Double X Findings/Comparisons/Opinions

[bernard_L]

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.

Just out of curiosity: in what respect do you find FP4 to be lacking with respect to DoubleX? and with respect to Plus-X (the actual, starting question)?
I did some testing, limited, but at least same scene, same camera. see:

Kodak Plus X- How I Miss This Film

Have you tried comparing it to Delta 400 instead? The characteristic curves line up nicely, although the speed and grain are different of course. Delta 400 reaches out to 700nm, which means lighter rendition of reds. So, tonally, I'm wondering if they would look different, especially if there...

www.photrio.com

For sure, some viewers guessed correctly (and I really admire their sharp perception) but nevertheless...

Bottom is Plus-X but really they're about the same.

With FP4+ is possible to get results almost indistinguishable from Plus-X as you showed

I'm not seeing much difference. Certainly not enough to convince me that FP4 is a poor substitute.

---

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.

The sharpness and grain are fantastic! Pls confirm this is 35mm. No so enthusiastic about tonality, this pic gives me an impression of "hazy day", i.e. compensation, or compressed highlights. But that might just be the scene as it was.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

I will just add too that a few weeks ago, I found myself at a family gathering with Double-X loaded in my M2 and nothing but my 50mm Summicron DR on the camera. I really needed another 2-3 stops, which I didn't have, so just figured "to heck with it" and shot the whole roll at f/2 and 1/50. That worked out an an EI of anywhere from 400-1600 depending on where I was.

I developed it in Diafine, which is a developer I don't see much in discussion of this film. I thought it had potential, especially given that Diafine is also a bit of a relic of the thick emulsion era and I figured I'd get a decent speed boost with Super-XX since it SHOULD carry over a lot of Solution A.

I wasn't totally wrong. The resulting negatives were of respectable density. Contrast was...well...quite extreme and that's saying something since my Summicron is a bit hazy anyway and is definitely lower contrast than say if I'd used say a 5cm f/2 Nikkor of the same general age. I'm pretty sure I'd have seen less grain if I'd done something really crazy and shot some long-expired Kodacolor in my Pentax Auto 110. I will try to post some scans later, although I should probably try rescanning at lower resolution. I'v really only gotten back to shooting B&W in the last few months after having to pack up my darkroom in 2020, and scanning grainy B&W film is a whole different beast from pretty much any color film. I seem to recall that scanning really grainy B&W on max resolution in my Coolscan V is where grain aliasing rears its ugly head, so it may well look better at lower resolution or if I were to print it.

As a totally unrelated side note, I've been trying in vain(when I should be working on submitting final grades...) to locate an blog post I read a few weeks ago where someone had done some pretty serious technical comparisons between Super-XX and TXP-320. Of course those are hard to compare directly side by side since, until Cinestill came along and started offering it in 120, Super-XX was only availalbe in 35mm and smaller, where I don't think TXP-320 has ever been available in anything smaller than 120/220(and has only been made in sheet film since ~2010). In any case, this blog post seemed to think that the two emulsions were very similar if not the same, and IIRC had some densitometer comparisons for the two films shot in the same scene/same EI and developed the same.

 

[loccdor]

I consider Double-X and Tri-X to be very similar films in the way they render. I'm usually okay exchanging one for the other when I'm after that type of look. The main difference between them is Tri-X has a little more grain.

 

[cmacd123]

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

the traditional Movie work flow would have the negative printed onto a "Master Positive" film (grey base show speed) and that would be used to make one or more "Duplicate Negative" or "printing negatives. THOSE in turn wold be contact Printed onto a a clear base Positive "Release Print" film would could be shipped to the Theaters.

the final theatre print would be a 4th generation copy, with that many chances to build contrast.



the master positive is still
(note that the current version is on a clear base)

EASTMAN Fine Grain Duplicating Positive Film 2366​

This blue-sensitive black-and-white film has very high resolution and incorporates a yellow dye, which is removed during processing, to provide very high acutance.

the duplicate negative is still

EASTMAN Fine Grain Duplicating Panchromatic Negative Film 2234​

These low-speed, black-and-white films are designed for making duplicate negatives from master positives, or internegatives from reversal originals.

the release Print stock is

KODAK Black-and-White Print Film 2302/3302​

KODAK Black-and-White Print Film 2302/3302 is an ESTAR Base, low-speed, high-resolution print film.


(3302 would be 16mm.)

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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.

We have a winner! That is the correct answer!

 

[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:

Now confirmed. Using Double X at ASA 200 and doing 28 min EMA in Pyrocat-HDC 5:3:500 gave me great quality results - sharp, well controlled grain, and well managed highlights. The negatives were a little "hotter" than I like, so future experiments in this regard will involve higher dilution - probably around 1.5:1:250 or so.

While I still need to do further tests with higher dilutions and different agitation schemes, it would seem my original contention that Double X doesn't like Pyro is flatly wrong. What it doesn't like is failing developer ...Grrrrrrrrr....

More if/as I find more.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

I consider Double-X and Tri-X to be very similar films in the way they render. I'm usually okay exchanging one for the other when I'm after that type of look. The main difference between them is Tri-X has a little more grain.

I'd agree with this in general if shooting both at box speed.

With that said, in D76 1:1 with Tri-X at EI200 or Super-XX and EI400, in both cases I perceive Tri-X to be a bit finer grained. The difference is splitting hairs, though...

Also, I'll happily put Tri-X in Diafine at EI 1200-1600 even if it's a bit more grain and a bit more contrast than I like. Super-XX I don't see ever running through Diafine again. That's a pretty specific use case, though.

I honestly shoot very little Tri-X in 35mm these days in the first place, but if I keep going through 2025 at my current pace I could easily see shooting a box or more of Tri-X a month in 120. I've already shot one box this month, and think it's very likely I'll shoot at least one more before the year is out. Since I can only shoot Super-XX in 120 if I buy from Cinestill, I see my consumption of it in that format being very low. Larger negatives definitely change my perception of grain, even if the size is the same.

 

[gorbas]

the traditional Movie work flow would have the negative printed onto a "Master Positive" film (grey base show speed) and that would be used to make one or more "Duplicate Negative" or "printing negatives. THOSE in turn wold be contact Printed onto a a clear base Positive "Release Print" film would could be shipped to the Theaters.

the final theatre print would be a 4th generation copy, with that many chances to build contrast.



the master positive is still
(note that the current version is on a clear base)

EASTMAN Fine Grain Duplicating Positive Film 2366​

This blue-sensitive black-and-white film has very high resolution and incorporates a yellow dye, which is removed during processing, to provide very high acutance.

the duplicate negative is still

EASTMAN Fine Grain Duplicating Panchromatic Negative Film 2234​

These low-speed, black-and-white films are designed for making duplicate negatives from master positives, or internegatives from reversal originals.

the release Print stock is

KODAK Black-and-White Print Film 2302/3302​

KODAK Black-and-White Print Film 2302/3302 is an ESTAR Base, low-speed, high-resolution print film.


(3302 would be 16mm.)

Charles, does Eastman Kodak still make those BW Lab films? I was under impression that ORWO/Filmotec was the last one making them.

 

[cmacd123]

Charles, does Eastman Kodak still make those BW Lab films? I was under impression that ORWO/Filmotec was the last one making them.

they still have them on their web site! these days you have to look at the film catalogue and then wade through a few dozen Product change notices and Price changes... this is what the USA Feb 2024 Catalog shows.

I suspect that the Filmotec Lab films may be dependent on the health of that overall business. the ORWO.Shop site only shows very large rolls of ORWO DN-21 (similar to 2234) with all out of the big rolls of the DP31 (simalar to 2366 BUT Dp31 was also Pancro.)

they still also show PF2 in 610M rolls but only in acetate, while Kodak 2302 is estar and the acetate version 5302 is discontinued. the movie industry us mostly using digital intermediate these days of course so other than special effects and archiving, the demand is likely way down. (especially for B&W film)

 

[cmacd123]

the Original Wolfen site does show 36 exp rolls of both DP31 and DN21 as well as PF2 in stock. DP31 is shown as ASA 8 (and I think Flic film also had a few rolls at one time they sold as lackadaisical 8) and DN21 is ASA 13, and PF2 a classic Blue sensitive film is shown as asa 3.

 

[gorbas]

Thank you Charles! I'm experimenting on and off in the last few years with DP31 I inherited from the late friend, but would like more to have DN21 or Kodak 2234. Of course anything more than 400' is way too much for my needs. My speed with DP-31 and Xtol 1:2 is 6EI, not to far away from their 8.

 

[cmacd123]

Thank you Charles! I'm experimenting on and off in the last few years with DP31 I inherited from the late friend, but would like more to have DN21 or Kodak 2234. Of course anything more than 400' is way too much for my needs. My speed with DP-31 and Xtol 1:2 is 6EI, not to far away from their 8.

yes, as Lab films the general packing is 2000 ft or so rolls. I supose the 36 exp rolls under the original Wolfen Brand - even at 12$US might allow experiments.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I've shot XX off and on for two decades now. I've probably used a couple thousand feet or so. I've never found it to be high contrast with any developer. Unfortunately, I never kept track of developers until about a decade ago which is a shame since I tried a million of them back in the 00's when Agfa went belly up. These days I pretty much just use Rodinal for 35mm and under, and PMK for medium and large format. I occasionally use some others as palate cleansers. I prefer lots of grain though. I am not looking for fine grain. The best developer I'd say I've used with XX for overall quality is Pyrocat-P. I'd say XX is one of the easiest films to use. I cut it down these days to use in my Minox.

I usually shoot XX at 250. The limit I've found is around 640, after that the shadows start to drop, but I'd imagine you could get a little more out of it depending on the developer. I use it in the Minoxes at 400 which works well even for that tiny negative.

This is 35mm XX in a Contax/Zeiss developed in Pyrocat-PC.

 

[Tel]

The lower contrast is likely an accommodation for movie projection.

Some nice work shown here; I’ve been shooting 5222 and souping it in HC110B (and liking the results) but I’m going to pick up some D-76 and see which one I like better.

But to Chuckroast's point: it’s important to remember that 5222 was developed as a motion stock and optimised for exposure at 1/48 of a second and projection at 1/24. Since (unless a DP is doing special effects shooting) changing exposure time is not an option, speed is more important than acutance in the design of its emulsion.

 

[Bill Burk]

I just developed a dozen rolls of 5222 (and forgot to develop the roll in my pocket from Sunday).

My impression is that to love 5222, you need to accept halation.

 

[Nokton48]

Long ago I started a giant XX thread over on RFF. Just about every developer known is represented there. 120 pages of XX Goodness.

Shooting Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica

Hi All, I've recently become interested in shooting Kodak Double-X (Eastman 5222) motion picture film in my new early Leica M2. I know that Tom Abrahamsson, Al Kaplan, and others here have been using this film, from time to time. Here is the Kodak teaser...

rangefinderforum.com

007 XX Here;





Kodak XX 120 D23 1to1 Plaubel Makina Back by Nokton48, on Flickr Kodak XX 120 D23 1to1 Plaubel Makina Back by Nokton48, on Flickr

And here's a roll of XX shot in my Olde Minolta Autocord.

Kodak XX 120 D23 1:1 Minolta Autocord TLR by Nokton48, on Flickr

First rolls freshly developed Eastman Double-X XX 120 in Minolta Autocord twin lens reflex 6x6. D23 1:1 JOBO Multitank 5 (six roll capacity) Unicolor Uniroller. 12 minutes at 68F. Beefy looking negatives as I am used to with 35mm XX. These will all be easy to print with the usually XX qualities but in the superior larger format. Bravo to the Creator of this! More coming I like this film

 

[chuckroast]

I just developed a dozen rolls of 5222 (and forgot to develop the roll in my pocket from Sunday).

My impression is that to love 5222, you need to accept halation.

Hi Bill -

How did you develop it? It's not the sharpest film I've ever used, likely due to the aforementioned halation, but I got very good results in D-76 1:1 for 7ish minutes, exposed at ASA 200

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi Bill -

How did you develop it? It's not the sharpest film I've ever used, likely due to the aforementioned halation, but I got very good results in D-76 1:1 for 7ish minutes, exposed at ASA 200

D-76 1:1 for 15 minutes at 68F this gets me the ASA parameters. I’ll have more info after reading the densities

 

[chuckroast]

D-76 1:1 for 15 minutes at 68F this gets me the ASA parameters. I’ll have more info after reading the densities

I'll be particularly interested in your findings since 15 min seems way too long for conventional silver printing or scanning, but what do know

 

[gorbas]

yes, as Lab films the general packing is 2000 ft or so rolls. I supose the 36 exp rolls under the original Wolfen Brand - even at 12$US might allow experiments.

Thank you Charles! With those prices I will rather experiment with my regular camera films. At 80$US for 100' roll, from ORWO NA, I can find more affordable films.

 

[Bill Burk]

I'll be particularly interested in your findings since 15 min seems way too long for conventional silver printing or scanning, but what do know

Had one run that was too dense, but that day the water temperature wasn’t fully under control. I use a compensating timer and the probe might have been in cooler water than the developer in the tank.

ASA parameters are aimed for silver gelatin Grade 2 on a diffusion enlarger.

People develop double-x at higher temperatures to keep the time short.

 

[chuckroast]

Had one run that was too dense, but that day the water temperature wasn’t fully under control. I use a compensating timer and the probe might have been in cooler water than the developer in the tank.

ASA parameters are aimed for silver gelatin Grade 2 on a diffusion enlarger.

People develop double-x at higher temperatures to keep the time short.

Yeah, I use a compensating timer as well, originally a Zone VI and later I designed and built my own.


My target reference temp is 68F. I develop Double X for 7ish mins in D-76 1:1 against that for cold light split VC silver printing.



While you can correct for temperature variation in the timer, there is more to the story, I think. Cranking up the temps will usually increase grain, and can also increase likelihood of emulsion damage.

 

[Bill Burk]

Yeah, I use a compensating timer as well, originally a Zone VI and later I designed and built my own.


My target reference temp is 68F. I develop Double X for 7ish mins in D-76 1:1 against that for cold light split VC silver printing.



While you can correct for temperature variation in the timer, there is more to the story, I think. Cranking up the temps will usually increase grain, and can also increase likelihood of emulsion damage.

What contrast do you effectively end up printing? 4?

 

[chuckroast]

What contrast do you effectively end up printing? 4?

I don't exactly know. I split-VC print everything on a Zone VI variable contrast cold light head. I manage the overall contrast and the local contrast (with burning/dodging) by varying the ratio of soft light time to cold light time, with the intensity for each set to maximum.

In effect, I am printing, dodging, and burning with the soft light to manage the highlights, and the cold light to manage the shadows. I therefore make no effort to hit a fixed overall contrast grade.

Here is a scan of such a print made on Fomabrom Variant 111 VC NB:

 

[Bill Burk]

If the time under blue is longer than time under green you are printing relatively high contrast, which would make sense.

5222 needs longer developing time in D-76 1:1 to reach ASA/ISO - in this case 15 minutes with better temperature control is hitting above and below standard

I don’t suggest trying for 0.62 CI but even here 0.45 CI is lower than I would like.

(The partial high curve is from a cut-off strip that was on outer edge of spiral. The lower curve was also cut off but developed inside the spiral)