Old 01-23-2008   #41
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,395
"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-)

Last edited by Nokton48 : 01-23-2008 at 04:01.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #42
larmarv916
Registered User
 
larmarv916 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 415
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #43
ClayH
Diana camera, coffee
 
ClayH is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 68
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #44
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 6,088
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #45
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 6,088
Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #46
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 6,088
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #47
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 6,088
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #48
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 75
Posts: 4,478
"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)
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #49
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
 
projectbluebird's Avatar
 
projectbluebird is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Great American West
Age: 34
Posts: 331
Quote:
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.
__________________
Shoot naked, or use gaffer tape!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #50
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 6,088
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #51
dpetrzelka
Registered User
 
dpetrzelka's Avatar
 
dpetrzelka is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 219
That's it - I'm in.
I've been meaning to really commit to a film/developer combo, and stick with it - this seems like a good place to start- fresh!

What is a good process for first figuring out development times on a new film? (i've always gone for box speed + recommended dev. time) - its time for me to really learn about developing.
__________________
-D

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

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #52
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 75
Posts: 4,478
There's an old saying that the lousier your negatives are the better the printer you'll become.

Start by shooting bracketed ecposures at half stop intervals, from two stops under to two stops over. Pick a shutter speed that allows only adjusting the f-stop. That's five frames. Use an incident light meter. Have black, wite, and an assortment of tones in the picture. Repeat this sequence six more times in different lighting conditions, indoors, outdoors, tungsten, flourescent, window light, street lighting, whatever. Develop the film according to the directions.

Next, make a 4 X 5 or 5 X 7 print of each of them on the paper you normally use. Make the best straight print you can, and NUMBER THE BACKS with a Sharpie to match the frame numbers. With motion picture stock you'll need a fine point marker to number the film frames yourself...LOL

You want to print the under and overexosed frames so you can get an idea of the film's exposure latitude. Try to see which frame is best holding the shadow detail you want without blowing the highlights. That's the one you'll use to decide on what ISO to use. If the contrast looks right you're HOME!

If not, then take another roll and shoot the ENTIRE ROLL at that ISO and cut it in half. If your first roll looked a bit flat develop half at 10% longer and half at 20% longer. If it was too contrasty do 10% and 20% less time. See which time gives you the contrast you want. At 20% over or under you may need to cut exosure or increase exposure about half a stop to control the overall density. At 10% it probably won't matter.

Just don't get caught up in getting "the best possible negative" or you'll never need to learn the finer points of printing like using split filter, dodging and burning through different filters, using cotton swabs with hot developer on areas of the print, ferracyaniding the highlights, all that good crap....
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #53
dpetrzelka
Registered User
 
dpetrzelka's Avatar
 
dpetrzelka is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 219
Al - thank you for explaining that so clearly. Its refreshing to find a group of guys on here who will take it down to basics without complaint. The +_ 10-20% to adjust contrast makes perfect sense.- Thanks

But this will drive you crazy - I had to pack up my very pathetic darkroom a few years ago- for the near future this will all be going through the scanner for on-screen/digital output.

The developing of film, my home-made tube amps, and vinyl collection are my analogue retreat from the digital.
__________________
-D

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

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #54
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 75
Posts: 4,478
You're welcome! Just remember that life is full of variables. Use another darkroom to develop the film and if the water is more acidic you might have to give a bit more time in the developer, or less if it's alkaline, to EXACTLY match your original test negatives. These differences can be easily compensated in the printing. No two films will print the same, no two developers will develop the same. If at all possible try to stick to one film, one developer. I'm a big believer in "KISS" which is an acronym for "Keep It Simple, Stupid!"
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-23-2008   #55
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 6,088
I agree wholeheartedly with Al here. The KISS rule makes life so much smoother!
If you are going to scan your negs, you probably will find that you have to adjust your processing. I have find that if I shoot and soup for wet darkroom I need to "tweak" the negs in the scanning process. Just a little bit more contrast is usually all it takes (which is good as that is all I know how to do).
Your establishing your own filmspeed and processing times does require some "wasted" film. We all do it differently and my negs dont look like anyone elses, but they work.
Some time ago a bunch of us were sitting around talking about this. We were bl/w shooters and know each others stuff well, having printed each others negatives for exihibitions and shows. Someone piped up "OK, does anyone have a perfectly exposed, standard negative". Dead silence ensued - and then hysterical laughter "What the hell is a perfect negative" We have all seen those "How To" books and between us there are probably 20-30 000 rolls on file. Not one of us could lay hand on something that even came close to those illustrated "perfect" negatives!
Among the great printers, it is not that perfect negative that counts, it is how well they could print what they considered the best shot. Gene Smith was well known for producing impossible negatives and some of the best prints you will ever see. If you look at Ralph Gibson's negatives, the "how to" book's would discard them as mistakes, yet his prints are stunning.
The trick is to establish a style commensurate with your shooting and printing that will give you what you want. Also, it all depends on what you are shooting - a "street" shooters rquirements are different from a landscape photographer or portrait shooter.
My rule with a new film stock is to shoot it as I would my reference film (Tri X @400asa) and run that together with the TriX. Looking at the negatives I usually can extrapolate the speed it shows and the "range". Next roll is then shot at what I think is right (still with the same developer -usually a D76 or similar) and check again. The trick is to shoot those rolls fast - set a day aside for it and turn off phones and thell the family that once you have taken pictures of them indoors, outdoors in the shade and in sunlight you dont wont to be disturbed. Now set out with one camera, one lens and at least 5 rolls of film.
So the bystanders will think you are nuts, but shoot everything! High contrast (that black car with a chrome grill in bright sunlight), the steps on an old building in deep shade - well you get the idea. Keep it to an area where you can come back and shoot more or less the same thing again with rolls 2/3/4/5.
Once you have five rolls with a variety of stuff on it, go home and soup them. As Al suggested, do roll 1 20% less developer, roll 2 10%, roll 3 what you thought it should be, 4 and 5 +10% and +20%.
Now, if you are scanning, pick the similar subjects from each roll and scan them - look and see which are corresponding to your view and taste.
You might be surprised in several ways. Once what you thought was the right way, might not be your right way and by forcing yourself to shoot things -just for exposure and testing -you will probably find some pictures that are worthwhile that you never would have taken otherwise.
The trick is not to change anything except the developing and your "sense" of exposure. The camera and lens stays the same throughout.
File away the negatives and mark the files with the variables and one day when you decide that scanning is not all there is and you get back into darkroom again - you know what you need to do for a print.
We live close to a bech (across the road) and I probably have between 10-15 000 negatives of the trees, the sand piles, the driftwood, people and dogs etc among my "tests". Great excuse too for a walk on the beach and a coffee at the cafe'. Oh, I also have pictures of the people behind the counter of the cafe (f2 @1/60 with XX and I usually go to 2.8 with TriX)! They know me and just ignore the camera - the dogs on the patio are even better, a dog-biscuit and they will pose happily (stop down a 1/2 stop for Bella -a black lab and open up 1 stop for the white terrier and keep the camera well back from Hero, a Great Dane with an amazingly long tongue and a penchant for dragging it across the front element of the lens!).
Photography should be fun and if you dont have to make a living from it, it is even better. being obsessed by it is OK too!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #56
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,395
Hi All,

My fresh 400' roll of Kodak 5231 +X arrived Thursday. Very quick shipping directly from Eastman in NYC. So now I have 400' of XX and 400' of +X motion picture film to play with, in my new Leica M2, Voigtlanders, and Minolta SRT's. Life is good Heading to the photo store today, to buy a brown plastic half-gallon photo bottle, in which to mix the remaining stock solution of Adox MQ developer I'm using to start this project.

Last edited by Nokton48 : 01-26-2008 at 20:34.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #57
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 75
Posts: 4,478
Brown plastic "photo" bottles are the rip-off of this century and the last century! Get a bleach jug and rinse it out. If a trace of residual chlorine was a problem you wouldn't be able to use chlorinated tap water either. Yes, the "brown" does keep some light out but you can easily store it in a closet if you don't have a dedicated darkroom. You can usually buy a jug of bleach for less than the cost of an empty "photo" jug.

I use 2 liter soda bottles, storing them in the dark. I drink the soda anyway so the bottles are free.
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #58
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,395
"I use 2 liter soda bottles, storing them in the dark. I drink the soda anyway so the bottles are free".

That's a good idea, Al. Thanks! So I found some recyclable white plastic bottles in the basement, cleaned them out, and mixed some more developing solutions. Another 1000 ml of the Adox Borax MQ Developer, so now I've 2000ml of stock developer solution, even enough to run my 8-reel Honeywell Nikor tank And also mixing up 64oz of stock Ilford Rapid Fixer, diluted 1:4, so that's a "speedy" fix. Now I need to do is load Kodak Snapcaps from bulk, and shoot movie film. Near as I can determine, I haven't done any real darkroom work since the mid '90s. So this is going to be fun.

Last edited by Nokton48 : 01-26-2008 at 20:22.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #59
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 75
Posts: 4,478
The soda bottles are designed to hold in the pressure of the corbonization, so they really are air tight. I mix up a gallon, then fill one 2 liter bottle to the very top and put the rest in a second bottle about 3/4 full. You can squeeze some of the air out if you want, but it really isn't needed if you're going to use it up in a few weeks or so.
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #60
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞıɯ
 
cosmonot's Avatar
 
cosmonot is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Age: 37
Posts: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48
Now I need to do is load Kodak Snapcaps from bulk, and shoot movie film.
I'm starting to reload 35mm cassettes from the local mini-lab. Just tape the fresh stock to the old leader and load them in Mr Watson, Lloyd, etc... So far it's working fine

I did have to sort through the box and pull out any that were too mangled from the leader retrieval process, but that was about 70 out of 500 total. I'd love 70 or so IXMOOs (I only have 5...) but this has got me thinking that bulk loading has never been cheaper.

Now just to shoot all the Forte & Agfa & everything else in the fridge so I have space for some XX. My own M2 is starting to feel left out...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #61
tomasis
Registered User
 
tomasis is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 731
I find this thread very interesting.

I could save great deal if I bought 400ft of double XX from US. I pay Trix 10 rolls for $55 here in Sweden 25 rolls cost same as 72 ones DoubleXX.. OMG

Anyone has tried pushing the Double XX a few stops up? (Iso 400, 800, 1600)? I really don't mind grain and I'm not interested of grainless films
__________________
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 : 01-26-2008 at 12:04.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #62
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,395
"My own M2 is starting to feel left out..."

Hey, what's not to like about this film? And, it was introduced in 1959, the same as the birthdate of my M2. So it seems appropriate. Yes, I need to visit local photolabs and start scarfing up their throwaway reloadable cartridges to load with XX.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #63
lkgroup
Registered User
 
lkgroup's Avatar
 
lkgroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 286
"reload 35mm cassettes from the local mini-lab. Just tape the fresh stock to the old leader and load them in Mr Watson, Lloyd, etc..."

I have been using the empty cassettes from labs for years. There usually is 1/4 inch of film left out after they are done. I slip the bulk film under this 1/4 in and into the cassette and then use scotch tape to attach them together.

This is done in my Watson loader. Close the Loader door and proceed as normal. I have been very satisfied with this method.

leo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #64
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞıɯ
 
cosmonot's Avatar
 
cosmonot is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Age: 37
Posts: 220
My M2 is a '59 as well...

If it's possible to wring out a good 1 - 1.5 stop push out of the XX, it makes it much more attractive to me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #65
lkgroup
Registered User
 
lkgroup's Avatar
 
lkgroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 286
I have exposed XX at 400 and developed for the same time as Tri-x. There probably or might be a problem in the shadows doing this but the negs looked good. I would run some experiments before this became my standard speed.

Tom A I think has experimented with faster speeds with XX maybe he will jump in and give his experiences.

I read where XX could be used at 640 in Diafine. I will have to try this. I will report if I get some data on XX at a faster ASA in Diafine.

Leo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #66
dpetrzelka
Registered User
 
dpetrzelka's Avatar
 
dpetrzelka is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 219
I wonder what Acufine would do with Eastman XX - its a speed increasing developer, the can says to rate Tri-x at 1000. I'll see about running a test on that as well.

It looks like we should put together some archive of all these test results.
__________________
-D

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

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #67
lkgroup
Registered User
 
lkgroup's Avatar
 
lkgroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 286
Dan,

Did you get the film I sent you? Should be to you today.

With Acufine try 1000 ASA & 400 ASA and regular speed at 250 ASA on the same roll to see if there is any loss of quality between the speeds. Thats what I intend to do with Diafine that I have.

I might have a chance to do that tomorrow, weather permitting, with possible snow tonight I don't that would be a good subject to push film.

Leo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #68
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 6,088
You can get about 400 out of the XX with similar times as with Tri X (D-76 10,5-11 min) and Rodinal 1:50/ 12 min ( "lumpy" grain though). The XX has a fair bit of latitude, but watch the shadows, they block easily.
First shoot yourself in with it at 250asa and then start pushing it - you can probably gain about 3/4-1 stop without too much loss of quality, but trying for 800 is probably "chalk and soot" time!
Will be interesting what the diafine/acufine will do with it?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #69
dpetrzelka
Registered User
 
dpetrzelka's Avatar
 
dpetrzelka is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 219
Leo - I won't be home until tomorrow morning, but the film should be safe in the cold we're having. (I'll let you know when it arrives- thanks).

I've never used Acufine, but have a few cans of the powder in a box somewhere- after I try the Xtol, I'll give the Acufine a shot.
__________________
-D

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

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #70
dpetrzelka
Registered User
 
dpetrzelka's Avatar
 
dpetrzelka is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 219
In a web search I just found these numbers:

Eastman Kodak Double X 5222 - ASA 80
Rodinal 1+50, 5-6 min
D76 1+1, 7-8 min

ASA 250
Rodinal 1+50, 9- 10 min
D76 stock, 8 min
Microphen stock, 6 min

Asa 800
Rodinal 1+25, 10 min

ASA 6400
Rodinal 1+40, 25 min, 25-57 C teplota, prvních 10 minut hojně míchat, pak nechat ustát.


Unfortunately I can't read the additional text on the page, as its a language I don't know (my name is Czech- but I can't read it). Maybe he's saying these times are way off - who knows?
Here is the website: http://www.fotopruvodce.cz/clanek.ph...111445&hledej=
__________________
-D

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

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008   #71
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 6,088
Wow 6400 asa! That would be substantial grain with a film like XX. Thanks for the times. My estimated time for 250asa and 1:50 Rodinal seems on the button here. I would be tempted to add 30 sec to the 10min, just to get the shadows up a bit. I might try it tonote or tommorow as there are 8 rolls sitting in the darkroom at the moment. Maybe 5 in Rod 1:50/10.30 min and finish off two more for tomorrow and do them in Adox again at 7 min.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2008   #72
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞıɯ
 
cosmonot's Avatar
 
cosmonot is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Age: 37
Posts: 220
A little google turned up some examples of 5222 @ 400 ASA in Diafine:
http://randomphoto.blogspot.com/2006...hite-film.html

Looks maybe not *too* bad. I know I have an expired 100' of this stuff that I need to evaluate. I've got a backload of film to process, but I'll see what I can get done this week.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2008   #73
lkgroup
Registered User
 
lkgroup's Avatar
 
lkgroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 286
Looked at the web site and Eastman XX in Diafine didn't look to bad. I will try and shoot a roll tomorrow and develop in Diafine. I have some mixed up and it won't be hard to try.

I will try ASA 400, and ASA 640 and the regular speed 250. I'm not going to try much higher until these results prove promising.

leo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2008   #74
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,395
I just developed my first two rolls (thru my new Leica M2) of Eastman 5222, and I'm very impressed. Rated it at EI 250, ran it through ADOX BORAX MQ, for seven minutes at 68F, exactly. Agitation was fifteen seconds initially, then 5 sec every subsequent minute. BTW how long should you wash this stuff after Rapidfix? I did 40 minutes (no hypo clear) is that overkill?

Negs are still drying, but I'm pretty good at "eyeballing" them. They are -lower- contrast, it's very good that highlight details (even bracketed with overexposure) do not appear to "blow-out". Absolutely lovely midtone tonalities. "Old Tri-X" looking images, but frankly, I like that "60's retro" appearance. That is exactly what I am after. Shadow detail is quite copious at EI250. So I'd say it's a true EI250 motion picture film.

No doubt about it, this '60's vintage film is quite pushable -- I'd not imagine not much over 400, with any real shadow detail. Well over that, it'll be interesting

BTW, Guys, you can run films more than once through Diafine, if you rinse for five minutes after the "B", then go back for another round, right into the "A" & "B" a second time. With a fillm like this, I'd be interested to see the results. It -should- increase the speed even more. Can't imagine it would be any more than just highlights, but who cares when you're shooting in the dark?

Last edited by Nokton48 : 01-28-2008 at 03:14.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2008   #75
lkgroup
Registered User
 
lkgroup's Avatar
 
lkgroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 286
My normal washing Cycle after developing is to do three rinses of the tanks.

First rinse fill tank and 15 slow inversions, dump, second rinse fill tank, 20 inversions, third rinse 25 inversions. Takes about 3-5 minutes for all. Make sure rinse water is close to developing temp. This method saves time and water. I think it was developed by Ilford labs maybe Agfa I can't remember, but I have never had faded negs from to short of a wash cycle.

Leo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2008   #76
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 75
Posts: 4,478
That "two trips through A & B" has been around forever. I think Diafine was introduced about 1963 and it wasn't long after that that one of the photo mags did a piece on it. Yes, it will build up a bit of contrast as highlight density increases faster than the shadow density, but in really dismal lighting conditions a too contrasty picture sure beats no picture. It's a pretty flat developer anyway with today's films. I suspect that modern thin emulsion films just can't soak up enough of solution A to maximize film speed. When it first hit the market they suggested an ASA of 2400 for Tri-X. In a couple of years it was reduced to 1600, then 1200. Part of the blame was always put on Kodak for coming out with a "new improved" version of Tri-X. Another factor was that in the 60's it became fashionable to try to achieve a thin negative that printed best on a number 3 paper. This gave finer grain but with no room to err on the underexposure side. Tri-X/Diafine negatives printed great on #3.
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2008   #77
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
 
projectbluebird's Avatar
 
projectbluebird is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Great American West
Age: 34
Posts: 331
lkgroup, do you use Hypo?

I'm curious, because when I was getting college learn'd in the lab we always used hypo for films. The process was like this:

Presoak
develop
water stop
rapidfix
rinse
hypo
wash

Now that I've been booted out with my sheepskin, I'm trying to ween myself off the old lab (aren't friends great?) and set up my film developing at home. I'm interested in any and all ways of saving water as the ancient former darkroom in the basement is not plumbed, at least, not that I can see. There's a garden hose fitting underneath the truly ancient enamel sink, presumably to run a hose to the floor drain in the laundry room.

Is your process like this?

Develop
stop
fix
rinse
__________________
Shoot naked, or use gaffer tape!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2008   #78
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞıɯ
 
cosmonot's Avatar
 
cosmonot is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Age: 37
Posts: 220
projectbluebird: "Hypo" meaning hypo clearing agent?

I use Heico Permawash, and recently got a wat air washer so my procedure goes somewhat like this:

develop
stop
rinse 1x
fix
rinse 2x
permawash 1 min constant agitation
wash 5 minutes, medium flow rate
  Reply With Quote

yup
Old 01-27-2008   #79
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
 
projectbluebird's Avatar
 
projectbluebird is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Great American West
Age: 34
Posts: 331
yup

That's exactly what I meant cosmonot, thanks for clarifying. 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.

Also, thanks for your process as well! One of these days I should wander through the film development threads, I keep getting distracted by all the other fun things.
__________________
Shoot naked, or use gaffer tape!

Last edited by projectbluebird : 01-27-2008 at 21:46.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2008   #80
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
 
Tom A's Avatar
 
Tom A is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 6,088
I have standardized my processing steps many years ago.
Developer
Rinse (2 fills of tank)
Fix (Kodakfix)
Washing in running water 20 minutes (I am using a Paterson hose for the 5 rell tanks)
I quick dip in Photo flo (30sec).
Hang up to dry.

I have done another 10 rolls of XX, this time in Rodinal 1:50 for 10min 30sec (first batch) and 10 min, second batch. They are hanging up now to dry overnight and tomorrow I will scan some selected negs. Looks good, but higher contrast than Adox- partially due to nice, bright sunny weather!
  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 16:07.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.