Double-X Film

[frobozz]

Having used quite a bit of 5222 and making wet prints I have never noticed any difference in the grain structure. Some prints have been as larger as 16x20.

I've mentioned this before in other threads, but it bears repeating here: when I first started using 5222 I found the grain to be objectionable. I mean, it's just in your face. But I was scanning it. I've scanned lots of other B&W film too, and nothing was as grainy as 5222. But I kept reading posts from people saying it's not that grainy when printed on photo paper. I thought that was silly - how can that even be true? But it is! Once I started printing my 5222 negs with an enlarger I was astonished - where was all that crazy grain?! I've made 20x24 prints with it and sure, you can see some grain, but not 20x24-from-35mm-negative levels of grain. It's now my absolute favorite film.

Duncan

 

[ColColt]

Don't know if the problem is with my video display or something more fundamental.

It's not just on APUG, Flickr lightens my uploads and I have to resharpen a bit with them using their "Edit in Aviary" function as what I initially see after PP on my monitor is better than after uploading to Flickr and a bit worse after they're posted here-especially the sharpness. Photobucket is about the worse I've used and quit even trying there.

Despite using Spyder 5 Elite calibration of the monitor and good PP software I'd say neither nor a combination can yield the quality of a print via the darkroom.

 

[nworth]

Eastman 5222 is on a slightly thicker and stiffer base than still films. If you try to load more than say 30 exposures in a cassette you run the risk of the film jamming in the cassette. It's not written in stone that you must have 36 exposure rolls. It's something that you must put up with to use this film. Well worth the fact that this film remains completely flat in glass-less carriers.

The Lloyd type bulk film loaders (the kind that count turns to tell how many exposures are in the cassette) will give slightly different results with thicker film. It probably won't be more than a frame, but you will wind on a bit more film than expected. I remember this used to happen with Background-X (a long time ago). I would get 39 exposure rolls instead of 36.

Actually this is a general problem with bulk film loaders. The number of frames you get is approximate. With the Lloyd type loaders you can adjust, if you always use the same film type. Just note what you actually got with the first couple of rolls, and then adjust the turns accordingly. The Watson type loaders have a tendency to not count accurately. I don't know how you take care of that.

 

[nworth]

Just for the record:

Kodak D-96 motion picture negative developer

Water (50C) 750 ml
Metol 2 g
Sodium sulfite (anh) 75 g
Hydroquinone 1.5 g
Potassium bromide 400 mg
or
Sodium bromide 350 mg
Borax (decahydrate) 4.5 g
WTM 1 l

pH at 27C =8.6

Specific gravity at 27C = 1.068

Replenisher D-96R

Water (50C) 750 ml
Metol 2 g
Sodium sulfite (anh) 80 g
Hydroquinone 2 g
Borax (decahydrate) 5 g
WTM 1 l

pH at 27C = 8.7

Specific gravity at 27C = 1.073

Replenishment rate is 1200 ml per 100 feet of 35mm film. (About 67 ml per 8X10 sheet.)

Variation (D-96A):
Kodak D-96A film developer

Distilled water 750 ml
Calgon 1 g
Sodium bromide 350 mg
l-ascobic acid 2 g
Metol 1.5 g
Borax pentahydrate 3.8 g (or decahydrate 5 g)
Sodium sulfite 60 g
WTM 1 l

For motion picture films

Variation (D-96A2)

Calgon 1 g
Metol 1.5g
Sodium sulfite (anh) 75 g
L-ascorbic acid 2 g
Borax (deca) 4.5g
Potassium bromide 400 mg
Water to make 1 l

This developer works at comparable development times to D-96, but at a lower pH. Granularity and sharpness is somewhat enhanced.

Ref: silvergrain.org

The variations actually appear in Kodak Publication H-24, so I guess they are approved. I've tried D-96 with Tri-X, and I didn't particularly like the results. D-76 should work quite well with 5222 for still photography, but you might try this if contrast is a bit too high.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The variations actually appear in Kodak Publication H-24, so I guess they are approved. I've tried D-96 with Tri-X, and I didn't particularly like the results. D-76 should work quite well with 5222 for still photography, but you might try this if contrast is a bit too high.

Kodak discontinued recommending the ascorbate versions of D-96 due to the possibility of inconsistent results. Further references in Kodak publications ceased.

 

[ColColt]

After shooting two rolls of this film, the last was yesterday, and developing in ID-11 1:11 I've come to the conclusion I'm not real enchanted by it. First of all, the way it's rolled allows me to shoot the 24th frame but then cuts it off half way or in the case of this second roll I lost only about 1/4 of the last frame. I loaded it in the F2 by just barely allowing the top and bottom sprocket holes to catch onto the spool, closed the back, advanced two frames to bypass what had already been exposed to the light, took up the slack and went on to exposure No. 1. Still I lost that last frame.

Secondly, from a scanning standpoint, I don't know about an actual wet print, it really does nothing Tri-X or HP-5 doesn't do for me rated at the same ASA but developed in HC-110 Dil H. It may do better with an actual darkroom made print but the scans are no better than the others. Perhaps another developer would be best, I don't know. I thought ID:11 or D-76 would work good with this film but for my eyes it's just not there.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

After shooting two rolls of this film, the last was yesterday, and developing in ID-11 1:11 I've come to the conclusion I'm not real enchanted by it. First of all, the way it's rolled allows me to shoot the 24th frame but then cuts it off half way or in the case of this second roll I lost only about 1/4 of the last frame. I loaded it in the F2 by just barely allowing the top and bottom sprocket holes to catch onto the spool, closed the back, advanced two frames to bypass what had already been exposed to the light, took up the slack and went on to exposure No. 1. Still I lost that last frame.

Secondly, from a scanning standpoint, I don't know about an actual wet print, it really does nothing Tri-X or HP-5 doesn't do for me rated at the same ASA but developed in HC-110 Dil H. It may do better with an actual darkroom made print but the scans are no better than the others. Perhaps another developer would be best, I don't know. I thought ID:11 or D-76 would work good with this film but for my eyes it's just not there.

1. You need to contact whoever sold you the 24 exp rolls. This is not Kodak's fault.

2. When you scan rather than make real prints all bets are off. Read post 101.

 

[ColColt]

Those two rolls were from Film Photography Project.

 

[Xmas]

Those two rolls were from Film Photography Project.

If you got 400 or 1000 foot or recans in the past 5222 was cheap.
This is not true any more.
The cine people are going digital.
It is only a 250 ISO film with less grain than HP5+. Probably comparable with Tx.
Scanning won't help you judge grain.
Lots of us like wet print grain.
Your finisher should not have preexposed film loading it but you don't need to tell us who they are instead be you need to send them the errant negative strip.
The prexposure is easy to avoid at home.

 

[mhanc]

some really useful info in this thread. just wondering if anyone has any further experience with the eastman 5222 film: iso speed, developer, times, etc.

also, any more thoughts and impressions on this film versus tri-x?

looking at the Eastman 5222 thread on flicker it seems like some of the best results in terms of tonality and fine or pleasing grain have been obtained from development with d-76 and two bath d-23. there have been some nice results with caffenol as well.

 

[Craig75]

Eastman 5222 is designed to be shot at an ISO of 250D, 200T and developed in Kodak D-96 to produce a lower contrast (gamma) than still films. If you want normal contrast then rate it at 400 and use a standard developer like D-76 or HC-110. So you may have to do some experimenting.

Eastman 5222 is on a slightly thicker and stiffer base than still films. If you try to load more than say 30 exposures in a cassette you run the risk of the film jamming in the cassette. It's not written in stone that you must have 36 exposure rolls. It's something that you must put up with to use this film. Well worth the fact that this film remains completely flat in glass-less carriers.

Extremely helpful. I want to get 100ft of this in 16mm for still shooting and didnt know iso was higher for stills or glassless carrier info. All this info makes my life a lot simpler.

Nice shots david. Love the selfie. Looking forward to trying it after seeing your roll