Double-X Film

[ColColt]

I guess I'll have to remember that next time. Still, I thought it odd it would let me take that picture.

 

[Arvee]

I guess I'll have to remember that next time. Still, I thought it odd it would let me take that picture.

Not sure how much you trimmed off when prepping for development but that looks like the amount of fogging that one would get with a Lloyd. A Watson or Alden 74 would be about twice that amount.

 

[ColColt]

I didn't roll this. It was bought direct in a cassette from Film Photography Project directly from Kodak.

 

[Arvee]

I just developed the roll in ID-11 for 8 min at 75 degrees...look pretty good. However, I'm not sure what happened at the end. I had taken #23 and knew I had one left so advanced the lever-no resistance, took the picture and advanced again but it would only go about 1/8th the distance so, I knew that was it. I rewound and developed. That #24 shot was cut off by more than half. I'll try and take a pic of it before I cut the negatives after drying.

Was that 8 min at 75 deg in 1+1 ID11?

 

[ColColt]

Yes, 1:1

 

[Arvee]

Yes, 1:1

They look fine! Are you going to post some frames?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

OK-I couldn't wait. This is what happened on shot #24. There should have been a complete negative.

_1DF4495 by David Fincher, on Flickr

This can happen when you use up too much of the leader when loading your camera. Commercial films allow for 3 frames wastage. Use more and the total number of exposures is effected. Something you need to test.

 

[ColColt]

Yep, soon as they dry.

 

[Arvee]

Yep, soon as they dry.

Looking forward to it!

 

[ColColt]

This can happen when you use up too much of the leader when loading your camera. Commercial films allow for 3 frames wastage. Use more and the total number of exposures is effected. Something you need to test.

I'm not doing anything different than I always have. I get the top and bottom sprocket holes on the take up, close the back and go through two blank exposures before advancing to the 1st good one. I've never had this to happen with other 24 exposure rolls and I've shot my share of those. One odd thing was once I closed the back(M4) and rewound to take the slack up, it tried to rewind or loosen again. It did that on several tries.

 

[MattKing]

I didn't roll this. It was bought direct in a cassette from Film Photography Project directly from Kodak.

Film Photography Project probably used a bulk loader to manually load your cassette.

I would be very surprised if their operation is big enough to have the sort of film packaging equipment that the manufacturers use.

I think they gave you too little film, but not by much.

 

[ColColt]

It could happen. I have more so we'll see. So far I'm quite impressed with the negatives and this film. I'm in the scanning process so hang on....

 

[michaelorr]

I am looking forward to what you have Col. I have not used my 35mm Contax in years, just bought a bumper crop of the 5222 rolls, and am anxious to see results. I have read lots of seemingly (to me) conflicting info on the film - whether it has remjet or not, very low contrast meant for transfer to positive movie stock, but the data sheet seems to show normal, what D-96 is but it seems to be very similar to D-76 type, and the list goes on. I do not process roll film in my home so i will send to a lab. Choosing the one that uses XTOL and returns scan files. For now, the best i can do. So, i am hanging on, haven't sent my first two rolls out yet and eager to see some good stuff here.

 

[ColColt]

Without further ado, some examples. I shot in bright sunlight, cross light, shade to get an idea how it would handle the shadows and highlights. I'm not disappointed.

Double X(5222 film) by David Fincher, on Flickr
Double X film developed in ID-11 1:1 for 8 minutes. Shot at ASA 250 with Leica M4 and 50 f2 DR Summicron lens. by David Fincher, on Flickr
60@f4Double X film developed in ID-11 1:1 for 8 minutes at 75 degrees. Shot with M4 and 50 f2 DR Summicron lens by David Fincher, on Flickr
Double X10 by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[ColColt]

I made one mistake on the roll by underexposing a "selfie" from the tripod by two stops. I scanned it anyway knowing what I did when I saw the negative but it didn't come out too bad.

Double X11 by David Fincher, on Flickr

Another one. This one sot with the 90 f2.8 Elmarit lens at about 10 feet at 500@f8.


Double X08 by David Fincher, on Flickr

This one with the Zeiss 35 f2.8 Biogon at 250@f11

Double X02 by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[ColColt]

Just one more...shot with 50 f2 DR Summicron at 60@f4.

Double X03 by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[michaelorr]

One more shot, nice one! I also liked the chain link fence especially how it came out. The rest, it seems this is pretty high contrast film rather than low contrast as some have suggested. I exposed with the camera metering, used about 250-320 ASA and will let it all come out in the wash...

 

[ColColt]

If you think this is high contrast you should see the same shots with Tri-X and HC-110 Dil H. Looking back over the negatives, I think they could stand a slight reduction in developing time...maybe half a minute or so. that could reduce the perceived contrast as well.

I like it. Think I'll order more and try some experimenting. It did very well with the shots taken in the shade but in the cross lit sun condition, maybe a touch contrasty. The lowered developing time would take care of that.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I am looking forward to what you have Col. I have not used my 35mm Contax in years, just bought a bumper crop of the 5222 rolls, and am anxious to see results. I have read lots of seemingly (to me) conflicting info on the film - whether it has remjet or not, very low contrast meant for transfer to positive movie stock, but the data sheet seems to show normal, what D-96 is but it seems to be very similar to D-76 type, and the list goes on. I do not process roll film in my home so i will send to a lab. Choosing the one that uses XTOL and returns scan files. For now, the best i can do. So, i am hanging on, haven't sent my first two rolls out yet and eager to see some good stuff here.

Only color cine film has a remjet coating. Film contrast is determined by development. When used as a cine negative this film is developed to a slightly lower Gamma than still films. The film itself would not be described as having very low contrast. D-96 is designed to produce lower contrast than D-76. You can tell this by looking at the ratio of Metol to hydroquinone. In D-96 it is 1:1 while in D-76 it is 2:5. For still film use you can use several different developers other than D-96. Enjoy.

 

[michaelorr]

Gerald, this was very helpful, thanks!

 

[Arvee]

If you think this is high contrast you should see the same shots with Tri-X and HC-110 Dil H. Looking back over the negatives, I think they could stand a slight reduction in developing time...maybe half a minute or so. that could reduce the perceived contrast as well.

I like it. Think I'll order more and try some experimenting. It did very well with the shots taken in the shade but in the cross lit sun condition, maybe a touch contrasty. The lowered developing time would take care of that.

Negs might be a bit hot; my chart says 7 minutes would be a good starting point @75.

 

[ColColt]

I agree. I think the next roll will be 7 minutes. 75 degrees is much easier to use here year around and that's what I've chosen over 68.

The shot of the two bears and the gas meter seem to be right on for 8 minutes with that flat lighting but too much for contrasty situations. It's difficult to use a "one time for all" on a roll of film with different lighting conditions. Still, not too bad for an unknown film for a first time development.

 

[fdonadio]

I like the results very much. Good job, David!

Now I am kind of confused if I call you ColColt, David or Mr. Fincher!


Flavio

 

[ColColt]

Like the old commercial, "You can me Ray or you can call me Jay but, you doesn't have to call me Johnson."

Raymond J. Johnson Jr.

 

[Arvee]

I agree. I think the next roll will be 7 minutes. 75 degrees is much easier to use here year around and that's what I've chosen over 68.

The shot of the two bears and the gas meter seem to be right on for 8 minutes with that flat lighting but too much for contrasty situations. It's difficult to use a "one time for all" on a roll of film with different lighting conditions. Still, not too bad for an unknown film for a first time development.

Anytime you photograph under different lighting conditions, it's always a compromise when it comes to development. All things considered, I think they turned out quite well!