it up into 100ft rolls, or do like me and just cut a piece of string to the length you want, measure the film against it in the dark and load spools in the dark. It's not hard to do. I actually prefer it over my crappy daylight loader that won't engage the sprocket holes and count the exposures.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #22 on:** October 30, 2014, 05:54:23 PM »

I see. I may give that a try. Where's the best place in Europe to get Double-X then?

gsgary · « **Reply #23 on:** October 30, 2014, 06:00:35 PM »

Quote from: Urban Hafner on October 30, 2014, 05:54:23 PM

I see. I may give that a try. Where's the best place in Europe to get Double-X then?

I got mine off ebay from a lady I have bought film from before

Try here http://take2films.co.uk/stores/filmstock/black-white-film/eastman-double-x/

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #24 on:** October 31, 2014, 10:32:51 AM »

Thanks Gary. That is a really weird site. There aren't even prices on it.

Has anyone compared it to Orwo N74+? That one is readily available here (after all it's produced in Germany). I especially wonder about pushing it.

gsgary · « **Reply #25 on:** October 31, 2014, 03:50:54 PM »

Quote from: Urban Hafner on October 31, 2014, 10:32:51 AM

Thanks Gary. That is a really weird site. There aren't even prices on it.

Has anyone compared it to Orwo N74+? That one is readily available here (after all it's produced in Germany). I especially wonder about pushing it.

I have got 100 feet of Orwo UN54 and it is great not tried N74 because I can get HP5 cheaper but what I have seen on Flickr I like

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #26 on:** October 31, 2014, 05:03:06 PM »

Aw man, too much choice.

gsgary · « **Reply #27 on:** October 31, 2014, 05:34:51 PM »

Even more choice when Ferrania get going

Andrej K · « **Reply #28 on:** November 01, 2014, 08:49:47 AM »

I used XX too and quite liked it.. It prints "wet" nicely too. IIRC I used to develop it in Beutler or similar formulae.
I would sum it up that it looks in 35mm like TriX does in MF - that is very very nice

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #29 on:** November 01, 2014, 08:51:13 AM »

Aw man, so I need to search a bit more to find some around here.

gsgary · « **Reply #30 on:** November 01, 2014, 12:17:59 PM »

Just loaded 1 roll by hand to try it out