Shab
Well-known
Thank you very much for your help.
Saganich
Established
Nine months on Double-X using D23 and D96.
Some examples:
Double-X in D23:
Chain, in full early fall sun
Corrugated Metal Wall, in full afternoon sun
Double-X in D96:
Dog, indoor later afternoon reflected light 1/30,
Leaf and Cat in late afternoon winter cloudy day light.
Arm, late afternoon Fall
Leaves, late afternoon sun fall
Fence, late afternoon sun winter
Some examples:
Double-X in D23:
Chain, in full early fall sun
Corrugated Metal Wall, in full afternoon sun
Double-X in D96:
Dog, indoor later afternoon reflected light 1/30,
Leaf and Cat in late afternoon winter cloudy day light.
Arm, late afternoon Fall
Leaves, late afternoon sun fall
Fence, late afternoon sun winter
Attachments
Last edited:
Derek Leath
dl__images Instagram
Leica M6 with XX
LeicaM6_Kodak_DBXX_17.jpg by Derek Leath, on Flickr
LeicaM6_Kodak_DBXX_9 by Derek Leath, on Flickr
LeicaM6_Kodak_DBXX_12 by Derek Leath, on Flickr
LeicaM6_Kodak_DBXX_17.jpg by Derek Leath, on FlickrLeicaM6_Kodak_DBXX_9 by Derek Leath, on FlickrLeicaM6_Kodak_DBXX_12 by Derek Leath, on FlickrAlexMogens
Established
This thread has won me over and I'm in for 400' of the stuff, hope I keep loving it. This is in T-Max. (Leica IIIc, Canon 35mm f2)
Radost
Established
Leica m3
XX5222 Xtol1:1 Jobo
XX5222 Xtol1:1 Jobo
James Evidon
Member
I get very good results with Rodinal. It is cheap, stores forever and prodces really superior images. I normally dilute it 25:1 for ISO 250.
Jonathan R
Established
The tonality of the 'Arm, late afternoon Fall' is really appealing. What are your thoughts after comparing the two developers? I can't see a lot to choose between them based on this selection of (very nice) images, but maybe you can? D-96 is a more complex formula - is it worth the extra effort, would you say?
Nokton48
Mentor
I'm shooting today with my Makina II with 100mm F2.9 (soft) standard lens, great for lower light. At EI 200 reading with Minolta Autometer, I'm at 1/50th at F11. Took a second one 1/50 at F8, I generally like a bit of overexposure. Extra density is easy to burn through in the darkroom, or now I'm starting to digitize negatives.
XX in a larger camera (medium format strut 1930's II), is like a similar buzz to shooting with a Leica Barnack, but in the superior larger format. Olde Plaubel Makinas have Leica quality IMO. Some hate the 100mm F2.9 but I think it has charm as you use it on. For sharp stuff I favor the 1958 Makina IIIR with the 100mm F4.2 Orthometar, their sharp lens for commercial photography and general usage. Great for traveling. Razor sharp results with that one.
They do look like stills from a movie but with better quality.
The Reporters Camera IIIR F4.2 283 Tripod Attachment by Nokton48, on Flickr
XX in a larger camera (medium format strut 1930's II), is like a similar buzz to shooting with a Leica Barnack, but in the superior larger format. Olde Plaubel Makinas have Leica quality IMO. Some hate the 100mm F2.9 but I think it has charm as you use it on. For sharp stuff I favor the 1958 Makina IIIR with the 100mm F4.2 Orthometar, their sharp lens for commercial photography and general usage. Great for traveling. Razor sharp results with that one.
They do look like stills from a movie but with better quality.
The Reporters Camera IIIR F4.2 283 Tripod Attachment by Nokton48, on Flickr
Last edited:
Jonathan R
Established
Many readers of this forum are in the early stages of exploring analogue photography. It is rather misleading to plant this notion in their minds. Over-exposure is better than under-exposure, but it’s not a harmless ‘one more for luck’ kind of precaution, it can lead to much frustration in both darkroom printing and scanning.
Nokton48
Mentor
Jonathan R,
Since starting this thread all that time ago, I've gone through quite a few cans of XX. One stop overexposure seems to be well within the latitude range of the film IMO. Of course you're correct, overexposure can be as bad as underexposure, I've always been able to satisfactorily print about everything I've exposed. Consider that I am using very olde, ancient to some cameras. Also not using a meter generally, as they would do back in them days. In daylight I use sunny sixteen which is super consistent. When overcast comes in, it is difficult to properly guess the exposures. In some cases I will add another shot, if the subject is strong enough and is stationary. I simply prefer to have a choice when I evaluate the negatives, sometimes I do prefer the denser frames. It's just the way I've always worked. Film is expensive but not that expensive. Medium format XX is even more expensive, but still I bracket important frames if I feel the need.
One thing I have always loved about XX are the enhanced midtone values, which render particularly well IMO. Just the "overall look" of it.
Since starting this thread all that time ago, I've gone through quite a few cans of XX. One stop overexposure seems to be well within the latitude range of the film IMO. Of course you're correct, overexposure can be as bad as underexposure, I've always been able to satisfactorily print about everything I've exposed. Consider that I am using very olde, ancient to some cameras. Also not using a meter generally, as they would do back in them days. In daylight I use sunny sixteen which is super consistent. When overcast comes in, it is difficult to properly guess the exposures. In some cases I will add another shot, if the subject is strong enough and is stationary. I simply prefer to have a choice when I evaluate the negatives, sometimes I do prefer the denser frames. It's just the way I've always worked. Film is expensive but not that expensive. Medium format XX is even more expensive, but still I bracket important frames if I feel the need.
One thing I have always loved about XX are the enhanced midtone values, which render particularly well IMO. Just the "overall look" of it.
Last edited:
chuckroast
Established
Concur. The goal from the beginning is to learn how to control exposure and development to yield the best possible printable negatives.
(I wish I'd learned this earlier than sloppy through unthinkingly following manufacturer's data sheet.)