Some feedback about the Kodak double x 5222 distributed by FPP?

[Photo-gear]

In his store and some other websites, Film Photography Project (FPP) offers 100' rolls of Kodak Double X 5222 35mm. I am not discussing the price since I believe it is reasonable, taking into account they have to enroll their own rolls from a "master" roll.

But i would like to know how was the shooting with this film offered by FPP. Any reviews among the APUG membership?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I have shot a lot of Eastman Double-X but from a different source. It is a very nice film rated by Kodak as finer grained than Tri-X. Since it is intended as cine negative film to be printed on contrasty positive stock. Kodak suggests the use of a special developer D-96 and a lower CI. For still camera use you can use any developer you wish and should use a CI appropriate for your use. I use HC-110, use a CI of 0.65 and rate the film at an EI of 400.

BTW, Kodak uses the name Eastman for their cine films not Kodak. I mention this as it may help if you are searching the net.

 

[alienmeatsack]

I enjoy shooting XX myself, I shoot it anywhere from 200-250-400 and have developed it in Diafine and Rodinal with great results across the board.

It looks a lot like TMax when hanging up to dry and has almost that same light pink tint to it, minus the neat barcodes that it has along the sides.

Lovely film, I wish it was not going up in price as of the first of the new year. If you are looking to buy it, a user here still sells it in rolls at the old price, and it is worth it to me to buy in bulk and shoot. IMHO.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Since 5222 is cine film stock check with companies that sell short-ends. This is how I have bought all of mine. The price is much cheaper if you can find some. Due to the popularity of this film short-ends have been harder to find. First try

http://www.filmemporium.com/store

They are selling factory sealed 400 ft cans for $249.12. For short ends call them as these stocks move very rapidly and the short-ends are not always available. So they are not usually mentioned on-line.

 

[Roger Cole]

I enjoy shooting XX myself, I shoot it anywhere from 200-250-400 and have developed it in Diafine and Rodinal with great results across the board.

It looks a lot like TMax when hanging up to dry and has almost that same light pink tint to it, minus the neat barcodes that it has along the sides.

Lovely film, I wish it was not going up in price as of the first of the new year. If you are looking to buy it, a user here still sells it in rolls at the old price, and it is worth it to me to buy in bulk and shoot. IMHO.

What effective speed do you get with Diafine?

Is there any advantage to this stuff over Tri-X except for finer grain?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Photo-gear]

Since 5222 is cine film stock check with companies that sell short-ends. This is how I have bought all of mine. The price is much cheaper if you can find some. Due to the popularity of this film short-ends have been harder to find. First try

http://www.filmemporium.com/store

They are selling factory sealed 400 ft cans for $249.12. For short ends call them as these stocks move very rapidly and the short-ends are not always available. So they are not usually mentioned on-line.

Thanks for answering.
BTW, what does "CI" mean?
Concerning the "short end", is that possible to get something shorter than 100 feet, so I could put it in a regular loader?

 

[timor]

I never shoot DXN supplied by FPP, usually I buy full rolls from Kodak directly. It became my basic film. Very flexible, I shoot it at 125 to 500 ISO with very good results: small grain, very good sharpness, good reaction to filters and flexible with the contrast. Looks good in most developers.
But, like with every emulsion it takes some time to get to know one. If you have similar price for TX in your local store, go with TX. DXN only bought directly from Kodak Store is giving about 50% (it refers to Canada with late big jump in price of TX) of savings, but the minimum is 400' in one roll. (It's not really a big problem to re-spool it by hand for bulk loader.)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

CI stands for Contrast Index, it is similar to Gamma which is calculated from the the Characteristic (H&D) Curve.

Short-ends are typically ~100 ft, some less than that some more. If you phone them they will usually tell you what lengths are available. Many people that bulk load do not bother with a loader. They just hang the roll up and measure off the desired length. Of course this requires a room that can be briefly made dark.

I made a device from a length of wood and a couple of bolts which allows me to wind off a portion of a longer roll for use in a bulk loader. The spools that are used in cash register tapes make good substitute spools.

 

[Xmas]

What effective speed do you get with Diafine?

Is there any advantage to this stuff over Tri-X except for finer grain?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

320-400 ISO 7mins in Microphen 20C
cheaper $
don't try more than 35 in factory style cassettes
dries flat

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Is there any advantage to this stuff over Tri-X except for finer grain?

Considering Tri-X's considerable skills in "look" I can't answer that. So far 5222 (in HC-110 1:50) has given me a slightly softer palette than I seem to get with Tri-X. I really like it, enough, for the time being, to abandon Tri-X unless I want some nice grain using Adonal. 5222 has been really sweet using pre-Ai Nikkors (a fav: 35 f/2.8 S Auto). Maybe today's super contrasty lenses might overwhelm it but I've also had nice images with the latest 35mm Summicron (example digitally bastardized, of course):
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I don't worry too much about grain. I like the way 5222 renders grays, and it doesn't curl nearly as much as Tri-x, but I've only been using it for about 6 months-hardly enough to get used to what a particular emulsion can do. With the price increase around the bend it might suit you best to get a couple rolls or a short end and see for yourself before making a big commitment.

s-a

PS - "over Tri-X?" That's a tall order...

 

[Roger Cole]

More curiosity than anything as I shoot very little black and white 35mm these days and when I do it's usually with Delta 3200 or remaining TMZ with fast lenses. Otherwise I mostly shoot MF or LF for B&W.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom1956]

Realizing that I sound like a broken record... but taming Tri-X grain is as simple as using Microdol 1:3. I posted this in answer to an above post referencing comparing the film-of-topic to Tri-X.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Ive shot a good deal of both xx and trix. I like trix a bit more, its much easier to push. Both films have good tonality. I still have ~500 feet to shoot from a spooled down 1000ft reel.

 

[Roger Cole]

Realizing that I sound like a broken record... but taming Tri-X grain is as simple as using Microdol 1:3. I posted this in answer to an above post referencing comparing the film-of-topic to Tri-X.

What effective speed does that give you? I've never used Microdol-X but I've often read that effective speed is reduced. (I'm not particularly bothered by Tri-X grain in other developers either.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I still can't figure out why so much ado for a cine emulsion, considering all the trouble of getting a hard-to-find film for a high price where there are, readily available, a lot of films intended for still photography.

This film is no harder to get than any other film, just order on-line.

Film Emporium sells fresh 400 ft rolls for $249.12 that's $62.28 per 100 ft as opposed to Freestyle's price for 400TX of $79.99 for 100 ft. Of course these are US prices. Don't know what they would be in Europe.

There is nothing special about the emulsion of 5222 just because it is a cine film. There are minor differences in the film base and backing. Remember the very first 35 mm film for a still camera was cine film. That is what Barnack designed his first Leica prototype to use.

 

[Tom1956]

What effective speed does that give you? I've never used Microdol-X but I've often read that effective speed is reduced. (I'm not particularly bothered by Tri-X grain in other developers either.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd say ASA 320 with TX and Microdol 1:3 works for me. I never had any complaint at 400.

 

[timor]

I still can't figure out why so much ado for a cine emulsion, considering all the trouble of getting a hard-to-find film for a high price where there are, readily available, a lot of films intended for still photography.

You can make still photography on any emulsion. Double X is a cine film not because has some sort of special, only for flicks, emulsion. It is a bit less contrasty as in cine use it will be contact copy for positive image with some lose of contrast. However everything else is made for cine use. The base is much stronger and scratch resistant, has the best AH layers and emulsion is just first class. If I have to choose between Kentmere 400 or HP5 and this, with closed eyes is this, not to mention, that it cost me much less.
Go thru this:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52426
Question: are you using D76 ? D76 was created for cinema use, but it failed. Yet today is the most popular still photography developer. Why ?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I always liked 5222. Not my favorite film, but it always worked well and it used to be cheeeeep. That was right up until the "internet" discovered short ends about 8 or so years ago. It used to be easy as pie to get a 400' short end at Film Emporium. Now it isn't worth the effort. I bet they get 20 calls for every scrap of 5222 they have (or don't have). My favorite developers for it were Pyrocat-P (super long scale) and Rodinal which gave it some bite.

 

[Tom1956]

Funny how whenever someone mentions this-or-that experience with rodinal, I get the same feeling as when my Dad talks about golf. I always glaze over and put my mind on more interesting thoughts, like going to the dentist.

 

[AgX]

Remember the very first 35 mm film for a still camera was cine film. That is what Barnack designed his first Leica prototype to use.

The first films used in a Leica for still photography were aerial films.

 

[Photo-gear]

I always liked 5222. Not my favorite film, but it always worked well and it used to be cheeeeep. That was right up until the "internet" discovered short ends about 8 or so years ago. It used to be easy as pie to get a 400' short end at Film Emporium. Now it isn't worth the effort. I bet they get 20 calls for every scrap of 5222 they have (or don't have). My favorite developers for it were Pyrocat-P (super long scale) and Rodinal which gave it some bite.

Thanks for the info, although the new fever about this film and the higher price turn me off a little...

Funny how whenever someone mentions this-or-that experience with rodinal, I get the same feeling as when my Dad talks about golf. I always glaze over and put my mind on more interesting thoughts, like going to the dentist.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The first films used in a Leica for still photography were aerial films.

All the articles of the development of the Leica and the first prototypes that I have read make no mention of aerial films. Barnack started on his camera design around 1910 any aerial photography was at a very primitive level. Usually the passenger would just lean out of the plane with a box camera. I doubt that any special aerial films were even made at the time. It was only the impetus of WWI that lead to the design of aerial cameras and film.

The following articles present a good read. Jerry

http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2012/03/how-leica-came-to-be.html

http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-revised-history-of-leica.html

 

[timor]

Here in Italy a 36exp. Double-X canister costs about 4,2€ so it's not that cheap. Considering that Double-X is not factory spooled and that Tri-x and T-Max costs about 4,4€ and I'd buy the last two instead.
I use Tetenal Ultrafin T-Plus.

P.S.: do you know what is the price increase for spooling a roll fo Double-X?

source: http://www.ars-imago.com/-c-21_25_35.html

Well, I understand the price factor. Spooling by some commercial entity will cost. Not only handling (labour, storage, marketing etc.) but also cassette and label add to it. As for today it only makes sens to buy bulk film. In such a way I pay $3 per full (36 exp.) roll, so it is 2.2 Euro. Of course the thing with DXN is, it is confine to 35mm format, in MF I love TX and TMY.
The question about D76 was rhetorical one. How do you like Ultrafin T+ ?

 

[alienmeatsack]

It depends on what I shoot it at. It reacts to the Diafine about the same as any other film, and very similarly to most of Kodak's films in the same ISO/EI range.

I get 1-1.5 stops increase typically in a 5+5 Diafine bath. And I've never had any issues when shooting it at 200 with dark and muddy shadow or loss of shadow detail.

Advantage over TriX? Not sure honestly. I just like the feel of it. It's a bit more per roll then TriX depending on where you get it and how much you get, especially if you compare it to Arista Premium's under $3 USD a roll cost.

I've not done any controlled tests with assorted speeds and diafine development, I just shoot it at what suits the camera and the moment and develop it and get lovely results.

What effective speed do you get with Diafine?

Is there any advantage to this stuff over Tri-X except for finer grain?

 

[timor]

The first films used in a Leica for still photography were aerial films.

Leica wasn't design to take plentifully ready at the time cinematic film ?