• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

ISO 100 film at EI 200 vs. ISO 400 film at EI 200?

qqphot said:
There's a pretty extensive thread on 5222 on rff: 5222 thread
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this link, I hadn’t seen the thread. Mind you, I stalled on about page 2 when I read Tom A’s statement:
<<We live close to a beach (across the road) and I probably have between
10-15,000 negatives of the trees, the sand piles, the driftwood, people and dogs etc among my "tests".>>
Maybe that’s what happens if you use a rapidwinder. I’ve just calculated that I have taken at most 7,000 frames of all subjects in my entire life, and quite a few aren’t even images. I need to get serious.
 

I'll speak up in sympathy with this, except in my case the frustration is not being able to use large apertures at will. Much as I’m happy to accept the constraints of the kit I have, I do run out of shutter speeds if I’m using a fast film. I suppose I should stop being lazy and get a couple of ND filters. Just seems a fiddly solution.
 
Anon Ymous said:
Haven't shot any 5222, but Kodak disagrees for both granularity and resolution. TMY2 is superior.
Click to expand...

Guess it’s going to be a matter of taste then, a question of whether the grain is more pleasing to me.

I have some limited confirmation bias that skin and wood look good on 5222 because a print of my daughter in a forested setting is pleasing to me. It was 120 Cinestill Double-X so not a confirmation that I am happy with it as a replacement for TMY2 in 35mm yet.

It is never hard to find examples where people look good on 5222 for example:

Leica Reviews + Film - Leica Blog (Matt Osborne)

Leica expert, YouTuber & blogger providing reviews for Leica cameras, lenses and film cameras. Leica workshops, Leica presets, Patreon and model photography.
mrleica.com
 

I suspect it's a nice, middle of the road film that could serve as a general purpose BW film. But this could be a weak point; not very good at anything. I've been tempted to try it in the past, but there wasn't much of a price advantage compared to other mainstream films.
 

Thanks for the link, Bill. That guy (Matt Osborne) sure makes 5222 look good. I notice he often rates it higher than ISO 200, and also, he likes Xtol, usually at 1+3. I also noticed many of those portraits appear to be studio shots, and the outdoor shots seem to be taken more under cloudy skies / subdued light. Whether I will like it as much in the contrasty daylight conditions I often find myself in, I will soon find out.
 

I took notice when Jarin Blaschke came to Photrio to ask about a filter that would make Double-X look orthochromatic for “The Lighthouse”.
 
oxcanary said:
What about using a 400 speed film that has a dubious speed rating. I.E one that does not reach 400 speed in conventional developers. Thus my need for a 200 speed film is filled by Fomapan 400 developed in FX39.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was about to comment something along that line. Fomapan 400 is often shot in the 125-250 range depending on taste and the developer used. I personnaly shoot it at 250 when using Xtol 1:1 or replenished and I tried it once at 125 using rodinal (found I could've shot it at 160). Incident metering or average reflective metering done by the camera.
Kodak XX is fine at 250 too with Xtol
 
oxcanary said:
What about using a 400 speed film that has a dubious speed rating. I.E one that does not reach 400 speed in conventional developers. Thus my need for a 200 speed film is filled by Fomapan 400 developed in FX39.
Click to expand...
Thank you both for your replies. I do plan to pursue this possibility, as well. I have mostly been using Xtol and similar developers which are said to be "speed maintaining" or "speed enhancing" - which is great when I am shooting an ISO 100 film, but not what I want when I am shooting ISO 400 films at EI 200. I will need to research which developers tend to be the opposite of speed enhhancing, and which films tend to be optimistically rated.

But first I am going to try Ilford FP4+ with a moderate push to EI 160, developed in Ilford Microphen which Ilford says,
"...is a fine grain film developer which gives an effective increase in film speed. A speed increase of up to half a stop can be achieved with most films but with faster films such as HP5 Plus, Delta 400 Professional and Delta 3200 Professional it is more. Many developers that give an increase in film speed usually produce a corresponding increase in grain size, MICROPHEN is formulated to overcome this disadvantage, the low alkalinity of the developer reduces grain size and grain clumping. Therefore MICROPHEN is said to have a high speed/grain ratio, i.e. it gives a speed increase while retaining much of the grain characteristics associated with fine grain developers."
 
An interesting read is Bill Burk's link with examples but what is the evidence for this quote: "Kodak recommend rating Double-X at ISO 200 in daylight but I have shot it at anything from ISO 100-1600 (I think) and still received great results. I feel it is much better in low light than Kodak Tri-X 400 film or Kodak T-Max 400 film and believe it should have a native ISO closer to ISO 640."

Also just a pity that from the myriad of fashion shots there weren't three of the same scene, model, clothes etc on the same day
at the same time or lighting conditions
640 is quite a jump from Kodak's 200. I wonder what his evidence is? I always get a little concerned when a review finds nothing to be critical of and almost everything to praise

I wonder who commissioned him write the review. It just doesn't sound as if either the commissioning agent or commissioned agent were entirely disinterested parties

I need to say also to avoid direct conflict arising that there is nothing wrong with the film and yes it much cheaper if you are prepared to buy 400ft and bulk load. It was just that the review reminded me of so may others whose conclusions always seems to be "it's the greatest thing since sliced bread" in respect of whatever it was that was reviewed

pentaxuser
 

XTOL does provide a film speed boost.
 
pentaxuser said:
It was just that the review reminded me of so may others whose conclusions always seems to be "it's the greatest thing since sliced bread" in respect of whatever it was that was reviewed
Click to expand...

I don't think bloggers and YouTube reviewers have much credibility. Here, Matt Osborne (aka MrLeica) says he "believes" Kodak Double-X should have "a native ISO of 640" even though Kodak rates it at EI 250 in daylight (he erroneously says "ISO 200"). How did he come to his belief? It is anyone's guess. He also says he gets "great results" with Double-X "from 100-1600 (I think)." So he thinks, but is not sure, that he shot it at those "ISOs". And who knows what "great results" even means. He then posts a bunch of mostly "glamour" shots exposed at who knows what EI, developed in who knows what developer, scanned, and edited with who knows what adjustments in post. So, all and all, a completely useless review. With a shameless plug for Cinestill at the end.

It you want to know anything about Double-X, shoot a few rolls yourself at different EIs and, if you are so inclined, develop them in different developers. Then you will have some worthwhile information.
 
Last edited:

Yep, his scans are edited to death. I agree with @faberryman, I would ignore.

Coincidentally, the man gives me the creeps.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register