Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you, Jim!

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.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you! The CineStill Double-X is super expensive here in the U.S., too.

Thank you!

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.

Thank you! 800 and HC-110 would be good pairing for this film, too. Good choice.

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.

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! 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 :)

Thank you!

@@DavidHancock BTW, I forgot to mention that I enjoyed all your photos in the video as well!

Nice and thank you!

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.

Thank you! That's a great comparison and will help a lot of photographers in Europe, I think.

Oh nice. I didn't know this was descended from Super XX.

Nice! Thank you.

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/

: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.

I didn't know that Winogard and Cartier-Bresson used it; thank you!

Thank you! That's a combo I'd not tried but it sounds like a winner.

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.

Thank you for catching that.

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.

Good catch, it does. I hadn't looked at the datasheet for TMAx 100 before.

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: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hbCJiMeJ3dfSfGw.html

Thank you! That is high praise.

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 ))

Thank you! Fixing time remains the same regardless of the developer.

@@DavidHancock that's awesome! Tks David

Thank you and I don't recall noticing that. However, I likely would not have been keeping an eye for that back then.

Now yes. At the time I made this, I don't think FPP was respooling into 100-foot lengths.

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

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 have not. I've seen it but haven't given it a try yet.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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

Have them push it two stops.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Yeah, Kodak pricing has changed a lot in the last five years. Kentmere 400 is also a fantastic film.

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.

Nice!

I would think very much so, yes.

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'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.

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- KZfaq compresses videos for storage. KZfaq 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 KZfaq, 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.

That makes sense. It's too bad that it may well be the case, but it makes sense. Thank you!

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 KZfaqrs 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.