This is so appreciated. I actually hand-spooled 400 feet of Double-X last week, but decided to wait before really starting to shoot it until your video came out. Thanks for your exhaustive research.
Whoa, 30⁰C? That's interesting, never thought it can be developed in such a big temperature :) Can I se some result? Do you have FLICKr or insta to see it? That would be helpful for me because I'm looking for something new but only with Rodinal and I'm curious about this film in any ISO but higher than 400 :)
Thank you! This series is up to 32 (I think) videos now and will be at nearly 40 by the end of this year. So if there are ever other films you're interested in, I may have covered them.
Such outstanding analysis, David. I'm not crazy about this one for anything except people and I agree with you that it's a great stock for people. Couldn't agree more that they should definitely sell it in consumer rolls.
Hi David, I tried Double-X in 510-Pyro 1+100 giving a speed of ISO 125. Same development time like Ilford FP4+ for gamma 0.55. I compared both films and did enlargements of 16x. Both came free of grain (tanning developer) but at the edge of resolution with these films at this enlargement.. Green grass and blue sky is slightly lighter than with the FP4+ or in other words: An Ilford FP4+ with a light yellow-green filter will give you the same results. I couldn't find any other difference. Material costs for Double-X (fresh from Kodak Europe) now is around or little less then 5€ per roll and you need to do the spooling job. Ilford FP4+ 135/36 is € 5.75. Also Kodak Double-X needs to be fresh.
I've shot close to 1200 feet of this film. I didn't start to like it until 20 rolls into shooting it. At first I found it "too clean" almost like a digital still converted to BW. I finally settled at ISO800 and and HC-110 dilution B to be my favorite combo, which yields the perfect amount of grain for my taste. As for handling 400 feet, I use a large dark bag and basically just wind the film to a new spool until the two rolls are the same diameter. I'll can one of the halves and then split the other half in a similar process. Great video and content!
I love this series Dave! I’ve shot some of this myself, and I found it really good in Urban / street environments which matches up well with your observation that it is a good portrait stock. If I’m not mistaken this stock became popular with photographers when it was learned that Schindler’s List and Raging Bull were filmed on it. I don’t remember what I developed it in, probably HC110 and it came out great.
In 50 years as a B&W fine art photographer this has got to be the most compact and concise collection of everything you should NEVER do, that I have ever seen. Virtually every single image is irretrievably underexposed and absurdly overdeveloped. And almost every single technical point he makes, is flat out wrong, often precisely the opposite of true. I am absolutely STUNNED!!!
So, the way to make this comment is to start by asking, hey, 'I have a question about how you arrived at these points' or 'hey, what's going on with the exposures in your images' and to give the creator (that's me) the opportunity to provide an explanation, which I'll do anyway. 1- 50 years is a great run. Nicely done. I'm 14 years behind you so I completely believe you have more experience. 2- All of this is derived from first-hand testing and the technical details are based on the means and manner of interpretation detailed in scholarly technical journals. I enjoy reading and analyzing scholarly technical stuff and have done it for a living for years, so it's work and a hobby. 3- A lot of the "underexposure" in the videos in this series, especially the old ones like this, stems from a number of factors relating to: a- The software I used to be able to afford for these was either the stock Windows 7 movie editor or, later, Vegas Movie Studio 14-16, all four of those had terrible compression algorithms. b- The images in these videos were digitized at 24 megapixels and then downsampled to 1080 and then compressed by the video editor. That's a lot of compression, but we're not done. c- CZcams compresses videos for storage. CZcams further compresses videos for playback. Your ISP, especially if you're on your phone, compresses videos even further to save bandwidth. So these videos when played back have been compressed at least five times before you even see them. d- If you're watching on your phone, the screen on that will have a much higher contrast than a monitor or TV. If you're watching on a monitor, you're still seeing that highly-compressed and re-compressed video. So there are always factors working in opposition to these, and any, photography gear review videos on CZcams, be it film, lenses, cameras, sensors, audio, etc.. The idea with these videos is to give photographers a chance to preview film performance before they buy and also be a starting point for their understanding of how the film works and what developers they want to try or avoid. And here's an opportunity for you: You've made the claim that my technical interpretations are wrong. (Fun fact, when I talked with one of Eastman Kodak's film emulsion engineers before making this video and ran my interpretations past her, she agreed that I had a correct understanding,) but I'm happy to give you a platform here: Post a link to a video or article that you have made about this film with "correct" technical interpretations. You've made a claim -- back it up with your own work and analysis. That's what I've done with this video and now it's your turn.
Hi David-I cannot thank you enough for these film videos. They are extremely helpful to me. Based on excellent research and large empirical experience, and very well presented. I have taught technical subjects for decades, and you are an excellent teacher. I was curious, so I searched Flickr for the terms 5222 Double-X and D96 to see photographs made with that combination. I realize that much depends upon scanning and the vagueries of internet compression, however, those photos appear to have “better” tonality and finer grain than most of the examples you have shown here. One of the reasons I checked this is that the movies that have been shot on this stock (e.g. Schindler’s List) have these features. I am inclined to try developing this in D96 (either from Cinestill or making it myself). I also am curious about how it will look in Xtol.
Thank you! I think that it will work very well in XTOL, but I don't have a sense of how D96 performs (never having used it) so I can't hazard a guess there.
What an awesome review, please keep doing these, I'm a big fan.....I've seen these from cinestill here( I live in czech republic) but they are so damm expensive. I guess I'll have to jump into the big rolls
How very interesting. I've read about (old) Double X film in a 1950's "The Leica Manual," but by the late 1960's, it was either Panatomic-X Plus-X, or Tri-X Pan. Respooled Cine film has always been very interesting, even if it has more in common with Ektachrome than down-rated Tri-X Pan.
Thank you. This Double-X is WAY different from the vintage XX stock. I tend to agree that cine film in still is fascinating. There's nothing that delivers image quality quite like it.
@@DavidHancock forgot to say it also looked overexposed on a contact print as well as on a scan. Other long exposure night shot from the same roll with doubled metered time was also overexposed on a scan but looked fine on a contact print. go figure ))
Grandchild of the stock Citizen Kane was shot on, Super XX. The only reason Toland could get the depth of field and light he wanted, was because of the new film stock. Possible the number of "X'''s indicate how fast the film is and/or push-ability, as in "tricks" happy Tri-X.
This is the film stock that I've always put in my bag. I rate it from 100-3200 and processed with different developers depend on the situation. For 250 and below I develop it with Pyrocat HD, above 500 for push process I use POTA variant and Acufine.
Great analysis but motion picture film cameras generally expose each frame for 1/48th-1/70th of a second when running at 24fps so actually for a longer time than you’d usually want for a single frame skill
11:00 Hmmm... Doesn't the spectral sensitivity curve somewhat resemble that of T-MAX 100? That too tends to be much more sensitive on the blue-violet end and has a cliff-like dropoff from orange-red onwards.
Great Review as always David. I thought there is a better/easier way to spool the 400' into 100'. But the last minute of the video made me go and take a Tylenol and a glass of Zero Coke...
Hey Sharon, I don't mean to contradict David, but I did this recently in a full-sized darkroom, and it took me about an hour, two at the most. My secret: Bring a friend in there with you and have him or her hold the bag the film comes in while you roll it onto a spool that you hold. He or she adjusts tension based on your feedback. Lay out all your precut tape and spools in a manner you'll remember (similar to how you'd set up prior to development) and it's more time-consuming than it is hard.
@@DavidHancock Ya sorta. www.flickr.com/photos/130879857@N07/48044481003/in/photostream/ www.flickr.com/photos/130879857@N07/46244252022/in/album-72157701318355042/
A really storied film stock with an often neglected history - For all its imperfections, it was used by photographers including Garry Winogrand and Henri Cartier-Bresson in his later years who made incredible photographs with little concern for line pairs/mm.
@@DavidHancock It's an old (50s or 60s) two-part developer that some like and some hate. As a two-part, you can't really control development by changing developing time. The only control you have is exposure. Generally used for push processing, but don't go too far. It claims, for instance, 1600 for Tri-X, but I think 800 works better. Shoot a test roll, exposing successive frames at different indexes, ie: 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, etc. Develop in Diafine and see which you like.It's a weird developer, maybe better for "street" than landscapes, but fun to try. Very fast to use and not fussy about time or temperature.
Wow. So glad to have stumbled upon this outstanding review and in-depth analysis. Your work is greatly appreciated. Btw, i plan to develop a 5222 roll , shot at ISO400, in Rodinal. Any tips on development time and dilution using stand development?
Nice in depth video ..... I've shot my way though two 400' reels of this film stock . It's my go to film for everything though you're right , it does kick ass with portraiture ...... I always rate it for 200 asa and I always develop it in two stage D-23 ..... Fresh developer or old , it always looks great ...... If I want to control the grain , say for portraits , I just overexpose it a half stop ....... Anyway .... Ha ! My two cents ...... Cheers
Hi David, really an awesome review! I am a bit new on developing film. Could you tell me what you mean with ‚stand‘ for the Rodinal development? Standing for 70min on room temperature? What temperature have you used for the 7min development using rodinal 1:25 or 1:50? Thx so much and sorry for my basic questions. Really learnt a lot!
Thank you! For stand developing, basically you just use a very dilute chemistry and let the film soak for a long period. Here's video I made on the process: czcams.com/video/OJYUdXxqnL8/video.html
Thank you so much for this video. I was wondering if you had more sample images and development charts available, or if you would mind sharing some more? I would like to maybe develop this film with stock d-76 at many different iso ratings.
Awesome video, very complete and useful. But may I ask a newbie question? I'm a kind of new on home development and always used the stock solution (D-76). If I try develop this film on D-76 1:3, the time of fixing bath also need to be adjusted or 4/5 minutes will work well? Thanks for the amazing content!
Maybe at the time of this somewhat old video, but as of 2024, it is no longer true that it is the cheapest bang for buck. For anyone interested in that especially reading this, not to complain to the youtuber. On B&H right now, a 400 foot spool, assuming 19 rolls per hundred feet (I'm adding in bonus even to account for fewer initial leaders and short ends) comes out to $4.30, whereas Kentmere 400 counting as 18 rolls is $3.96 for a 100' spool. Bonus, easier to handle too being 100', AND cheaper. And slightly better latitude probably (didn't pull up both curves)
Re the filters, I thought a blue filter enhances not cuts blue light. It will cut/block reds etc from what I understand. Is that what you meant in the video? Love the videos, thanks for them, I’m learning lots and really appreciate it.
So in the final positive, the color of the filter will be lighter and color opposite the filter (on the color wheel) will be darker. So a blue filter on any film will make the sky lighter, swimming pools lighter, etc, and make things like stop signs black.
Great review. This is the same film that Cinestill is using for their Super XX, right? Have you compared the two? Interesting to note that Cinestill recommends decreasing your ASA from 250 to 200 if your light source is 3200K
Thank you! To the best of my knowledge, this is the same stock that CS uses for their Super XX. I haven't compared the two, however. I'm generally lukewarm on CS stocks. I suspect I'd like their Super XX just fine, however. But I've had a lot of challenges with their stock that's converted from Vision.
@@DavidHancock I just bought several roles of their Super XX, 50D and the 800Tungsten. Thought I'd give them a try. Your video will help my selection of scenes to photograph with the Super XX
@@DavidHancock You mention that the film is reasonably price. I checked with B&H and they have 5222 $322 for a 400' role which is $80.50/100' which is about the average price of most bulk film. Has the price gone up? Should I look else where for the film?
curious now if my expired but uncracked 400' box of Eastman Kodak's "Official Film of the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics" (5294 500T) will have such extraordinary latitude?!?
I wouldn't think as much, no. The film technology 30 years ago was not as advanced as it is today. But if it had been, after 30 years the film would likely have not aged well and would have lost a lot of its capabilities. That's the case with expired film in general, it loses sensitivity and dynamic range.
Don't know if someone has already commented this, but I actually was able to find precut 100' rolls from a site online, it was about 50 dollars including shipping. Can't remember the name right now, I'll add it later. Edit: the store I bought from was called Adorama
Good afternoon, I am going to shoot a double xx at 250 ISO and develop it in FOMADOL Excel without dilution (equivalent to KODAK Xtol) in a Paterson manual tank, from what I was able to find out, a development time of 7 minutes is recommended. However, I do not find unanimity regarding the shaking times, some recommend shaking the first full 60 seconds and then 10 seconds of each minute. What is your recommendation? thank you so much
@@user-pb4hz6gx1v I do gentle inversions with rotation for the first minute then for ten seconds every minute. Usually that's about 12 inversions the first minute and 2 each minute thereafter.
@@DavidHancockthank you very much very helpful. My tank doesn't seal very well so instead of inversions I have to use the twizzle Steak that comes with the tank, but I'm going to respect those times.
@@user-pb4hz6gx1v good call and if you give out a shake without flipping it that will help, too. Swizzle it like you're getting to mix the yeast back into a bottle of beer.
I've been using 5207 (250D) for cross-processing as black and white and I will do a video on that, yes. It's going to be a while. I don't have enough good images from it and I'm not in a position to pick up more of the stock right now.
Nice video as always. A question arises. For cinema projection, did they process it as reversal film, or make a contact print copy? (Apologies if I missed it. Noisy kids)
@@DavidHancock Hi David do you think 5222 is good for reversal process to get positive image? for B&W reversal process i usually overexpose 1-2 stop from box speed.
I'm new to film photography and to 5222 so apologies if this is impertinent. You commented that 5222 is a grainy film but based on pictures posted on Flickr your choice of developers do give grainy results. Have you considered trying Xtol which I think looks much better to my inexperienced eye.
I did try it in XTOL a couple times, but XTOL isn't a developer I used often because 5 liters is just a weird volume to handle. I think I liked XTOL with it, in general. It's also hard to know for sure how much people edit and alter images on Flickr, and similar sites. Noise reduction, smoothing, and so forth can reduce grain and some people like that. Also, scanning tends to deliver smooth results than DSLR digitization because it's somewhat lower res. When I make these I try to preserve as much of the images' nature as possible when processing them. I'm happy to bring out the best that I can in the images, but I want to retain what the negatives look like.
@@DavidHancock Thanks David, Naively, I hadn't really considered that film photos are as likely to be manipulated as digital ones, I shall look with a touch more scepticism in future. Enjoying the content btw.
I'd give this a go. The look is pretty similar to his style but, and this is the bigger point, using motion stock to pay tribute to the style of a Hollywood portrait photographer could be really great. Might want to experiment with it and summer filters, specifically blue, green, and yellow, to see how those affect the film one your lighting. Filters could add some of that vintage look if they film doesn't deliver it out of the box,
@@DavidHancock thanks David! One more question, does the light have any effect on BW film? I have both Daylight and warm LED lights available as studio lights.
@@randypipper92 It will. Check out this video's section on special sensitivity. Different light colors will affect tones and exposures differently. I'd suggest a roll specifically for testing lighting colors and exposure settings using the same exposure settings with your different color temp lights, and of course recording everything in your notes. You might find some combinations that you love and also some that work better or worse for different subjects. In general with this film, it's more sensitive to cool tones so that will help with making your subjects look good under LED lighting.
I looked into that. It's interesting. I'm thinking about getting one to try. I need to read a bit more to see how it works, how much fluid it uses, etc.
Hi David, I find your video very interesting. A couple of question. Do you think d76 is fine as D96? What about the temperature of the developer you are using? I cannot find it in the video. And which agitation scheme did you use? Thank you!
Thank you, Marco. For D96, I can't compare them as I didn't use it for this stock (even though that's the intended developer, I couldn't get my hands on any when I was developing this.) For temperature, I try to use 72 Fahrenheit (20 Celsius) and I keep my distilled and filtered water at room temp (so sometimes a degree or two cooler) to help control water temperature. I use the typical agitation of rotate and spin for a minute and then three inversions every minute thereafter. In the first minute, they usually get seven to twelve inversions.
@@leoncinomarco Yup! That's it. Also, distilled water is the best, but can be expensive fast. A used Britta filter from a garage sale will give you filtered water that will improve your chemistry quality cheaply.
Did you end up getting results for pushing this film with stock D76? The times and Temps on massive dev chart seem to be a bit inconsistent. I realize you probably dev'd this a while ago, so if not thank you anyways.
I don't recall all the combinations I used. There's an index in the video that shows all the developer and ISO combinations and has time links that will take you right to that section.
Thank you and correct. The exact process for motion film is a bit complex. As I understand it, the image is recorded onto a negative, transferred onto an interpositive stock that's then used for editing, finalized and transferred onto an internegative stock that's used for producing the release reels, and then transferred onto the release positive. Internegative and interpositive stocks are SUPER fine grain (I use one from time to time, Kodak 2383, and it's 1.6 ISO when developed using TMAx 100 times.) Motion picture development is a long process with a lot of steps that are way more complex than still imagery.
@@DavidHancock I have never actually worked with motion picture processing before, but this is what I know about the process: 1. Negative is shot in camera. 2. A print is struck _directly_ from the negative for viewing dailies. It would seem to follow that this would get used for editing, but don't quote me on that. Either way, the print that's used for editing is called a workprint. 3. Once the cut is locked, they go _back_ to the _original negative_ and cut (aka conform) it to fit the workprint. 4. Once the negative is cut, they print that onto intermediate stock. This is the step where color timing is done. Since you're printing the negative onto another inverting (negative) stock, you get an interpositive. 5. Since print stock is also inverting, you can't use the IP, you have to strike it from a negative. To make the internegative, they print the IP onto more intermediate stock. Note that the same stock is used for interpositives and internegatives. When you print IP material onto an intermediate stock, you get an IN. 6. Finally, this IN is what you strike the release prints from. Alternatively, for showprints used at premieres, they might strike directly from the negative, skipping the two intermediate steps. Interestingly, it's possible (and quite common) for every printing step in this process to be done by contact printing. Avoiding using optics during printing ensures maximum sharpness and minimum aberrations. This also puts less strain on both elements and enables higher printing speeds because they are moved continuously on sprockets instead of using an intermittent movement. Also, another quick correction: 2383 is a print stock, not an intermediate stock. Intermediate stock is designed to have a gamma of 1.0 with the goal of getting pretty much the same thing from a neg-IP-IN-print as you would from a print struck directly from the negative. Their only purpose is to facilitate the production of duplicate negatives, so that when you strike 10,000 prints, you don't have to do them all off the original negative. So really, in terms of the look of the final print, you can pretty much cut out the intermediate steps - they don't really have much of an effect on the final result other than maybe a marginal decrease in sharpness (from what I know.) All in all, it's really not that different from standard stills processing. As far as the actual photographic look, it's simply negative printed onto a print emulsion. The main difference from stills is that the print emulsion is on a transparency base instead of paper, and you're printing it in contact with the negative (not unlike a contact sheet) instead of using optics to project it onto the print. Just like stills, the system is designed so that negatives have a gamma of roughly 0.6, and the print stock counteracts that gamma with its own.
I don't think this will ever be available for 35mm cassettes because the Kodak that makes it isn't the same Kodak that produces consumer film. I imagine they legally couldn't market a consumer film even if they wanted to.
I didn't. I would expect it would be seriously underexposed because the results I shot at push speeds that were also push proceeded were properly-ish exposed.
No. This is only black and white. There are color motion stocks, Vision 3 250D is close in terms of ISO but it requires processing in ECN-2, not C-41, and it can ruin C-41 machines (or at least all the other rolls of film in the machine at the time.)
Roundabout. My water comes from a Brita filter pitcher or distilled water gallons, both of enough are just on the counter in the darkroom. The darkroom is also the coolest part of the home, usually about 4-5 degrees cooler than the rest. So it would be near or at 20 on a consistent basis, yes.
I hadn't picked up a sponsorship when I made this. :D The sponsored videos around here start next month (but I don't see videos like this being sponsored in the foreseeable future.)
@@HighRollersLounge Nothing, I just feel that we reached saturation point with squarespace a long time ago. Their ads are everywhere, I would like to see some variety. I think the fact that this video was done for the love of the hobby without any kickbacks or advertising is quite admirable.
Super-XX IS made in 4X5 and 8X10 sheet sizes for "separation negatives" or B&W negatives from color transparencies or CONTRAST masks for color negatives or other "special camera purposes". I believe it's an Eastman "Secret Object" (Special Order) item now, but as of Sept 2021, it was available. If you like the look of John Ford Western's filmed in Monument Valley, grab a Dark Red #25 Filter with this film and nearly turn the sky BLACK! The long-gone Ansco Cine films of the '30's, '40's and '50's were even BETTER than Kodak's! Ansco's "All-Weather Pan" (ASA 125-200) was a dream to shoot high school football games AT NIGHT on pushed to 400 on 16mm movies. All of these are negative films made to be PRINTED onto positive film, not directly projected.
How this film looks shot at 800 or 1600 ISO and developed in Rodinal R09? Maybe someone here tried shooting it that way and with this developer? Oh, I'm interested with stand developing and how to agitate? Or maybe just pour the developer and just leave it alone without agitation? Anyone? Help :D
I can help with stand developing. There's no agitation. You can't agitate it s couple times if you want and that can help with image quality, but that's generally considered semi-stand.
@@DavidHancock Ah so that's the way. I found a fine method for me, I have tested it out but with Ilford Pan 400 @ 1600 ISO and it takes 2 hrs to develop. The method goes like this, after pouring developer there is continuous agitation 60 sec and then in 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 minute there are four turns in 10 seconds and then stand for the rest of time. All this in 20⁰C and 1+100 dilution. Kinda like this method because I can relax and drink two beers or so 😎😄 I don't mind if there is bigger grain 🙂 It works well in sunny day and cloudy ones which are now at that time. So you think I can try this method with the Double-X film also? I'm also curious about leaving this method like that and changing the ISO only for 1250 or 1000 instead of 1600.
The assumption that a motion camera exposes the film for a shorter period of time than a still camera does is false. Movies are shot at 24 frames a second usually with a shutter angle of 180° which exposes the film for half the time it’s in the film gate. So motion film is usually exposed for a 48th of a second which is usually the longest shutter speed most still photographers feel comfortable shooting handheld at.
When discussing reciprocity failure, we discuss exposures of a second and longer, typically. Your shutter time of 1/48th is far shorter than one second. It is, in fact, only 1/48th of a second, about 2% as long as a full-second exposure. So I disagree that the shorter shutter time assertion is incorrect.
D-96, except by CineStill, isn't available. I don't think that D-96 was commercially available to individual end users in any form during the majority of the time I gathered images for this video.
Hi David-I cannot thank you enough for these film videos. They are extremely helpful to me. Based on excellent research and large empirical experience, and very well presented. I have taught technical subjects for decades, and you are an excellent teacher. I was curious, so I searched Flickr for the terms 5222 Double-X and D96 to see photographs made with that combination. I realize that much depends upon scanning and the vagueries of internet compression, however, those photos appear to have “better” tonality and finer grain than most of the examples you have shown here. One of the reasons I checked this is that the movies that have been shot on this stock (e.g. Schindler’s List) have these features. I am inclined to try developing this in D96 (either from Cinestill or making it myself). I also am curious about how it will look in Xtol.
Thank you and I would definitely say try D96. This stock was designed to work in D96, so I think it's a safe assumption that it will perform better in that chemistry. Also, however, check your video settings. If you're watching on a monitor with lower brightness or an image size smaller than HD then you'll see a reduction in tonal range.
You are one of the best references in the world of film photography.
Thank you!
This is so appreciated. I actually hand-spooled 400 feet of Double-X last week, but decided to wait before really starting to shoot it until your video came out. Thanks for your exhaustive research.
Thank you!
You produce content I watch more than once. Thanks for producing very helpful material!
Thank you, Jim!
That's exactly it, it can be anything you want it to be.
I hate it with Rodinal, but at EI 1600 or 3200 with Rodinal 1+50 at 30deg C I love it.
Thank you! This is definitely one of the more versatile films I've used.
Whoa, 30⁰C? That's interesting, never thought it can be developed in such a big temperature :)
Can I se some result? Do you have FLICKr or insta to see it? That would be helpful for me because I'm looking for something new but only with Rodinal and I'm curious about this film in any ISO but higher than 400 :)
Great, thorough look at 5222. I LOVE this stock. (I’ve only ordered re-spoiled rolls and haven’t bought it in bulk).
Thank you!
a lot of work was put into this, thanks for the detailed overview. helped me understand this film better
Thank you! This series is up to 32 (I think) videos now and will be at nearly 40 by the end of this year. So if there are ever other films you're interested in, I may have covered them.
Such outstanding analysis, David. I'm not crazy about this one for anything except people and I agree with you that it's a great stock for people.
Couldn't agree more that they should definitely sell it in consumer rolls.
Thank you!
great video on one of my favourites! I once used a red 25 filter with 5222 and the results were great!
Thank you!
Hi David, I tried Double-X in 510-Pyro 1+100 giving a speed of ISO 125.
Same development time like Ilford FP4+ for gamma 0.55.
I compared both films and did enlargements of 16x.
Both came free of grain (tanning developer) but at the edge of resolution with these films at this enlargement..
Green grass and blue sky is slightly lighter than with the FP4+ or in other words: An Ilford FP4+ with a light yellow-green filter will give you the same results.
I couldn't find any other difference.
Material costs for Double-X (fresh from Kodak Europe) now is around or little less then 5€ per roll and you need to do the spooling job.
Ilford FP4+ 135/36 is € 5.75.
Also Kodak Double-X needs to be fresh.
Thank you! That's a great comparison and will help a lot of photographers in Europe, I think.
I've shot close to 1200 feet of this film. I didn't start to like it until 20 rolls into shooting it. At first I found it "too clean" almost like a digital still converted to BW. I finally settled at ISO800 and and HC-110 dilution B to be my favorite combo, which yields the perfect amount of grain for my taste. As for handling 400 feet, I use a large dark bag and basically just wind the film to a new spool until the two rolls are the same diameter. I'll can one of the halves and then split the other half in a similar process. Great video and content!
Thank you! 800 and HC-110 would be good pairing for this film, too. Good choice.
Thank you!
Thank you!
I love this series Dave! I’ve shot some of this myself, and I found it really good in Urban / street environments which matches up well with your observation that it is a good portrait stock. If I’m not mistaken this stock became popular with photographers when it was learned that Schindler’s List and Raging Bull were filmed on it. I don’t remember what I developed it in, probably HC110 and it came out great.
I didn't know those were shot on it. I asked the Kodak lady I talked to and she said she wasn't able to give me names of films made with it.
In 50 years as a B&W fine art photographer this has got to be the most compact and concise collection of everything you should NEVER do, that I have ever seen. Virtually every single image is irretrievably underexposed and absurdly overdeveloped. And almost every single technical point he makes, is flat out wrong, often precisely the opposite of true. I am absolutely STUNNED!!!
So, the way to make this comment is to start by asking, hey, 'I have a question about how you arrived at these points' or 'hey, what's going on with the exposures in your images' and to give the creator (that's me) the opportunity to provide an explanation, which I'll do anyway.
1- 50 years is a great run. Nicely done. I'm 14 years behind you so I completely believe you have more experience.
2- All of this is derived from first-hand testing and the technical details are based on the means and manner of interpretation detailed in scholarly technical journals. I enjoy reading and analyzing scholarly technical stuff and have done it for a living for years, so it's work and a hobby.
3- A lot of the "underexposure" in the videos in this series, especially the old ones like this, stems from a number of factors relating to:
a- The software I used to be able to afford for these was either the stock Windows 7 movie editor or, later, Vegas Movie Studio 14-16, all four of those had terrible compression algorithms.
b- The images in these videos were digitized at 24 megapixels and then downsampled to 1080 and then compressed by the video editor. That's a lot of compression, but we're not done.
c- CZcams compresses videos for storage. CZcams further compresses videos for playback. Your ISP, especially if you're on your phone, compresses videos even further to save bandwidth. So these videos when played back have been compressed at least five times before you even see them.
d- If you're watching on your phone, the screen on that will have a much higher contrast than a monitor or TV. If you're watching on a monitor, you're still seeing that highly-compressed and re-compressed video.
So there are always factors working in opposition to these, and any, photography gear review videos on CZcams, be it film, lenses, cameras, sensors, audio, etc.. The idea with these videos is to give photographers a chance to preview film performance before they buy and also be a starting point for their understanding of how the film works and what developers they want to try or avoid.
And here's an opportunity for you: You've made the claim that my technical interpretations are wrong. (Fun fact, when I talked with one of Eastman Kodak's film emulsion engineers before making this video and ran my interpretations past her, she agreed that I had a correct understanding,) but I'm happy to give you a platform here: Post a link to a video or article that you have made about this film with "correct" technical interpretations. You've made a claim -- back it up with your own work and analysis. That's what I've done with this video and now it's your turn.
Hi David-I cannot thank you enough for these film videos. They are extremely helpful to me. Based on excellent research and large empirical experience, and very well presented. I have taught technical subjects for decades, and you are an excellent teacher. I was curious, so I searched Flickr for the terms 5222 Double-X and D96 to see photographs made with that combination. I realize that much depends upon scanning and the vagueries of internet compression, however, those photos appear to have “better” tonality and finer grain than most of the examples you have shown here. One of the reasons I checked this is that the movies that have been shot on this stock (e.g. Schindler’s List) have these features. I am inclined to try developing this in D96 (either from Cinestill or making it myself). I also am curious about how it will look in Xtol.
Thank you! I think that it will work very well in XTOL, but I don't have a sense of how D96 performs (never having used it) so I can't hazard a guess there.
What an awesome review, please keep doing these, I'm a big fan.....I've seen these from cinestill here( I live in czech republic) but they are so damm expensive. I guess I'll have to jump into the big rolls
Thank you! The CineStill Double-X is super expensive here in the U.S., too.
How very interesting. I've read about (old) Double X film in a 1950's "The Leica Manual," but by the late 1960's, it was either Panatomic-X Plus-X, or Tri-X Pan. Respooled Cine film has always been very interesting, even if it has more in common with Ektachrome than down-rated Tri-X Pan.
Thank you. This Double-X is WAY different from the vintage XX stock. I tend to agree that cine film in still is fascinating. There's nothing that delivers image quality quite like it.
Thank you for putting so much detail into this. Greatly appreciated and valuable
Thank you!
For Reciprocity failure - I did long exposure night shot, doubling my metered time and image came way overexposed, 1stop for sure
Oh interesting. I wonder if it doesn''t need correction.
@@DavidHancock forgot to say it also looked overexposed on a contact print as well as on a scan. Other long exposure night shot from the same roll with doubled metered time was also overexposed on a scan but looked fine on a contact print. go figure ))
Grandchild of the stock Citizen Kane was shot on, Super XX.
The only reason Toland could get the depth of field and light he wanted, was because of the new film stock.
Possible the number of "X'''s indicate how fast the film is and/or push-ability, as in "tricks" happy Tri-X.
Oh nice. I didn't know this was descended from Super XX.
This is the film stock that I've always put in my bag. I rate it from 100-3200 and processed with different developers depend on the situation. For 250 and below I develop it with Pyrocat HD, above 500 for push process I use POTA variant and Acufine.
Nice and thank you!
Great analysis but motion picture film cameras generally expose each frame for 1/48th-1/70th of a second when running at 24fps so actually for a longer time than you’d usually want for a single frame skill
Thank you for catching that.
11:00 Hmmm... Doesn't the spectral sensitivity curve somewhat resemble that of T-MAX 100? That too tends to be much more sensitive on the blue-violet end and has a cliff-like dropoff from orange-red onwards.
Good catch, it does. I hadn't looked at the datasheet for TMAx 100 before.
I pushed to 3200 iso, pretty contrasty but lovely results, i developed in ilfotec dd-x 1+4, 16 minutes at 20°
Nice! Thank you.
Great Review as always David. I thought there is a better/easier way to spool the 400' into 100'. But the last minute of the video made me go and take a Tylenol and a glass of Zero Coke...
:D
Hey Sharon, I don't mean to contradict David, but I did this recently in a full-sized darkroom, and it took me about an hour, two at the most. My secret: Bring a friend in there with you and have him or her hold the bag the film comes in while you roll it onto a spool that you hold. He or she adjusts tension based on your feedback. Lay out all your precut tape and spools in a manner you'll remember (similar to how you'd set up prior to development) and it's more time-consuming than it is hard.
@@jgugala That would make it go a lot faster. I spent most of my time uncurling film as it got twisted on itself.
This is an amazing video. Thank you so much for it, extremely informatice
Thank you!
I used it recently for a portrait shoot actually. With my flash on it the images looked super 1950's era.
Nice! Higher grain and contrast?
@@DavidHancock Ya sorta. www.flickr.com/photos/130879857@N07/48044481003/in/photostream/
www.flickr.com/photos/130879857@N07/46244252022/in/album-72157701318355042/
0:50 This photogreaph looks like that it was taken by Margaret Bourke-White
Thank you! That is high praise.
amazing work ! thanks you !
Thank you!
A really storied film stock with an often neglected history - For all its imperfections, it was used by photographers including Garry Winogrand and Henri Cartier-Bresson in his later years who made incredible photographs with little concern for line pairs/mm.
I didn't know that Winogard and Cartier-Bresson used it; thank you!
Nice Video! thx!
Thank you!
@@DavidHancock BTW, I forgot to mention that I enjoyed all your photos in the video as well!
You could also try shooting 5222 at 400 and developing in Diafine. Really works pretty well.
Thank you! I haven't used Diafine at all before. It's one that I want to try, however.
@@DavidHancock It's an old (50s or 60s) two-part developer that some like and some hate. As a two-part, you can't really control development by changing developing time. The only control you have is exposure.
Generally used for push processing, but don't go too far. It claims, for instance, 1600 for Tri-X, but I think 800 works better. Shoot a test roll, exposing successive frames at different indexes, ie: 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, etc. Develop in Diafine and see which you like.It's a weird developer, maybe better for "street" than landscapes, but fun to try. Very fast to use and not fussy about time or temperature.
Wow. So glad to have stumbled upon this outstanding review and in-depth analysis. Your work is greatly appreciated. Btw, i plan to develop a 5222 roll , shot at ISO400, in Rodinal. Any tips on development time and dilution using stand development?
Thank you! I don't have the Rodinal 400 ISO times down pat, but if there is a good combination the Massive Development Chart will have it.
Nice in depth video ..... I've shot my way though two 400' reels of this film stock . It's my go to film for everything though you're right , it does kick ass with portraiture ...... I always rate it for 200 asa and I always develop it in two stage D-23 ..... Fresh developer or old , it always looks great ...... If I want to control the grain , say for portraits , I just overexpose it a half stop ....... Anyway .... Ha ! My two cents ...... Cheers
Thank you! That's a combo I'd not tried but it sounds like a winner.
There’s some knocking about on Aliexpress
You can buy 100 feet and individual 35mm canisters from film photography project.
Now yes. At the time I made this, I don't think FPP was respooling into 100-foot lengths.
Hi David, really an awesome review! I am a bit new on developing film. Could you tell me what you mean with ‚stand‘ for the Rodinal development? Standing for 70min on room temperature? What temperature have you used for the 7min development using rodinal 1:25 or 1:50? Thx so much and sorry for my basic questions. Really learnt a lot!
Thank you! For stand developing, basically you just use a very dilute chemistry and let the film soak for a long period. Here's video I made on the process: czcams.com/video/OJYUdXxqnL8/video.html
Thank you so much for this video. I was wondering if you had more sample images and development charts available, or if you would mind sharing some more? I would like to maybe develop this film with stock d-76 at many different iso ratings.
Thank you! I put everything I have into these, but the links in the video description's reference section may contain what you're looking for.
David, thanks for this video; did you find pulling this stock has a noticeable effect on grain?
Thank you and I don't recall noticing that. However, I likely would not have been keeping an eye for that back then.
Awesome video, very complete and useful.
But may I ask a newbie question? I'm a kind of new on home development and always used the stock solution (D-76). If I try develop this film on D-76 1:3, the time of fixing bath also need to be adjusted or 4/5 minutes will work well?
Thanks for the amazing content!
Thank you! Fixing time remains the same regardless of the developer.
@@DavidHancock that's awesome! Tks David
Maybe at the time of this somewhat old video, but as of 2024, it is no longer true that it is the cheapest bang for buck. For anyone interested in that especially reading this, not to complain to the youtuber. On B&H right now, a 400 foot spool, assuming 19 rolls per hundred feet (I'm adding in bonus even to account for fewer initial leaders and short ends) comes out to $4.30, whereas Kentmere 400 counting as 18 rolls is $3.96 for a 100' spool. Bonus, easier to handle too being 100', AND cheaper. And slightly better latitude probably (didn't pull up both curves)
Yeah, Kodak pricing has changed a lot in the last five years. Kentmere 400 is also a fantastic film.
Re the filters, I thought a blue filter enhances not cuts blue light. It will cut/block reds etc from what I understand. Is that what you meant in the video? Love the videos, thanks for them, I’m learning lots and really appreciate it.
So in the final positive, the color of the filter will be lighter and color opposite the filter (on the color wheel) will be darker. So a blue filter on any film will make the sky lighter, swimming pools lighter, etc, and make things like stop signs black.
David Hancock yes, that is what I was saying - a blue filter will let though blues and not reds. I think you said differently in the video
I'm wondering, what is it that you don't like about d76 stock with most films?
In general the contrast. I prefer to develop for low contrast. It's easy to add contrast in post; it's basically impossible to remove it.
You mention you would love to try this in 120. Have you tried the CineStill BwXX Double-X (basically Eastman Double-X 5222)?
I have not. I've seen it but haven't given it a try yet.
Great review. This is the same film that Cinestill is using for their Super XX, right? Have you compared the two? Interesting to note that Cinestill recommends decreasing your ASA from 250 to 200 if your light source is 3200K
Thank you! To the best of my knowledge, this is the same stock that CS uses for their Super XX. I haven't compared the two, however. I'm generally lukewarm on CS stocks. I suspect I'd like their Super XX just fine, however. But I've had a lot of challenges with their stock that's converted from Vision.
@@DavidHancock I just bought several roles of their Super XX, 50D and the 800Tungsten. Thought I'd give them a try. Your video will help my selection of scenes to photograph with the Super XX
@@DavidHancock You mention that the film is reasonably price. I checked with B&H and they have 5222 $322 for a 400' role which is $80.50/100' which is about the average price of most bulk film. Has the price gone up? Should I look else where for the film?
@@MichaelWellman1955 It's possible that the price went up, but check the price when ordering directly from Kodak.
Good afternoon, David!
Do you think this film is suitable for a noir photo shoot?
I would think very much so, yes.
curious now if my expired but uncracked 400' box of Eastman Kodak's "Official Film of the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics" (5294 500T) will have such extraordinary latitude?!?
I wouldn't think as much, no. The film technology 30 years ago was not as advanced as it is today. But if it had been, after 30 years the film would likely have not aged well and would have lost a lot of its capabilities. That's the case with expired film in general, it loses sensitivity and dynamic range.
Don't know if someone has already commented this, but I actually was able to find precut 100' rolls from a site online, it was about 50 dollars including shipping. Can't remember the name right now, I'll add it later.
Edit: the store I bought from was called Adorama
Oh interesting. I didn't know Adorama had small batches. Thank you!
@@DavidHancock I was definitely wrong, ordered 16mm not 35,lol. Hopefully I can cancel my order before it ships, as they're on backorder
Good afternoon, I am going to shoot a double xx at 250 ISO and develop it in FOMADOL Excel without dilution (equivalent to KODAK Xtol) in a Paterson manual tank, from what I was able to find out, a development time of 7 minutes is recommended. However, I do not find unanimity regarding the shaking times, some recommend shaking the first full 60 seconds and then 10 seconds of each minute. What is your recommendation? thank you so much
@@user-pb4hz6gx1v I do gentle inversions with rotation for the first minute then for ten seconds every minute. Usually that's about 12 inversions the first minute and 2 each minute thereafter.
@@DavidHancockthank you very much very helpful. My tank doesn't seal very well so instead of inversions I have to use the twizzle Steak that comes with the tank, but I'm going to respect those times.
@@user-pb4hz6gx1v good call and if you give out a shake without flipping it that will help, too. Swizzle it like you're getting to mix the yeast back into a bottle of beer.
@@DavidHancock👍👍 thank you !
Can you do a video on the Kodak Vision3 line for stills?...currently 250d, 500T, 50d, and 200T are my favorite film stocks for stills
I've been using 5207 (250D) for cross-processing as black and white and I will do a video on that, yes. It's going to be a while. I don't have enough good images from it and I'm not in a position to pick up more of the stock right now.
@@DavidHancock I would also recommend processing it in ECN-2 to get the best results for color
Nice video as always.
A question arises. For cinema projection, did they process it as reversal film, or make a contact print copy?
(Apologies if I missed it. Noisy kids)
Thank you! To the best of my knowledge they process it as a negative and then use an interpositive after that.
@@DavidHancock Hi David do you think 5222 is good for reversal process to get positive image? for B&W reversal process i usually overexpose 1-2 stop from box speed.
@@jieli8314 While I didn't try it, given that it's a motion stock it should work. Only one way to find out. 😀
I'm new to film photography and to 5222 so apologies if this is impertinent. You commented that 5222 is a grainy film but based on pictures posted on Flickr your choice of developers do give grainy results. Have you considered trying Xtol which I think looks much better to my inexperienced eye.
I did try it in XTOL a couple times, but XTOL isn't a developer I used often because 5 liters is just a weird volume to handle. I think I liked XTOL with it, in general.
It's also hard to know for sure how much people edit and alter images on Flickr, and similar sites. Noise reduction, smoothing, and so forth can reduce grain and some people like that. Also, scanning tends to deliver smooth results than DSLR digitization because it's somewhat lower res. When I make these I try to preserve as much of the images' nature as possible when processing them. I'm happy to bring out the best that I can in the images, but I want to retain what the negatives look like.
@@DavidHancock Thanks David, Naively, I hadn't really considered that film photos are as likely to be manipulated as digital ones, I shall look with a touch more scepticism in future. Enjoying the content btw.
I am considering using this for a George Hurrell style portrait session but I can't decide, or should I go for other film stocks?
I'd give this a go. The look is pretty similar to his style but, and this is the bigger point, using motion stock to pay tribute to the style of a Hollywood portrait photographer could be really great. Might want to experiment with it and summer filters, specifically blue, green, and yellow, to see how those affect the film one your lighting. Filters could add some of that vintage look if they film doesn't deliver it out of the box,
@@DavidHancock thanks David! One more question, does the light have any effect on BW film? I have both Daylight and warm LED lights available as studio lights.
@@randypipper92 It will. Check out this video's section on special sensitivity. Different light colors will affect tones and exposures differently. I'd suggest a roll specifically for testing lighting colors and exposure settings using the same exposure settings with your different color temp lights, and of course recording everything in your notes. You might find some combinations that you love and also some that work better or worse for different subjects. In general with this film, it's more sensitive to cool tones so that will help with making your subjects look good under LED lighting.
That being said, Matt Day just uploaded a video today about Lab Box. Have you heard about it? I'm thinking about getting one.
I had not heard of the lab box. I just scanned through his review. It looks like a curious gizmo, though.
@@DavidHancock I viewed some other videos on it. Very impressive. I just might pick one up. www.lab-box.it/
I looked into that. It's interesting. I'm thinking about getting one to try. I need to read a bit more to see how it works, how much fluid it uses, etc.
Hi David, I find your video very interesting. A couple of question. Do you think d76 is fine as D96? What about the temperature of the developer you are using? I cannot find it in the video. And which agitation scheme did you use? Thank you!
Thank you, Marco. For D96, I can't compare them as I didn't use it for this stock (even though that's the intended developer, I couldn't get my hands on any when I was developing this.) For temperature, I try to use 72 Fahrenheit (20 Celsius) and I keep my distilled and filtered water at room temp (so sometimes a degree or two cooler) to help control water temperature. I use the typical agitation of rotate and spin for a minute and then three inversions every minute thereafter. In the first minute, they usually get seven to twelve inversions.
@@DavidHancock Thanks a lot! Just one last question: when you write D76 + 2 you mean: 1 part of D76 + 2 parts of water, correct?
@@leoncinomarco Yup! That's it. Also, distilled water is the best, but can be expensive fast. A used Britta filter from a garage sale will give you filtered water that will improve your chemistry quality cheaply.
@@DavidHancock Sorry to come back again: do you use 72F or 20C? Because 72F are 22C.
@@leoncinomarco I goofed on my Celsius conversion.
Did you end up getting results for pushing this film with stock D76? The times and Temps on massive dev chart seem to be a bit inconsistent. I realize you probably dev'd this a while ago, so if not thank you anyways.
I don't recall all the combinations I used. There's an index in the video that shows all the developer and ISO combinations and has time links that will take you right to that section.
Thanks for the review! Btw it’s a negative film. So wasn’t it always printed onto a print film and then projected?
Thank you and correct. The exact process for motion film is a bit complex. As I understand it, the image is recorded onto a negative, transferred onto an interpositive stock that's then used for editing, finalized and transferred onto an internegative stock that's used for producing the release reels, and then transferred onto the release positive. Internegative and interpositive stocks are SUPER fine grain (I use one from time to time, Kodak 2383, and it's 1.6 ISO when developed using TMAx 100 times.) Motion picture development is a long process with a lot of steps that are way more complex than still imagery.
@@DavidHancock I have never actually worked with motion picture processing before, but this is what I know about the process:
1. Negative is shot in camera.
2. A print is struck _directly_ from the negative for viewing dailies. It would seem to follow that this would get used for editing, but don't quote me on that. Either way, the print that's used for editing is called a workprint.
3. Once the cut is locked, they go _back_ to the _original negative_ and cut (aka conform) it to fit the workprint.
4. Once the negative is cut, they print that onto intermediate stock. This is the step where color timing is done. Since you're printing the negative onto another inverting (negative) stock, you get an interpositive.
5. Since print stock is also inverting, you can't use the IP, you have to strike it from a negative. To make the internegative, they print the IP onto more intermediate stock. Note that the same stock is used for interpositives and internegatives. When you print IP material onto an intermediate stock, you get an IN.
6. Finally, this IN is what you strike the release prints from. Alternatively, for showprints used at premieres, they might strike directly from the negative, skipping the two intermediate steps.
Interestingly, it's possible (and quite common) for every printing step in this process to be done by contact printing. Avoiding using optics during printing ensures maximum sharpness and minimum aberrations. This also puts less strain on both elements and enables higher printing speeds because they are moved continuously on sprockets instead of using an intermittent movement.
Also, another quick correction: 2383 is a print stock, not an intermediate stock. Intermediate stock is designed to have a gamma of 1.0 with the goal of getting pretty much the same thing from a neg-IP-IN-print as you would from a print struck directly from the negative. Their only purpose is to facilitate the production of duplicate negatives, so that when you strike 10,000 prints, you don't have to do them all off the original negative. So really, in terms of the look of the final print, you can pretty much cut out the intermediate steps - they don't really have much of an effect on the final result other than maybe a marginal decrease in sharpness (from what I know.)
All in all, it's really not that different from standard stills processing. As far as the actual photographic look, it's simply negative printed onto a print emulsion. The main difference from stills is that the print emulsion is on a transparency base instead of paper, and you're printing it in contact with the negative (not unlike a contact sheet) instead of using optics to project it onto the print. Just like stills, the system is designed so that negatives have a gamma of roughly 0.6, and the print stock counteracts that gamma with its own.
@@polymetric2614 Thank you! That's a lot of fantastic information that I did not know.
I don't think this will ever be available for 35mm cassettes because the Kodak that makes it isn't the same Kodak that produces consumer film. I imagine they legally couldn't market a consumer film even if they wanted to.
That makes sense. It's too bad that it may well be the case, but it makes sense. Thank you!
Hey, if you were to expose this at 1000 ISO, would you ask the lab to pull it by 2 stops or would you just ask them to develop as normal?
Have them push it two stops.
its good for street
Nice!
Have you tried shooting at 1600+ without pushing? If so, how were the results? Thanks!
I didn't. I would expect it would be seriously underexposed because the results I shot at push speeds that were also push proceeded were properly-ish exposed.
Quick question does yhe 5222 come in a color Variant or solely in B&W?
No. This is only black and white. There are color motion stocks, Vision 3 250D is close in terms of ISO but it requires processing in ECN-2, not C-41, and it can ruin C-41 machines (or at least all the other rolls of film in the machine at the time.)
Hello david!!! All developed at 20°c?
Roundabout. My water comes from a Brita filter pitcher or distilled water gallons, both of enough are just on the counter in the darkroom. The darkroom is also the coolest part of the home, usually about 4-5 degrees cooler than the rest. So it would be near or at 20 on a consistent basis, yes.
0:22 Thank you for not being another "ThIs ViDeO iS sPoNsOrEd By SqUaReSpAcE..."!
I hadn't picked up a sponsorship when I made this. :D The sponsored videos around here start next month (but I don't see videos like this being sponsored in the foreseeable future.)
What's wrong with CZcamsrs getting paid for their work? Are you 12?
@@HighRollersLounge Nothing, I just feel that we reached saturation point with squarespace a long time ago. Their ads are everywhere, I would like to see some variety. I think the fact that this video was done for the love of the hobby without any kickbacks or advertising is quite admirable.
Super-XX IS made in 4X5 and 8X10 sheet sizes for "separation negatives" or B&W negatives from color transparencies or CONTRAST masks for color negatives or other "special camera purposes". I believe it's an Eastman "Secret Object" (Special Order) item now, but as of Sept 2021, it was available. If you like the look of John Ford Western's filmed in Monument Valley, grab a Dark Red #25 Filter with this film and nearly turn the sky BLACK! The long-gone Ansco Cine films of the '30's, '40's and '50's were even BETTER than Kodak's! Ansco's "All-Weather Pan" (ASA 125-200) was a dream to shoot high school football games AT NIGHT on pushed to 400 on 16mm movies. All of these are negative films made to be PRINTED onto positive film, not directly projected.
I didn't know that, thank you! It stands to reason that Kodak would be able to make all their stocks in any size for special orders.
How this film looks shot at 800 or 1600 ISO and developed in Rodinal R09? Maybe someone here tried shooting it that way and with this developer? Oh, I'm interested with stand developing and how to agitate? Or maybe just pour the developer and just leave it alone without agitation?
Anyone? Help :D
I can help with stand developing. There's no agitation. You can't agitate it s couple times if you want and that can help with image quality, but that's generally considered semi-stand.
@@DavidHancock Ah so that's the way. I found a fine method for me, I have tested it out but with Ilford Pan 400 @ 1600 ISO and it takes 2 hrs to develop. The method goes like this, after pouring developer there is continuous agitation 60 sec and then in 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 minute there are four turns in 10 seconds and then stand for the rest of time. All this in 20⁰C and 1+100 dilution. Kinda like this method because I can relax and drink two beers or so 😎😄 I don't mind if there is bigger grain 🙂 It works well in sunny day and cloudy ones which are now at that time. So you think I can try this method with the Double-X film also? I'm also curious about leaving this method like that and changing the ISO only for 1250 or 1000 instead of 1600.
@@Bartosz10000 it's always worth a shot.
The assumption that a motion camera exposes the film for a shorter period of time than a still camera does is false. Movies are shot at 24 frames a second usually with a shutter angle of 180° which exposes the film for half the time it’s in the film gate. So motion film is usually exposed for a 48th of a second which is usually the longest shutter speed most still photographers feel comfortable shooting handheld at.
When discussing reciprocity failure, we discuss exposures of a second and longer, typically. Your shutter time of 1/48th is far shorter than one second. It is, in fact, only 1/48th of a second, about 2% as long as a full-second exposure. So I disagree that the shorter shutter time assertion is incorrect.
mhhh You have used developers which were allready phased out,...but not the classic D-96? why?
D-96, except by CineStill, isn't available. I don't think that D-96 was commercially available to individual end users in any form during the majority of the time I gathered images for this video.
Hi David-I cannot thank you enough for these film videos. They are extremely helpful to me. Based on excellent research and large empirical experience, and very well presented. I have taught technical subjects for decades, and you are an excellent teacher. I was curious, so I searched Flickr for the terms 5222 Double-X and D96 to see photographs made with that combination. I realize that much depends upon scanning and the vagueries of internet compression, however, those photos appear to have “better” tonality and finer grain than most of the examples you have shown here. One of the reasons I checked this is that the movies that have been shot on this stock (e.g. Schindler’s List) have these features. I am inclined to try developing this in D96 (either from Cinestill or making it myself). I also am curious about how it will look in Xtol.
Thank you and I would definitely say try D96. This stock was designed to work in D96, so I think it's a safe assumption that it will perform better in that chemistry. Also, however, check your video settings. If you're watching on a monitor with lower brightness or an image size smaller than HD then you'll see a reduction in tonal range.