Hardening or Non-Hardening Fixer For Double-X?

[Newt_on_Swings]

I have a 1000ft reel of Kodak Eastman Double-X that I will be shooting soon, its undated. I know they stopped producing it in 2010, but I'm not sure how long this has been sitting around, the guy I got it off says hes had it for awhile.

Would I need a hardening fixer for this?

 

[David William White]

Just regular non-hardening fixer. Good job, though, it's a great versatile film, and wish I'd ordered a roll before it went.

 

[frobozz]

Where do you guys get the idea that it went away? It's still listed on their website and in the price catalog and a perusal of the last year's worth of discontinuation notices doesn't show it being axed, that I can see. Plus-X was discontinued last April, is that the source of confusion.

I recently bought a couple of rolls of Double-X (5222) but it was probably late last year.

Duncan

 

[David William White]

Oh, yes, you're right! I had it backwards. I guess I'll order a 400ft roll while I still can.

Here's their price list: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/QA_MotionPictureCatalog_June30_2010.pdf

 

[frobozz]

I don't know of any other 35mm B&W motion picture film currently being made, they better not get rid of Double-X! (But alas they probably will at some point. A lot of people think it's easier to get consistent results if you shoot in color and desaturate in post... but of course we all know there's just nothing else quite like a good B&W film!)

Duncan

 

[nworth]

The instructions recommend a hardening fixer. But this is a modern film, and a non-hardening fixer should work without problems,

 

[pschauss]

I have been using this film for at least three years with a non-hardening fixer and have had no problems with it.

 

[georgegrosu]

Newt_on_Swings

I know they stopped producing it in 2010, but I'm not sure how long this has been sitting around, the guy I got it off says hes had it for awhile.

I know that Kodak have announced that they no longer produce Plus X (2010).
Eastman Kodak Double-X is the only b & w negative available.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Ah I totally got it mixed up doh

 

[2F/2F]

Non-hardening, whenever possible, because it supposedly makes washing more efficient. The only films I have hardened are Ekfe/Adox films, and I have quit doing that and gone to an all-alkaline process for processing them. With the alkaline process, I haven't had as many problems with the emulsion, even without a hardener.

 

[fschifano]

I've useed Eastman 5222 (Double-X) without using a hardening fixer and it's no problem. Remeber that this is motion picture film and as such is meant to run through automated processing macines capable of running thousands of feet of film in a short time. Rougher handling than we would consider prudent is expected, therefore the recommendation for a hardening fixer is given. Hand processing on small reels is a much gentler process. The usual caveats apply, use a good wetting agent and do not use a squeegee. That said, it's not a film that I'd go looking for again. If you are expecting it to look like Plus-X, forget it. It's very grainy for what it is, and it's not designed to print well on photographic paper. At full retail price, you'd be betterr served with Tri-X. If you can find short ends at $0.15/ft. go for it, but at full retail I'd give it a pass.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I've useed Eastman 5222 (Double-X) without using a hardening fixer and it's no problem. Remeber that this is motion picture film and as such is meant to run through automated processing macines capable of running thousands of feet of film in a short time. Rougher handling than we would consider prudent is expected, therefore the recommendation for a hardening fixer is given.

That is an excellent point that I failed to realize when I originally posted this.

I did score this at an awesome price ($50). Im just hoping it has that awesome classic old timey look (which i love) as the Agfa Pan Ive been shooting through. Thanks everyone for your input on this.

 

[patrickjames]

5222 is a flat film. It has quite a range which makes it difficult to print if you don't give it enough development. I used it quite a bit in the past but I like other films better. The developers I used the most with it were Pyrocat-P and Rodinal. If you are not sure of the age of the film I would suggest Rodinal which in my experience seems to suppress base fog. It is capable of excellent results though.

 

[Steve Smith]

5222 is a flat film. It has quite a range which makes it difficult to print if you don't give it enough development.

I was given some of this film (put into 35mm cassettes) a few weeks ago and processed my first roll yesterday.

I used it at EI 400 and developed in Microphen for the time listed on the Project Double X website.

The negatives look anything but flat with plenty of contrast - possibly a bit too much.

I think I will use the next roll at EI 800 or reduce development time a bit.


Steve.

 

[cmacd123]

Kodak does have a lot of technical information on their web site on any of the current Motion films. Start at kodak.com/go/motion

The whole B&W processing manual is at http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo..._en_motion_support_processing_h2415_h2415.pdf

The recommendation for negative is KODAK Fixer F-5 used for 11 minutes at 21 degrees C


That said their recommendations are for Motion picture use, so for still use the gamma can be increased by choice of developer.

 

[randyB]

Double-x film

That is an excellent point that I failed to realize when I originally posted this.

I did score this at an awesome price ($50). Im just hoping it has that awesome classic old timey look (which i love) as the Agfa Pan Ive been shooting through. Thanks everyone for your input on this.

If you want to sell a 100ft roll let me know, I'd like to try it.
RandyB

 

[Gerald C Koch]

That said, it's not a film that I'd go looking for again. If you are expecting it to look like Plus-X, forget it. It's very grainy for what it is, and it's not designed to print well on photographic paper. At full retail price, you'd be betterr served with Tri-X.

The RMS granularity for Eastman 5222 (Double X) is listed as 14 (very fine) by Kodak while that for Tri-X is 17 (fine). So in actuality 5222 is less grainy than Tri-X.

Why do you say it is not designed to print well on photographic paper? Do not use a MP neg developer like D-96 to develop this film as they are designed to produce a low contrast negative for printing on MP positive film. For still film use you need to develop to a higher CI than what Kodak recommends for MP use.

I suggest rating this film at an ASA of 400 and developing it at 21 C for 7.5 min in Rodinal 1:50 or for 8.5 min in HC-110 1:50.

I have made 16x20 exhibition prints from this film and been very satisfied with the results.

Kodak lists both a daylight and a tungsten speed for this film. This is because the film is intended for automated machine processing and exposure must therefore be more accurate than for still films. This difference in speed for still films is normally included in the film's latitude and so only one speed is given. The two speeds do not mean that this film is not panchromatic in sensitivity.