Double XX Like Old Tri-X Or Better?

[braxus]

I remember someone mentioning that Kodak's 5222 Double XX Film is similar in look to the old Tri-X. Or if you want that older look of the old film, try 5222. Is this a fair assumption or is this just hogwash? I used 5222 many years ago, but didn't get a feel for its look for the 2 rolls I shot. Any comments? I know 5222 has to be one of Kodak's last untouched film, which has basically been unmodified or updated since its inception.

 

[gone]

It really depends on the developer and the EI you shoot it at. Tri-X in Rodinal at 1:25, Tri-X in D76 stock, Tri-X shot at 100/200/400/800, these all will look very different. I don't think it or any B&W film has a "native look", it's raw material for us to play with. Tri-X being Tri-X, that means we have a bigger playground w/ lots of different mates.

 

[MattKing]

Double XX is, of course, designed to be optimal when developed in a motion picture developer to a lower contrast than Tri-X is designed for.
Which means that any data about using it for still photos is only out there on the internet, not in Eastman Kodak's repository.

 

[Cholentpot]

I remember someone mentioning that Kodak's 5222 Double XX Film is similar in look to the old Tri-X. Or if you want that older look of the old film, try 5222. Is this a fair assumption or is this just hogwash? I used 5222 many years ago, but didn't get a feel for its look for the 2 rolls I shot. Any comments? I know 5222 has to be one of Kodak's last untouched film, which has basically been unmodified or updated since its inception.

I've been saying that. The film is finnicky though and you'll need to find the right developer exposure combo. It also isn't the easiest to scan although it prints like a dream.

DoubleX developed in stock D-76. Exposed at 200 using sunny 16. Argus C3.

Exposed @250, Nikon F3, D-76 stock.

Nikon 1 Touch, ISO250, D-76 1+1

Nikon FG, ISO250, HC110 DilB

I find that the film prefers D-76 over HC110 and that over exposure is not necessarily a good thing with this stock.

 

[MattKing]

Here is the current datasheet from Eastman Kodak: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/DOUBLEX-Technical-Data-EN.pdf
Note the development recommendation is for D96 - a movie film developer.

 

[madNbad]

I have two bulk loaders, one has 5222 Double XX, the other has Tri-X. Being a long time TMax user it’s fun to use the older cubic grain films. In actual use, TMax is a finer grain, wider spectrum film. Part of the fun of using film is for different results from different film types. During the protest of 2020, I would regularly go to downtown Portland just to see what had happened the night before. TMax was fine but I wanted something gritty, I picked Double XX. Not as grainy as Tri-X but gave an older look to the image:

AC Hotel, Portland , Oregon June 2020

 

[madNbad]

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

Louis Vuitton, Downtown Portland 7/25/20

 

[madNbad]

One more, just for fun:

Ace Hotel, Downtown Portland 7/25/20

 

[Bill Burk]

Someone from Kodak, might have been @laser , once remarked that the movie film people were down the hall from consumer film and they didn’t talk to each other. And they never touched the formula for 5222.

In sample close-up images of Double-X, a word came to my mind that the grain was “beautiful” which is not the same adjective I would use for “practically everything else”. That impression (and the discussions about using it in “Lighthouse”) led me to experiment a bit with it. I still think it’s “beautiful”, and I see that look in my prints.

I haven’t “mastered” it though, I agree it’s a bit harder to control than TMAX100 which I find easy but others say is tricky.

I suspect it is susceptible to halation and has a shouldering curve, which means the correct exposure is “more critical”.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

If yours is a scanning based workflow, then reversal processing of Double X is something worth considering.The film yields nice slides at EI 400 and 800. Grain is crisp but not too big even when pushed two stops. With preflashing, loss of shadow details at EI 800 can be minimised. The scanned slides are naturally sharp without needing sharpness adjustment in the post.

 

[Cholentpot]

If yours is a scanning based workflow, then reversal processing of Double X is something worth considering.The film yields nice slides at EI 400 and 800. Grain is crisp but not too big even when pushed two stops. With preflashing, loss of shadow details at EI 800 can be minimised. The scanned slides are naturally sharp without needing sharpness adjustment in the post.

Any resources how to reversal process as slide? I have some ORWO UN-54 that can also be reversal processed. Seems like something to try

Someone from Kodak, might have been @laser , once remarked that the movie film people were down the hall from consumer film and they didn’t talk to each other. And they never touched the formula for 5222.

In sample close-up images of Double-X, a word came to my mind that the grain was “beautiful” which is not the same adjective I would use for “practically everything else”. That impression (and the discussions about using it in “Lighthouse”) led me to experiment a bit with it. I still think it’s “beautiful”, and I see that look in my prints.

I haven’t “mastered” it though, I agree it’s a bit harder to control than TMAX100 which I find easy but others say is tricky.

I suspect it is susceptible to halation and has a shouldering curve, which means the correct exposure is “more critical”.

Never had an issue with Tmax. I do get the halation with the XX but I like it and embrace it.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Any resources how to reversal process as slide? I have some ORWO UN-54 that can also be reversal processed. Seems like something to try

For generalities and an overview of B&W reversal I usually refer people to this Analog Resurgence video. It covers one approach to process and shows examples with several films.

I've not tried UN54, but if it's anything like Kentmere 100, it is an ideal candidate for reversal. I get full speed out of Kentmere 100 and 400 (with a slight increase in the 1st development time) using stock Kodak D-19 as 1st and 2nd developer. If the finished slides are too dense you can increase first development time, rate the film slower, or do a 'reverse chemical pre-flash' with a dip into a weak ferricyanide solution and a re-fix. I prefer those techniques over adding thiosulfate or thiocyanate to the first developer to control density.

Fomapan stocks are a great place to start practicing with reversal because you can use stock dilutions of common B&W developers as a first developer and get good results.

I suspect it (XX) is susceptible to halation and has a shouldering curve, which means the correct exposure is “more critical”.

Can confirm: it is easier to block your highlights with XX. Rate at 320 and develop for 200, especially when using it in high contrast daylight. I haven't noticed much in the way of halation, but I'm more used to effects you see in x-ray film so I may be overlooking it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

reversal processing of Double X is something worth considering.

Given I have a bulk roll of this stuff, I need to consider this. I've reversed Tri-X with dichromate bleach with good results and 2/3 top true speed increase; that'd put Double-X right at 400 without any pushing.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Any resources how to reversal process as slide? I have some ORWO UN-54 that can also be reversal processed. Seems like something to try

Orwo UN54 is indeed a nice film for reversal processing. This tutorial by @mrred is a good starting point for UN54 reversal:

ORWO Films +

About and for users of ORWO films including N74 and UN54

www.flickr.com

[Unfortunately, the examples Peter posted in the above page are no longer available. But the method works fine.]

If dichromate is to be avoided for some reasons, a low strength permanganate bleach can be used in its place.

If desired, Iron Out based second development can be replaced by light exposure and redevelopment in a suitable second developer.

 

[Donald Qualls]

There's been a thread on Photrio within the past year about using copper sulfate bleach with a chloride donor (plain table salt) to rehalogenate the silver to chloride, then dissolve it away with ammonium hydroxide solution (clear household ammonia is this in 3% solution). No permanganates (to soften the emulsion) or dichromates (toxic, carcinogenic, very bad for the environment).

 

[Paul Howell]

I think there is some confusion, Kodak made Super XX pan, by the 60s only available 4X5, current XX movie film might have some heritage with Super XX but is not the same. The few rolls I've shot are ok, nothing that makes me want to shoot more.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

There's been a thread on Photrio within the past year about using copper sulfate bleach with a chloride donor (plain table salt) to rehalogenate the silver to chloride, then dissolve it away with ammonium hydroxide solution (clear household ammonia is this in 3% solution). No permanganates (to soften the emulsion) or dichromates (toxic, carcinogenic, very bad for the environment).

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

 

[Donald Qualls]

nauseating smell of Ammonia

I don't find it nauseating, but it's extremely irritating to mucous membranes in the nose, throat, and airway. Ventilation is absolutely necessary.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...5222 has to be one of Kodak's last untouched film, which has basically been unmodified or updated since its inception.

Whether or not the emulsion recipe was fundamentally changed, surely this, like all other Kodak films, underwent modification(s) when everything moved to the coating line in Building 38.

 

[Donald Qualls]

You can bet the cine users of this film would have screamed bloody murder if the Building 38 move had significantly changed the characteristics of their favorite black and white film. I believe we're reasonably safe in believing Double-X hasn't changed characteristics in a meaningful way over the period from Raging Bull up to Kill Bill -- which I believe spans the period when production was scaled back and moved to Building 38.

 

[Cholentpot]

For generalities and an overview of B&W reversal I usually refer people to this Analog Resurgence video. It covers one approach to process and shows examples with several films.

I've not tried UN54, but if it's anything like Kentmere 100, it is an ideal candidate for reversal. I get full speed out of Kentmere 100 and 400 (with a slight increase in the 1st development time) using stock Kodak D-19 as 1st and 2nd developer. If the finished slides are too dense you can increase first development time, rate the film slower, or do a 'reverse chemical pre-flash' with a dip into a weak ferricyanide solution and a re-fix. I prefer those techniques over adding thiosulfate or thiocyanate to the first developer to control density.

Fomapan stocks are a great place to start practicing with reversal because you can use stock dilutions of common B&W developers as a first developer and get good results.



Can confirm: it is easier to block your highlights with XX. Rate at 320 and develop for 200, especially when using it in high contrast daylight. I haven't noticed much in the way of halation, but I'm more used to effects you see in x-ray film so I may be overlooking it.

Thank you

Orwo UN54 is indeed a nice film for reversal processing. This tutorial by @mrred is a good starting point for UN54 reversal:

ORWO Films +

About and for users of ORWO films including N74 and UN54

www.flickr.com

[Unfortunately, the examples Peter posted in the above page are no longer available. But the method works fine.]

If dichromate is to be avoided for some reasons, a low strength permanganate bleach can be used in its place.

If desired, Iron Out based second development can be replaced by light exposure and redevelopment in a suitable second developer.

Thanks!

 

[Lachlan Young]

The scanned slides are naturally sharp without needing sharpness adjustment in the post.

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.

I haven’t “mastered” it though, I agree it’s a bit harder to control than TMAX100 which I find easy but others say is tricky.

I suspect it is susceptible to halation and has a shouldering curve, which means the correct exposure is “more critical”.

I've found 5222 sits somewhere in between the 400TX/ 400TMY-II regions, if you don't overexpose it. Both are better in different ways than 5222 - and 5222 seems to shoulder earlier (not an issue when it's being used as intended - how many of you have a truck/ trucks full of lighting kit to control scene contrast with?). Reportedly, within cinema usage conditions (which differ from still usage conditions), t-grain B&W emulsions were trialed, but not found to offer sufficient visual/ perceptual advantages over then current products to take into production.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.



I've found 5222 sits somewhere in between the 400TX/ 400TMY-II regions, if you don't overexpose it. Both are better in different ways than 5222 - and 5222 seems to shoulder earlier (not an issue when it's being used as intended - how many of you have a truck/ trucks full of lighting kit to control scene contrast with?). Reportedly, within cinema usage conditions (which differ from still usage conditions), t-grain B&W emulsions were trialed, but not found to offer sufficient visual/ perceptual advantages over then current products to take into production.

I've found that 5222 excels in the Half Frame format.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...5222 has to be one of Kodak's last untouched film, which has basically been unmodified or updated since its inception.

Whether or not the emulsion recipe was fundamentally changed, surely this, like all other Kodak films, underwent modification(s) when everything moved to the coating line in Building 38.

You can bet the cine users of this film would have screamed bloody murder if the Building 38 move had significantly changed the characteristics of their favorite black and white film. I believe we're reasonably safe in believing Double-X hasn't changed characteristics in a meaningful way over the period from Raging Bull up to Kill Bill -- which I believe spans the period when production was scaled back and moved to Building 38.

I didn't write that the film's characteristics had "significantly changed," only that 5222 surely underwent modification(s) when Bldg. 38 became the sole Eastman Kodak coating line left in operation. Ron Mowery explained often that "tweaks" to the process were mandatory whenever a move like that occurred.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Oh, yes. They need to tweak an emulsion that's dialed in on 35 mm to coat it on 120 and get the same camera/lab/enlarger or projection characteristics, never mind coating on a whole new line -- but in this case, the tweaks would have been to maintain the 1959 character of the film.

Which I happen to like. Got a roll of it in my Smena 8M right now (coincidentally, perfectly matches the highest ISO rating on the "auto exposure" dials).