Is All Double-X The Same?

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,473
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format
I am trying to get to the bottom of some inconsistencies I am seeing in my Double X negatives compared to what I was getting a year or so ago.

I have shot some Double-X from a bulk roll purchased from Photo Warehouse. I have shot some that is pre-loaded by Cinestill.

Am I reasonably assured that - emulsion runs aside - that there is one and one only Double X or do I have to consider the source of the film as yet another variable?
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,332
Format
4x5 Format
There’s 120 as well. But as far as I know it’s all the same until you start exploring Super-XX
 

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,777
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
I've shot exactly one roll each of CineStill Bw XX and Flic-Film Double-X Cine film, so not enough experience to have an opinion. I used the same EI, developer, and processing time for both rolls. However, they were shot months apart, so there was no attempt to make any direct comparisons.

The only difference I noticed was in the film canisters. The CineStill came in a steel canister as expected, but I was unprepared to open the plastic canister provided by Flic-Film. When I pried it open using a screwdriver and brute force, I slightly damaged the emulsion on a few frames.

You can see my results at the links below, but any differences you might notice are probably due to different post-processing adjustments done in the digital part of my hybrid work flow. I do show my negatives on a light table, if that's any help. So far, I have not tried to make any prints, but I just enrolled in a photography class which gives me access to a dark room, so maybe later.

CineStill Bw XX
Flic-Film Double-X Cine
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,332
Format
4x5 Format
chuckroast said:
If only Super XX were still a thing ...

And it’s got a movie camera reel inside (with metal sides), that explains “subdued light”.
Click to expand...

It is but has an exposure index around 2-4. And it smells like vinegar, even though it’s a safety film.
 
OP
OP

chuckroast

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 2, 2023
Messages
2,473
Location
All Over The Place
Format
Multi Format
Bill Burk said:
It is but has an exposure index around 2-4. And it smells like vinegar, even though it’s a safety film.
Click to expand...

I tried some expired Super XX in 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 sheets a few years ago. It was quite grainy. If this is the same film, I don't think I'd want to shoot it in 35mm.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,332
Format
4x5 Format
This was shot at exposure index between 2-4 on tripod with Contax IIa color dial, after testing the film to find its speed.

The cool thing is that you can test any old film and find the speed it’s good for. You’ll never run out of film

 

Disconnekt

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
Messages
530
Location
Inland Empire, CA
Format
Multi Format
I have a 35mm roll of Super-XX (expired December '55), been lagging on shooting it though (especially now that its summer & it so freaking hot )
 

otto.f

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
352
Location
Netherlands
Format
Multi Format
If you mean the Cinestill version of the original Kodak Double X film, I wouldn’t count on consistency with this film, that‘s my experience. Sometimes it’s excellent sometimes it’s ok. It is (apart from Analogue Andy’s work of course) always difficult to rule out all the possible variables of exposure and development, even when you send it to a lab, but apart from Ilford and Foma since sort of recently, many remakes, reissues and new films suffer from inconsistency. I stopped worrying about it too much and see it as experiments and sometimes the faults are delivering unexpected nice artistic results.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,332
Format
4x5 Format
Cinestill doesn’t have to do anything to 5222 Double-X, there’s no remjet to remove.

I have found it to be consistent, as long as it’s fresh. When I get around to developing I can tell you more because I bought three hundred feet and do sensitometry as a spot check. (Buy from
@RoboRepublic - he’s a good source of hundred foot respools if he’s gotten a 400’ from Kodak recently. He does a 3-D printed center core and smoothly winds the reel and puts it loose in a black bag.)

For the film expired 1955, this was a “fast” film for its time. So unlike slow film, it loses speed with time due to fog.

I would just use the lowest setting on your meter between 2-4 for old expired Double-X and develop it cold in strong developer for a short time. You could probably develop by inspection because what’s it gonna do? Fog worse?
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,332
Format
4x5 Format
Disconnekt said:
I have a 35mm roll of Super-XX (expired December '55), been lagging on shooting it though (especially now that its summer & it so freaking hot )
Click to expand...

Oh just one roll. If you need more, I could roll up some from my bulk roll. It’s not going anywhere soon.
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,963
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
chuckroast said:
If only Super XX were still a thing
Click to expand...

Any of the general purpose B&W films. It was Kodak's main general purpose sheet film pre-Tmax, that's all - it was not some special product. The rest was/ is people trying to hide their lack of baseline material understanding behind often bizarre pseudo-technical conniptions for pay from the even less comprehending, that's all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…