Best source for in-cartridge 5222

[Jarin Blaschke]

Hi all:

I am shooting some early, preliminary tests for a motion picture project to come together some time in the mid-future. Does anyone have a preferred source for Kodak Double-X 5222, already in 36 exposure cartridges? I only need 5 rolls or so, and am not interested in investing in a bulk loader, nor interested in extra Double-X outside of this test.

Thanks!

Jarin

 

[dourbalistar]

Not sure what your criteria for "best source" is, but Photo Warehouse sells individual rolls of Double-X:
http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ko52doxblwhf1.html

A 5-pack saves you a bit of money if 5 rolls is all you need:
http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ko52doxblwhf2.html

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Thanks! I just meant since the film is re-spooled, that the film is recent, has been stored properly and spooling conditions have not added dust or scratches.

I will be developing this myself in my usual hand tanks. Are there any extra processing considerations for rem-jet? I do use a 3 min pre-soak.

J

 

[dourbalistar]

Thanks! I just meant since the film is re-spooled, that the film is recent, has been stored properly and spooling conditions have not added dust or scratches.

I will be developing this myself in my usual hand tanks. Are there any extra processing considerations for rem-jet? I do use a 3 min pre-soak.

J

Can't speak to the age or storing and spooling conditions for Photo Warehouse, but Double-X has no rem-jet layer to worry about. I developed my own (spooled down from 100' bulk) by hand, with a 4 minute pre-soak.

 

[MattKing]

Are there any extra processing considerations for rem-jet?

I could be wrong, but I don't think 5222 uses remjet.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

No remjet on 5222. Been shooting it of and on for years.

Don't forget ORWO offers black and white film spooled for motion picture as well if you want something slower or faster than 5222. I haven't shot that so I can't say what it is like. I believe there is some information here about it. Hard to go wrong with 5222 though.

 

[Jeff Bradford]

Film Photography Project sells 5222 by the roll. I recall it being something like 20 rolls for $100 or something like that. It's much cheaper to buy bulk and roll your own.

 

[dourbalistar]

Film Photography Project sells 5222 by the roll. I recall it being something like 20 rolls for $100 or something like that. It's much cheaper to buy bulk and roll your own.

Film Photography Project does sell individual rolls, but they're Dead Link Removed. OP mentioned wanting 36 exposure cartridges. The FFP rolls are DX coded, though, not sure if that matters for OP. No indication as far as I can tell whether or not Photo Warehouse's rolls are DX coded.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

I've never used DX coding - got my trusty Pentax spot for that. If I still generally shot 35mm, I might consider buying a bulk loader, but these days I'm between the V8 Deardorff and then the RZ67 for "family snaps." And this first test needs 5 rolls, tops. Each roll will contain the same subject, with 36 identical frames. I'll then cut each strip in 3-4 pieces for different developers and perhaps developing times.

I'm shooting a basic preliminary test to show a director and the producers the difference between standard D-96 results and pyro results. I want to see if the differences are strong enough to be crazy enough to pursue a pyro-metol developing system for a black and white motion picture. I'm also testing FP4 as a reference, as I always hated Double-X when I shot films (as in movies) with it, but i don't know how much of that was a function of a mediocre, highly solvent developer like D-96. Plus-X always looked much better in the same soup, however. Unfortunately, PX is no more, but perhaps Ilford would be willing to put motion picture perforations on 300-500,000 feet of film.

Yes, this first test will be still image, and not a moving one, and 8-perf instead of 4-perf, but it will at least give folks an overall idea of what could, in theory, be possible. Further tests would probably be with a movie camera. This is for a very unusual movie by a special director. It is rare enough when cinematographers get to shoot film these days; it is much rarer still when we get to shoot black and white film - if we get to do this, I want to try and go all out. I will probably not get another chance in my lifetime.

At this stage it's all fantasy and wondering, and seeing if preliminary results from simple tests warrant crazy endeavors.

Jarin

 

[AgX]

am not interested in investing in a bulk loader

You do not need a bulk loader, nor any special tools for cassette loading.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I'm shooting a basic preliminary test to show a director and the producers the difference between standard D-96 results and pyro results. I want to see if the differences are strong enough to be crazy enough to pursue a pyro-metol developing system for a black and white motion picture. I'm also testing FP4 as a reference, as I always hated Double-X when I shot films (as in movies) with it, but i don't know how much of that was a function of a mediocre, highly solvent developer like D-96. Plus-X always looked much better in the same soup, however. Unfortunately, PX is no more, but perhaps Ilford would be willing to put motion picture perforations on 300-500,000 feet of film.

This sounds like a massive/ possibly overwhelming challenge.

Before you dive in, a couple of things - do you have a replenishable pyro developer in mind & do you have a plan to deal with the large amount of pyrogallol-containing effluent that MP processing will generate? If significant R&D is needed, those factors are more likely to be the cost barriers than whether or not the process works. It might be worth trying to track down some of the people who worked with the Technicolor print process during its late 90s/ early 2000s revival - it used tanning developers in the dye imbibition process, much like Kodak dye transfer.

For what it's worth, replenished D-96 is less solvent than D-76 - it contains 3/4 as much sulphite, and replenishing generally seems to take most developer characteristics to about 1+2 equivalency. Perceptol might be interesting here (and I imagine the quantities needed would be enough to get official replenisher made) - given that fine, sharp grain seems to be your end goal?

Will be interested to see your results - I have a couple of projects I'd like to shoot on 5222/ 7222.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I could be wrong, but I don't think 5222 uses remjet.

Correct Only cine color negative films use a renjet coating, color reversal and B&W do not.

 

[Wallendo]

Shooting with a half-frame camera might give a better idea of what a potential motion picture would look like.

Or you could get the director to shoot the film in Vista Vision.

 

[MattKing]

Correct Only cine color negative films use a renjet coating, color reversal and B&W do not.

Kodachrome excepted, of course (may it RIP).

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

This sounds like a massive/ possibly overwhelming challenge.

Before you dive in, a couple of things - do you have a replenishable pyro developer in mind & do you have a plan to deal with the large amount of pyrogallol-containing effluent that MP processing will generate? If significant R&D is needed, those factors are more likely to be the cost barriers than whether or not the process works. It might be worth trying to track down some of the people who worked with the Technicolor print process during its late 90s/ early 2000s revival - it used tanning developers in the dye imbibition process, much like Kodak dye transfer.

For what it's worth, replenished D-96 is less solvent than D-76 - it contains 3/4 as much sulphite, and replenishing generally seems to take most developer characteristics to about 1+2 equivalency. Perceptol might be interesting here (and I imagine the quantities needed would be enough to get official replenisher made) - given that fine, sharp grain seems to be your end goal?

Will be interested to see your results - I have a couple of projects I'd like to shoot on 5222/ 7222.

Yes, this may be a ridiculous endeavor, but we shall try. We may enlist the help of John Wimberley, but I don't want to abuse his unfailing generosity. I would see if we can hire him, but then I wouldn't want to take him from his creative work.

We will also look at pyrocat as an option as well. The first test is to clearly identify what we may or may not be fighting for.

Priority is low solvency, sharpness and a long straight tonality. I would love the smooth liquid look of pyro for this. If all staining developers fail for MP, the third choice would be something of a rodinal look.

J