Kodak Double XX and Contrast

[braxus]

I have ordered some Cinestill Double XX film, in 120 as well as 35mm. I have shot this film quite a few years ago, and haven't since. Watching some videos, it reminded me of how much contrast this film has in regular B&W developers. I will be using Xtol since that is what I have. The normal ISO is 250, but one video stated in daylight, it should be shot at 200. Xtol straight at 250 is 7 minutes.

Without getting the soot and chalk look too much, how should I expose and develop this film to reduce contrast and bring back some of the mid-tones? Should I dilute the developer a bit like 1:1 or 1:2? What times did you use?

 

[Bill Burk]

In D-76 1:1 I got 0.38 CI in 7 minutes and 0.40 CI in 10 minutes.

My D-76 was old so I am still reviewing whether that explains the low contrast that I achieved

 

[braxus]

But, Double X does look a bit better if you give a little extra exposure, reduce development a little bit and print harder to compensate.

Any recommendations on ISO and dev times for such an approach?

 

[Bill Burk]

If I had gotten full contrast, I would have a 200 rating. At my reduced contrast the speed rated 125, but has a long toe and so I would say safe to use at 160

 

[Alan9940]

Is Double XX similar to P30? Dunno, but I do know that P30 reveals quite a lot of contrast, if developed per Ferrania's recommendations. I develop P30, rated at EI32, in D-96 1:1 for 6 mins @68F, continuous agitation. Produces beautiful, full scale, easily printed negs. Might be worth experimenting with D-96 and Double XX.

 

[braxus]

I dont want to start getting special developers just for one film type. I dont think I'll be shooting a lot of this stuff to be honest.

If I use Xtol 1:1 or straight, and I shoot the roll at 160 ISO, what time for developing do you think I should try?

 

[Alan9940]

I dont want to start getting special developers just for one film type. I dont think I'll be shooting a lot of this stuff to be honest.

If I use Xtol 1:1 or straight, and I shoot the roll at 160 ISO, what time for developing do you think I should try?

I mix D-96 myself. Sorry, I don't use Xtol so no idea on times. Assuming CatLabs film is similar stock, maybe start with the times listed on the MDC?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

In D-76 1:1 I got 0.38 CI in 7 minutes and 0.40 CI in 10 minutes.

My D-76 was old so I am still reviewing whether that explains the low contrast that I achieved

oh wow. They list 10 minutes for D-76 1+1. Surely contrast that low is wiping film speed off the bottom. I’ll have to run a test roll when I get it in and see if there’s a difference.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I dont want to start getting special developers just for one film type. I dont think I'll be shooting a lot of this stuff to be honest.

If I use Xtol 1:1 or straight, and I shoot the roll at 160 ISO, what time for developing do you think I should try?

they have a development chat: https://cinestillfilm.com/pages/bwxx-dev-times?_pos=3&_sid=84bfe763d&_ss=r

1+1 is 10 minutes. I’d start there and then adjust.

 

[braxus]

I'm going to say 6 minutes based on D76 times. I do have an old roll of 35mm I can use to test, so I'll get that out.

Or I could just shoot it at 100 ISO and dev in Xtol straight for 4 minutes 15 seconds.

 

[braxus]

If I shot it at 100 ISO, should I do it in straight developer at 4 mins 15 seconds or should I do it at 1:1 for 6 1/2 minutes? I read 1:1 might help control highlights and bring up the shadows.

 

[Bill Burk]

oh wow. They list 10 minutes for D-76 1+1. Surely contrast that low is wiping film speed off the bottom. I’ll have to run a test roll when I get it in and see if there’s a difference.

The toe is very long about 2/3 stop worth of effective speed (considering shadows compress gracefully in a long toe).

But it’s old D-76 and that’s a subject of my next study.

 

[braxus]

So you saying I should stick with 160 ISO, not 100?

 

[Bill Burk]

Yes give it 10 minutes 1:1, I will assume your XTOL is fresh and you will get greater contrast than I did. Even if you get underdeveloped results, 160 is a fine choice for a speed.

I will defer to Jarin if he returns with more detail. He used a filter that cut the speed 5/6 stop…. So knowing he works professionally in sixth-stops he would be the expert.

 

[braxus]

Chart previously mentioned gives 10 min.s for 1:1 at 250 ISO. If 160 is used, should I maybe try 9 minutes?

 

[Cholentpot]

D-76 1:1 10min shot @ 250. Nikon 1 Touch.

It has the contrast that I need.

 

[MattKing]

Given the necessary differences in anti-halation properties of 35mm film and backing paper accompanied 120 film, and the long toe, I would wonder if the 120 might need to be exposed at a different EI than the 35mm for similar results.

 

[braxus]

Interesting point Matt. I wondered that myself being 120 has backing paper. I guess testing at normal times first will show if there are any differences.

I loaded up my only 35mm roll (its really old, but kept frozen) and Im shooting it at 160 ISO. Some stuff around the house and complex. I'll take some more shots later. I'll try this roll in 1:1 Xtol at 9 minutes.

 

[braxus]

Done developing the roll. There is some fog, but the neg looks quite dense, so I think 9 minutes was too long. I'll see about some scans later.

 

[braxus]

Scans turned out with the kind of contrast that I find workable. Not too much (other then the odd blown highlights). Here are the pics. I wonder if the negs needed more fixing, as the emulsion side wasn't as clear as it should be. I fixed for 9 minutes.

Sorry for the soft scans. I used my flatbed which isn't the best for 35mm.

 

[Bill Burk]

Love the wall of tapes!

 

[JPD]

Nice cassette deck and tape collection. I have the similar Pioneer CT-910, but it needs new belts.

 

[Bill Burk]

Chart previously mentioned gives 10 min.s for 1:1 at 250 ISO. If 160 is used, should I maybe try 9 minutes?

When I use lower EI, I do it to move up the straight line. I choose development time for contrast and EI for density somewhat independently. There should be 0.23 fog but at 9 minutes with fresh chemistry you might have gotten 0.28 base plus fog. You used Xtol 1:1 at 68-degrees F?

Also just curious, if you hold the film up to a dark background and shine light across the emulsion. Do you see a positive image? I am accustomed to that behavior in thin underdeveloped negatives but wonder if it’s something special about this film.