Jump to content

For all you still shooters, Cinestill releases XX in 120 format


Recommended Posts

I'm not sure about the validity of this film actually being real XX (5222/7222) with the same emulsion and the same base, but unperforated and much wider. I'm wondering if it is a custom cut or a recan of a custom run of 70mm done by Kodak.

https://emulsive.org/articles/news/my-dream-come-true-kodak-eastman-double-x-film-now-in-120-format-available-from-cinestill-to-photographers-for-the-first-time-in-medium-format

Hopefully it's the real deal AND it sticks around.

Phil Forrest

Edited by Philip Forrest
broken link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the cachet of shooting 5222 in a still camera, instead of other, better stocks. 5222 has great tonality and a wonderful adaptability, but it is quite grainy, as it's meant for motion picture, not still printing. 35mm Tri-X, in all of its iterations, is a much better film. I like, or liked, shooting 5222 because it was cheap. Now it's a hip, niche film for still shooters, who have no problem paying 5x what the film should cost, if it's repackaged by Cinestill. When I started shooting 5222 years ago, a roll of 36 exposures cost me about $1 USD. Even with an educational discount, now it's just under $3 USD per roll, direct from Kodak, all I have to do is load my own canisters. 

The 120 format for XX (or whatever they are going to call it) is great and I hope it injects a shot of money into Kodak's film production but I'm not holding my breath either, considering what we've seen happen with Kodak over the last 10 years. My inner cynic is telling me this is just a custom run or a found stash of 70mm that was cut down and respooled.

Phil Forrest

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I shoot a lot of 5222 respooled (by me) into 35mm canisters for still shooting.  I don't completely understand why, but when scanned it is a complete grain horror-fest, but when printed the traditional way onto photographic paper, it's fine.  I've made 20x24 prints with grain that would make you think it was shot on medium or even large format film.  I really like it for still shooting.  Not such a fan of how much Cinestill charges.  

I first spool the 400 ft rolls down onto 100 ft rolls on small cores, to match what normally goes into a 35mm bulk loader, then use a bulk loader to put it into Shirley-Wellard cassettes.  Both the bulk loader and the cassettes use a sliding light trap, so I'm not sending the film through felt a bunch of times.  Over on Photrio I've occasionally sold off extra 100 ft rolls of it at my cost.

I have the split reel to handlle 1000 ft rolls, but Kodak doesn't charge any less per foot for that so there's no advantage to me to the extra hassle.  (I have it to be able to spool down various weird rolls of Kodak lab film I've played with in still cameras over the years.)

Duncan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Oh, in addition to the normal photographic reasons I like it for still shooting, it also ends up very weirdly flat once cut into 6-picture strips.  (Weird in comparison to a lifetime of experience with about every other B&W still film made.)  That makes it a joy to print in an enlarger, especially because I'm one of those oddballs that likes to frame well, then print with a filed out mask, to get every last speck of image as originally shot.  With film curled in either or both directions, having so little support from the negative carrier can cause focusing issues.  Not so with 5222.

Duncan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how 5222 tends to lay flat as well.

I got a emails back from both Cinestill and Kodak. Cinestill said it was the real deal. Kodak said that Cinestill made a custom ordered cut in 120 width. 

So, if anyone wants to shoot this film in this width, the only to get it is through Cinestill, or a reseller, and they can charge whatever they like. Currently, that's $12 USD per roll. If I want Kodak in 120, I'll get it at $8/roll. If I don't mind "slumming" it with some of the excellent films from the smaller manufacturers, they start at about $5/roll, which is much more my speed. As for 5222, I'll stick with loading my own Nikon cassettes and Kodak snap caps with the 35mm real deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...