If there’s one thing that Double-X has is a wide latitude, being a cine-film you can punish this film with all sorts of conditions and still get some amazing results. Of all the films I’m running through these tests or reviews, Double-X is one that I’ve actually put through its paces. I’ve shot it at ASA-1600 and developed in both Diafine and D96 with excellent results. I’ve also over-exposed it and was presented with superb results so I have high hopes about these results! I also will note that this roll was from the Canadian company Flic Film as a respool!
Film Specs
Manufacturer: Eastman Kodak
Name: Double-X 5222
Type: Panchromatic Motion Picture B&W Film
Film Base: Acetate
Film Speed: ASA-250
Formats Available: 135 (120 as CineStill BwXX)
What makes Double-X interesting is that there are two ‘box speeds’ for this film, ASA-250 (daylight) and ASA-200 (tungsten) as I’ll be shooting this roll outside I’ll be setting my benchmark at ASA-250, then shooting it between -2 and +2 stops, which translates to ASA-64 to ASA-1000. There are two listed times for Diafine and Double-X, the first being 3+3 with a speed of ASA-640 and 4+4 for ASA-1600. As I’m only going up to ASA-1000 in this test I’ll be going with the 3+3 times so I could develop with a roll of TMax 100. I used my Nikon F5 with the 28mm f/2.8 lens and no filters attached. I set the aperture to f/11, had the camera mounted on a tripod and used a remote release to trigger each shot and use the EV adjustment to make the changes during the shooting process.
I have put Double-X through its paces, and it performs well for both over- and under-exposure, but these work really nicely. Now there are other developing times for rating the film at ASA-1600, and I honestly feel you will need to increase that time once you get beyond one-stop underexposure. But it should not surprise me at all, given how much latitude a cine-film has, that you can get good results across all five frames with this combination. You are starting to lose some detail in the shadows and highlights at +/- 2 stops, but with a bit of post-processing, you’ll be able to salvage those frames. What is great is even at -2 stops, you still have a stunning image with a great balance between your highlights and shadows, and of course at the normal exposure.
While Double-X isn’t known for its fine grain, I actually find these frames pleasing across the board. There is still some visible grain, but it isn’t detracting from the overall image and is rather pleasing in its structure. I actually like working with Double-X and Diafine, as it maintains the look and feel of this classic cine-film while also reigning in some of the less ideal aspects of the film when using it for stills rather than motion picture work, namely the slightly more grainy-than-expected look. But I also like how that rich, deep contrast is maintained. I’m also going to say is that I like these raw scans, they work well almost right off the scanning software.
It should be no surprise how well Double-X worked in this review; it is a film with a great deal of latitude available to the photographer, and you can easily get away with at least a stop in either direction and developing normally, which means you can easily adjust the EI up or down and use Diafine to get usable results. And you can probably achieve similar results with other developers, such as Kodak D-76, Kodak TMax Developer, or a dilute mix of HC-110, Xtol, and Microphen. I was looking forward to getting this one done, so I moved it up in the schedule, and I wasn’t disappointed.