EASTMAN DOUBLE-X Negative Film 5222 in black and white reversible process.

[georgegrosu]

EASTMAN DOUBLE-X Negative Film 5222 in black and white reversible process.
Practical sensitivity obtained is ISO 800
I measured minimum density (0.35) and max. density (2.35) on film.
The image is conforms to reality.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/21121448@N06/31467084452/in/dateposted-public/
What do you say about the diffuse in the image.
- Sky - roof house?
- Sky - parabolic antenna?

George

 

[bence8810]

What do you mean by reversible process? You develop it as a positive?

I shoot 5222 exclusively, must have gone through 200 rolls already and will never look back (hope Kodak listens to this!)
I shoot it mainly at 1600 and develop in Rodinal 1:25 13minutes. Really high contrast - just the way I like it.

Ben

 

[bernard_L]

What do you say about the diffuse in the image.

Well... quoting from: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-52426.html

One interesting thing that I have noticed about this film is that the lack of an anti-halation layer (I'm guessing about this) can give a nice highlight 'bloom' in high contrast scenes.

Maybe using 5222 with those cheapo Japanese lenses (you know, Nikon, Olympus, etc) you can achieve that mythical Leica glow

 

[LAG]

What do you say about the diffuse in the image.
- Sky - roof house?
- Sky - parabolic antenna?

I'd bet on an exposure issue, not on the reversal process itself.

Regards

 

[georgegrosu]

By reversible process is understood that the resulting image is accordance with the subject.
Where white is white result in film.
Where black is black result in film.


I thought to marginal effects in processing.
The marginal effects (of the adjacency), which are presented in Figure 4 the effect of the bead, the effect EberJiard represents unevenness of density that forms the boundary of separation of areas with different exposure, due to anomalies in the conduct diffusion of substances that occur within the emulsion in during development.

George

 

[Gerald C Koch]

What do you mean by reversible process? You develop it as a positive?

I shoot 5222 exclusively, must have gone through 200 rolls already and will never look back (hope Kodak listens to this!)
I shoot it mainly at 1600 and develop in Rodinal 1:25 13minutes. Really high contrast - just the way I like it.

Ben

I also have used quite a bit of 5222. Love the film and have ~1000 feet in my freezer. Hope Kodak continues to make it. I still mourn the discontinuation of Eastman Plus-X 5234 and 5231 however.

 

[bence8810]

I also have used quite a bit of 5222. Love the film and have ~1000 feet in my freezer. Hope Kodak continues to make it. I still mourn the discontinuation of Eastman Plus-X 5234 and 5231 however.

Never had the chance to shoot those so can't really compare. But 5222 became a favorite quickly and I won't change unless it vanishes. I buy it in 400ft reels from Kodak and re-spool it into 100ft reels - then bulk load.

The reversible processing is interesting but I wouldn't be able to print it so I never tried or thought of trying. From the image in the OP's post, the image looks rather low on contrast. What is the merit of reverse processing negative film? For wall projection?

Thanks,
Ben

 

[georgegrosu]

To me, generally likes a lot halftone images.
Kodak 5222 is a black and white negative for cine
Kodak 5222 in reversed black and white process the fogg = 0.30 and Dmax = 2.35.
Starting from a film Kodak 5222 with a contrast ratio is 0.60 - 0.65 (the negative) in black and white reversible process likely that the contrast can reach ~ 1.0.
At these values of density and contrast in projection reversible image Kodak 5222 will be seen as an dup-positive.
In Kodak 5222 reversible process is likely to result a smaller grain.
The first developer will develop black and white silver halide microcrystals more sensitive (larger).
After solarization, the final silver are formed in the second film development is composed of the remaining halide not developed in the first developer (smaller crystals).
Kodak 5222 reversible image on gives me another "impression" than Kodak 5222 negative.
I can have a subjective opinion.

George

 

[georgegrosu]

Bence8810 said: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
„The reversible processing is interesting but I wouldn't be able to print it so I never tried or thought of trying.
From the image in the OP's post, the image looks rather low on contrast. What is the merit of reverse processing negative film? For wall projection?”
In my opinion, no reversible image made on a black and white negative can not rise to the level of a b&w print or dia.
Black and white negative process in black and white process will have:
- Dmin ~ 0.30 and Dmax ~ 2.00, contrast ~ 0.6 - 0.7.
Positive black white black in positive process b&w will have:
- Dmin ~ 0.02 and Dmax ~ bigger 3.00, contrst ~ 2.4 - 2.8.
Black and white negative in reversible black and white process will have:
- Dmin ~ 0.30 and Dmax ~ 2.35 (my process reversible black and white).
As there are no specialized software for scanning images reversible black and white on a black make on black and white negative,
probably all depends on how each to present their image.
To give you an idea, tuck into a projector or enlarger a positive image / black and white slide.
Watch positive black and white / dia image and after interlaced a transparent piece of black and white negative.
This is the reality.

George

 

[LAG]

I thought to marginal effects in processing

I certainly do not think it was that. Have you got any other "diffuse" examples (in the same film processed), or just that only one?

What is the merit of reverse processing negative film? For wall projection?

Indeed, like you have said a projection is one, but not only to display it, you can "see it" like an inexpensive way to check your final work up to sizes we don't "usually" print, but also for me it is a fantastic way to learn how to measure light or to test & control the exposure step.

 

[georgegrosu]

This was the only frame with the issue.
I thought at this thing, but I wanted to hear other opinions.
Nikon AF-D lens used 50mm 1.8.
LAG thanks for the clarification.

George