Kodak Double X

[Steve@f8]

Any love for this film out there?
Just had a rush of blood and ordered 10 rolls 135x30 exp. Not used it before but looking through Flickr it seems to perform nicer when used in situations where the scene is naturally contrasts. Latitude is reported to be +/-1.5 stops.

Any tips on shooting this film, and developing?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've used it once, got another roll loaded (in a simple stereo camera, no less). It's a lot like Tri-X was before 2000 -- doesn't apologize for grain, but it has good tonality and it's still very good a EI 400 (with a little extra time in the developer, of course). There's a lot more latitude in still photography than there would be in the original cine use; it's about the same as other conventional grain B&W films.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I encourage you to get or mix D-96 to develop it, which I found gives better results than D-76 (finer grain, better gradations).

 

[Donald Qualls]

I encourage you to get or mix D-96 to develop it, which I found gives better results than D-76 (finer grain, better gradations).

Df96 monobath works well, too. Even if you want to push a little (I did mine in Df96 and pushed to 400 -- beautiful!).

 

[Steve@f8]

Thanks for the advice, guys. Appreciated.

 

[Pentode]

I use it regularly, developed in D-76 1:1. I can agree with Donald's description of how this film looks and behaves. I don't care much for it at 400, personally, but a lot of people do so it's all a matter of taste. I'm really very fond of it at 250.

 

[madNbad]

I bought ten rolls, exposed six and gave four away. If I was looking for a single emulsion to use often, it would be worth the time and effort to break down a 400 foot roll. Mostly, I prefer the T grain films but it's certainly worth trying a few rolls . This is with a Leica M4, Voigtlander 35 2.0 Ultron ASPH then developed in HC-110B for six minutes:

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I've shot a couple thousand feet of it over the years. It is a flat film, and an old film, but that means you can do a lot of different things with it. I've developed it in quite a few different developers but nearly always developed longer than "recommended" though you have to wonder who does the recommending... If 5222 was the last film i wouldn't be sad about it. What would you like to know?

 

[Cholentpot]

I've used it in 16mm and I thought it was quite good. I would love to find an affordable source for it. I wouldn't hesitate to use it as a go to film.

Praktica MTL3, Vivitar 24 2.8, Eastman 7222

 

[Steve@f8]

I've shot a couple thousand feet of it over the years. It is a flat film, and an old film, but that means you can do a lot of different things with it. I've developed it in quite a few different developers but nearly always developed longer than "recommended" though you have to wonder who does the recommending... If 5222 was the last film i wouldn't be sad about it. What would you like to know?

I have to admit it was an impulse purchase having read about the cinematic qualities (whatever that means but I like brooding mysterious scenes, eg James Bond in Casio Royale, parts of it shot using 5222 I believe). It’s difficult to put into words to describe the results I like, but I’m definitely not one for a flat image liking more contrast and pop in my images. Hope I’m ok pasting this from another site. https://www.lomography.com/films/871956875-kodak-eastman-double-x-5222/photos?page=27 because pictures express better than words. Many pages of images in the link, some pop and others are as ‘flat as’. So I suppose I’m asking, or looking for confirmation, on handling the film. I read on JCH a tip to expose for the highlights (is that +1.5 stops on what the meter indicates?) and let the shadows fall wherever they fall. And then there’s the question of development. Due to current circumstances I’ll be sending to a lab I trust, and have no idea what developer he uses, all I know is that with the right exposure my HP5 turns out nice and contrasty.
(Apologies for the meandering text, I’m just dumping thoughts in my head.)

 

[Donald Qualls]

I like brooding mysterious scenes, eg James Bond in Casio Royale, parts of it shot using 5222 I believe

It's probably a strong guess that any black and white scene shot on film in a professional movie over the past fifty years was done on one of three stocks: Double-X, Tri-X negative, or P-30.

 

[Steve@f8]

You know, there’s only one way to find out if I can make it perform and that’s to shoot the stuff.
Eastman 5222, Double X, it all sounds rather romantic. Maybe I need romantic scenes to make it sing, or Daniel Craig with appropriate lighting.
I’ve got 300 shots to find out!

 

[Bill Burk]

I've shot a couple thousand feet of it over the years. It is a flat film, and an old film, but that means you can do a lot of different things with it. I've developed it in quite a few different developers but nearly always developed longer than "recommended" though you have to wonder who does the recommending... If 5222 was the last film i wouldn't be sad about it. What would you like to know?

I am considering it as possible replacement for TMAX-400.

I love TMY-2 because I cannot get a bad picture from it. But one picture of a friend and his son bugs me. My friend has these great bushy eyebrows and they were about 10 feet away from me. His eyebrows look like caterpillars because I shot a fast film instead of a slow film that could capture better detail.

I would like to know, if I make 5222 my “fast” film, will I get more detail (shooting between EI 160 and 250 would be my plan)... than I get with TMAX-400?

 

[Cholentpot]

I have to admit it was an impulse purchase having read about the cinematic qualities (whatever that means but I like brooding mysterious scenes, eg James Bond in Casio Royale, parts of it shot using 5222 I believe). It’s difficult to put into words to describe the results I like, but I’m definitely not one for a flat image liking more contrast and pop in my images. Hope I’m ok pasting this from another site. https://www.lomography.com/films/871956875-kodak-eastman-double-x-5222/photos?page=27 because pictures express better than words. Many pages of images in the link, some pop and others are as ‘flat as’. So I suppose I’m asking, or looking for confirmation, on handling the film. I read on JCH a tip to expose for the highlights (is that +1.5 stops on what the meter indicates?) and let the shadows fall wherever they fall. And then there’s the question of development. Due to current circumstances I’ll be sending to a lab I trust, and have no idea what developer he uses, all I know is that with the right exposure my HP5 turns out nice and contrasty.
(Apologies for the meandering text, I’m just dumping thoughts in my head.)

It's about post processing.

I prefer flat looking film for a scan because I get leeway to do what I'd like with it.

If you're shooting this much film maybe you can develop it yourself to find out what methods and developer combos give you a look you want?

 

[Pentode]

I would like to know, if I make 5222 my “fast” film, will I get more detail (shooting between EI 160 and 250 would be my plan)... than I get with TMAX-400?

I've never compared them side by side, but I expect that to be a pretty close race. TMY has very fine grain for a 400 speed film. 5222 has somewhat coarse grain (by today's standards) for a 160 - 250 speed film. I would think you'd end up meeting pretty closely in the middle. A lot is going to come down to your developing choices, I suspect.

I guess that equates to the old super-useful answer: "It depends...."

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'd be surprised if Double-X (essentially a 1960 technology film, kept the same all this time for the cine industry) were any finer or sharper than even modern Tri-X still film.

 

[Dennis S]

I also purchased a large roll of 5222 film (400') last year and have gone through roughly 100' of it already. I got mine through the Kodak warehouse here in Vancouver and I hear it is getting popular with the younger people who are just starting out as many private studios who teach film exposing are using it. Mostly shot at 250 and then developed for 5 min in ID-11 @ 1-1 and the results are quite good. I have also tried it in my homemade Pyrocat HD 1-1-75 for 11 min.

 

[Steve@f8]

I'd be surprised if Double-X (essentially a 1960 technology film, kept the same all this time for the cine industry) were any finer or sharper than even modern Tri-X still film.

From my reading on 5222, the ramjet has been removed from the stuff used for motion picture and antihalation added for stills. Although Cinestill supplies less antihalation.
Caution: could be fake news.

 

[Donald Qualls]

From my reading on 5222, the ramjet has been removed from the stuff used for motion picture and antihalation added for stills. Although Cinestill supplies less antihalation.
Caution: could be fake news.

You could be right. I know Cinestill is making their rent via having a way to remove the remjet on Vision3 films without damaging the emulsion. I've only had Double-X from Cinestill (other than a couple cassette loads in Minolta 16, and 16mm cine films aren't always the same as 35mm), but I wasn't under the impression Kodak put remjet on B&W films.

If I stumble on a great deal on a hundred feet of the stuff, I'll pick up another bulk loader and then I'll find out. I like the film, but as loaded by Cinestill, it's almost twice the price of Foma 400 and I don't see enough advantage over the Croatian product to pay the extra.

 

[Wallendo]

XX never had remjet.
FOMA is Czech not Croatian (Efke was Croatian).

 

[Steve@f8]

You could be right. I know Cinestill is making their rent via having a way to remove the remjet on Vision3 films without damaging the emulsion. I've only had Double-X from Cinestill (other than a couple cassette loads in Minolta 16, and 16mm cine films aren't always the same as 35mm), but I wasn't under the impression Kodak put remjet on B&W films.

If I stumble on a great deal on a hundred feet of the stuff, I'll pick up another bulk loader and then I'll find out. I like the film, but as loaded by Cinestill, it's almost twice the price of Foma 400 and I don't see enough advantage over the Croatian product to pay the extra.

One has to be cautious of misinformation, I read awhile ago that Double X had no antihalation and it was the feature first attracted me to the product. But reading further and studying images I can see no truth to the rumour.

 

[madNbad]

This video contains a lot of information on exposure and developing. It's about twenty minutes long but worth a view even if you just want to experiment with a few rolls:

 

[Steve@f8]

Thanks madNbad, looks good. I’ll have a proper look later. Always keen to learn from others.

 

[Bill Burk]

From specs it’s not remjet. Gray acetate is how antihalation is implemented.

There is some lubricant but that could be a good thing.

I would want it to be finer than TMAX-400 and Tri-X not just “Cinematic”. But I can see maybe that could be very appealing and a compelling reason to choose a film.

My gut still tells me that if they were the same, cinematographers wouldn’t avoid Tri-X. Double-X must be better

 

[Bill Burk]

Just ordered 5 rolls. This discussion makes me realize it’s worth experimenting with a little... but all things considered not 400 feet worth.