Old 01-27-2008   #81
dpetrzelka
Registered User
 
dpetrzelka's Avatar
 
dpetrzelka is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 222
Tom- Did you shoot the XX w/ Rodinal at 250 ASA?
__________________
-D

My RFF Gallery | My Web Page | My flickr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WTB: user M6 // Need to get back into film

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2008   #82
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞıɯ
 
cosmonot's Avatar
 
cosmonot is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Age: 36
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectbluebird
Sometimes I forget that there are other manufacturers out there, Kodak chemicals being cheap as dirt (compared to everything else they sell) at the local pro store.
I like the Heico stuff because it has an indicator in it that changes color as it nears exhaustion. I just mix a gallon at a time and reuse it until the fixer starts to die. I've got some of the Kodak stuff that I'll use eventually, but I guess I'm just partial to chemistry that I don't have to mix from powder
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2008   #83
lkgroup
Registered User
 
lkgroup's Avatar
 
lkgroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 287
I also have standardized my processing.

I do use a Jobo rotary processor

1) Developer 10% less time for Jobo motion in processor
2) Rinse of Water 30 Sec
3) FIX Rapid Fix
4) Two quick changes of Water

5) 3 Changes of water for a rinse about 3-5 minutes total

6) dip in Photo flo (30sec).
7) Hang up to dry. I built a wood drying cabinet which can hold 8 rolls at time.

8) Dry over night or at least 12 hours

9) Cut negs store in a file sheets in strips of six

Leo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2008   #84
tomasis
Registered User
 
tomasis is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 740
so it doesn't need stop between develop and fix for film?

What for benefits do photoflo/hypo for films? I never used it and I haven't noticed if I did need it. Maybe is it easier to keep off dust?
__________________
http://tomasisphoto.tumblr.com

100% leica optics. Serious photographer needs only one lens. Really? Yes,im serious. LESS is MORE. It is not possible to bend that truth how much you want. Whether you're 80 years old or young chap, before or later you come to the insight. Stop FONDLERY!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2008   #85
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 74
Posts: 4,478
Photoflow is a "wetting agent", keeping the last rinse from forming distict droplets on the film. Instead it just flows off smoothly and acts to an expent as a lubricant if you squeegy the off the water. The main advantage of the water rinse between developer and the fixer is it keeps the alkaline developer from getting into, and neutralizing, the acidity of the fixer. It makes the fixer last longer.
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2008   #86
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 73
Posts: 6,092
I did shoot the XX at 250 asa (or close to that as I was shooting "sunny f16" style - no metering). Glancing at the negs they look a bit overexposed so the true speed would be around 320/400 but the exposure latitude seems to have taken care of that. Will see later when I start scanning.
As for Photo Flo, it is basically a detergent that reduces the surface tension of the water and allows it to run freely. Only problem is that it aslo takes every speck of dust, dislodged gelatin etc and it migrates to the end of the film when it hangs up. Usually in an area that is the start of the film so it it mostly in the solid blacks.
The other problem with Photoflo is that it can attach itself to the reels and cause "foaming" when you do the next run! Very irritating as it can almost pop the lid off tthe tank! I do rinse the reels afterwards, but it is a tenacious product and can stick to the Paterson reels. The trick is to use only a couple of drops of the stuff.
Almost through the first 400 ft of the year. In February I will try some more developers. PCK/Td 201/Pyro-Cat (though the latter does not scan that well - the tanning effect renders the negs khaki brown and the scanner cant figure it out).
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2008   #87
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
 
projectbluebird's Avatar
 
projectbluebird is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Great American West
Age: 33
Posts: 331
tomasis, most developers aren't active enough to need an acid stop. The water in the step between development and fixing acts as a gentle stop bath.

Hypo clearing agent (hypoclear) and Photo-flo are two separate chemicals. Photo-flo has been well explained, so I'll tackle Hypoclear. Hypoclear is basically a salt solution (sodium-something, I can't remember off the top of my head) that is absorbed by the emulsion to displace any remaining fixer. This acts as a washing aid because hypo is easier to rinse out than fixer.

For example, Tom's process is:

develop
rinse
fix
wash, running water 20min
photo-flo, 30s no agitation
dry

with Hypo, it might go like this:

develop
rinse
fix
rinse
hypo, 3 min
wash, running water 10min.
photo-flo, 30s no agitation
dry

From what I've been finding, the Ilford rinsing method (which many of the posters here use, or a variation thereof) seems to be archival enough for the ISO standards, something along the lines of 500 years stability.

That process would be:

develop
rinse (water stop)
fix (non-hardening fixer!)
Ilford rinse
fill, invert 5 times, drain
fill, invert 10 times, drain
fill, invert 20 times, drain
photo-flo, 30s no agitation
Dry

As you can see, the quickest and cheapest solution. Something to be recommended for those of us with tight budgets (money and time)

Incidentally, the lab I learned in did not use Kodak's recommendation on photo-flo. (1:200) It was closer to twice that, and with distilled water instead of tap. We never had problems with foaming. We also used stainless steel tanks and reels and you weren't allowed to leave unless everything you checked back in was clean and dry!

I hope this helps.
__________________
Shoot naked, or use gaffer tape!

Last edited by projectbluebird : 01-28-2008 at 19:17.
  Reply With Quote

Hypo!!!!
Old 01-28-2008   #88
stevew
Old photog-New camera
 
stevew's Avatar
 
stevew is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lompoc, Ca.
Age: 66
Posts: 189
Hypo!!!!

You are confusing the guy. Hypo is the old name for components in fixer.

Non-hardening fixing bath
Water, 125F/52C500 mlSodium Thiosulfate (Hypo)240 gSodium Sulfite (anhydrous)10 gSodium Bisulfite (anhydrous)25 gCold water to make1L

Hypo Clearing agent.

Wash aid for film and paper
Water750 mlSodium Sulfite (anhydrous)100 gSodium Metabisulfite25 gCold water to make1L

Chemical formulas are from DigitaltruthPhoto
__________________
Steve

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2008   #89
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,763
Found this old thread while googling:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DViY

Looks like XX run through Diafine can possibly yield EI400- EI800 range negtives with decent quallity. Take a look at the photos, they look pretty good to me. I have a fresh gallon Diafine kit in the basement, I need to mix it up soon. Somebody should compare once-run Diafine with twice-run Diafine with XX. A five minute rinse between B, then back into A, should be sufficent, don't you guys think? Just don't want to contaminate my Diafine. I've read that XX in Diafine is preferable to Tri-X in Diafine. That is interesting news.

Last edited by Nokton48 : 01-28-2008 at 22:10.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2008   #90
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 73
Posts: 6,092
Just finished scanning in a bunch of Double XX/Rodinal negs on our Flickr site. Looks OK, but the Adox/D76 looks smoother.
Back to the shooting and some other soups. Will keep posting.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2008   #91
tomasis
Registered User
 
tomasis is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 740
thanks for replies

bluebird, I gonna try all methods as you described above. Ilford method sounds very good. I have Patersson reels (platstic) and I'll se what I'll do and it add more confusion when I'll get Jobo CPE2 soon I have to use Hypo WA which is stored many years unused yet.

Those images from photo-net look great btw though too small to see.
__________________
http://tomasisphoto.tumblr.com

100% leica optics. Serious photographer needs only one lens. Really? Yes,im serious. LESS is MORE. It is not possible to bend that truth how much you want. Whether you're 80 years old or young chap, before or later you come to the insight. Stop FONDLERY!

Last edited by tomasis : 01-29-2008 at 03:20.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2008   #92
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,763
I just finished a session in my basement darkroom, loading up a box of ten Kodak Snap-Caps with the Double XX film. Kept the scissors in my back pocket, when I wasn't using them, used masking tape and put the snapcaps into the 400' filmcan lid, so I wouldn't loose them in the dark. It went pretty fast and well, I did ruin one cartridge putting the lid back on it, so I lost one roll, but it could have simply been a bent cartridge, I think that was the case.

Loading ten snapcaps to a box, it won't take long to use up my first 400' roll of XX.
BTW 20ml of Adox Replenisher isn't very much volume per roll. So I just pour the Replenisher back into the bottle after the run. Some of the developer volume is lost during the processing, so there is plenty of room for the replenisher.

So now I've got another fresh roll of XX in M2, been playing off my CV 35 Skopar vs the 35 Ultron , as well as my Canon F1.2 vs my 50 CV Nokton (so far). It's fun to take out, and I think I'm using the Leica more than I've used the Bassas, it's such a pleasure to work with it. In fact, I'm thinking of selling my two R bodies, and my T, and buying a second M2 .

Tom, I need to focus-test my lenses on the M2. I see your tests on flicker. Any helpful hints?

-Dan

Last edited by Nokton48 : 01-29-2008 at 17:16.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2008   #93
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 73
Posts: 6,092
Dan, I told you that M2's are addictive!
My testing is practical, not scientific. I set up a tripod and stick the camera on it. Measure off 1meter,2 meter and 5 meter with a tape measure. I try to make it either parallel to the optical plane. If you can do it outside, use sticks (you might have to explain to the family where the broomsticks went). If you are doing it inside - set it up at a slightly oblique angle and measure from the filmplane. Shoot everything at wide-open, a mid way stop (5,6-8) and at full stop down. For the 1 meter and the 2 meter shot, put three items down, one dead on 1 meter, one at 90cm and the third one at 110 cm (and the same for the 2meter setting,190/200/210 cm). I tend to use known objects, that old T-bird model (1:18) or old 100ft boxes from Kodak and an ACROS 100ft box as the "key" as it has heavy type on it and it makes it easy to see. Get a small pad with post it notes and "tag" each shot with f-stop and lens. Stick the Post-it's on the "key" box as a extra "focus=point" It is somewhat boring to do, but it will teach you which lens is best at what distance and f-stop. OK, you will promptly forget all of this when you go shooting. but at least you tried!
For "absolute" resolution you can do the "classified ad" test. Take you local paper and take the classified section, iron it (you explain it to the family!) and stick it up. Try to find a spot that has even light across the whole thing. Put the tripod and lens about 2.5-3 meters away (with the 50mm), closer with the 35 and check that it is at 90 degree angle to the page. Again shoot at least 3 shots (wide-open, mid range and fully stopped down).
There are theories that you shall be 100 times the focal length from the subject. I usually ensure that the double page fills the area covered by the framelines for that lens! These negs are best checked with a loup or in an enlarger. Remember the post it notes here too - one page looks pretty much like another one if you dont tag them.
The other school is that you should use the finest grain film possible. I dont agree - I use the film I will be shooting the most with. If it looks good with Tech Pan @8asa, doesn't mean it will look good with triX/XX pushed to 800 or above as grain/contrast will start to affect the image.
So the family will declare you legally insane, but look from the bright side - they wont expect any rational deciscions from you later either!
Tom
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-29-2008   #94
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,224
Yes, hypo clearing agent is mostly sodium sulfite. Hypo is mostly sodium thiosulfate. As David Vestal says "you don't call 'paint stripper' 'paint'".

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2008   #95
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞıɯ
 
cosmonot's Avatar
 
cosmonot is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Age: 36
Posts: 220
OK, I've got two rolls of 5222 that I tested from 640 ASA down to ~125. I just dug through the box of chemistry I cleaned out of a friend's darkroom along with my own stash and I've got the following developers to play with:

TMAX Developer
Microdol X
Xtol
D76
Rodinal
Alta Zonal-Pro

Anyone have any developer/dilution combo they'd like to see? My film stock is a little out of date (best I can tell about 7 or 8 years old, stored mostly at a constant, cool room temp) so it might not be representative of the fresh stuff y'all are working with.

I can also run it through my Jobo once I get the counter space to set it up... I'm wondering if the rotary agitation would help pull some extra contrast out of cine film or long expired stock?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2008   #96
lkgroup
Registered User
 
lkgroup's Avatar
 
lkgroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 287
I use a Jobo for processing my XX film 250 ASA. I use the Adox developer listed earlier in the thread. You have to make it hand from individual chemicals. It is a D-76 type developer with less Sodium Sulphite in it. I develop at 7 min in this developer which is about 10% less time for the Jobo agitation vs doing the film by hand.

I don't know if the Jobo will pick up contrast but I do not see the negs as flat at all. I scan my negs so I can manipulate the contrast in Photoshop elements.

Leo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2008   #97
dpetrzelka
Registered User
 
dpetrzelka's Avatar
 
dpetrzelka is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 222
cosmonot -

I would be most interested to see Xtol and either Tmax or Rodinal.

Since Tom has tried Rodinal, Tmax might be the one to go with - for the sake of covering all the bases.

I just shot a very un-scientific test roll of 5222 @ 400asa, and souped it in Xtol for 6min, 68degrees, with agitation for the first full minute, and then 4 sec /30sec after that. Its in the fixer right now.
I'll let you know if I get anything - I plan to do a more exhaustive test of 5222 in Xtol next week.
__________________
-D

My RFF Gallery | My Web Page | My flickr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WTB: user M6 // Need to get back into film

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #98
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom A
So the family will declare you legally insane, but look from the bright side - they wont expect any rational deciscions from you later either!
Tom
That is the best line I've heard on RFF (or anywhere) for a long, long time!

Earl
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55 and adapted Zuikos
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #99
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 73
Posts: 6,092
Claiming minor insanity is easy if you are Leica shooter!

I would like to see the XX done in Tmax developer (i am out of that) and also in Microdol X. I vaguely remember doing it decades ago and getting about asa 125 out of it, but very nice tones and grains.
I am finishing off another batch of 5 rolls today and will run that in PCK and add to the "pool" of developers.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #100
erik
Registered User
 
erik's Avatar
 
erik is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rhode Island USA
Posts: 178
Being a well known cheapskate I am a big fan of bulk loading film. I've been shooting Double XX for a couple three years now. I've tested it in pyro-cat HD, rodinal, pc-tea, D-76. I ended up liking D-76 best of that group. I found that when I am shooting this film I am often going for a "classic" look, and D-76 did the trick. Actually, however I am using Sprint film developer now, which is a liquid developer formulated to behave very much like D-76 (so much so that I can't really see a difference in the prints) and it is easier to deal with in terms of mixing etc.
http://www.sprintsystems.com for those who don't know it.

In Rodinal XX just looked too rough to me, I don't mind grain, but the tonality was rather poor. This film reminds me a lot of the tri-x I learned on in the 70's.
__________________
my flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #101
dpetrzelka
Registered User
 
dpetrzelka's Avatar
 
dpetrzelka is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 222
Erik - do you have any samples of XX in PC-TEA. This is a developer I've been reading about, and am interested in cooking up- seems very simple, and has a long shelf life-

What are your thoughts?
__________________
-D

My RFF Gallery | My Web Page | My flickr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WTB: user M6 // Need to get back into film

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #102
erik
Registered User
 
erik's Avatar
 
erik is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rhode Island USA
Posts: 178
I'll have to dig a bit to find those tests, but I found PC-TEA to give results very similar to Xtol with other films that I tested head to head, and I would expect Double-X to behave in a similar manner. PC-tea has the advantage of very long shelf life, as opposed to xtol, as Tom has stated. I found that the more I printed xtol negs and pc-tea negs, the less I liked what I was seeing. The grain is nice, and the shadow seperation is good, but the midtone and highlight contrast is flat. Since most pictures carry the important stuff in the middle and high end, this wasn't working for me. Increasing development time didn't help and increased the grain. On the other hand, many people like xtol and find that it works for the types of pictures they are making, so I don't want to discourage anyone from trying it and pc-tea out, never hurts to learn new things. PC-TEA is easy and cheap to make. I'll see if I can't find something to post.
__________________
my flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #103
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 73
Posts: 6,092
Eric, your comments on the PC Tea/Xtol mirrors my experience with it. I just souped 5 rolls of XX in PCK. Higher basefog than I anticipated and just glancing at the wet film, looks rougher than the Adox/FX 37 developer. Final judgement will have to wait until tomorrow and scanning. I suspect that the ideal soup for XX is a MQ type developer, D76/D86 (will try that later) and D 96. Makes sense too as Kodak did this film according to what Hollywood needed and controllable contrast and mid tones were paramount there.
Highly dilute Rodinal (1:100) and additional Sodium Sulphite could also help. Might try that too. Have to shoot more film! I might load up every M2 I have and just go berserk with them!
This weekend seems to be rather wet and rainy so I might lock myself in the darkroom and load up another 400 feet in cassettes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #104
lkgroup
Registered User
 
lkgroup's Avatar
 
lkgroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 287
Tom how long does it take to do 400 feet? I get really bored just doing 18 rolls (100'). I have to do them in shifts usually at least a day apart.

I usually roll the cassettes in one period of time and then leave them and later cut all the leaders. I still use a bulk loader so in my darkroom I have to wind from a 400' roll 75-100 feet so it fits into my loader. I have old Tri-x 100' tins to keep the split up batches in before I tackle loading the rolls

Rolling film is fun for me for about 45 minutes and then I have to let it sit for a while. But if you don't have film ready to shoot, there won't be any film ready to use.

Leo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #105
dpetrzelka
Registered User
 
dpetrzelka's Avatar
 
dpetrzelka is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 222
Leo- Hope you learn to like rolling bulk film
__________________
-D

My RFF Gallery | My Web Page | My flickr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WTB: user M6 // Need to get back into film

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #106
lkgroup
Registered User
 
lkgroup's Avatar
 
lkgroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 287
Dan-Its not that I don't like it, I guess I just have a short attention span.

I could give up bulk film but at the price of pre rolled film I would have to sell some of my equipment to pay for it.

Leo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #107
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞıɯ
 
cosmonot's Avatar
 
cosmonot is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Age: 36
Posts: 220
My 100' roll of 5222 came in a standard size metal can, but it also came on a metal reel. It fits right in my watson/lloyd loaders, so I'm thinking that's one way to get a 400' roll broken up.

I've also been thinking of hacking together a 400' daylight loader using an old watson and some plywood from the shop downstairs. Probably not worth the effort, but without a darkroom I'm limited to my changing bags. One's pretty big, but not THAT big.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #108
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,797
has anyone got any photos that were taken on this Kodak 5222 film to show?
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #109
lkgroup
Registered User
 
lkgroup's Avatar
 
lkgroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 287
Go to Tom A's Filcker page and you will lots pictures he has done.

http://flickr.com/photos/rapidwinder/

I'm going to get a filcker account and try and get some up this weekend.

Others may have some samples to show also.

Leo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #110
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,797
Ah .. thanks Leo, it looks alot like Tri X from the 1970s.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #111
kully
Happy Snapper
 
kully's Avatar
 
kully is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: England
Age: 37
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmonot
My 100' roll of 5222 came in a standard size metal can, but it also came on a metal reel. It fits right in my watson/lloyd loaders, so I'm thinking that's one way to get a 400' roll broken up.

I've also been thinking of hacking together a 400' daylight loader using an old watson and some plywood from the shop downstairs. Probably not worth the effort, but without a darkroom I'm limited to my changing bags. One's pretty big, but not THAT big.
I've been decanting a 1000' roll of HP5+ into 100' rolls and then into cartridges with a changing bag.... It is during these times (and when I unravel the roll I am decanting to) that I think about the virtues of digital

This 5222 looks good, but it seems nigh-on impossible to get here in the UK. I rang around every film stock company I could find and no-one had short/medium/long ends and the prices they were charging for 'proper' rolls were more expensive than the Kodak guidelines...

You're lucky beggers over there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2008   #112
lkgroup
Registered User
 
lkgroup's Avatar
 
lkgroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 287
Wow, Kully where did you get 1000' feet of Hp5+? That would be a really good find.

Leo
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2008   #113
kully
Happy Snapper
 
kully's Avatar
 
kully is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: England
Age: 37
Posts: 2,533
There was a company here selling off some old stock rolls (expiry date 2002) for 60/$120 each, stupid me only got the one roll.... They had 400' rolls for 40. The film is a little fogged but fine in D76. It doesn't like pushing at all though.

As someone in the thread already mentioned, it feels ... something ... to be salvaging cine film for the Leica, it's like it's all come full circle and my IIIa has been there from near the beggining and will probably be there at the dusk of 35mm film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2008   #114
tomasis
Registered User
 
tomasis is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 740
Looks like I have to get Eastman 5222 from US when kully have tried to get anything in UK. I don't expect low prices in Sweden either. Anyone know some US shops who accepts international shipping?
__________________
http://tomasisphoto.tumblr.com

100% leica optics. Serious photographer needs only one lens. Really? Yes,im serious. LESS is MORE. It is not possible to bend that truth how much you want. Whether you're 80 years old or young chap, before or later you come to the insight. Stop FONDLERY!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2008   #115
kully
Happy Snapper
 
kully's Avatar
 
kully is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: England
Age: 37
Posts: 2,533
tomasis - Try FilmEmporium, I know they offer international shipping. The problem is how much it will cost...

As a guide the price of 400'/~72 rolls (~36) if I order direct from Kodak is 82 (with 10% student discount).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2008   #116
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 73
Posts: 6,092
Leo, I can do 400 feet in IXMOO cassettes in about 2-2,5 hours. Sometimes it is quicker, but that seems to be the average. I turn the radio on to "Frank" - a station here in town that plays old 60's music (lots of Sinatra, hence my name of the station). I know that it is miserable to sit locked up in a dark room for a couple of hours, but the fact that I have a month supply is a good incentive!
I am surprised that Europe is difficult for XX! There is an active movie and music video industry there and that's seems to be the main market for this stock.
80 quid for 400 feet is not bad - still only 1,10/roll. I suspect that Kodak would ship bigger orders, but not individual cans. Maybe the European RFf'ers could do a big "bulk order" between them. The XX comes in a box with 20 cans (8000ft) as a shipping container.
Today I will try to scan some shots from last nights run. It was in PCK/7,5 min - looks a bit flat and has higher basefog than the Adox. The sun is out now so I rather go out and shoot some more though!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2008   #117
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,283
The sun is out in Van??? Ladies and Gentlemen, Tom A. will be away from the keyboard for the duration...
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55 and adapted Zuikos
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2008   #118
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 73
Posts: 6,092
As this is February in Vancouver, the suns appearence was shortlived! Oh well, we saw it and it still there! Just downloaded about 25 shots done with the PCK developer and the XX (7.5 min). Some negs were a bit flatter than I liked and it is certainly no fine grain soup. Printing limit would probably be about 8x10, unless it is an "important" shot where content takes precedence and then it could go to 11x14. Grain is distinct, without Sodium Sulphite "mushiness" to it. I might do one more run at 6.5 min and see what happens. Part of this is also that at the moment I am shooting "meterless" just for the hell of it!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2008   #119
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,763
Speaking of crap in the ADOX Borax MQ developer, the stuff I mixed up, I am -slowly- decanting it into a Coke Classic 2-litre bottle (Thanks again Al) due to the fact that there is a chemical precipitate, which collects at the bottom of the bottle, and swirls up to turn the liquid a creamy crystalline brown. Filtering off the clear solution and dumping the very bottom leavings seems like my only option, anybody have a better way to handle this?

I've also got a gollon of Microdol-X, to mix up,and I need to get some Microdol-X Repenisher. I would think that the strong sulphite and soft development of the Microdol-X will complement the XX vintage emulsion, perhaps even requiring a bit more exposure. And also using lenses from the 50's, like the Canon F1.2 since these lenses came out to complement the high-speed EI250 film back in those days

Diafine (I also have a gallon of Acufine to mix up and try) seems to be the "speed king" with this film, maybe 800EI in a pinch. And of course Rodinal but that seems "gritty" tonality and contrastier, that can sometimes be desirable.

Last edited by Nokton48 : 02-02-2008 at 17:53.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2008   #120
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 74
Posts: 4,478
Filtering out undisolved crap is easily done by running the solution through a coffee filter. They're reasonably cheap at your grocery store, but if there are a lot of fine paticles in the solution the filter soon clogs up. Always let the developer stand overnight before deciding that it needs filtering. Some chemicals just take a long time to go into solution and more stirring won't always speed it up.
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 20:05.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.