Cinestill Double-X

[@4udience0f0ne]

Hey Gregory! Andre from CineStill here. I've been loving this series and must applaud your controlling of as many variables as possible. This is what's truly lacking in most film comparisons online. We love Kodak for still making Double-X, and users who may not be interested in bulk film rolling can always try a roll of our BwXX to see if they like the emulsion. Looking forward to learning about more film stocks from this series. Stay positive and shoot some cool film photos!

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I appreciate you guys watching! If there are any other films (or other things) you would like me to review don’t hesitate to reach out.

[@4udience0f0ne]

@@TheNakedPhotographer I'll keep you posted on any new developments!

[@MrRom92DAW]

I think Cinestill is doing some really cool stuff! If this is an opportunity to share my wishlist with someone from the company… I’d love to see some more of the esoteric/technical emulsions you can’t normally get for stills photography, so we can try individual rolls of those too. And maybe 100ft rolls of the more popular stocks for the bulk loaders among us also :)

[@upperstringsstudio]

Double X in stock D-76 is just lovely lovely lovely.

[@aidansciortino982]

I always look forward to watching these as soon as they come out! Such a wonderful resource and also lots of fun to see how different films stack up.

[@JeffWernerIthacaNY]

WOW! I've used Double-X a lot and have liked it, but this is very different from my results! I have found that when exposed perfectly with a flash etc, you get really sharp and fine-grained results like this. But, in real-world day-to-day shooting where the exposure might be off by a stop in either direction, Double X can come out really grainy looking, while with the Tri-x you'd never notice that it was off. Still super sharp though. This is in Xtol 1:1. Also, stand developed in Rodinal, Double-X improves its dynamic range and also can give you really exaggerated edges with that stand-development halo effect.

[@stacker62]

Great video! I've been a Tri-X user for over 30 years and tried XXPAN about 8 years ago and, yes, it is very much like Tri-X, at least in the darkroom. I'll be testing a new roll or two this week with it's "proper" D-96 Dev. and see what happens. luckily I can get 100' bulk rolls from a local camera store.

[@filmlovephotography]

Love the comparison videos. I always hear that double X has less lines per millimeter, because it's a movie film and doesn't have to have so much resolution, but looks very good film. Maybe a bit sharper in the comparison, but nothing like seeing in real life. Great video 👍 thank you. Cheers

[@michelhv]

I found that D-96 (mixed from scratch) gave slightly better tonality and grain than Kodak D-76. It’s worth trying. It also makes nice slides when contact printed on positive film.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I don’t typically use D76, I used it for this series simply for how widely used it is and close to the ISO developer.

[@misterravioli9309]

You do such a nice job! I really really like your Videos.

[@voradorlinux]

EASTMAN DOUBLE-X Negative Film 5222/7222 is rated at ISO250 for Daylight and ISO200 for Tungsten per their website...

[@VariTimo]

The film is rated for 250 ASA in daylight and 200 under tungsten lights.

[@ccoppola82]

I’m actually a little surprised how much sharper the XX seemed. To me it was noticeably different especially on the eyes and neck stubble. I don’t know any other 200-250 speed film other than Fomapan 200 (would love to see that one reviewed). If you were going to choose 1 35mm stock that blends quality and value...which would it be? Any stand out as the perfect blend? Thanks for doing these once again.

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I rarely shoot 35mm, so the price isn’t much concern for me. I would choose Tmax 400 for sharpness and tonality. If i shot it as my primary size I might be more budget conscious.

[@michaell.2267]

It's 5222 😉 How does it come out on scanners? Does it work well? Thank you Cheers Michael

[@SilntObsvr]

I've used Cinestill's Double-X -- I like it a lot. I agree on pricing -- though I don't use cameras that read DX coding, I'd hope to have that on a film at full Kodak/Ilford/Fuji pricing. If I could buy the stuff in 100 foot rolls, I'd already have one in a bulk loader -- but I haven't seen it offered anywhere in shorter rolls than 400 feet (intended to load straight into those "mouse ear" cine magazines), and rolling that size down to a size that will fit a standard Watson or Lloyd style bulk loader seems like a recipe for darkroom mishaps (not to mention requiring I have at least three bulk roll cans to hold the 3/4 of the cine roll that won't fit in the bulk loader).

[@MichaelWellman1955]

I would like to do what you suggest. Where do you find 'mouse ear' cine magazines?

[@SilntObsvr]

@@MichaelWellman1955 I'd try KEH in the cinema section, or eBay. Or you could just store the partial of the 400' roll back in the can and bag it came in. The "mouse ear" magazines are meant to slot directly onto a cine camera, for field reloads that don't take a half hour.

[@franciscoramos8872]

Amazing comparison. I do agree on the price I wish it was more affordable, but its my go-to for portraits for a vintage set up. On another note, have you heard of Silberra 35mm, and would that be one your interested in doing a demo on?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I wanted to include some when I did this project last year, but I couldn’t get them at the time. I did get four Astrum/Svema films

[@BarbasMinecraft]

what temperature and developing time did you use? did you agitate continuously the first minute or only 30 seconds?

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

I follow Kodak’s instructions of agitating 5 seconds every 30 seconds, even at the beginning. I always use 20°C.

[@BarbasMinecraft]

@@TheNakedPhotographer When I tried I did first minute continuos agitation and agitate every minute 10 seconds but i found that the highlights were very blowed and overall the image looked overexposed. Do you think it is because the way i developed? By the way thanks for the answer :)) Great series keep on going, always seeing your videos

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Most likely your time was too long, but a whole minute of continuous agitation is a little excessive. I would only do 30 seconds at most to begin with.

[@BarbasMinecraft]

@@TheNakedPhotographer Thank you very much

[@tomorrowandyesterday]

Kodak is just the best!!!

[@donsemo4804]

Double X is now cheaper than Tri X for a 24 exp. It's about $8.00 compared to Tri X which will run me about $10

[@Larpy1933]

As I understand, ISO is an intrinsic quality of the film - and cannot be changed. “Exposure Index” is what the user chooses to “rate” or shoot the film at. Nitpicking, yes. Nitpicking seems to be the theme here - a deep dive into technical details. And that’s a very good thing. Thanks for the ton of work you’ve done (even for this lone video).

[@TheNakedPhotographer]

Yes and no. ISO speeds are clearly defined when the film is exposed and developed under certain parameters. This series as a whole reproduces those parameters to see if the films meet ISO standards or if the manufacturer has inflated those numbers for some marketing purposes. Ferrania definitely did with P30. In the specific case of this film, I am using the ISO conditions for still film, but this is a cine film and may have different metrics for determining ISO speed. I know color film does, too.

[@MichaelWellman1955]

Loving this series. I think this video goes compliments David Hancock review kzbin.info/www/bejne/sILZanaMhLyLfqs. I do like Cinestills XX and I love how similar it is to Tri-X. Like you I find the price a little more than I care to pay for Cinestill's version. I think I will get the Kodak 5022 film and roll my own.