Kodak Double X

[Pentode]

... but all things considered not 400 feet worth.

I have just a handful of rolls remaining from my first 400', with two more 400' rolls in the fridge! I'm skeptical that 5222 is going to be the film you're hoping it will be but it's really lovely stuff in its own right.

 

[Dennis S]

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

Definitely worth testing. A 100' roll I purchased a few years ago wasn't giving good results so I chose a fresh roll from Kodak and I am pleased with the results as you can never really tell how old some films like these are.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Eastman XX is one of my favorites. Such a wonderful grain structure and classic look. I'm shocked they don't sell it as a photo film honestly. I mean I guess Tri-X is probably not 'that' different and a bit faster, but variety being the spice of life... These days I mostly shoot Pancro 400 when I want grain like that.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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

Thanks. Can't tell the players without a scorecard (especially when they drop out of the game from time to time).

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

First, there are actually two different Tri-X films. There's Tri-X 400 in 35mm, 120, and (I think) 4x5 (there used to be Tri-X Professional 320, a lower contrast, slightly finer grain film sold only in 120 and large format), and Tri-X Reversal which is slower -- ISO 250, compared to Double-X ISO 200 in cine process. Double-X should be finer than Tri-X Reversal developed as a negative, but not by much; the reversal process makes grain much finer, however, because the coarsest grains develop in the first dev, and are bleached away.

There is no way Double-X is finer than T-Max 400, however. In my experience, TMY has comparable grain to old Plus-X.

Eastman XX is one of my favorites. Such a wonderful grain structure and classic look. I'm shocked they don't sell it as a photo film honestly. I mean I guess Tri-X is probably not 'that' different and a bit faster, but variety being the spice of life... These days I mostly shoot Pancro 400 when I want grain like that.

To get Double-X in Kodak boxes, Kodak Alaris would have to be convinced there was enough market to contract with Eastman Kodak to get the film perfed for still cameras (I know, we get away with it, but the perfs are different for a reason, and it's probably reliability of feed under very different conditions), edge marked with frame numbers and a commercial name, and rolled in cassettes -- it'd be a lot easier/cheaper than bringing an entirely new film to market, but they'd still have to print cassette shells and boxes, write, edit, proofread, and publish data sheets, do a bunch of lab testing to be able to fill in the developer recommendations and times (which would not include D-96, because Alaris Kodak doesn't sell that to the public) -- and in the end, it would probably wind up costing more than Tri-X because of all the investment that would have to be done up front.

Personally, I'd be happy if one could reliably buy it as 100' short ends of the film as it exists now. Cinestill won't sell that size, because they'd be competing with themselves and they'd have to source 100' cans, loader spools or at least cores, etc. If I had a 3D printer, I might attempt to print a modified chamber for a Watson type to load directly from 400' camera rolls -- and if there were reasonably priced cassette loaders that would take that size spool, I'd be sorely tempted to buy one. followed closely by one of the (fairly readily available) short ends of 5222.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

Been waiting around to see if somehow I can get a shorter strip than 400 fresh feet. 100 feet would do me fine. The 16mm XX that I used had no remjet.

 

[Donald Qualls]

You might try contacting any local cine production companies and ask if they have "short ends" of 5222. That'll be film they bought and didn't use, and it's too short to load in a camera for a scene. It'll be less than 400 feet, for sure, and might be less than 100.

 

[dourbalistar]

Been waiting around to see if somehow I can get a shorter strip than 400 fresh feet. 100 feet would do me fine. The 16mm XX that I used had no remjet.

There are sellers that spool down Eastman Double-X to 100-foot bulk rolls, including Film Photography Project and Photo Warehouse. FPP specifically notes that they hand-roll fresh film direct from Eastman Kodak (presumably from the 400-foot reels) and not re-canned short ends.
https://filmphotographystore.com/products/copy-of-35mm-bw-film-kodak-double-x-1-roll
https://www.ultrafineonline.com/ko52doxblwhf3.html

Both sell individual rolls, too:
https://filmphotographystore.com/products/35mm-bw-film-kodak-double-x-5222-1-roll (24-exposure)
https://www.ultrafineonline.com/ko52doxblwhf1.html (36-exposure)
https://www.ultrafineonline.com/ko52doxblwhf2.html (5-pack)

In the UK, Nik & Trick sells individual rolls as well, in 24- and 30-exposure rolls:
https://ntphotoworks.com/product/kodak-double-x-5222

 

[Mackinaw]

I buy my 5222-XX from the FPP store. 100 foot roll. Easy peasy.

Jim B.

 

[Cholentpot]

There are sellers that spool down Eastman Double-X to 100-foot bulk rolls, including Film Photography Project and Photo Warehouse. FPP specifically notes that they hand-roll fresh film direct from Eastman Kodak (presumably from the 400-foot reels) and not re-canned short ends.
https://filmphotographystore.com/products/copy-of-35mm-bw-film-kodak-double-x-1-roll
https://www.ultrafineonline.com/ko52doxblwhf3.html

Both sell individual rolls, too:
https://filmphotographystore.com/products/35mm-bw-film-kodak-double-x-5222-1-roll (24-exposure)
https://www.ultrafineonline.com/ko52doxblwhf1.html (36-exposure)
https://www.ultrafineonline.com/ko52doxblwhf2.html (5-pack)

In the UK, Nik & Trick sells individual rolls as well, in 24- and 30-exposure rolls:
https://ntphotoworks.com/product/kodak-double-x-5222

Thanks.

However, I've been in contact with some places that get in shortends. Nothing in stock these days because no stock is rolling through cameras. That should be changed by spring though.

 

[Dennis S]

The reason why chose to go big with the 400' as apposed to buying 100' rolls where I would have to pay shipping etc in US funds. 4x100' would have cost me $ 640 CDN. Another is the freshness of the film. BTW these are CDN prices

 

[Vaughn]

I have only used the Super-XX. A different film?

Edit: obviously, Vaughn!

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have only used the Super-XX. A different film?

As I understand it, the cine Double-X Negative we get now is what replaced Super-XX (then sold in sheets, right?) around 1959-1960 time frame. Similar, but not the same, even accounting for 35mm cine vs. sheet sizes.

 

[Vaughn]

I edited to reflect some research. Roll Super-XX did stop being produced around 1960, and I used it fresh in sheets until switching to TMax a year or so after TMax came out (1986). Over the years, I thought my images of NZ I took on a 6-month bicycle tour (1986/87) were on TMax, but were on Royal Pan and Super-XX (all 4x5). Silly me.

Added for the hell of it...On Super-XX with a red filter (to lengthen exposure, f64 for 4 seconds)...below Franz Josef Glacier. My notes say "might be a bit flat, water not 'white', no sun, N". 16x20 silver gelatin print. The original idea was to visually blend the rock and the water. The actual range of brightness of the scene went from the darkest at 11+, wet rock at 11++, rocks at 13 to 14 and the 'white' water at 15 to 15+, taken at 12 plus 3 stop for the red filter. Normal development to print on Grade 3 Ilford Gallerie. I also got a little help with contrast from the slight resiprocity failure of the Super-XX.

 

[Pentode]

When I first looked into 5222 I tried for a while to find short ends and nobody ever had them in stock. Places I called said that directors and camera operators are much more careful about how they budget their film use these days because of the high cost of film. They said that when a production buys camera stock, they're likely to shoot it up completely. It's still very easy to find intermediate films as short ends but camera film is tough to find. I'm sure it's possible but you'd need a heck of a lot of patience and really good timing.

I eventually gave up and just ordered 400' rolls. It's a decision I don't regret - because I like the film - but I can totally understand not wanting to take an expensive, 400' gamble if you haven't used it before.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I eventually gave up and just ordered 400' rolls. It's a decision I don't regret - because I like the film - but I can totally understand not wanting to take an expensive, 400' gamble if you haven't used it before.

Yep. As others have noted, Photowarehouse (Superfine) has it in 100' rolls, as does Film Photography Project (at a significant premium). You can probably get a four hundred for less than twice the FPP price, though, so if you have a way to handle that much film at once, and foresee shooting more than sixty rolls or so within a few years, and like the film, that's likely the way to go. Or you can buy it all day on eBay in 135 cassettes, or get it in cassettes from Cinestill, FPP, or Photowarehouse.

 

[Nokton48]

I started a thread on Eastman 5222 over on the RFF forum and it has now surpassed 54 pages and over 404,000 views. If you have some spare time LOL for reading it covers a lot of XX information.

See here:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52426&highlight=eastman+5222


5222 007:

 

[relistan]

If you are in Europe and willing to deal with 400ft spools, I have bought cinema film from these folks before:

https://www.frame24.co.uk/online-st...ck-&-White-Negative-5222-400ft-122m-p99568791

They have 400 ft spools of Double-X. Spooling that down into 100 ft spools for a bulk loader shouldn't be bad.

I spooled down 1000ft of Vision3 200T into roughly 100 ft spools. Wasn't too bad in the dark with a little jig made up to support the loose film on both sides and allow it to spin. It wasn't fun mind you, but not terrible. Just used my armspan measurement and counted. I was pretty close.

These folks in the UK sell it by the roll: https://ntphotoworks.com/product/kodak-double-x-5222/

And there is always eBay.

 

[Steve@f8]

If you are in Europe and willing to deal with 400ft spools, I have bought cinema film from these folks before:

https://www.frame24.co.uk/online-st...ck-&-White-Negative-5222-400ft-122m-p99568791

They have 400 ft spools of Double-X. Spooling that down into 100 ft spools for a bulk loader shouldn't be bad.

I spooled down 1000ft of Vision3 200T into roughly 100 ft spools. Wasn't too bad in the dark with a little jig made up to support the loose film on both sides and allow it to spin. It wasn't fun mind you, but not terrible. Just used my armspan measurement and counted. I was pretty close.

These folks in the UK sell it by the roll: https://ntphotoworks.com/product/kodak-double-x-5222/

And there is always eBay.

Yeah, I'm in the U.K.
Unfortunately the only darkroom I have is a table top pop-up tent, about 0.5m high, wide and same in depth.
I’ve purchased 10 rolls and have them stored in my fridge. Along with my other stash of film I’m good for 12 months at least. Not exposed much film this year due to Covid.

 

[madNbad]

Try a roll with a yellow filter (022) at ISO 125.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I spool down 5222 with cinema winders. Only takes about a minute to fill a 100' spool. You can find them on ebay for pretty cheap. You can use the 16mm ones too, just put a clip on the post. That is what I do and it works fine.

 

[Dennis S]

Try a roll with a yellow filter (022) at ISO 125.

Have been doing that for a while with yellow filters and I was enjoying the look at 250 but will try the 125 ISO. Thanks as I have recommended yellow filters before but was not specific on the film I was using them for.

 

[fdonadio]

Double-X has been my most used film in 35mm for the last couple of years. Maybe that’s why I don’t really care about Tri-X. It’s also very cheap... I mean, it’s the cheapest film one can get in Brazil, if bought in 400’ rolls.

 

[Dennis S]

Double-X has been my most used film in 35mm for the last couple of years. Maybe that’s why I don’t really care about Tri-X. It’s also very cheap... I mean, it’s the cheapest film one can get in Brazil, if bought in 400’ rolls.

Same deal as here in Canada and I also get 400' rolls of Orwo film sent from Germany. Can't beat fresh from the factory.

 

[Dennis S]

Try a roll with a yellow filter (022) at ISO 125.

OK I did the film speed that you suggested @ ISO 125 with the yellow filter and quite pleased with the results. I developed the film in Pyrocat HD 1-1-75. Camera was EOS 3 with an 85 f1.8 USM

 

[Bill Burk]

Nice!