Shooting Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

[df cardwell]

" running short of HQ at the moment " = The Mother of Invention !


Kodak D-89, as revised by Ryuji Suzuki

metol 3.0g
sodium sulfite (anh) 100 g
borax (decahydrate) 5.0g
potassium bromide 0.5g of
water to make 1 liter

My notes:

1. It is indistinguishable to me from D-76, but with less base fog. (I think !)
2. For sheet film, I use D-89 ( and D-76 ) straight.
3. For 35mm, I like the results of 1+2 dilution. (Goldilocks' balance between too soft, and too sharp ... just right )
Doubling your normal development time, and agitating once per minute may work for you.

Packaged D-76 will probably last longer in solution.

Good Luck !

[Tom A]

I recommend the 400ft spools of XX or Plus X. As there are no daylight loaders available, you have to load in total darkness and 400 ft of film coiling on the table is bad enough - 1000ft is a LOT.
I tend to load the whole spool in one sitting and then have a month or month and a half worth of "shooting" stock. This way you forget the misery of loading and just enjoy the shooting part!
The Plus X is an interesting emulsion too. Years ago I used the movie stock version of it and it is quite remarkable for its tonal range. Kodak rates it at 80 in daylight, but it has enough latitude to make 100 usable and in a pinch 125. Somewhere in my files there are some negs from this, done in D 23 - almost large format type of mid-tone latitude.
With the D23 you do get a bit more base fog (I usually add some benzotriazole to it -10ml of 1% solution/1000ml and that does help). Grain is fine though a bit mushed up because of the Sodium Sulphite. Initial try I would recommend 6 min with 3 turns/60 sec.
I only have 400 ft of the Plus X in the freezer, but I will order another 2000 ft for the summer as well as top up my XX stock this spring.
At the moment Vancouver is having one of its truly dreary January days, about 1/60@2.8 with XX and rain to boot!

[Nokton48]

M2 & I went shooting today, and it's a bright sun 1/250 f8 (and 5.6) XX day here in Ohio. NO METER. Finished off my first roll with the Rapidwinder, and Im thinking it's going to be a great experience, because I've actually been carrying it around all week with me, and using it.

Anyway, my first roll of XX is in the can (as they say out in Hollywood). M2 and I then went shopping at the local photo-fleamarket stores in my area. I ended up with a vintage Honeywell Nikor 5-reel tank w/rod, two Patterson graduates, extra Patterson safelight bulb, and two new plastic litre Kalt darkroom bottles, to mix the D-96 and D-96 Replenisher (I"m going to start with that) with XX.

Now, if I can find the little weight set for my graduated balance, I'll be in business with this project.

[Nokton48]

Hi All,

Just ordered 400' of Eastman Plus-X Negative Film 5231, directly from Eastman Kodak in NYC. Cost a total of $144.30 ($127.68 + $8.00UPS +$8.62 tax).


http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/pr.../bw/5231.jhtml



Contact Info:
Kodak Cinema & Television
360 W 31st St
New York, NY 10001

212-631-3400
800-621-FILM

So, Now I will have 35mm XX and Plus-X Motion Picture film for awhile.

[Tom A]

Dan, let me know how the +X works out. I am still waiting for spring and summer before I load up mine. This no meter shooting with anything but TriX does tax the brain a bit. After 35 rolls of XX I ma getting it with the 250 asa, but slower than that will give me a hadache!
As you know by know, large quantitie of film loaded up and a M2 is highly addictive.
Are you going to post naything soon?

[Nokton48]

Tom, I'm also looking forward to using the +X, as the weather warms up. Today in Ohio it is 10 degrees F, too cold for me to do much outside, although it's clear and 1/250@f16 today.

One of my goals for 2008 is to get my dry darkroom up and running. I've always been a wet printer.

[Tom A]

Just "souped" another five rolls of XX in Adox. This time I added 30 sec to the time (7min 30 sec) just to see what it looks like. Just looking at the film hanging to dry - looks a bit "dense" but I will try to scan some stuff tomorrow from it.
Just started this project of shooting 8-10 rolls with a M2, a 35f1.4 Summilux (Pre Asph) in anticipation of the new Nokton 35f1,4 MC/SC that should arrive in February. Weather is promised to be sunny for the next 2-3 days so f16 over filmspeed will be applied.

[Tom A]

Just posted another 25 frames from the last batch of XX. This time I did run it for 7.5 minutes instead of 7. A bit "sharper" contrast. Worked with some shots, but I think I stick with the 7min time.
The grain is a bit more defined with the longer time, but it is not objectionable. Will be inteersting to try it with either Beutler or Rodinal a bit later. Probably 1:50 for 10-11 min. Exagerated sharpness and sharper grain structure.

[Nokton48]

I'm just up and out of my basement darkroom, mixed up 1000ml of Leo's Adox MQ Borax developer, and 1000ml of the Adox MQ Borax replenisher. That's enough to get me started with a two-reel tank (hope to soup my first two rolls of XX tommorrow) if I can pull another roll through the M2, or maybe four rolls in my new five-reel Nikor tank. Next time I'll mix a gallon of the developer, if I like it. It's tough to get out shooting right now, since I work during the week, and it's dark when I leave! Do you guys like the Adox MQ Borax with the +X, as well?

Tom I love the new M2, got quite a nice "photo buzz" using it Saturday, streetshooting with the new Rapidwinder it's flawlessly smooth. And I like eyeballing the exposures 8-)

[Tom A]

Dan. I would recommend just making up 2000ml of the Adox and a 1000ml replenisher. By the time you have used up the replenisher (at 20ml/roll) you will have run 50 rolls through the Adox Stock and you be surprised how much crap has accumulated in it by then. You can filter it, but I suggest that you only do 50 rolls in one batch and then remix. Even though the Adox is quite stable, you will have some reactions in it over a couple of weeks and it is a cheap soup to start with.

[projectbluebird]

Here's a question for those who've already bought this film. How large are the 400' cans? I have limited amounts of fridge space.

[lkgroup]

The two 400' film cans I have are about 7 1/2" wide by 1 1/2" high.

They are about twice as wide as a 100' can. I split the 400' rolls in my darkroom to smaller sizes, and fill up some extra left over 100' cans so I can use them in my bulk film loader. I think Tom loads his film in the dark by hand.

Leo

[larmarv916]

Ok....I stumbled on this thread and Iam game for bulk loading. But my question is...that I know very little about "Double X" or XX. What ASA ? Also Plus X has been made in so many versions. The later one I did not care for.

I shoot both ADOX CHS and Efke brands. But my perfered developer is XTOL My next question is where do I get the reels and cans for converting the 400ft down to rolls of 100ft ?? So all advice is welcome. Best Regards.....Laurance

[dpetrzelka]

What are your thoughts on 5222 and Xtol?
Has anyone tried that combo?

[projectbluebird]

Originally Posted by larmarv916

Ok....I stumbled on this thread and Iam game for bulk loading. But my question is...that I know very little about "Double X" or XX. What ASA ? Also Plus X has been made in so many versions. The later one I did not care for.

Both of the emulsions we've been talking about in this thread (XX 5222 and Plus X 5231) are motion picture films. The official ASA's according to the Kodak datasheets (Daylight/Tungsten):

80/64 for the PlusX
250/200 for XX

Also according to the datasheets, 5231 has less resolving power than the still-photography Plus-X (ASA 125)

I shoot both ADOX CHS and Efke brands. But my perfered developer is XTOL My next question is where do I get the reels and cans for converting the 400ft down to rolls of 100ft ?? So all advice is welcome. Best Regards.....Laurance

If you've shot any bulk film before, you can use the leftover cans. Otherwise I'd suggest poking around the well-known auction site, I've seen plenty empty cans there. You won't need any special reels, because you load standard cassettes. After that step, it's just like shooting and developing film from the store.

Because these films were intended as motion picture films, they have more limited reccomended developers. Hence the more esoteric recipes we've been bandying about. Unfortunately, XTOL is not among the official data, nor does anyone seem to have played around with it on their own.(yet) The 5222 can be developed with plain old D-76, which can be found at any serious photographic store, or many places online.

But if you're serious enough to be loading 400' of bulk film, you may want to do your own ASA/Developing tests. You'll certainly have plenty of film to play with!
If you do decide to go this route, you can always brag to your photo buddies about how "serious" you take your photography. But always remember to have fun!

[Nokton48]

"I think Tom loads his film in the dark by hand"

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vn-G6g3Om3s

This shows Tom loading a Leica film cassette. I'm loading my Kodak Snap Caps using the same method. Works just fine.

400' on a table in front of you in the dark is not too bad at all. It goes into a black plastic bag, then into the 400' can. It's easily holdable in your two hands, the core is lightweight, maybe 7-8" in diameter. So, not bad.

Just make sure it dosen't fall onto the floor and unroll 8-)

[larmarv916]

Well let me say thanks to "Bluebird" for the quick and direct answer. I shoot Bulk Efke and others. I get these from our friends at Freestyle Photo up in "Hollyweird" So based on the info I see these film stock are not going to really get me a step up in final overall resolution, or artistic leverage. That was my real interest.

Besides if Iam really looking for darkroom fun I still shoot 5x7 and processing that is nothing but wetroom fun. I was hoping that Kodak had a finer emulsion on movie stock that would be through back to a ultra fine pancromatic dream But I guess that is not the case.

Xtol works very well and gives a very long tonal curve. It can be diluted in many strengths and works very well below 68 F It really helps lower grain clumping and I like it better for slow films as the high lights do not block out. Also it is no a toxic nightmare to handle.

Anyway thanks for the info. Best Regards....Laurance

[ClayH]

I have been shooting XX-5222 and developing it in FX-37 1:5 for 6-7 minutes (70 deg) I really like the look of this film, probably for nostalgic reasons. It most resembles the Tri-X stock circa early 1970's. Grainy, but not too bad. The FX developer really makes it sharp and crisp. One interesting thing that I have noticed about this film is that the lack of an anti-halation layer (I'm guessing about this) can give a nice highlight 'bloom' in high contrast scenes. Pair it with old lenses like a version 1 35 cron or a version 1 35 lux, and you can get some really pleasing effects.

[Tom A]

I haven't tried the XX with Xtol as it is a developer that I dont like. Its keeping charactersitics are bad and there is no warning when it "dies".
However, I have used PCK, another axcorbic acid (Vit C) based developer with it and had no problem with it.
XX is a "vintage" type emulsion and as such responds very much like a slightly slower Tri X. If you shave 15% of your Xtol time, you would probably get a pretty close time and with 400 feet on hand, you would have enough to fine-tune your times and exposures.
I did a check on my Flickr site and typed in the tag "Double XX" and there are 171 shots on it at the moment. Various developers too.
XX is not a fine grain film, but only if you compare it with todays Tmax-2/Fuji Presto etc. With films like Tri X/Agfapan/Neopan is holds its own. Where it is superior is in tonalrange. It is designed to be used with klieglights and large reflectors on a set so highlight details are very important and that's where it delivers. If you use a soft "draw" developers you get great tones, particularly mid-tones and high lights and the slightly softer "draw" still holds shadow details.
Over the years I have shot at least 20 000ft of XX and the Agfa version of it -AP 250. I like it for its smootness and tonality and if you keep your prints to 11x14, the grain is not noticable and beyound that it looks like Tri X.
In todays world of diminishing film supply I find it makes sense to stock up on emulsions that work for you. At less than $2/roll you also have the advantage of beeing able to shoot more.
Yes, it is inconvinient to load your own, but once you get used to it, it is not too bad and 400ft makes about 70-75 rolls and once done you have the freedom of just shooting away.
As for taking up space in the freezer. A stack of 10x 400 ft reels take up about the same space as couple of Tri X pro-packs (100 rolls) and the 10x400ft cans will give you 700+ rolls.

[Tom A]

Originally Posted by ClayH

I have been shooting XX-5222 and developing it in FX-37 1:5 for 6-7 minutes (70 deg) I really like the look of this film, probably for nostalgic reasons. It most resembles the Tri-X stock circa early 1970's. Grainy, but not too bad. The FX developer really makes it sharp and crisp. One interesting thing that I have noticed about this film is that the lack of an anti-halation layer (I'm guessing about this) can give a nice highlight 'bloom' in high contrast scenes. Pair it with old lenses like a version 1 35 cron or a version 1 35 lux, and you can get some really pleasing effects.

If you REALLy like flare, try Lucky 400. It has no antihalation layer and it will give some rather etheral halo's around highlights. I used it with an old uncoated Hektor 50mm2.5 from 1931 and the "glow" was amazing. Hmm, thinking about it, it was mainly glow and very little subject matter. Fun though!
The latest version of the XX does have some kind of anti-halation backing on it so it is not as "glowing" as the older version.

[Tom A]

[Tom A]

As we were changing fridges and the old one had to be emptied it gave the opportunity to stack the film in the freezer on the table. It gives you an idea of the size of the XX/5222 cans. All in all there is about 7000-7500 ft of film there. XX/TriX and behind the Tri X pile about 600ft of Acros, 400ft APX 400 and 500 feet of assorted PanF/FP-4/Tech Pan/30 rolls of Lucky 400/20 rolls of Tri X and 400 ft of Plus X. Hmm, I think I need to stock up on XX and Tri X soon.

[Al Kaplan]

"Still camera" films are designed to be developed to print on paper. That requires ending up with a negative with a fair amount of contrast. Professional motion picture film is printed onto a master positive which is then cut up and spliced together. The positive is then printed onto a copy negative, and the release prints of the movie are printed from the copy negative.

Each of those two extra steps adds contrast to the image. If you took a normally exposed and developed Tri-X negative and made a positive print on film, then made a copy negative from that, it'd be way too contrasty to do much of anything with. That's why motion picture film tends to be fairly low contrast. Now if they'd only bring back Eastman XT Pan (about ASA 40) and Eastman 4-X Pan (about 500). That, and sell short ends for two cents a foot once more. (Dream on, Al)

[projectbluebird]

Originally Posted by Al Kaplan

That's why motion picture film tends to be fairly low contrast.

Actually Al, the suggested ASA's and development times from Kodak for the motion picture stocks are for a gamma of 0.65-0.7. Looking at the contrast index curves for regular plus-X, the recommended times seem to fall close to this range too. I haven't used any of this film yet, so I can't speak from experience... What say those who have been shooting this stock, is it lower contrast?

In either case, when I order mine the first thing I'll be doing is some speed/development tests. Something I do for every new film I use.

Tom, that stack of film makes me jealous, I wish payday would roll around so I could order some film.

[Tom A]

The contrast with the XX has not been a problem, but then I shoot and develop it as if it was a 3/4 stop slower XXX. The benefit of XX is that you rarely run into blocked highlights in contrasty light.
As for developers, i find that MQ developers like D76/Adox/PCK (a Xtol type developer works fine). Kodak's D96, which is lower contrast works very well in contrasty light. As with everything you have to "shoot yourself in" with this stock and learn how it behaves. On the other hand, 400ft gives you 70+ rolls so just set aside 4-5 roills and test it. Once you have established your own speed/developer/exposure "style" it works remerkably well.
It also seems to handle screw-ups exposure wise a bit better than the modern, thin emulsion films, which makes it easy to use with a non-metered camera. Do a couple of readings of deep shadow/medium light and bright light and just remember those and shoot.
I fiund that I shoot faster and occasionally better with the old M2's than with MP's and M6's. There is a tendency to get hung up on exposure and fiddlin with the aperture or speed slows down the reaction times.