Double X Findings/Comparisons/Opinions

[chuckroast]

When Plus-X disappeared, I was well stocked, freezer wise, but I was worried what would happen when that was gone. I had hoped that 5222 aka Double X would be a worthy successor.

After many months of fiddling, testing, and printing, with a variety of films/developers, I have come to some general conclusions, I thought I'd share. These apply only to 35mm. I've not gotten around to testing much of my 120 stock. The "test" here was to make negatives, develop in different ways, and see what an 8x10 print looked like from that negative.

This is all anecdotal, and I'm hoping someone will chime in with "No, no, no, that's wrong, you do it THIS way...":

1. Compared to pretty much all other similar speed films - Plus-X, Efke 100, FP4+, Fomapan 200 - Double X is not as inherently sharp. I could not get it to consistently give me the snap these other films had.
   
   
2. Double X tends to creep towards overly contrasty if you don't mind your developer manners with care. It's not as bad as Fomapan 200 (which you REALLY have to watch), but it still likes to go toward higher Contrast Indexes than I like.
   
   
3. No matter what I did, I could not get a great negative with Double-X in Pyro. I tried both PMK and Pyrocat-HD. In both cases, the negatives showed grain and I kind of tonal "grittiness" I found to be unpleasant.
   
   
4. This problem got REALLY bad when I tried to use semistand or Extreme Minimal Agitation techniques with Pyrocat-HD, both of which rely on higher dilutions than ordinary development. No matter what dilution or duration I chose, the resulting grain/grit/contrast was really ugly. This is the only film where I have found this to be true.
   
   
5. So, my general conclusion is that Double X doesn't like highly dilute acutance development. Period.
   
   
6. Well .. sort of. I got pretty decent results - good grain and contrast - developing Double X in HC-110B for 6 min. HC-110B is a balance between acutance and managing grain and this turned out nicely.
   
   
7. I had originally suspected that semistand/EMA was off the table for this film because of the horrorshow I found with using Pyrocat-HD with this film. To my surprise and happiness, EMA in D-23 1+3 for 30 min was just lovely. After an initial 90sec agitation, I agitated every 7.5 min and pulled the film at 30mins. The images were (relatively) sharp, highlights were well managed and shadows showed pretty nearly full box speed. When shooting into really big Subject Brightness Ranges, this is likely what I will use. (Let it be noted that going past 1+3 in dilution with this small a format is begging for more visible grain.)
   
   
8. But the cleanest, lowest grain look I got out of this film was developing it conventionally in D-76 1:1 for 7.5 min. The negatives are (relatively) sharp, contrast is well controlled, and even fairly large SBRs get handled nicely. This is my default/goto for this film for most things now.
   
   
9. No matter what, though, the film just is not as apparently sharp as, say, FP4+. This is especially the case because FP4+ thrives in high dilution development like EMA where edge sharpness can be enhanced a lot.
   
   
10. But Double X has a place. It's a good "walking around" film for street work. The extra speed comes in handy.

Here are some examples of Double X in D-76 - scans of silver prints:

 

[Bill Burk]

Thanks for sharing. I guess I will stick to D-76 1:1 then

 

[chuckroast]

Thanks for sharing. I guess I will stick to D-76 1:1 then

That's what I plan to do, but I have to say EMA for 30 min in D-23 1+3 is magic sauce when you have big dynamic range.

I also plan to go back and do a bit more rigorous testing with Fomapan 200. If memory serves, it's sharper out of the box than Double X. The tragedy is that Fompan 200 in 120 has - um - issues.

 

[Steven Lee]

Nice report, thank you. To add: Xtol can also be considered for XX. Your description of the D76 results matches my Xtol experience perfectly, which is not a surprise as, I suspect, Xtol design aim was to be as similar to D76 as possible.

 

[chuckroast]

Nice report, thank you. To add: Xtol can also be considered for XX. Your description of the D76 results matches my Xtol experience perfectly, which is not a surprise as, I suspect, Xtol design aim was to be as similar to D76 as possible.

How do you feel about the sharpness of Double X in Xtol?

 

[Paul Howell]

All makes sense, as a movie film it should work well in D76 or a clone as D76 was first marketed as movie film developer? Without an anithalogent layer Double X will lose some sharpness. Question, when was Double X last formulated, it is an old fashion thick emulsion or newer thinner type, say 90s update like TriX? I have only used Double X a few times and developed in Clayton F76+ or D76, results were ok, but at the same price I can buy Foma 200.

Has anyone tired Double X in Diafine?

 

[chuckroast]

All makes sense, as a movie film it should work well in D76 or a clone as D76 was first marketed as movie film developer? Without an anithalogent layer Double X will lose some sharpness. Question, when was Double X last formulated, it is an old fashion thick emulsion or newer thinner type, say 90s update like TriX? I have only used Double X a few times and developed in Clayton F76+ or D76, results were ok, but at the same price I can buy Foma 200.

Has anyone tired Double X in Diafine?

Can you say more about why an antihalation layer would improve sharpness?

I suspect it is a thick emulsion b/c the claim is that it has not materially been changed since 1959:

Dehancer

Dehancer is a film emulation software with realistic film effects for color grading. Discover over 60 real photographic and motion picture films, realistic film effects to give your digital videos and photos a truly cinematic look.

www.dehancer.com

 

[_T_]

The antihalation layer is designed to absorb light that has passed through the image forming layers of the emulsion in order to keep them from reflecting back into the image forming layers again.

When this stray light is allowed back into the image forming layers it has been scattered to some extent and can interact with the image formed by the lens in a number of different ways but almost always decreases the apparent sharpness of the image to some extent.

 

[chuckroast]

The antihalation layer is designed to absorb light that has passed through the image forming layers of the emulsion in order to keep them from reflecting back into the image forming layers again.

When this stray light is allowed back into the image forming layers it has been scattered to some extent and can interact with the image formed by the lens in a number of different ways but almost always decreases the apparent sharpness of the image to some extent.

Yeah, that makes sense and is consistent with my other readings.

What's strange is that I do not recall Plus-X movie film (which was the only choice after "real" Plus-X disappeared) having a sharpness problem.

 

[Chuck1]

Thanks for sharing your work

 

[MattKing]

What's strange is that I do not recall Plus-X movie film (which was the only choice after "real" Plus-X disappeared) having a sharpness problem.

After many years of separate evolution, by the end there was very little connection between the still and motion picture films that included "Plus-X" in their names.
XX is now mainly designed for the standard motion picture film workflow - scanning and digitally editing. Apparent "sharpness" isn't likely to be a design goal in a movie film designed to be scanned.

 

[Steven Lee]

How do you feel about the sharpness of Double X in Xtol?

I only shoot it in 120 and the scanning resolution isn't high enough for me to have an informed opinion.

 

[cmacd123]

The Movie verison of Plus-X (5231) was rated at ASA 80. But that was with Movie lower contrast aim points. Unfortunatly it vanished around (or shortly after) the other versions.

the Factory recommendation for both 5231 and 5222 was/is D96, which has basically the same ingredients as D76, but a slightly different formula.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

When Plus-X disappeared, I was well stocked, freezer wise, but I was worried what would happen when that was gone. I had hoped that 5222 aka Double X would be a worthy successor.

After many months of fiddling, testing, and printing, with a variety of films/developers, I have come to some general conclusions, I thought I'd share. These apply only to 35mm. I've not gotten around to testing much of my 120 stock. The "test" here was to make negatives, develop in different ways, and see what an 8x10 print looked like from that negative.

This is all anecdotal, and I'm hoping someone will chime in with "No, no, no, that's wrong, you do it THIS way...":

1. Compared to pretty much all other similar speed films - Plus-X, Efke 100, FP4+, Fomapan 200 - Double X is not as inherently sharp. I could not get it to consistently give me the snap these other films had.
   
   
2. Double X tends to creep towards overly contrasty if you don't mind your developer manners with care. It's not as bad as Fomapan 200 (which you REALLY have to watch), but it still likes to go toward higher Contrast Indexes than I like.
   
   
3. No matter what I did, I could not get a great negative with Double-X in Pyro. I tried both PMK and Pyrocat-HD. In both cases, the negatives showed grain and I kind of tonal "grittiness" I found to be unpleasant.
   
   
4. This problem got REALLY bad when I tried to use semistand or Extreme Minimal Agitation techniques with Pyrocat-HD, both of which rely on higher dilutions than ordinary development. No matter what dilution or duration I chose, the resulting grain/grit/contrast was really ugly. This is the only film where I have found this to be true.
   
   
5. So, my general conclusion is that Double X doesn't like highly dilute acutance development. Period.
   
   
6. Well .. sort of. I got pretty decent results - good grain and contrast - developing Double X in HC-110B for 6 min. HC-110B is a balance between acutance and managing grain and this turned out nicely.
   
   
7. I had originally suspected that semistand/EMA was off the table for this film because of the horrorshow I found with using Pyrocat-HD with this film. To my surprise and happiness, EMA in D-23 1+3 for 30 min was just lovely. After an initial 90sec agitation, I agitated every 7.5 min and pulled the film at 30mins. The images were (relatively) sharp, highlights were well managed and shadows showed pretty nearly full box speed. When shooting into really big Subject Brightness Ranges, this is likely what I will use. (Let it be noted that going past 1+3 in dilution with this small a format is begging for more visible grain.)
   
   
8. But the cleanest, lowest grain look I got out of this film was developing it conventionally in D-76 1:1 for 7.5 min. The negatives are (relatively) sharp, contrast is well controlled, and even fairly large SBRs get handled nicely. This is my default/goto for this film for most things now.
   
   
9. No matter what, though, the film just is not as apparently sharp as, say, FP4+. This is especially the case because FP4+ thrives in high dilution development like EMA where edge sharpness can be enhanced a lot.
   
   
10. But Double X has a place. It's a good "walking around" film for street work. The extra speed comes in handy.

Here are some examples of Double X in D-76 - scans of silver prints:

View attachment 380485

View attachment 380486
View attachment 380487

FP4 is a slower film, so naturally it is finer grain. D-76 1+1 is always a safe bet for almost any film, but you may want to drop the time to 6 mins.

 

[loccdor]

What I found with Double-X is that it could vary quite a bit based on who was selling it. You could get silky smooth images from it or a grainy horrorshow effect based on how second-hand it was. I actually really liked its results in 510-pyro 1+100, when the film itself was fresh enough and stored well, even preferring it to Tri-X.

It is one of those films which is adaptable in the shooting process and then you can apply your own post-process for a variety of results.

Well stored example @200 in 510-pyro 1+100 normal development 7 minutes:

Poorly stored example @160 in HC-110 1+31 6 minutes:

This second one came from an old movie film can that seems to have been opened briefly by accident. It was also older.

I haven't seen your images at high magnification, but to me they seem in the middle between these two results.

 

[Sanug]

I like Double-X. The higher contrast and the ISO makes Double-X very suitable for cloudy sky and bad weather. I develop it in Xtol (Adox XT-3) 1+1 10 Min. or 1+2 14 Min. with good results for wet printing. For people who scan the negatives, the curling may be an issue.

Praktica MTL5. Silver gelatine print.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I have shot only two rolls of Double-X/5222, and I have not tried to wet print any. So, I cannot offer any insight based on experience or testing. I did happen to develop both rolls in Legacy Pro Eco-Pro (a Xtol-type chemistry). Not sure if looking at scans of 35mm negatives will tell you anything, but I have posted results for anyone who wants to see them. While my post processing does include exposure and contrast adjustments, I almost never do any sharpening other than what Lightroom applies as a default.

https://garywright.smugmug.com/Photography/Cinestill-XX-Sept-Dec-2023
https://garywright.smugmug.com/Photography/Flic-Film-Double-X-Cine-May-July-2024

RE: sharpness, I will post one example of a Cinestill-BwXX negative that was processed in EcoPro, 1+1, which I thought was sharp enough, though perhaps less so than what I've seen from Ilford Delta 100 and some others. My (limited) Double-X/5222 results do tend to show somewhat more prominent grain than the other medium-speed films I have tried in Xtol/Eco-Pro.

(click and click again for enlarged view).

 

[Paul Howell]

If sharpness and fine grain are you are after then Foma 200 developed in acuance type developer makes sense. I did like the tones I got with Double X, maybe I should shoot a roll of 6X9.

 

[Jan-Peter]

Thanks to you all! - The samples of runswithsizzors are fairly much equal to what I have developed, here in Germany after I received a 100ft. bit of Kodak Double XX No. 5222 film. - My photos of 18x24cm sizes came out well with many grey tones - however a bit more grain than Ilfrod FP4+ - however this comparison might be inadequat.

The seller in Germany is an old cine-film-lab, Andec in Berlin:

Filmmaterial 35 mm - Andec Cinegrell Filmtechnik Berlin

www.andecfilm.de

Both pictures taken with my Fujica SR-605 and the Pentax Takumar 3,5/24mm, developed in Ilford ID-11, 1+3.

Jan-Peter

 

[chuckroast]

UPDATE:

It may be the the poor Double-X performance I was experiencing with Pyro was related to a slowly failing batch of Pyrocat-HD. (For all the gory details, see: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/pyrocat-hd-sudden-death-any-updates.210773/)

I just mixed up some fresh HDC and the scans of the negatives look promising.

I won't know for sure until I silver print, but I'll be looking for good tonal expansion without "grit", decent grain, and good overall sharpness. We'll see.

I'll update further here if/when there is anything to tell.

Here is a scan of a 35mm negative shot with a 50mm Summicron V3 and EMA processed in Pyrocat-HDC 5:3:500 for 28 mins. This had just a touch of post processing - as I said, it looks promising:

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

the Factory recommendation for both 5231 and 5222 was/is D96, which has basically the same ingredients as D76, but a slightly different formula.

I have been shooting double-X recently and even though I like the results from D76 1:1(there’s little I don’t like in that developer) I do find D96 really is a great pairing as long as you don’t mind flat negatives.

I mix both developers myself(although now I’m using the last of Kodak D76). They are in fact very similar, but the metal-hydroquinone ratio is different and amounts of both are lower in D96. Its sulfite content, though, is similar, or perhaps even a bit higher in D96(I don’t have my notes in front of me). What they means practically is it will act a bit like diluted D76 as far as contrast, but keeps similar grain solvent effects to straight D76.

Most significant though is that d96 contains KBr in a decent amount, something that will suppress fog and decrease contrast.

So the end result is very flat negatives and soft grain.

 

[chuckroast]

I have been shooting double-X recently and even though I like the results from D76 1:1(there’s little I don’t like in that developer) I do find D96 really is a great pairing as long as you don’t mind flat negatives.

I mix both developers myself(although now I’m using the last of Kodak D76). They are in fact very similar, but the metal-hydroquinone ratio is different and amounts of both are lower in D96. Its sulfite content, though, is similar, or perhaps even a bit higher in D96(I don’t have my notes in front of me). What they means practically is it will act a bit like diluted D76 as far as contrast, but keeps similar grain solvent effects to straight D76.

Most significant though is that d96 contains KBr in a decent amount, something that will suppress fog and decrease contrast.

So the end result is very flat negatives and soft grain.

The lower contrast is likely an accommodation for movie projection.

 

[MattKing]

The lower contrast is likely an accommodation for movie projection.

As the film is designed to be contact printed on to projection print stock - a process that is inherently more prone to building contrast than printing on photographic paper - the film and D96 are designed together to provide a less contrasty negative than a film and developer combination designed for the making of prints on photographic paper.

 

[Sanug]

Strange for me that Double-X is described as low contrast. However, this may be seen according to the mentioned development.

My experience with Double-X is different. It comes quite contrasty and with a visible, but somehow beautiful grain. I use Adox XT-3 1+1 and do wet printing.

Double-X is my favourite film for cloudy days without sun, because it delivers still enough contrast when Kentmere 100 or 400 is too flat.

 

[blee1996]

I have been developing Double-X 5222 in Clayton F76+ 1+9, which is similar to D76. And the results are quite nice: slightly higher contrast but with good gradations, clean whites and blacks, and quite prominent yet pleasing grain. It feels almost like Tri-X in terms of image character, but more versatile to be used between ISO 100-400.

Spots and Veins - MinoltaX570_35-70M_XX_024 by Zheng, on Flickr

Welcome - MinoltaX570_35-70M_XX_015 by Zheng, on Flickr