Can't get good B&W development results - 16mm Double-X in CineStill D96

[MattKing]

When you take photos on negative film, the negative is intended as an intermediary.
The image on the emulsion side is a mirror image of the subject - it's also upside down, but that doesn't matter.
Negatives are designed to be printed. When you print an upside down mirror image, you print with the emulsion facing the emulsion of the paper and end up with a right-side up, non-mirror image.
When viewing the negative you achieve the same right-side up, non-mirror image by looking through the negative instead - after turning it right-side up.
When you digitize the negative, the camera doesn't know that it is dealing with an upside down mirror image, so it is normal to either flip and invert it later digitally or - less advisable - digitize it through the negative.

 

[cannotShootStraight]

Do you guys know what could cause this smearing? Also around the perforation holes.
There is an extremely underexposed image there but I don't know - normally shouldn't cause this right?
I had some problems spooling the film into the paterson roll so I guess it could be scratch marks? But they should have been removed during development - right?

 

[koraks]

Yes. That's mechanical scratching of the emulsion. The physical pressure on the emulsion activates the silver halide just like light does, and it then can be developed in the developer along with the image. This causes the dark marks. They're actually a silver image that corresponds to where the pressure was when the emulsion was dragged along e.g. a sharp edge somewhere. Maybe you struggled with the film a bit when you loaded it onto a development reel?

 

[ic-racer]

It appears you are suffering from considerable fog (perhaps in addition to other issues). The area under the wheelwell should be the same as the film base density. Is the lens clean? You probably can't tell unless you take the lens apart, as you can't see-through the camera with the shutter open.

 

[Don_ih]

The film roll of Double-X is new.

I must've still been asleep this morning....

 

[DareFail]

I thnk your picture shows the wrong way. The shiny side of film is the plastic backing material. You should present the other side, the matt-textured emulsion, toward the lens.

As for grain, I think you are doomed to getting some grain when you use 16mm film. But there are fine-grain developers. The chart at digitaltruth has entries for your film with lots of developers.

I have the same camera and i confirm that the picture shows the wrong way.
About the grain.. Get a proper developer instead of a monobath

 

[koraks]

About the grain.. Get a proper developer instead of a monobath

D96 is not a monobath, though. I initially thought the same when I first read the OP; it's because CineStill confusingly calls their monobath Df96...D96 is actually a logical choice especially if you're just starting out, since it's commonly used for cine film, which this is. Of course, plenty of other options will work just as well, or even better (albeit marginally so).

It appears you are suffering from considerable fog (perhaps in addition to other issues).

I think it's really due to overexposure, though. Combined with a probably not-too-contrasty lens, I can see how even deep shadows will fill up.

 

[cannotShootStraight]

The area under the wheelwell should be the same as the film base density. Is the lens clean? You probably can't tell unless you take the lens apart, as you can't see-through the camera with the shutter open.

I thought about the lens. After 60 years or so it would only be natural that the lens is not the cleanest anymore.
However, after breaking a MEC 16SB because of my clumsy hands, I am very hesitant to opening a camera again :/

 

[cannotShootStraight]

I think I finally got the hang of it! The light meter on my 60 year old Mamiya 16 Automatic is far better than the smartphone app!
I am really happy with the sharpness, contrast and level of detail in my most recent developed film. But on some images I got this strange bleeding effect (see image attached below). Now where is this coming from?

 

[koraks]

this strange bleeding effect

That's halation; in areas of high light intensity, light bounces around inside the film base and possibly between the film and the pressure plate of the camera, creating a halo around bright areas. Most modern films have antihalation dyes embedded in the emulsion in the anti-curl layer on the backside of the film (only medium format 120 roll film and sheet film) to counteract this phenomenon. I don't know what the antihalation measures in Double X are. The datasheet of the film might give some clues.

 

[SilverShutter]

That's halation; in areas of high light intensity, light bounces around inside the film base and possibly between the film and the pressure plate of the camera, creating a halo around bright areas. Most modern films have antihalation dyes embedded in the emulsion in the anti-curl layer on the backside of the film (only medium format 120 roll film and sheet film) to counteract this phenomenon. I don't know what the antihalation measures in Double X are. The datasheet of the film might give some clues.

I think Double X is prone to halation, I don't recall it having an antihalation layer like other cine stock fims, but I'm not clued on the technical details.

 

[koraks]

I don't recall it having an antihalation layer like other cine stock fims

It doesn't have remjet, that's for sure. It may or may not have halti-halation dyes in the emulsion though; I don't know. I had a quick look at the datasheet, but it's kind of succinct. I guess that the grey acetate base is supposed to limit halation - and it undoubtedly does, because a clear PET base would have made things a lot worse if no other measures are taken.

 

[cannotShootStraight]

Is there a certain combination of exposure and development that reduces visible grain? I have to say I am not too happy with Double-X in that regard.

 

[koraks]

Is there a certain combination of exposure and development that reduces visible grain?

There are things you can do. Use XTOL or another fine-grain developer. Staining developers mask grain a little, too. And yes, you could overexpose and underdevelop, which will make the grain less apparent, but this is mostly because overall contrast will just be lower. If you then boost it in printing or digital post processing, the grain will be (mostly) back again.

The most effective solution is to use a less grainy film. You're of course shooting 16mm. That's kind of small, and grain will be more apparent than in larger formats. If you don't like grain, a bigger camera is an obvious move.

 

[cannotShootStraight]

The most effective solution is to use a less grainy film. You're of course shooting 16mm. That's kind of small, and grain will be more apparent than in larger formats. If you don't like grain, a bigger camera is an obvious move.

I have seen some 16mm pictures that have very little visible grain. As far as I know Double-X basically is from the 50s and doesn't have "advanced technology" we see in modern films. My guess is that something like TMax would look a lot better. I was thinking about cutting 35mm B&W film to 16mm strips but I am not sure how to do this properly.

Use XTOL or another fine-grain developer

Okay I will think about this for the future. On the other hand I don't want to waste the D96 solution I have right now.

 

[koraks]

As far as I know Double-X basically is from the 50s and doesn't have "advanced technology" we see in modern films.

No, I don't think so. But it's a cubic grain film alright and e.g. TMX will indeed appear less grainy by a long shot.

Give the XTOL a try. Or something like Moersch Finol. It'll help a little. D96 doesn't seem like a particularly fine-grained soup to me.

 

[SilverShutter]

I think with small formats such as 16mm, grain is always going to be a compromise. You can either use a more modern film with smaller grain, or change the developer. But ultimately, negative size is always going to be a limiting factor in this format and with medium speed films.

 

[cannotShootStraight]

Please consider the example picture attached to this post.
I mean this is just ridiculous. Yes it is underexposed and it was night time but...

 

[lamerko]

Now I saw from the first post that you use D-96 for 4:00 min at 20 degrees. Kodak recommends 7:00 min at 21 degrees, with standardized agitation. Maybe you should fix that first. It's not a fine grain film, it's more of a medium grain. Of course, if you push the film too much, you will get unpleasant results. Separately, as already mentioned, the small frame size is a big factor.

 

[DareFail]

Now I saw from the first post that you use D-96 for 4:00 min at 20 degrees. Kodak recommends 7:00 min at 21 degrees, with standardized agitation. Maybe you should fix that first. It's not a fine grain film, it's more of a medium grain. Of course, if you push the film too much, you will get unpleasant results. Separately, as already mentioned, the small frame size is a big factor.

He uses Cinestill D96, not Kodak. I don't know if it is the same developer..
If so, of course he must develop it for 7 minutes.

 

[lamerko]

He uses Cinestill D96, not Kodak. I don't know if it is the same developer..
If so, of course he must develop it for 7 minutes.

Oh, that's a recipe for trouble...

Now I had a quick look at the CineStill D96 documentation - it seems to be the classic formula or close to it.

 

[koraks]

it seems to be the classic formula or close to it.

Looking at the MSDS, it's not the original formula that Cinestill is selling. The original Kodak D96 is an MQ developer, so metol-hydroquinone. The MSDS for Cinestill D96 does not list metol, but it should have been there if it was included, since it's AFAIK obligatory to list it. The only logical candidate they might have replaced it with, would be phenidone or a phenidone-like compound, which might evade the obligation to be listed due to only a small amount being included.

To what extent this is practically relevant is to be debated since it's perfectly possible that Cinestill would have formulated their own D96 to give pretty much the same development times as Kodak D96. If there's any difference, I'd expect the Cinestill version to maybe give slightly better shadow detail (higher film speed). Take that hypothesis with a grain of potassium bromide, though.

What does bother me a little bit about this is that it's another example of Cinestill apparently doing their own 'thing' about something that's pretty standardized across the industry, similar to their spin on C41 and E6 chemistry. It may be of little practical consequence, but it makes me wonder why they didn't just make the original formula, which is published and seems just as easy to provide to customers.

 

[npl]

Same formula or not, Cinestill recommend 7min at 21°c for Cinestill D96 : https://cinestillfilm.com/pages/bwxx-dev-times

I've used the times in this page for Xtol and HC-110 in the past and the negs were fine. Even in XTOL it looked quite grainy for a ~ 200 ISO film and it was 35mm, so with 16mm it's expected.

 

[cannotShootStraight]

Even in XTOL it looked quite grainy for a ~ 200 ISO film and it was 35mm, so with 16mm it's expected.

You developed Double-X with Xtol and it looked grainy?

 

[npl]

You developed Double-X with Xtol and it looked grainy?

That's a relative term. It looked grainy compared to fomapan 200 in XTOL for exemple.