Who's used Kodak XX/5222 film?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by jolefler, Sep 18, 2007.

  1. jolefler

    jolefler Member

    Messages:
    420
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Location:
    Northeast Oh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    At the price, is it worthwhile as a general purpose film for personal (not professional) use? Did you like the results? Thanks!

    Jo
     
  2. clay

    clay Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,125
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Location:
    Asheville, N
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It looks like Tri-X did 25 years ago. Good stuff for a slightly vintage look.

     
  3. jolefler

    jolefler Member

    Messages:
    420
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Location:
    Northeast Oh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sounds quite usable. Especially at "short end" pricing.

    I forgot to include a question about member's dealings with Film Emporium and their reactions.
     
  4. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Assuming it's a movie film, it may scratch more readily than still camera films. Many movie films do.
     
  5. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,943
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
  6. jolefler

    jolefler Member

    Messages:
    420
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Location:
    Northeast Oh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks, all !
     
  7. Mark Layne

    Mark Layne Member

    Messages:
    920
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    This is exactly what Tom Abrahamsson told me about it the other day and he knows his TX.
    Mark
     
  8. clay

    clay Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,125
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Location:
    Asheville, N
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I haven't noticed it being any more susceptible to scratching than regular still camera films. The biggest difference is in the look of the grain when compared to modern Tri-X and the not-as-good anti-halation layer, which will result in a little more highlight bleed than more modern films. All in all, quite usable stuff, and if I recall, about $120 for 400 feet of the stuff. It isn't used that often apparently, and you can wait a long time for so-called short ends to surface at film emporium. I just bit the bullet and bought the full 400 feet. I don't regret it.

     
  9. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Northern Aqu
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Dear Clay,

    Thanks. The supercoating of movie films used to be softer, or possibly even non-existent (I forget), but it does not surprise me that modern coating technology has improved this. I am grateful for your updating my knowledge and apologize for introducing an ancient irrelevance -- though presumably, if I had heard about the scratching risk, others had too, so it is not just my mind that is set at rest.

    Sounds like interesting stuff. Have fun with it!

    Cheers,

    Roger
     
  10. erikg

    erikg Member

    Messages:
    1,460
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Location:
    pawtucket rh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I got a couple hundred feet from Film Emporium last year. I agree, it looks a lot like the Tri-x I used in school, and it seems pretty tough stuff, no more prone to scratching than other Kodak films. Looks real good in Sprint developer. Film Emporium is a good place to buy from, it seems best to call them to make sure they have some short ends in stock, rather than just going by the web site. It is a good film to mess around with.