I'm going to buy some (1000ft) Eastman Double-X

Both, the two characteristics aren't mutually exclusive. Here are the characteristic curves, RMS granularity, and MTF resolution charts for Double-X from Kodak. The developer used to generate these data points is D-96. While I don't have an actual H&D curve plotted for it, I can pretty much tell by eye how it is when you print it. Note though that I developed the stuff in D-76 1+1 for about 7 minutes at 75F. Being a more aggressive developer than Kodak's recommended D-96, it's not surprising to see that the high end would shoulder off more quickly. Yet despite that the range through the middle displays less differentiated separation than you see with Tri-X.

I have never had a problem printing Double-X. I have put it through Pyrocat-P, 777, Rodinal (favorite) and Edwal 12. I am not one to drag out a densitometer. I only know if something works or not, and Double-X works, but like I stated above, you would be better off with something else. If money is tight, use either of the Freestyle Premium or Legacy films. I am using the Legacy now since I have had some problems with the Premium. I don't think XX is a good first film.

If you are scanning the film then it doesn't matter what you use. You haven't given us that information yet though.

fschifano said:

Yet it is far more grainy than Tri-X, which is 2/3 stop faster, and doesn't have a contrast curve suitable for printing on enlarging papers. In my estimation, it's resolving power isn't any better than Tri-X and not as good as Plus-X,

Click to expand...

If you look at the Kodak's RMS granularity values for Double-X and Tri--X you will find that Double-X is actually a bit finer grained than Tri-X. Perhaps something in your processing is causing the increased granularity.

I have shot over 1000 feet of this film and have another approx 2000 ft more in my freezer. I find that when Double-X is developed to a CI suitable for darkroom printing that the rated speed is the same as Tri-X. I use HC-110 diluted 1:49 as a developer. Sometimes I wil use Rodinal at 1:49.

I like the method of working. This is a year long project (started in May, with the unimpressive Fomapan =P) and should take the remaining two semesters of my collegiate career. This film appeals to me not only because of the samples and reviews that I have seen, but also works for the timeline I am planning. I want to view the images as objectively as possible, so that means having some gap (months, maybe..) between taking the shot and editing. So, when I run out of film the editing begins. =)

I like Winogrand's way of shooting because, though it could seem haphazard, I find it very liberating. Not having images in my head to search for...everything is a potential photograph. Yes, 99% is failure or at lest near miss, but in that I hope to maybe see thought-process or patterns...certain compositions or motifs that I seem attracted to. That is where the two books come in. One will hopefully be by 1% of successful images and the other will be contact sheets for the whole project.

Thank you all for your responses. The discussion has been interesting =p. I might end up buying 400ft lengths instead for manageability's sake. Still have some time to figure it out...