Eastman 5222

[Terrence Brennan]

I am considering purchasing a 400-foot roll of Eastman 5222 film. I would like to hear from users of this film how it compares with Ilford HP5 Plus, which I use, and have been using for years, as my high-speed film of choice (for general photography I use Ilford FP4 Plus).

How does 5222 compare with HP5 for sharpness and graininess? Do you find it true to speed? What developers do you use (I use Kodak D-23 and Ansco 17M for my work)? Does it push well? Do you recommend the use of D-96 over other developers?

The last time I posted a request for information was in the Spring of 2010, when I was considering the purchase of a Leica. I received more than two pages of replies: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/leica-wannabe-owner-has-a-few-questions.59675/; I ended up purchasing an M4-P.

So, if APUGgers can spare the time, I'd love to hear from you about 5222!

 

[koraks]

I assume you are aware that at a specified speed of ISO 200/250 this film should not be necessarily regarded as an alternative to HP5+?

 

[Arvee]

Shot about 1500' hoping it would be a replacement for Tri-X. It is contrasty, grainier than Tri-X (and lacks the tonality of Tri-X or FP4+) and real speed was about 200, a stop slower than HP5+/Tri-X. I used D-76 primarily for the majority of the 1500'. Eventually grew disenchanted with it and returned to Tri-X.

I didn't purchase a standard 400' roll; I used short ends that were typically 200-300' per roll and paid $0.18 to $0.20/ft. It was an economical substitute when short ends were available. Personally, I wouldn't pay the price for a standard 400 or 1000' roll at today's prices.

I would recommend trying to acquire a short end (scarce as hen's teeth) to give it a try or buy a few rolls off ebay to see if you like it before springing for a 400 footer.

Just my $0.02...

 

[Lachlan Young]

I'd tend to describe it as about the granularity of Tri-X (or a little finer) with a softer tone curve response (less steep gradient through mids relative to aim gamma, less shouldering, to my eyes at least - didn't feel a need to measure), at least in D-76/ ID-11 - and as Koraks says it's 2/3 stop slower than HP5+. Sharpness is a little lower than current TX, HP5+ feels a bit sharper too. For what it's worth, I quite liked its balance of tonalities, grain etc.

 

[138S]

So, if APUGgers can spare the time, I'd love to hear from you about 5222!

Schindler's List was made with Plus-X and Double-X. Some state that this movie sports best Cinematography (by Janusz Kamiński) in last four decades at least.

See this video: http://www.peterhogenson.com/blog/2017/7/10/black-and-white-cinematography-schindlers-list

Spielberg made this movie for free, to not decrease available money for the production, and he had first to make Jurasic Park to be allowed to do it. 7 major oscars, including best cinematography.

This is an amazing exploit of Plus and Double. You may watch the movie to see how it was used by a master like Kamiński.

It is cine film, not specially sharp perhaps, but this is irrelevant, it is pure gold in the right hands.

 

[Pentode]

To me, the grain is reminiscent of the older version of Tri-X before they reformulated it in... what... 2007? It's a traditional grain film that's fairly low in contrast (typical of movie stock) but I like it's tonality a lot. I shoot it at 200 and develop in Rodinal 1:60 or at 250 and develop in D-76 1:1. I prefer the look of it at 250 in D-76 1:1. I've got about 1000' of it in my fridge and I've shot another 300' or so. I actually shot and developed (in D-76) six rolls this afternoon.

FWIW, I don't really consider it to be comparable to HP5+ at all. I like HP5 and I like 5222 but they are each their own, separate thing and they have very different looks to my eye. If you really like HP5+ I'd say stick to it.

 

[focus_on_infinity]

I shot a couple of rolls and developed in Cinestill Df96 monobath. I love the mids and the sharpness. It's reasonably grainy, but the grain is on the soft side.

 

[koraks]

Sharpness is a little lower than current TX, HP5+ feels a bit sharper too.

Makes sense; apparent sharpness is often subjectively coupled to granularity, with higher granularity contributing to a sense of sharpness (while if you look at actual image resolution, the opposite is true). 5222 is specified at RMS14 granularity, while Tri-X 400 is 17 and HP5+ is around 16. So 5222 is the finer grained candidate of the bunch.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Makes sense; apparent sharpness is often subjectively coupled to granularity, with higher granularity contributing to a sense of sharpness (while if you look at actual image resolution, the opposite is true). 5222 is specified at RMS14 granularity, while Tri-X 400 is 17 and HP5+ is around 16. So 5222 is the finer grained candidate of the bunch.

I think it's probably more likely acutance dyes & overall emulsion design - Tri-X has a more even and longer 100+% contrast response whereas 5222 drops under 100% about 30% sooner but does seem to have bigger acutance effects at very low (3-5 cyc/mm) resolutions. I suspect that the differences may play a role in the perceptibility of granularity - ie too much sharpness in the wrong place & a less grainy film might look 'grainier' than one that tests higher.