Double XX Like Old Tri-X Or Better?

[Nokton48]

SRT 85 1.7 XX D23 3 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Easton Stilt Girl 21mm Rokkor QH XX 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

I started a very very long thread on Eastman 5222 over here. Examples of just about every developer you can think of

Shooting Eastman (Double-X) 5222 in the Leica - Rangefinderforum.com

 

[Donald Qualls]

Double-X, Cinestill Df96, EI 400 and Push +1 process. Kiev 4, Jupiter-8.

 

[drkhalsa]

Double-X, Cinestill Df96, EI 400 and Push +1 process. Kiev 4, Jupiter-8.

Decent resolution and contrast. Looks like Poison Ivy on the left.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Looks like Poison Ivy on the left.

Probably is. We have that around here.

 

[Jon Buffington]

Going through some older images from about 6 or 8 years ago which was the last time I shot double X. The grain is definitely tighter and more pleasing (to me) than TriX, more pronounced in the above and not sure if developed in hc110 or Rodinal here (probably Rodinal above, hc 110 below as that is what I was using back then). The above is with the 35/2 fd chrome nosed (thorium) lens. The below was from a minolta xd-11, not sure of lens but either the 35/2.8 or 50/1.7

I have a 100' roll recently purchased this winter and looking forward to really diving into this film.

1 more with the xd-11.

 

[mshchem]

Barnack built the Leica to use left over cine film. I would think that Double X should work great

 

[Donald Qualls]

Barnack built the Leica to use left over cine film.

And there were a number of "cine film" still cameras before Barnack's Leica. Many were what we now call "half frame" (then called "single frame" after the "double frame" Leica came out) but a few used a larger frame -- 24x24 far predates Robot, for instance. Some of the "single frame" cameras were close to the size of a "compact" 35 mm cine camera and took fifty or even a hundred feet of film in one loading -- I presume you'd open the camera in the dark and cut out what you'd shot for processing, else the film would outlive the photographer. A few even had the option to shoot a short motion strip on spring power.

 

[Cholentpot]

And there were a number of "cine film" still cameras before Barnack's Leica. Many were what we now call "half frame" (then called "single frame" after the "double frame" Leica came out) but a few used a larger frame -- 24x24 far predates Robot, for instance. Some of the "single frame" cameras were close to the size of a "compact" 35 mm cine camera and took fifty or even a hundred feet of film in one loading -- I presume you'd open the camera in the dark and cut out what you'd shot for processing, else the film would outlive the photographer. A few even had the option to shoot a short motion strip on spring power.

And as I've stated, double X looks quite amazing out of a 'single frame' camera. I've been shooting it out of a Pen F and it really sparkles.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

These images won't tell you much. I don't really think that posting images on the internet will say a whole lot about how films and developers interact frankly. I've shot thousands of feet of XX at this point and put it through a lot of different developers. I like it with Rodinal the most which gives a more classic look to the film. In Pyrocat-P it is very sharp. The sharpest you are going to get in my experience. If you use a solvent developer you can get some nice tones from it. In Edwal 10 it is really nice and smooth, but that is probably the Glycin giving it the "Glycin bump" which is what I call it. XX is a flat film. You really have to develop it if you want any contrast out of it, especially if you are going to print it. Of course if you are scanning it then it doesn't matter much.


In Pyrocat-PC

Rodinal 1+50

Beutler's

In Pyrocat-PC

PMK

Edwal 10

 

[Patrick Robert James]

What I really like these days about XX is it can be cut. I've had trouble slitting film down for my Minox. The emulsion of most films will chip or it is easily scratched when I pull it through the slitter. XX takes to the slitting with aplomb, probably because it is designed to be pulled through a movie camera at high speeds. It also has a wonderful structure with the small neg size. These are all print scans. The above images were mostly neg scans.

 

[Minolta93]

When processing this film do you have to worry about Remjet?

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

When processing this film do you have to worry about Remjet?

No, B&W (and color reversal) movie films don't have remjet.

 

[Minolta93]

No, B&W (and color reversal) movie films don't have remjet.

I knew this about Ektachrome but not about Double-X. Thanks.

 

[Lachlan Young]

No, B&W (and color reversal) movie films don't have remjet.

It's also an issue for some cinema cameras - certain Arri movements (2 & 3-perf) and some others (Aaton?) were not designed for use with non-remjet film (i.e. they have components that can cause back reflection problems).

 

[madNbad]

M4, Voigtlander 2.0 35 Ultron ASPH V1, Kodak 5222, HC-110 Diluton B:



Food Truck, Reveni Light Meter

 

[madNbad]

M4, Voigtlander 2.0 35 Ultron ASPH V1, Kodak 5222, HC-110 Dilution B:



PacWest Center, Portland, Oregon

 

[flavio81]

Yes, Copper sulphate bleach works fine too notwithstanding the nauseating smell of Ammonia.

To me, ammonia smells like "mmmhh my camera lenses are cleaner than ever, and no fungus will touch them!!"

Delicious

 

[flavio81]

Neg/ pos materials are inherently sharper than reversal - all that people are seeing is the (poor) sharpness quality of their scans, not of the film. The high contrast of reversal materials is what makes them seem, under specific viewing circumstances, acceptably sharp.

You are correct, but put your bulletproof vest soon.

What happens with reversal development is, you can get what appears to be finer grain, since the image is now formed by grain that was uniformly exposed with a strong light source (= uniform, smaller grain).

This (IMO) is the sometimes overlooked benefit of reversal process.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

You are correct, but put your bulletproof vest soon.

What happens with reversal development is, you can get what appears to be finer grain, since the image is now formed by grain that was uniformly exposed with a strong light source (= uniform, smaller grain).

This (IMO) is the sometimes overlooked benefit of reversal process.

That's right. In fact Haist, in the second volume of Modern Photographic Processes, lists the following as the advantages of reversal processing of film:

1. Fineness of Grain
"The finer grain of reversal images is not only due to the development of smaller silver halide crystals but also has been attributed to the fact that no printing of the negative is required to obtain the positive image."

2. Sharpness of the Image
"Improved image sharpness results from the development of the residual fine-grained silver halide by a contrasty developer often exhibiting beneficial edge effects. Elimination of the printing of the negative image, a necessary step with the negative-positive process, avoids degradation of the image characteristics."

3. Absence of Fog
4. Absence of White Dust Spots

 

[flavio81]

"Improved image sharpness results from the development of the residual fine-grained silver halide by a contrasty developer often exhibiting beneficial edge effects. Elimination of the printing of the negative image, a necessary step with the negative-positive process, avoids degradation of the image characteristics."

I need to get that book.

However the parts i've put in bold, can also be done for negative too. You can also choose a developer that gives a bit more sharpness (i.e. a developer with no silver solvent in it).

And as for the "elimination of the printing" benefit, I'd say the truly excellent enlarger lenses give amazingly sharp and accurate transfer of the negative to the paper.

 

[Lachlan Young]

2. Sharpness of the Image
"Improved image sharpness results from the development of the residual fine-grained silver halide by a contrasty developer often exhibiting beneficial edge effects. Elimination of the printing of the negative image, a necessary step with the negative-positive process, avoids degradation of the image characteristics."

This needs to be read more carefully than you are assuming. Transparencies rely on two things to look 'sharp' - their contrast & their use as a final object. Outwith that, in every respect, neg films are vastly better. Having worked (to take one example of many) from Delta 400 negs and Delta 400 processed as positives, I can say pretty definitively that Delta 400 used neg/pos is much sharper at an immediately visually perceivable level when looking at prints, though a 120 Delta 400 transparency is very beautiful as an object. And you need to take everything Haist writes in those books with the understanding that he self-censors (or was edited by various Kodak colleagues including Ron) then current technology/ innovation/ areas found to be dead-ends (at least at that moment in time, though perceived to be potentially technologically useful if knowledge of the process shifted in as non-linear ways as it already had by that point in time) - and that chunks of it were written at or before the juncture in time that radical sharpness/ granularity improvements began to appear in products, rather than purely in confidential R&D.

You can also choose a developer that gives a bit more sharpness (i.e. a developer with no silver solvent in it).

Not really the case anymore. Development inhibition agents seem to have turned out to be more important (developer solvency releasing I & Br from the emulsion, Phenidones producing useful inhibition effects effects etc) than low/ no solvency, especially when interlaced with emulsion technology changes.

 

[flavio81]

Outwith that, in every respect, neg films are vastly better.

(...)
Not really the case anymore. Development inhibition agents seem to have turned out to be more important (developer solvency releasing I & Br from the emulsion, Phenidones producing useful inhibition effects effects etc) than low/ no solvency, especially when interlaced with emulsion technology changes.

I also agree that neg films are better with respect to sharpness, and I was forgetting about DIAR couplers too. Photo Engineer did say, years ago, that on reversal films all the tricks with development-inhibition-agents couldn't be used, and this was a disadvantage on reversal films.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I also agree that neg films are better with respect to sharpness, and I was forgetting about DIAR couplers too. Photo Engineer did say, years ago, that on reversal films all the tricks with development-inhibition-agents couldn't be used, and this was a disadvantage on reversal films.

Double X gives sharp results when reversed and scanned. If IIRC Dr5 also claimed that Delta 100 gives sharp results when reversed in their process and is one of the sharpest films for reversal. No idea if Double X and Delta 100 have DIAR or not. It is possible that loss in sharpness noticed by some in Delta 400 slides is due to user error and has nothing to do with DIAR.

 

[Lachlan Young]

and is one of the sharpest films for reversal

Note that DR5 ducks the issue by using the qualifier 'for reversal'. Both Deltas 100 & 400 are in the same sharpness range when reversed - which is good for a reversal film. I know exactly how sharp both Delta 100 and 400 are when processed conventionally and optically printed or scanned on high end equipment. I also know what they look like when reversed and optically printed (by purely analogue means) or scanned on high end equipment. BTDT. You will think the reversed Deltas are sharp until you see the conventionally processed ones. Or to put it another way, reversal takes the sharpness back to the 50s/ early 60s.

Double X gives sharp results when reversed and scanned.

Have you ever processed it conventionally (in a known standard developer) & were the scans done with zero sharpening on high end equipment? As a negative, it should be sharper than 400TX at very low frequencies, but TX is considerably sharper for some time beyond about 20cyc/mm (which will also enhance our perceptions of granularity from more highly enlarged small format negs used in still photography) - and from my experience of 5222, Kodak's data seems to correctly characterise what I perceived the material was doing sharpness-wise.

No idea if Double X and Delta 100 have DIAR or not.

DIAR and DIR are couplers. They are a fundamental characteristic of C-41 technology that cannot easily be cross-applied to E-6 and essentially not at all to B&W. A key design goal of Delta technology was to obtain emulsion behaviour in conventional (vs chromogenic) B&W films that could deliver DIR/DIAR-like sharpness & highlight control characteristics.

it is possible that loss in sharpness noticed by some in Delta 400 slides is due to user error and has nothing to do with DIAR.

No. It's fundamental to reversal process shortcomings. You can see it with all B&W emulsions if you process them conventionally vs reversal. Look up the MTFs Agfa published for APX 100 and Scala 200x (they were by all accounts essentially the same emulsion, coated at different amounts of silver/m2 - which probably rather confused some who tested them side by side as negs & claimed there was no difference other than the base) and it makes this clear. There are various reasons why transparencies have clung on, but actual usable sharpness is not one of them. Rather than obsessing about errant notions of sharpness, accept that transparencies aren't going to be as sharp as neg/ pos & instead let them do what they do well & use them as an appropriate expressive device when needed. A lot of very costly basic R&D was expended on improving the sharpness of reversal materials over the years - and they never managed to meaningfully better neg/pos.

 

[Cholentpot]

We're in the weeds now.