Jump to content


Photo

Kodak Eastman Double-X - everything and anything...


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Stephen Perera

Stephen Perera
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Other
  • Gibraltar, Europe

Posted 26 September 2017 - 07:58 AM

Hi all, please tell me anything and everything you have learned and know about how to shoot Kodak Eastman Double-X black and white film and what to expect from this particular stock (will be scanned at 2k or whatever you suggest for editing in DaVinci Resolve and then released into VIMEO).

 

I will be shooting it regular 16mm format on an Aaton XTR XC (the model with no electronics) with a Cooke Varokinetal 9-50mm zoom lens.

 

Please speak in 'stills photographer' terms as I don't understand what printer lights are etc....people have spoken to me before in this language but I don't understand......for example....when i shoot Kodak Tmax400 on my old Hasselblad I shoot it a stop overexposed at 200 asa and expose to get a full range of midtowns as opposed to going for contrast from the off..I prefer all the information possible on the negative.....thus I don't shoot for either a very dense nor thin negative)


Edited by Stephen Perera, 26 September 2017 - 07:58 AM.

  • 0


#2 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3550 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 September 2017 - 01:17 PM

I just did a shoot with Double-X negative and I honestly didn't like the look very much at all. It didn't have the pop of the reversal stocks that I've come so use to when shooting B&W. Thats probably because I kept my exposure perfect, it maybe one of those stocks that wants to be slightly over exposed in order to get the density right.
  • 0

#3 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 26 September 2017 - 02:02 PM

Here is a short section of a S16 film shot on 7222 we did two years ago. The intention was a 1964 look. http://www.deoverkantfilm.nl
  • 1

#4 Stephen Perera

Stephen Perera
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Other
  • Gibraltar, Europe

Posted 26 September 2017 - 06:02 PM

Thanks for that looks great to me Dirk....what were your methods in working with this stock,,,,shot at 250asa rating or shot at 125asa rating.....
  • 0

#5 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1668 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 26 September 2017 - 06:13 PM

Dirk, have you not recommended here in the past that '22 be rated at iso250 if scanning? Over exposure isn't dealt with that well if scanning. ??  


  • 0

#6 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 27 September 2017 - 12:42 AM

I recommend to do a test beforehand. Overexposing works against you by increasing grain and making the scan more difficult due to metallic silver. A sweet spot seems to be a negative that would print at light 18-20. In practice this will be around 160 ISO, but test first.

This particular film was scanned at 2K DPX.
  • 1

#7 Stephen Perera

Stephen Perera
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Other
  • Gibraltar, Europe

Posted 27 September 2017 - 02:55 AM

this is all very helpful thank you.....yes scanning it for sure and digital editing into a 'short'


  • 0

#8 Stephen Perera

Stephen Perera
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Other
  • Gibraltar, Europe

Posted 27 September 2017 - 06:18 AM

was thinking of having the same stock on two magazines and whatever scene I shot in more contrast I would keep to one magazine and stuff in the shade for example in the other so the two rolls would have as similar' conditions and thus exposure-isa as normal....is this a good idea???


Edited by Stephen Perera, 27 September 2017 - 06:18 AM.

  • 0

#9 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 28 September 2017 - 06:41 AM

There is no reason to have two magazines as you describe. If you use the exposure meter correctly and having done a test beforehand, you know the limits of your shadows and highlights. You may want to read or reread Ansel Adams' 'The negative'.


  • 0

#10 Stephen Perera

Stephen Perera
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Other
  • Gibraltar, Europe

Posted 28 September 2017 - 06:43 AM

re-read yes hahaha I have the set of three books.....perhaps Im trying to be too much of a devil's advocate and thinking too much about it all rather than just doing it as Ive done for 30 years with photographic film


  • 0

#11 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2022 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 02 October 2017 - 11:35 AM

I actually do love the stock, but it can be grainy without a ton of light and that can be an issue for online streaming.

 

I have a music project coming up next month where I'm shooting in the studio as an album is tracked with Double-X. It's notoriously dark in those studios so I may wind up going 500T and killing the color if I can't bring in enough lights.

 

Here's some 35mm Eyemo footage I shot with expired stock a few years ago for a test.

 

 

 

Here is a short section of a S16 film shot on 7222 we did two years ago. The intention was a 1964 look. http://www.deoverkantfilm.nl

 

What a great look! Definitely feels 1964 in both stock and art direction.


  • 0

#12 Robert Lewis

Robert Lewis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Other
  • United Kingdom

Posted 02 October 2017 - 12:26 PM

My experience with 7222 is based on shooting film for projection which is what I tend to prefer being a fan of B & W. I have to admit I have no experience with film which has been scanned. That having been said, I mainly shoot in daylight. Whether I have used an external meter or built in meters as fitted in Arri SRIIs or Aaton LTR54s, both of which I use, I have always shot at 250ASA in daylight, and I have always been quite delighted with the results of my projection prints. So I stick with Kodak's  recommendations metered appropriately. I do accept that scanning rather than projecting might require different settings though.


Edited by Robert Lewis, 02 October 2017 - 12:29 PM.

  • 0

#13 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2342 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 02 October 2017 - 12:53 PM

re-read yes hahaha I have the set of three books.....perhaps Im trying to be too much of a devil's advocate and thinking too much about it all rather than just doing it as Ive done for 30 years with photographic film

Stills experience is something of a false friend because variation in exposure is irrelevant within limits. Not so in film where shots must match much more closely and in-frame adjustments are more difficult (in the days of printing they were impossible).


  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Visual Products

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

The Slider

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly