Some quick thoughts on Double-X 5222 v. Tri-X

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I finally got around trying out the rolls I bought online. I shot them in my Nikon F, at box speed, and developed in D-76 stock.

- This film can build density! I initially developed at 6 minutes, and I backed down to 5. I think this would be a lovely film to make negatives to print as 35mm slides on 5302 (well, duh!), which is a cine print film. Shoot in camera, develop to a good contrast, and then contact print onto positive film, voilà! No need to buy a reversal kit, and you have some more latitude to adjust contrast. You can do it all with D76 and Dektol, or go the extra mile and mix your D-96 (for the 5222) and D-97 (for the 5302), like the pros.

- Side by side with Tri-X in D76 stock, the tonality is very much the same. The spectral sensibility curves of either film, while not identical, have the same peaks and valleys; Double-X has a very straight curve, and doesn't have the slight shoulder of Tri-X, though (hence the density).

- Double-X will give slightly better sharpness, and slightly bigger grain. Again, the MTF curves show that Double-X has a higher MTF than Tri-X for large details, but a lower one for fine details. You'll get nicely sharp edges, but not that super-fine-detail of low ISO films. It's a very agreeable grain in D-76. I think this is the "sharp, but grainy" that some people are looking high and low for. I have to try this on an 11x14 (haven't gone beyond 8x10 yet).

- Given that this film is meant to be enlarged a gazillion times on a movie screen, I think that its best qualities might not all be visible at typically enlarging sizes. However, if you think of this film as an "alternate universe" Tri-X, then you might find this interesting. Meaning that if you work a lot with Tri-X and want something slightly different (sometimes it's those small differences that count!), then you should definitely try it out.

I'll see if I can put some pictures up.

 

[PhilBurton]

I finally got around trying out the rolls I bought online. I shot them in my Nikon F, at box speed, and developed in D-76 stock.

- This film can build density! I initially developed at 6 minutes, and I backed down to 5. I think this would be a lovely film to make negatives to print as 35mm slides on 5302 (well, duh!), which is a cine print film. Shoot in camera, develop to a good contrast, and then contact print onto positive film, voilà! No need to buy a reversal kit, and you have some more latitude to adjust contrast. You can do it all with D76 and Dektol, or go the extra mile and mix your D-96 (for the 5222) and D-97 (for the 5302), like the pros.

- Side by side with Tri-X in D76 stock, the tonality is very much the same. The spectral sensibility curves of either film, while not identical, have the same peaks and valleys; Double-X has a very straight curve, and doesn't have the slight shoulder of Tri-X, though (hence the density).

- Double-X will give slightly better sharpness, and slightly bigger grain. Again, the MTF curves show that Double-X has a higher MTF than Tri-X for large details, but a lower one for fine details. You'll get nicely sharp edges, but not that super-fine-detail of low ISO films. It's a very agreeable grain in D-76. I think this is the "sharp, but grainy" that some people are looking high and low for. I have to try this on an 11x14 (haven't gone beyond 8x10 yet).

- Given that this film is meant to be enlarged a gazillion times on a movie screen, I think that its best qualities might not all be visible at typically enlarging sizes. However, if you think of this film as an "alternate universe" Tri-X, then you might find this interesting. Meaning that if you work a lot with Tri-X and want something slightly different (sometimes it's those small differences that count!), then you should definitely try it out.

I'll see if I can put some pictures up.

Am I looking at a thread from like 10 years ago. I thought that 5302 was discontinued a while ago.

 

[braxus]

What ISO are people rating Double X at? I still have a roll, but I shot my first one years ago and it came out overexposed/ overdeveloped. My roll will be dunked in Ilfotec DD.

 

[Richard Man]

Well, you can still buy Double-X from many places

 

[Donald Qualls]

What ISO are people rating Double X at? I still have a roll, but I shot my first one years ago and it came out overexposed/ overdeveloped. My roll will be dunked in Ilfotec DD.

I bought two rolls to try out a few months ago. I shot the first at EI400 and processed as "Push +1/2" in Df96 monobath, and it came out very nice -- more like normal developing for my usual 400 film (Fomapan) than a push (but then many folks claim Fomapan 400 is actually an ISO 200 to at most 320, which is about what Double-X is rated for stills). I plan to shoot my second roll of Double-X at box speed and process in Xtol replenished, which has been giving me excellent results with other films. Just now, however, my two Kiev 4 bodies (the small, light 35mm rangefinder I'm carrying daily vs. my larger, heavier M42 SLRs) are both loaded, one with XP2 Super and the other with Superia Xtra 400.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Am I looking at a thread from like 10 years ago. I thought that 5302 was discontinued a while ago.

There's plenty left:
https://www.ultrafineonline.com/ko53figrpore1.html

Any high-contrat film will work as well. I suppose you could contact print on Arista APHS Litho film, or even just good old TMAX 100 in a high-contrast developer.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

What ISO are people rating Double X at? I still have a roll, but I shot my first one years ago and it came out overexposed/ overdeveloped. My roll will be dunked in Ilfotec DD.

I shot at EI 200. Kodak recommends 250 in daylight and 200 in tungsten. A full sunny summer day at my latitude gave me f/11 and 1/500.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Here's the best I can do without a scanner. 8x10 prints on Kentmere RC VC. Top is Double-X, bottom is Tri-X. As I said, rather similar in this context.

 

[braxus]

I shot at EI 200. Kodak recommends 250 in daylight and 200 in tungsten. A full sunny summer day at my latitude gave me f/11 and 1/500.

EI and ISO are not the same thing. EI tends to lower then ISO then its number suggests. If the EI is 250, then ISO should be closer to 400.

 

[Donald Qualls]

EI and ISO are not the same thing. EI tends to lower then ISO then its number suggests. If the EI is 250, then ISO should be closer to 400.

That's a complete misunderstanding, or at least a very poor explanation.

ISO (like ASA and DIN film speeds) is a figure arrived at by testing methods promulgated by international standards bodies (ISO is a French name, but can be thought of as International Standards Organization). Nothing you can do to a film (other than leave it on the shelf for years) will change its ISO speed.

EI, Exposure Index, is a statement of what speed you shot (or intend to shoot) the film at; it's an adjustment to metering (and often development), not a change in film speed. "I only had ISO 400 film, but it was so bright on the beach and the light was so harsh I decided to shoot at EI 100 and give a pull -2 in processing." That statement is saying the user "overexposed" the film by two stops (allowing the harsh shadows to retain detail), but then subsequently developed to a lower Contrast Index to "pull" the highlights and mid-tones down the curve, away from the shoulder. In terms of technique and what's accomplished, a "push" or "pull" are roughly equivalent to Zone system expansion or contraction, respectively (Zone system is also heavily built around establishing an EI to use for metering scenes instead of the ISO speed).

EI does not tend to be lower than ISO -- in fact, one could argue that it's more commonly higher, because more people naively "push" their film, without really understanding what they can actually expect, than "pull" it in order to get a certain look, compensate for lighting conditions, or preserve additional shadow detail beyond what the ISO speed can.

 

[Pentode]

5222's actual ISO means very little unless you plan to use it as movie film (it's intended purpose). Movie films' ISO ratings are often a bit slower than their actual speeds turn out to be when used as still films as I understand it, but I haven't done any scientific testing so I'm hardly an expert.
I usually shoot 5222 at EI 250 and develop in D-76 1:1. I've tried some other developers and speeds with decent results but this is the combination I've been happiest with.
I like the look of this film a lot. I learned to shoot with Plus-X and an older version of Tri-X and 5222 has a look that, to my eyes, is right in the same ballpark in terms of tonality. I also appreciate its wide exposure latitude.
It's a good, solid, old-technology film that, if bought in bulk, is quite economical to use. What's not to like?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

EI and ISO are not the same thing. EI tends to lower then ISO then its number suggests. If the EI is 250, then ISO should be closer to 400.

Dude, seriously.

You don't "rate" a film at an "ISO." The ISO just is a standardized measure. The EI is your empirical measure. Kodak recommends that your EI should be around these values.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I learned to shoot with Plus-X and an older version of Tri-X and 5222 has a look that, to my eyes, is right in the same ballpark in terms of tonality. I also appreciate its wide exposure latitude.
It's a good, solid, old-technology film that, if bought in bulk, is quite economical to use. What's not to like?

Yes, it's pretty much the best we can get from Kodak for a traditional-looking slower speed film. But I miss Plus-X. Never liked TMAX 100 (although I like the 400).

 

[pentaxuser]

Michel, thanks for the two pics which were good examples of the differences between the films. What struck me from the comparison of the two pics was that the Double X 5222 looked more substantial. On first glance it seemed to give the better look to me but on close examination the Tri-X gave more shades of grey so more shadow detail but looked somehow blander because of this. If I was wandering around an exhibition of pics I'd be drawn to the double X one first which indicates that higher contrast with apparently deeper "colours" is more appealing initially. Difficult to say which pic would be favourite after say several weeks on my wall

It may be that when newcomers to film photography ask about how to replicate "old days" photos it is as simple as preferring high contrast to more tones in the mid to lower zones.

pentaxuser

 

[cmacd123]

I thought that 5302 was discontinued a while ago.

Yes and no, the acetate base 5302 is Gone, but you can still get the Poly version 2302 (35mm) and 3302 16mm

Plus ORWO makes the equivalent as PF2 (also Polyester)

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I've used 5222 off and on for maybe the last 16 years or so. I started back when you could buy short ends, then the internet found it. Lol. I've developed it in all kinds of developers. Usually I use Rodinal these days. Works fine in it. If you develop it in Pyrocat the brightness range that it can record is extraordinary. Basically, just don't underexpose it and the highlights will retain detail no matter what you do. It is generally a very flat film.

Most of the images in the M series on my website were shot on it.

 

[braxus]

Ok. I stand corrected. Only thing is when using 5222 as a still film, the camera wants to know an ISO for the meter. There is no EI setting on the camera. This is where Im having trouble, especially since I have no control myself over the developing stage.

 

[MattKing]

Ok. I stand corrected. Only thing is when using 5222 as a still film, the camera wants to know an ISO for the meter. There is no EI setting on the camera. This is where Im having trouble, especially since I have no control myself over the developing stage.

The settings on a camera are just that - light sensitivity settings. They are often labeled ISO, but that is really just to make it easier for people who just set the camera for the number on the film box.
You choose which exposure index (EI) to use - the manufacturer's specified ISO setting, or another setting that works better for you.
As motion picture film has an ISO light sensitivity rating that is related to use as a motion picture film, not a still film, you need to choose an EI that works well for you.
It is actually simpler for you if you are having your film developed by a reliable and consistent lab like The Lab, because the variables are limited to your meter, your metering technique and your desired contrast.

 

[Bill Burk]

Ok. I stand corrected. Only thing is when using 5222 as a still film, the camera wants to know an ISO for the meter. There is no EI setting on the camera. This is where Im having trouble, especially since I have no control myself over the developing stage.

You don’t have to be confused about this

ISO as marked on the camera is just a mark on the camera telling you where the film speed goes - the number that you dial in for any particular film would be ISO if you use the number on the box or the number you dial in will be EI (exposure index) if you choose to dial in a different number than the one on the box.

Like if you sometimes push an ISO 400 film to EI 800. Or what I do is set the meter to EI 250 for the same film because I like rich negatives. I know the ISO is 400 but I want to get a certain result so I use a different EI

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Yes, my reaction was somewhat similar; however both films do not print on the same grade of paper, so the "blander" look of Tri-X might be a function of the neg+grade combo. I'm not a bad printer, but by no means a pro.

That said, I still think Double-X is a worthy object of experimentation for fans of Tri-X. It's easy to use, and has a distinct personality.

Michel, thanks for the two pics which were good examples of the differences between the films. What struck me from the comparison of the two pics was that the Double X 5222 looked more substantial. On first glance it seemed to give the better look to me but on close examination the Tri-X gave more shades of grey so more shadow detail but looked somehow blander because of this. If I was wandering around an exhibition of pics I'd be drawn to the double X one first which indicates that higher contrast with apparently deeper "colours" is more appealing initially. Difficult to say which pic would be favourite after say several weeks on my wall

It may be that when newcomers to film photography ask about how to replicate "old days" photos it is as simple as preferring high contrast to more tones in the mid to lower zones.

pentaxuser

 

[Pentode]

That said, I still think Double-X is a worthy object of experimentation for fans of Tri-X.

Agreed, and especially fans of Tri-X from before its most recent reformulation.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes, my reaction was somewhat similar; however both films do not print on the same grade of paper, so the "blander" look of Tri-X might be a function of the neg+grade combo. I'm not a bad printer, but by no means a pro.

That said, I still think Double-X is a worthy object of experimentation for fans of Tri-X. It's easy to use, and has a distinct personality.

I'd endorse your last sentence about Double-X. Just out of curiosity what were the respective grades used for the Double-X and Tri-X prints.

What would be interesting but costly in time and paper is as series of prints from both negs at say grades 1-4 to see if there are two different grades that give close to identical prints. I have no reason to say this except for a "feeling" but it may be as you say that the differences between the two films are there per se and cannot be made indistinguishable by grading

From what I have seen I feel that I can rule out any problems with your printing skills

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

What would be interesting but costly in time and paper is as series of prints from both negs at say grades 1-4 to see if there are two different grades that give close to identical prints. I have no reason to say this except for a "feeling" but it may be as you say that the differences between the two films are there per se and cannot be made indistinguishable by grading

You've missed another variable that would need to be controlled: negative contrast. If your Double-X is developed to a higher CI or gamma than your Tri-X sample, all you'd wind up doing is verifying that higher negative contrast will require lower paper contrast to compensate.

So, you start with sensitometry testing, to get development times for both films that give the same gamma (I'd use that instead of CI, because it norms out differences in curve shape a bit more); THEN you make a series of prints from each at best exposure from grades 1-4. Wouldn't be too terrible in terms of paper -- use half sheet of 8x10 for the prints, you'd need a test strip for each grade to get your exposure right, at worst (some filter set and paper combinations will hold constant exposure over that range) -- the whole project would take no more than ten full sheets, plus a roll or so of each film for the sensitometry, and one of each for the test negatives.

Sounds like a project for a week's vacation time.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I'd endorse your last sentence about Double-X. Just out of curiosity what were the respective grades used for the Double-X and Tri-X prints.

I 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.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

You've missed another variable that would need to be controlled: negative contrast. [SNIP]
Sounds like a project for a week's vacation time.

Anybody wants to lend me their $1,000 X-Rite densitometer, and I'll clear my schedule.