Michel Hardy-Vallée
Membership Council
I was going to say that; Double-X has a bit of that old-timey grain I know from 1970s photos.
Agreed, and especially fans of Tri-X from before its most recent reformulation.
Somebody just gave me a 127 roll of Super-XX from 1952. Maybe I'll split the difference and shoot it at EI 3!Meanwhile I am getting an EI of 2 on Super-XX expired 1945 and if I push it I get EI of 4
Anybody wants to lend me their $1,000 X-Rite densitometer, and I'll clear my schedule.
Wow that is low for a print. If a newcomer to analogue were to have shown us his neg and print and said it was done at 0.5 I feel a few of the replies would have been along the lines of the print is fine but if it has this much contrast at only grade 0.5 then have a look at your negative. It might be over developedI used 0.5 for Double-X and 1.5 for Tri-X. My paper is Kentmere RC VC, so the grades on another paper, let's say Ilford, would be slightly different.
This is how I understand it. And this is why movie film ISOs need to be taken with a grain of salt when used as still films. The ISOs are tested rigidly, but for a different contrast in a different developer. Once you change the intended purpose of the film the ISO goes out the window and you just find an EI that delivers the results you're after. For what it's worth, most of the internet chatter I've read about 5222 leads to a general consensus that this film looks good in D-76 and Adox Borax MQ (which is, more or less, D-76 with less sulphite). My two years of playing with it have led me to the same conclusion. That's not to say that it can't look great in other developers but those two seem to be a very safe bet for getting good results.....the Kodak-recommended developer for Double-X is D-96, which is a relatively low contrast developer (most cine specific developers are); it might well be that the D-76 or HC-110 will build contrast higher.....
Wow that is low for a print. If a newcomer to analogue were to have shown us his neg and print and said it was done at 0.5 I feel a few of the replies would have been along the lines of the print is fine but if it has this much contrast at only grade 0.5 then have a look at your negative. It might be over developed
I hasten to add this is not an attempt to liken you to a newcomer to analogue but seeing Donald's post on contrast makes me wonder if an inherent characteristic of Double-X is a propensity to high contrast. What it means is that there is very little leeway to drop grades further to change the look from the negative.
Just out of interest does the Double-X neg look a lot "thicker" than the Tri-X at the development times used?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Looking forward to it!Well, I mixed a batch of D-96 and tried it on Double-X. I rated it at 250 in my Nikon F, and developed 7 mins in D-96 at 21C, agitation every 30 secs.
The negatives are looking great, maybe a tad less dense than in D-76. They're drying right now, I'll report when I print them...
Looking forward to it!
The old Adox Borax MQ formula is very popular amongst users of this film. I have not tried it yet but I am pretty curious and plan to give it a whirl eventually. I like the idea of the reduced sulfite and would like to see the effects firsthand.
Now I see how Double-X and D-96 are made for each other.
If you like, I could loan you my spare Marshall Studios densitometer. It’s basically a light bulb running back and forth between a 17 inch light path on a track driven by a pair of copper wires on pulleys. Nothing can go wrong with this densitometer. You look down at a mirror with a hole scratched in the silvering. The film sits under the hole. The light hits a 45-degree mirror under the film. On the back side light from the other side of the bulb hits two 45-degree mirrors and then comes down a tube to a lens and a 45-degree downward facing piece of glass. That last piece of glass shines the light from the tube down onto the mirror, that you look at through an eyepiece.Anybody wants to lend me their $1,000 X-Rite densitometer, and I'll clear my schedule.
From what I've read, this is literally true. D-96 was developed specifically for the Super-XX film of the late 1930s, which was the direct ancestor of the Double-X Negative cine film introduced in 1959 (and essentially unchanged to today, as far as I'm aware).
If you like, I could loan you my spare Marshall Studios densitometer. It’s basically a light bulb running back and forth between a 17 inch light path on a track driven by a pair of copper wires on pulleys. Nothing can go wrong with this densitometer. You look down at a mirror with a hole scratched in the silvering. The film sits under the hole. The light hits a 45-degree mirror under the film. On the back side light from the other side of the bulb hits two 45-degree mirrors and then comes down a tube to a lens and a 45-degree downward facing piece of glass. That last piece of glass shines the light from the tube down onto the mirror, that you look at through an eyepiece.
I like using these because I know they will work where I always wonder when electronics will fail on the Macbeth
You drive the light bulb back and forth along a track until the spot seen through film matches the background field... there is a piece of metal attached to the carriage that points where you are, under the side of a long frosted glass ruler with density markings.I am befuddled... how do you get a reading?
The current version of Tri-X is most definitely finer grained than that which was available in the 90s. It is currently a hybrid of T-grains and traditional grains. The modern Tri-X (it’s been reformulated several times over the decades) is really nice film and it’s tonality is similar to the older version but I have to admit that there are times I miss the coarser grain of the Tri-X I learned on and Double-X in D-76 does provide that grain to some degree.Double-X (in Df96 monobath, I've only done the one roll so far) at EI 400 gives grain that seems very similar to what Tri-X gave in the 1990s. I have five rolls of new fresh-dated Tri-X in 120, but haven't even opened the box yet. It's been my understanding, however, that Tri-X benefited along with most other Kodak still film stocks (B&W and color) from the formate doping discovery/patent, allowing double speed with the same grain (or same speed with significantly finer grain). That to say, modern Tri-X is most likely significantly finer grained that what I've got experience with. Double-X, on the other hand, is claimed to be effectively unchanged since 1959. It might well be that due to technology changes, fresh Double-X will give coarser grain at "box speed" (EI 200-250) than modern Tri-X at its box speed.
I will say this: the grain in current Double-X is very much not objectionable.
View attachment 256247
View attachment 256246
Cinestill packaged Double-X Negative, EI 400, Df96 monobath
Kiev 4, Jupiter 8 50mm f/2
Even though Df96 is seemingly named after D-96, the MSDS indicates it's a PQ developer, rather than MQ like D-96. It's actually common to use 1/10 as much phenidone as a near-perfect replacement for metol in developers, however; this may have been done here to gain a little speed to offset the speed loss usually seen in monobaths due to fixing running simultaneously with development.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?