can kodak double-x 7222 be processed as reversal?

[Richardson Leao]

I have to shoot a very short scene and I have also a very short piece of 7222 neg. All the rest of the film was shot with foma. The question is, can I shoot with 7222 and develop it as reversal BW? I know it's possible with orwo and ilford, but not sure about the double-x. I presume that the main difference (appart from iso ratings) is that the base is thinner than tri-x and maybe some difference in halide shape? Thanks for the help!

 

richard

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I have to shoot a very short scene and I have also a very short piece of 7222 neg. All the rest of the film was shot with foma. The question is, can I shoot with 7222 and develop it as reversal BW? I know it's possible with orwo and ilford, but not sure about the double-x. I presume that the main difference (appart from iso ratings) is that the base is thinner than tri-x and maybe some difference in halide shape? Thanks for the help!

 

Way back when I was testing print films for camera stock with reversal procassing, I also tried Plus-X neg 7231 processed as reversal.

 

Reversal stocks generally have a thinner emulsion than negative stocks

& generally the faster the stock, the thicker the emulsion.

 

The 7231 had no clear whites. The first developer left behind quite a lot of unexposed silver, which after bleaching and second developing became such a high base density that at times it looked somewhat posterized. Borders between shadows and highlights had heavy lines looking like heavy video edge enhancement. Maybe over all looking like a positive with a highlight mask.

 

On top of that, the thicker emulsion didn't dry properly, so it was loaded with blotchy water marks.

I would expect 7222 to be similar if not more so.

[Brian Pritchard]

Reversal stocks generally have a thinner emulsion than negative stocks

 

Actually it is the other way round; reversal stocks have thicker emulsions.

 

Most B/W films can be processed as negative or reversal. One of the exceptions is reversal film that has a silver anti-halation undercoat you cannot process these films to negative as they require the bleach to remove the undercoat.

 

You should be able to get a good result from 7222 as reversal but it is important to get all the processing steps correct and particularly the re-exposure correct. Too little exposure will give very poor results and actually it is also possible to give too much re-exposure and the film will start to solarise.

 

I should think in my time in labs I have processed most B/W films as reversal including positive stock, used for titles as it is better to shoot white letters on a black background and reversal process as it keeps flare to a minimum.

 

Brian

[Richardson Leao]

sorry about the confusion... that's what I meant (thicker emulsion on reversal films). I think I might try it and post the results. Thanks for all the replies!

 

R

 

Actually it is the other way round; reversal stocks have thicker emulsions.

 

Most B/W films can be processed as negative or reversal. One of the exceptions is reversal film that has a silver anti-halation undercoat you cannot process these films to negative as they require the bleach to remove the undercoat.

 

You should be able to get a good result from 7222 as reversal but it is important to get all the processing steps correct and particularly the re-exposure correct. Too little exposure will give very poor results and actually it is also possible to give too much re-exposure and the film will start to solarise.

 

I should think in my time in labs I have processed most B/W films as reversal including positive stock, used for titles as it is better to shoot white letters on a black background and reversal process as it keeps flare to a minimum.

 

Brian

[Olex Kalynychenko]

I have to shoot a very short scene and I have also a very short piece of 7222 neg. All the rest of the film was shot with foma. The question is, can I shoot with 7222 and develop it as reversal BW? I know it's possible with orwo and ilford, but not sure about the double-x. I presume that the main difference (appart from iso ratings) is that the base is thinner than tri-x and maybe some difference in halide shape? Thanks for the help!

 

richard

 

I Don't know about 7222 films, but, i had a similar experiments with russian Svema B&W negative, print, sound, micro films.

The Svema negative films, processed by reversal techology show me not high result.

But, after consultation with guys from Svema, i understand why.

Svema B&W negative films have special antihalation, (non-halation) layer and this layer

show like light-struck film after re-exposing procedure with bulb and film have high value of minimum density and don't had light tones.

The guys from Svema recommend me to do of re-exposing at IR light.

And the result was better. But, the low intensivity of IR lighters ask of long time of re-exposing.

I think to test with chemical re-exposing too.

 

I receive of good result with print films ( Svema MZ-3 )and Sound films ( Svema ZT-8 ) and special films for microshooting ( Svema Mikrat-200, Mikrat-300 ).

Yes, of course, the print films and sound film have low speed, but, reversal processing can augment of final speed of film.

I have good result with ORWO DP-3 film and had final speed for shooting near 20..25 ASA.

 

Sound films show me high contrast.

[Richardson Leao]

By the way Olexandr,

 

do you know if it's possible to buy sound films from svema? and are they single perf? Many thanks!

 

I Don't know about 7222 films, but, i had a similar experiments with russian Svema B&W negative, print, sound, micro films.

The Svema negative films, processed by reversal techology show me not high result.

But, after consultation with guys from Svema, i understand why.

Svema B&W negative films have special antihalation, (non-halation) layer and this layer

show like light-struck film after re-exposing procedure with bulb and film have high value of minimum density and don't had light tones.

The guys from Svema recommend me to do of re-exposing at IR light.

And the result was better. But, the low intensivity of IR lighters ask of long time of re-exposing.

I think to test with chemical re-exposing too.

 

I receive of good result with print films ( Svema MZ-3 )and Sound films ( Svema ZT-8 ) and special films for microshooting ( Svema Mikrat-200, Mikrat-300 ).

Yes, of course, the print films and sound film have low speed, but, reversal processing can augment of final speed of film.

I have good result with ORWO DP-3 film and had final speed for shooting near 20..25 ASA.

 

Sound films show me high contrast.

[Robert Houllahan]

I have to shoot a very short scene and I have also a very short piece of 7222 neg. All the rest of the film was shot with foma. The question is, can I shoot with 7222 and develop it as reversal BW? I know it's possible with orwo and ilford, but not sure about the double-x. I presume that the main difference (appart from iso ratings) is that the base is thinner than tri-x and maybe some difference in halide shape? Thanks for the help!

 

richard

 

 

We have run XX22 as reversal before, if run and shot normal (as 200iso) it comes out very dark and muddy, you need to rate it as 50iso and or dump as much light on as possible and run it in the reversal chemistry as a push 2 to get a relatively thick exposure, it will be nasty and grainy but if that is what you are looking for... it is possible and we have run it here at Cinelab you just need to have your lab run it as a push 2...

 

-Rob-

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I did an experiment with 7222 as reversal and I remember that it came out with a lower ISO rating. I was surprised, because in still B&W photography, processing B&W still emulsions as reversal (the pre-TMax days) resulted in a 1.5 stop gain in speed from the negative ISO rating. I gather the negative still Plus X and still Tri-X had a different structure than Double X.

 

The formula for the Double-X developer (D-96) is overall lower contrast than the standard D-76. The Elon to Hydroquinone ratio is even with D-96 (1.5g to 1.5g), with D-76 there is more Hydroquinone if I'm not mistaken. Also, the D-76 films are developed for 6-7 minutes at 68 degrees, the D-96 films are faster developed. All this must mean the emulsions are differently designed, and consequently different rules apply.

 

The strange thing is that if you develop the reversal MP emulsions as negatives, you also get a loss in speed and apparently, horribly atrocious grain. I believe this is because reversal emulsions have one layer that is very coarse and another is very fine grained. The fine grained layer is what stays behind after reexposure and redevelopment while the grainier layer is eaten away by the bleach. That's why reversal films exhibit less grain at the same ISO than negative, in B&W. The addition of a slight silver solvent in the first developer also helps somewhat.

 

If anyone ever tried using Agfa Rodinal as a first developer, that is pretty cool - you get this huge but interesting, sharp grain.

Edited April 3, 2008 by GeorgeSelinsky