Help with developing time Kodak double x

Freddenacka · Jan 10, 2025

Hello I tested my Bell and Howell 240 today with some kodak Double x 7222 cinematic 16mm film.

Filme have been in fridge for 10 years so I exposed it to 200 iso.

Box speed is 250iso

I made some test stripes and the first one was developed in Xtol 20 c for 7 min.

how to analyze this?

Is this perfekt, ore should I add ore remove time for next try? To me its a bit gray.

koraks · Jan 10, 2025

How are you planning to use and/or further process the results? If the film is intended to be scanned, then just adjust the contrast to taste in post processing.
If this is intended for projection, you'll have to run it through a reversal process or contact print to obtain a positive, so the negatives as such don't say much yet.

runswithsizzers · Jan 10, 2025

What am I looking at?

Is your example a scan or digital photograph of a 16mm Double x 7222 negative which has been converted to postive? Or something else?

The lack of shadow detail makes me think the film might need more exposure(?) Also the white patch on the gray scale looks more gray than white. But without knowing how we got here, it is hard to guess what might be going on.

koraks · Jan 10, 2025

One more thing - the edges of the frame look rather 'hot': they're considerably lighter and run off in a gradient towards the extreme edges. This can signify a problem with processing (e.g. related to agitation), it can be a light leak in the camera or during film handling, or it may have something to do with how the frame was digitized/scanned. Either way, it's tricky to try and judge development on the basis of an inverted frame that shows unevenness to boot.

Freddenacka · Jan 10, 2025

It is bw negative filme that is scaned and turned to positive after scanning.
I will only use it for scanning and then watch it digital.
I want to find best iso and development time, (developer) for this film.

I'm not an expert but to me it is to gray highlights and to litle details in the shadows.

I have around 500-600 feet left

Paul Howell · Jan 10, 2025

You developing is too long and your ISO is too high. I would try ISO 100 at 6 1/2 or 6 minutes.

koraks · Jan 10, 2025

Freddenacka said:
to gray highlights and to litle details in the shadows.

Lack of shadow detail suggests insufficient exposure. Lack of contrast can be amended by developing longer and/or boosting contrast in digital post processing.

Paul Howell said:
You developing is too long

I don't see any indication of this, really. He complains of muddy highlights. If anything, he might develop longer.

Freddenacka · Jan 10, 2025

I will expose it at iso 100 tomorrow.
I did another trail at 8 minutes and a bit slower agrigation.
I can se some more details in the darker side but not thar good.
I don't see it worth another try at iso 200.
It is still lighter in the edges so could be light leaks because of daylight spools loading.
It will disappear later on in the spool in that case.
When I can load it in 100% darkness when I'm more familiar with the camera.
Thansk for advices.

runswithsizzers · Jan 10, 2025

koraks said:
One more thing - the edges of the frame look rather 'hot': they're considerably lighter and run off in a gradient towards the extreme edges. This can signify a problem with processing (e.g. related to agitation), it can be a light leak in the camera or during film handling, or it may have something to do with how the frame was digitized/scanned. Either way, it's tricky to try and judge development on the basis of an inverted frame that shows unevenness to boot.
View attachment 387592

@koraks, I have been seeing this a lot with my 120 film. Would you care to comment if you think this kind of pale edges (as seen on the positive) is more likely due to over agitation or under agitation?

cmacd123 · Jan 10, 2025

are you metering off a grey card? if just shoting a snow scene, the meter will try to render the Snow as 18% grey.

Freddenacka · Jan 10, 2025

cmacd123 said:
are you metering off a grey card? if just shoting a snow scene, the meter will try to render the Snow as 18% grey.

I did put the light meter just in front of the greycard. Not reflectiv measurement.

Paul Howell · Jan 10, 2025

koraks said:
Lack of shadow detail suggests insufficient exposure. Lack of contrast can be amended by developing longer and/or boosting contrast in digital post processing.

I don't see any indication of this, really. He complains of muddy highlights. If anything, he might develop longer.

Your right, was in hurry and did not think it though.

Freddenacka · Jan 10, 2025

10 minutes test.
I expected to blow out highlights here but can't se that.
I might be wrong but I think this is best for iso 200.
It is gray whether and snowstorm.

Paul Howell · Jan 10, 2025

In this scan I can see the shades, if you are not printing you can simply adjust in post.

koraks · Jan 11, 2025

runswithsizzers said:
@koraks, I have been seeing this a lot with my 120 film. Would you care to comment if you think this kind of pale edges (as seen on the positive) is more likely due to over agitation or under agitation?

120 is tricky. It's hard to tell whether it's over or underagitation that does it. Sometimes, there are clear surge marks in specific spots on the film; in that case, you could argue it's localized overagitation. But the key issue is that agitation is apparently different across the surface of the film. The geometry of the reels does a lot in this regard, as it makes the flow of the developer more turbulent in that zone, which means that the exchange of fresh and spent developer (to put it very simply) happens quicker in that zone. The issue is rendered more complex by the fact that differences at the start of the process may even out later on, except that the head-start that e.g. the edges get in the first 30 seconds or so, will remain visible as density keeps building on top of other density.

Taken together, the usual advice to resolve this consists of two parts, which can be applied in tandem or separately (try what works best for you):
* Ensure sufficiently turbulent agitation. Don't be too gentle when doing twists & turns with the tank.
* Introduce a prewet. Ensuring that the entire film is already water-soaked before the developer is introduced to it, can prevent the issue of unevenness that arises at the start of the development process.

Going back to @Freddenacka's film - the unevenness problem seems to have resolved itself in his case, at least in the more recent frames posted.

Freddenacka said:
I might be wrong but I think this is best for iso 200.

I really couldn't say. Here's the first image you posted together with the 10-minute example (top frame):

What's better in the 10-minute frame is that the hot edges are gone. So that's good.
What I did with the 7-minute frame is simply adjust contrast to match the 10-minute frame. There are some subtle differences in rendering. Overall, the result is pretty similar.

What I hope to have shown above is that trying to figure out the best development time while ignoring what happens in the scanning and digital contrast adjustment part of the process isn't a particularly useful endeavor.

Freddenacka · Jan 11, 2025

Thanks for advice!
I did turn the tank upside down a few times every 30 second for around 10 seconds in the first 7 minutes example.

In the 8 and 10 minutes I just turned it upside down once every 30 seconds.

I always remove bubles by puting it on the table whith a bam.

It is different types of jobo tanks but I think less agrigation is the better way to go.

koraks said:
* Introduce a prewet. Ensuring that the entire film is already water-soaked before the developer is introduced to it, can prevent the issue of unevenness that arises at the start of the development process.

This is interesting and I would like to try it. I have trouble when I develop all 30 meter in the lomo tank. Especially 16mm, for some reason 8 mm works
Do you need to adjust the time when you do prewet?

koraks said:
What I hope to have shown above is that trying to figure out the best development time while ignoring what happens in the scanning and digital contrast adjustment part of the process isn't a particularly useful endeavor.

I try to not adjust it at all but Silverfast might do ut any way, I don't know.
There is a raw hdr tif file before I convert it to jpg. I can post that one but it is probably bigger then 2 megabit.

koraks · Jan 11, 2025

Freddenacka said:
Do you need to adjust the time when you do prewet?

No, you can use the same development time.

Freddenacka said:
I try to not adjust it at all but Silverfast might do ut any way, I don't know.

Silverfast needs to interpret the scanned data into a visible representation and in doing so, it will make some kind of decision w.r.t. the contrast of the end result. Anyway; it doesn't matter - as I argued, if you don't like the contrast of your digital files, you can simply increase it in photoshop or a video editing tool. There's no clear indication that your negatives are too weak or anything.

It might help if you show a photograph of the strips of film held against a light source. This generally allows to judge the quality of the negatives a little better.

Freddenacka · Jan 11, 2025

Thanks a lot! I will do a new test stripes today with iso 100 and a few frames at iso 50.

I have some left of Rollie low speed developer so might do that to.

In the end, black and white negative film is fun for 16mm shooting because the developers are affordable and not that dangerous.
Making it continent to experiment to get good results.

I want to try bw reversal in future but that's another story.

Freddenacka · Jan 12, 2025

I did test this film at iso 100 and iso 50. There where no improvments in shadow details.

Focus was also of.

If the film is like that ore if it is because of it is expired I don't know.

I think I saw some a lite bite more details in highlights in the samples 8 and 7 minutes.

The 10 minutes felt much more stable and no hot edges.

I developed the hole 30 feet spol in 10 minutes and at 18c.

I think results are okay for an expired film.

I will post a link to the video as soon as it is scanned.

koraks · Jan 12, 2025

Freddenacka said:
I will post a link to the video as soon as it is scanned.

Cool, looking forward to that!

yossi · Jan 18, 2025

(Off track,sorry.)

I couldn't find 35mm double-x bulk rolls from B&H anymore! Anyone knows if it has been discontinued?

Ben Hutcherson · Jan 18, 2025

yossi said:
(Off track,sorry.)

I couldn't find 35mm double-x bulk rolls from B&H anymore! Anyone knows if it has been discontinued?

Probably related to Kodak’s recent restrictions on MP film for still use.

There’s a decent chance that going forward, Cinestill maybe be the only source of this film in 35mm for anyone not involved in the film industry.

Freddenacka · Jan 19, 2025

Here is the results. It is grainy and uneven.....
I will buy some fresch film and hope for better results. This is probably more then 10 years expiered. Perfekt for scratch test in new cameras.

koraks · Jan 19, 2025

Thanks for sharing that; it's nice!

The flicker reminds me more of a shutter/gate timing issue than something to do with expired film.

Freddenacka · Jan 19, 2025

koraks said:
Thanks for sharing that; it's nice!

The flicker reminds me more of a shutter/gate timing issue than something to do with expired film.

Can it be shutterproblems in the camera?

Help with developing time Kodak double x

Freddenacka

koraks

Moderator

runswithsizzers

koraks

Moderator

Freddenacka

Paul Howell

koraks

Moderator

Freddenacka

runswithsizzers

cmacd123

Freddenacka

Paul Howell

Freddenacka

Paul Howell

koraks

Moderator

Freddenacka

koraks

Moderator

Freddenacka

Freddenacka

Attachments

koraks

Moderator

yossi

Ben Hutcherson

Freddenacka

koraks

Moderator

Freddenacka

Help with developing time Kodak double x

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency