Is All Double-X The Same?

[chuckroast]

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?

 

[Paul Howell]

As far as I know there is only one double X, an Eastman Kodak movie film stock 5222/7222, I think all the 35mm is one emulsion but 16mm seems to be different.

EASTMAN DOUBLE-X Black & White Negative Film 5222/7222

For filmmakers who aspire to capture the world as only they see it

www.kodak.com

 

[qqphot]

Repackagers might be using film that's been sitting around a long time, maybe.

 

[Bill Burk]

There’s 120 as well. But as far as I know it’s all the same until you start exploring Super-XX

 

[chuckroast]

There’s 120 as well. But as far as I know it’s all the same until you start exploring Super-XX

If only Super XX were still a thing ...

 

[runswithsizzers]

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]

If only Super XX were still a thing ...

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

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

 

[chuckroast]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 )

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]

If only Super XX were still a thing

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.