Foma 100 vs Double X. Almost same price. What's your opinion please?

[Don_ih]

A bit of grain doesn't matter that much as a motion picture film. It smooths out from frame to frame. I don't see most examples of XX as overly grainy. I'd like to get a roll of it - I'd trust it way more than Foma (which I hate to say, but I've had problems with Foma films I really should not have).

 

[Don_ih]

They do to me.
Perhaps a holdover from my days making prints for others based on proofs or contact sheets.

They're only useful if indexed by a contact sheet. And it would make sense they'd be useful when identifying the frame in the strip you want enlarged. It'd be great if a scanner would register the number somehow, so you could use scans as an easy index to your negatives. Alas....

 

[jodad]

Is it the same or related to old super double X for still?

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/DOUBLEX-Technical-Data-EN.pdf

Thanks Paul. This thought I must admit I don’t know

 

[MattKing]

They're only useful if indexed by a contact sheet. And it would make sense they'd be useful when identifying the frame in the strip you want enlarged. It'd be great if a scanner would register the number somehow, so you could use scans as an easy index to your negatives. Alas....

When I scan film, the file name I choose for each frame consists of the frame number and the exposure date code I assign to the particular roll of film.
For those times when I shoot more than one roll, the exposure date code has "A", "B", "C" etc. added to it
And then I (often) add that identifying information to prints or digital displays of the image.
So frame numbers are part of my organization system, which tries to integrate both darkroom and digital versions.
The alternative would be to add them manually to the rebate of the film using a technical pen - been there, done that, don't want to have to do it again.

 

[jodad]

When I scan film, the file name I choose for each frame consists of the frame number and the exposure date code I assign to the particular roll of film.
For those times when I shoot more than one roll, the exposure date code has "A", "B", "C" etc. added to it
And then I (often) add that identifying information to prints or digital displays of the image.
So frame numbers are part of my organization system, which tries to integrate both darkroom and digital versions.
The alternative would be to add them manually to the rebate of the film using a technical pen - been there, done that, don't want to have to do it again.

This is quite a nice idea and way of organising the scans. Thanks

 

[MattKing]

This is quite a nice idea and way of organising the scans. Thanks

You are welcome.
An illustrative example:

Tynehead-12a-2014-06-10.jpg

• MattKing
• Mar 28, 2023

texture and swirl

 

[chuckroast]

Perhaps a difficult one to answer but I’ll post the question. Would love your opinions and suggestions.


I shoot HP5 when I’m shooting something serious.

I want a 35mm B&W anything everything film that I can shoot as cheaply as possible and not worry about “wasting” film. I shoot my friends and family with this and quite carefree about shooting.

At the moment, for this purpose, I’ve gone through 4 bulk rolls of Fomapan 100. Indoors I use bounce flash. Outdoors I use full if needed or natural light alone.

I can get bulk fomapan 100 at a price that works out to 2.70 per roll.

The other affordable bulk film I can get at decent price is Kodak Double X at a price that works out to 3.54 per roll.

My questions are this:

Is double X better enough (in terms of grain, latitude, etc/overall and generally) to justify the price increase and dealing with 400ft bulk rolls (over easy 100ft rolls).

Would you switch to XX over Foma 100?

I know one is ~160-200iso and the other ~80iso. Yes, would be nice to have a little more speed but I have no issues this far with Foma 100’s speed. So that’s only a tiny consideration.

Happy to hear your thoughts widely on the topic!

I have shot a ton of both in 35mm. Some observations:

• Fomapan 200 is a great all around film BUT it builds contrast rapidly. This will bite you if you don't have time/agitation down well, and/or you're doing semistand or EMA development. You HAVE to have dilution, time, and agitation just right and it will deliver very fine negatives. This film responds well to Pyrocat-HD, D-23, and probably will look nice in D-76 and HC-110B.
  
  
• Double X can get kind of grainy even with normal development and especially with semistand. If you are using a solvent type developer like D-23, you have to make sure you don't dilute too much or it will really accentuate that grain. In this respect, it acts like good old Plus-X that got grainy when you stuck it into overly dilute developer.
  What's weird is that I got really great images with it using highly dilute Pyrocat-HD for semistand, but not great results in PMK 1:2:100 or Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100 both of which gave me grainy negs. Extreme D-23 did the same thing, but I kind of expected that. My next run is going to be to try it in "normally" diluted D-23.
  
  
• I have not had quality issues with either except Fomapan 200 in 120 size which had ... issues.
  

So, I tend to favor Double-X in 120 and Fomapan 200 in 35mm at least until I figure out good development discipline for Double X.

 

[Don_ih]

I like how people say that Foma films build contrast quickly but I never manage to get any of them at any decent contrast. Maybe it's something in the water.

 

[drkhalsa]

I don't know if their price point works for you, but UltraFine Online offers 100 ft. rolls.

Kodak 5222 Double - X Black & White Film 35mm x 100 ft Roll ISO 250 - Kodak 5222 Double-X Black & White Film 35mm ISO 250

35mm x 100 Foot Roll of Eastman Double X 5222 Kodak EASTMAN DOUBLE-X Negative Film 5222 is an ISO 250 motion picture black-and-white film known for it's subtleties in tone scale and designed for general production use outdoors and in the studio, in dim light, and anywhere you need greater depth...

www.ultrafineonline.com

I have not purchased it in 100 ft. rolls, only their 36 exposure rolls.

 

[cmacd123]

(When 100' rolls of movie film were available they came on a different core, one made for movie cameras, and would not fit a standard bulk loader (could be wrong - working from memory here, not something to put a lot of trust in).)

100ft rolls of Movie film generaly came on a "#10" spool. AKA an Eymo Spool. 1/4 inch square center hole, and big enough to hold 100ft. aluminum flange. Will NOT fit a LLoyd loader. will fit most others.

the 400ft rolls come on a 2 inch core, (I inch round hole with a keyway.) which you can use a set of rewinds and a split reel to wind down on another core to fit your loader (you have been saving all the cores your film came on)

photo warehouse (ultrafine) often has 100ft rolls of Double X would without a core. But that is more expensive than Kodak on a per foot basis. $119.95 per 100ft.

they also point out that times are given for Double - x 5222 on "the massive development chart"

Film Photography Project also sells 100ft rolls at US223.00

 

[cmacd123]

The thing is with XX is you don’t know how old it is unless you buy the can and spool it yourself. And there are superior film such as fresh HP5+ that are not expensive if you bulk.

since they went to Keykode numbering the year of manufacture is part of the edge printing. recentl rolls have the date in the clear, (ie 2021) while you have to use a chart to decode some rolls.

Most of the time, these days, the 4 digit year is now placed where the "SD" code is shown on the example.

In the Keycode system, Double X is also coded as "KE" not to be confused with the date.

 

[cmacd123]

Do frame numbers matter to you.? XX doesn't have them, although there are probably keycodes. I don't know whether Foma 100 does.

Foma Bulk film generally has no edge printing of any sort.

Movie stock these days has Key code with a "footage" number every foot, and the number is repeated 6 inches later in smaller type with a +32 notation to indicate 32 perfs. the format is "chatty"enough that every still full frame likely has "something" you can use to reference from your proofsheet to to nagative. where their is not other information their is a dash every 4 perfs you can count.

 

[cmacd123]

what the characteristic curves are various developer as Kodak recommends D96 in a film film processor, or grain size. The data sheet, as it is, was updated in 2022, but I think the film is a very old emulsion.

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/DOUBLEX-Technical-Data-EN.pdf

not sure how much it is tweeked over the years. D96 is the recomened developer for all B&W negative and lab films. it replaced D76 for that purpose.
the data sheet I have (MARCH 2022 H-1-5222 ) shows MTF and difuse Granularity data, which allows that at a 1:1000 contrast ratio it can resolve 100 Lines per MM.

I don't think that the emusion changed when they made some in 65mm for Christopher Nolan.

 

[snusmumriken]

Do they matter to anyone?

They’re handy. Without them, I can locate a frame only from my film number and the position of that frame on the 36-exp acetate sheet. If there are several near-identical frames, it’s important to know which one you printed before! I like Double -X enough to endure this sacrifice, though.

 

[Nokton48]

Thanks for the easy loading tip. That might just do it…

Is that what you mean you learnt from Mr Rapidwinder?

I wish I could find some short ends. Can’t find those in the UK…

Yes Mr. Rapidwinder. TomA sold me one of his personal Rapidwinders, when I bought another M2 years ago. How we miss him.....

I started a humungeous XX thread over on Randefinder.com back in the day. Everything you might want to know about XX is in that thread.

Exposing 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

 

[DeletedAcct1]

This is the thing: I don’t really push film any more because I use flash. I have an SB900 or whatever the big Nikon flash is. It’s strong enough for indoor and outdoor since I only shoot family and friends and those distances are relatively short. I don’t shoot landscapes or experimental/arty pictures on film - that I shoot on digital.

Since you use flash there's no point, imho, to use Foma 400 or even 200. Just use Foma 100 and you're good to go.
About grain: Foma 100 and 200 are the same, -ish...
About speed: if you manage to use Fomadon LQN you'll reach almost true speed, that is iso 100.
What I want to convey is the following message: in the right hands Foma films are no better or worse than any other films. Are just different (ceteris paribus - also Ilford and Kodak had their sheer of problems on 120 film format)...

 

[Saganich]

This lower light point I didn’t know. So I shouldn’t shoot it mid day? Or if I have to, how should I?

Well it's an all day and night film. The toe is nice and the mids and highs can be a little steep in the full sun. Not much roll off at the top, even with D23. I've been developing it 8 minutes straight D23 so my noon (full sun) frames are hot but morning , evening and night are good. The flash situation you described should be perfect.

 

[chuckroast]

Well it's an all day and night film. The toe is nice and the mids and highs can be a little steep in the full sun. Not much roll off at the top, even with D23. I've been developing it 8 minutes straight D23 so my noon (full sun) frames are hot but morning , evening and night are good. The flash situation you described should be perfect.

Interesting. I am trying tame XX highlights. Have you tried other dilutions and, if so, what kind of times did you use?

How do you find the grain with straight D-23?

 

[Paul Howell]

I developed the few roll I've shot in D76 stock, looking at on line images I thought 76 would reduce the gain some. I think D 23 would work as would Microdol. If the current version is an older emulsion it will be thicker, wonder how it would do in Diafine. Next time I order film I add a few more rolls of Double X.

 

[loccdor]

I assumed it had a less grainy appearance than foma but I have been reading a lot saying the opposite…


I could use both but I much prefer the simplicity of just having one film to work with 90% of the time.

I’d buy the 400 roll (if I do get double x) from a seller who supplies film
Production so should be ok I’d imagine. Do the cans have exp dates like “regular” film?

100% crops. First is Double-X @ 200 exposure (from Cinestill), second is Fomapan 100 @ 50 exposure. Both in 510-pyro with normal development for 200 and 100.

With fresh film, the Fomapan seems a little more grainy, and it's exposed 2 stops more. I don't bulk load so I can't help much with those questions.

My other Double-X which was fogged and bulk loaded by someone else has significantly more grain than any fresh 400 speed film I've ever tried. Looks more like what I'd expect from 800 speed.

 

[chuckroast]

You are welcome.
An illustrative example:

Tynehead-12a-2014-06-10.jpg

• MattKing
• Mar 28, 2023

texture and swirl

I do much the same thing but lead with date and roll number so that the file sort in date order:

YYYYMMDD-RR-EEEE-Subject_Name

• RR is the roll number or shooting cycle of that day
• EEEE- is the exposure number OR the number of the sheet film holder I used (all of mine are number so I can spot issues or light leaks reliably. In the case of roll film of any kind this number is calculated from the first to last negative actually sleeved, no matter what shows up on the film edge.

Example:

20240816-1-13-Matt_King's_Darkroom

I do this both for files of digital images and scans, as well as for sleeving negatives.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I use an old movie film winder and 100’ spools I’ve saved over the years to spool down 5222. It is incredibly fast to do.

I haven’t shot much of Fomapan 100. I have shot a lot of F400 though. Overall 5222 is a better film. It has quite a range. The fastest E.I. I’ve gotten out of it is 640 which isn’t bad. F400 is iffy even at 400. Skin tones can be nice with F400 though.

I’ve developed 5222 in a lot of different developers and they change the look quite a bit. With acutance developers like Rodinal and Beutler’s you can get a grainy negative. Solvent developers really smooth it out. Staining developers like Pyrocat and PMK really bring out some quality with 5222.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

For organizing negatives I use the simplest method. YYYY-seq roll #-frame number. So 2024-105-20. It makes organizing and finding things fast and easy. Any other info, like a title, I put after that. After getting continuously frustrated trying to finds negs I wanted to print since I had to look through boxes, about 20 years ago I bit the bullet and got everything organized. I keep everything in Lightroom too which makes it about a 30 second task to find a neg. As soon as I have the neg # from Lightroom I just go to the binders and take it out. Super easy, and most importantly, super fast.