Help with developing time Kodak double x

[koraks]

Yes, that's what I'd expect.

 

[Freddenacka]

Yes, that's what I'd expect.

I found that the shutterblade is very lose.
I looked at another 240 and it was the same thing. Almost 1 mm from side to side.
The camera have made some noise that disappeared now when I removed the shutterblad.
I glued it with epoxi so will do a new test tomorrow.
For comprising, this is also expired film but super 8. To my eye a lot better.
Adox pan f, negative developed with xtil a few weeks ago.

 

[koraks]

yes, that looks quite consistent to me in terms of exposures.

 

[Bazamat]

Assuming you metered for middle grey and not the whole scene, which would bring your highlights down, your shadow detail looks okay considering the tripod is probably black and seems to match the 1.25/1.55 square. If you want the 0.0 square to be pure white you may want to develop for longer, though you will start to loose detail in the snow. Consider the contrast of the lighting in this scene before you apply that as a rule across all your rolls.
Check your negatives too, as if its expired film (as 10 years in the fridge suggests) you might be getting fogging which can affect density all around. The lighter edges koraks mentioned could also be symptom of fogged film (uneven density).
I am working on getting better results with double-x too. Currently working on finding my ideal development times for Ilfotec LC29. I can post my conclusion after I soup the last few rolls.
These two shots are straight from the scanner, 135 format (5222), shot at ISO 400, developed in 1+19 dilution at 20C for 6mins using a paterson tank. One shows the shadow details and the other the highlight details I got with this roll.

 

[Freddenacka]

Assuming you metered for middle grey and not the whole scene, which would bring your highlights down, your shadow detail looks okay considering the tripod is probably black and seems to match the 1.25/1.55 square. If you want the 0.0 square to be pure white you may want to develop for longer, though you will start to loose detail in the snow. Consider the contrast of the lighting in this scene before you apply that as a rule across all your rolls.
Check your negatives too, as if its expired film (as 10 years in the fridge suggests) you might be getting fogging which can affect density all around. The lighter edges koraks mentioned could also be symptom of fogged film (uneven density).
I am working on getting better results with double-x too. Currently working on finding my ideal development times for Ilfotec LC29. I can post my conclusion after I soup the last few rolls.
These two shots are straight from the scanner, 135 format (5222), shot at ISO 400, developed in 1+19 dilution at 20C for 6mins using a paterson tank. One shows the shadow details and the other the highlight details I got with this roll.
View attachment 388514 View attachment 388515

It looks very good to my tast. My film have always been in refrigerator. I might just use it for test of new cameras if I don't get better results.
I got 400ft sealed cans 2014 so it can be more then 10 years expired.
Best would probably be to find a developer with longer times, (more even results with loomo tank). Low contrast and as fine grain as possible.
Will try adox HR-dev.
I'm also thinking about pyricat-hd but don't have that cemicals for the moment.

 

[chuckroast]

(Off track,sorry.)

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

ultrafine/photo warehouse is selling it

 

[chuckroast]

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.



I really couldn't say. Here's the first image you posted together with the 10-minute example (top frame):
View attachment 387617
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.

This is why I only use Nikor stainless reels resting well above the bottom of a double height tank on an inverted funnel. Those reels have wide spacing which discourages the problem you note and raising them off tank bottom allows gravity to draw away development byproducts in between agitations.


Also, a pretty strong case was made here a few months ago against prewetting (which I'd always done in the past). So. I stopped doing it and have seen no ill effects thereby...

 

[koraks]

Also, a pretty strong case was made here a few months ago against prewetting

I think at any point in forum history you can observe that a compelling case for as well as against prewetting gas been made. It's one of those horses that just won't ever wants to get minced up quite well enough. I always say: if you don't use a presoak and run into trouble, try a presoak. If you're using a presoak and you run into trouble, try skipping the presoak.

 

[yossi]

ultrafine/photo warehouse is selling it

Thanks for the info. Good news.

 

[chuckroast]

Thanks for the info. Good news.

I believe they sell on eBay and directly in their website

 

[yossi]

I believe they sell on eBay and directly in their website

Yes, but what they are selling are re-spooled 100ft version and it is about 52% more expensive than the original Kodak's price (for 400ft). While the mark-up is understandable, it is less worthwhile to buy the bulk rolls IMHO.

 

[chuckroast]

Yes, but what they are selling are re-spooled 100ft version and it is about 52% more expensive than the original Kodak's price (for 400ft). While the mark-up is understandable, it is less worthwhile to buy the bulk rolls IMHO.

When a good or service is in high demand relative to supply, the price goes up. This is ordinary market behavior.

 

[koraks]

about 52% more expensive than the original Kodak's price

That's still quite modest if you consider just packaging materials and labor.

 

[MattKing]

If you are set up to handle 400 foot rolls, and the size of the rolls (~72 rolls of 36 exposure) isn't excessive to your needs, the 52% increase is unfortunate.
But if ready-to-go 100 foot rolls are better suited to your needs, then the difference in price seems to be reasonable.
Like so much to do with film, the cost of the "raw" film stock is just a part of what it takes to make it usable and then get it to users.

 

[Saganich]

I just noticed that B&H and Adorama no longer sell 400' 5222. I suppose direct purchase from Kodak is an option as it's in their 2025 product catalogue without a minimum order restriction. https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/order-film/

 

[MattKing]

I just noticed that B&H and Adorama no longer sell 400' 5222. I suppose direct purchase from Kodak is an option as it's in their 2025 product catalogue without a minimum order restriction. https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/order-film/

Apparently, only if you can fulfill Eastman Kodak's new requirement that you can prove you are using it in a motion picture production.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

That's still quite modest if you consider just packaging materials and labor.

I'm seeing $120 for a 100ft roll.

Figuring 18 36-exposure rolls per 100ft, that still $6.67/roll.

B&H sells Flic Film Double-X 135-36 rolls for $11.41 each. The Cinestill version is $13.99.

So, the 100ft roll is still attractively priced as I see it compared to respooled options. If Cinestill is in fact the "blessed" supplier of repackaged MP stock and in the future becomes the only supplier offering finished rolls ready to go, it's even more attractively priced.

 

[yossi]

If you are set up to handle 400 foot rolls, and the size of the rolls (~72 rolls of 36 exposure) isn't excessive to your needs, the 52% increase is unfortunate.
But if ready-to-go 100 foot rolls are better suited to your needs, then the difference in price seems to be reasonable.
Like so much to do with film, the cost of the "raw" film stock is just a part of what it takes to make it usable and then get it to users.

I understand the rationale.

I am based in Singapore and can buy respooled double-x from China e-commerce site easily. It is about US$7.5/roll (36 exp, including shipping). Very reasonable price but quite often long scratch lines are found on the film, probably due to the use of bulk-loader. That is the reason I turned to B&H to get 400ft double-x bulk roll and DIY re-spool it. Not only it is cheaper, I no longer have scratch lines problem (cos I don't use a bulk-loader) and can control how many frames I want in a roll.

Well, I may have to get the 100ft one from Ultrafine or settle for Fomapan 100 bulk film after my remaining 400ft of double-x is gone.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Apparently, only if you can fulfill Eastman Kodak's new requirement that you can prove you are using it in a motion picture production.

Why would they care?

 

[MattKing]

Why would they care?

Because Kodak Alaris paid a huge amount for and owns the rights to distribute and market Kodak branded still film, and Eastman Kodak is restricted to marketing and distribution of Kodak branded motion picture film.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Because Kodak Alaris paid a huge amount for and owns the rights to distribute and market Kodak branded still film, and Eastman Kodak is restricted to marketing and distribution of Kodak branded motion picture film.

Huh? Why does that matter?

 

[MattKing]

Huh? Why does that matter?

It matters a whole lot if you own Kodak Alaris, and if you are Eastman Kodak and a party to the contract that exists between Kodak Alaris and Eastman Kodak, which doesn't allow Eastman Kodak to sell Kodak branded still film, or any film intended to be used as still film, to anyone other than Kodak Alaris.

 

[koraks]

Huh? Why does that matter?

Businesses try to make money.
Think about the situation for a bit; it'll start to make sense after a while. It may help to keep in mind that customers who can get a $5 roll of film may not buy a $15 roll of film, especially not if the customer in question doesn't really value (or understand) the qualitative differences between both rolls.

 

[lamerko]

It seems that the restrictions have finally come to Europe, and probably to Asia as well. For example, I follow Frame24 - until two days ago, all stocks except 5222 were exhausted, perhaps because of the hysteria. Today everything is available, but there is already one "small" difference - for the first time, minimum quantities of 10 rolls have been introduced. Perhaps because 5222 is still from the old stocks, only with it normal orders are still available, but stocks are low.

 

[koraks]

Not to venture too far into the topic, which has been hashed to death in a few threads on here

Exactly, so let's keep it at this and go back to the question of how to process / use 5222.