Eastman Kodak Double-X (5222) – a Cinematic Black and White Film

Eastman Kodak Double-X (5222) – a Cinematic Black and White Film

2000 1123 Josh Solomon

The word “cinematic” can be pretty vague. It’s one of those meaningless filler words that can be applied to anything and that tells you absolutely nothing about what you’re looking at. Oh look at this street, it’s so cinematic. Look at these two people walking together, this rainy day, this guy peeing on the street – so cinematic. Why is it cinematic? Who knows. It just is.

Annoying though the word can be, it’s hardly surprising that we analog shooters use it so often. Cinema and still photography have always been naturally linked; old-school photojournalists used motion picture film stock in their still cameras extensively, and modern films like Cinestill 800T, Ferrania P30, even Kodak Portra, are basically modified versions of motion picture film stock.

The practice of re-rolling cinema film into 35mm canisters isn’t a new one, but there is one cinema film that has seen a resurgence of popularity recently, and it’s one that both film directors and photographers alike have relied on for years. It’s Eastman Kodak 5222, also known as Double X, and it might just be the most cinematic of all films available today.

Introduced in 1959 by Eastman Kodak, Double X is widely considered to be the quintessential black-and-white cinema film stock, one that can reliably deliver the moody intensity of Old Hollywood and film noir. Seeing as its resumé includes some of the all-time great films like Raging Bull and Schindler’s List, let’s all agree that it’s pretty good at what it does. In fact, Double X has proved to be so good that the film has never been reformulated and is still being produced by Eastman Kodak by the mile.

This presents a very enticing proposition for us photo geeks; with Double X we have a classic black-and-white emulsion from 1959 still being provided in huge quantities. It sounds like the perfect solution for those who prefer to stick to one film and for fans of vintage-looking film and mid-century photojournalism. Seeing as I tick all of those boxes, Double X seemed like the perfect film for me, so I set out to go find some for myself.

Unfortunately, finding Double X isn’t quite as straightforward as hopping over to your local photo shop or clicking over to B&H. Double X is, after all, cinema film, and a few things need to happen before you get it into a 35mm camera. You can very well order Double X for yourself through Eastman Kodak in 400 foot reels and re-roll it into 100 foot rolls fit for bulk loading, but that assumes that you have money to blow on 400 feet and are absolutely sure you’ll use the stuff. That’s a daunting proposition, especially for newcomers to the film, and one I wouldn’t recommend for casual shooters.

Fortunately, there’s a simpler solution. The good folks at Film Photography Project have gone through the trouble of re-rolling Double X into 35mm canisters, as have a couple of other resellers on eBay, making it easy for newcomers to get a taste of what Double X can do.

So what can it do? Looking at the specs, Double X looks like any other standard black-and-white film. It hovers around ISO 250, a versatile speed well-suited for daylight and for controlled indoor lighting. Kodak confirms this; they describe the film as an all-purpose film suitable for outdoor shooting and for use in dim light.

Out in the field, those assessments prove mostly correct. When shot at box speed, Double X proves to be a solid (if unspectacular) companion in most lighting situations. It shows a tight cubic grain structure and a smooth, flat tonality that we come to expect from a mid-speed black-and-white film. Sharpness and resolution are about average owing to its larger grain, and scenes are rendered with just a little less contrast than you might expect. Overall, it proves to be an average film when it comes to technical ability.

There is, however, one glaring problem with this film that shows itself pretty quickly, and that’s its latitude, or lack thereof. Double X does not have the same crazy latitude we’ve come to expect from modern films. It can only really handle about one and a half stops of underexposure and one and a half stops of overexposure before shadows start to look like ink stains and highlights start to wash out. It’s a more unforgiving film than most, which can throw some black-and-white shooters off their game.

Hand in hand with reduced latitude comes a reduced ability to push and pull. After some experiments with pushing Double X in HC-110 developer, I’ve found that the film really only reacts well when pushed one stop to 400 under normal agitation. That being said, avid Double X users have reported good results pushing the film a couple stops in stand development with special developers. While I don’t deny their experience and expertise with the film, one thing remains clear; Double X can’t push like Tri-X or HP5+. Users looking for extreme pushability up in the 1600-and-beyond range will be left wanting with this film.

If the film sounds a little stiff and outdated, we must remember that Double X is, after all, an old film. It has never been reformulated to keep up with the times, save for the addition of an anti-halation layer to prevent halos. That said, there’s a reason why the film has survived for so many years – the look. And what a look it is.

Shots in the galleries were made with Canon’s A1 with FD 50mm F/1.4, Pentax’s Spotmatic with Helios 44m, and Leica’s M2 with Nikon’s Nikkor-H.C. 5cm F/2 – (reviews linked).

Double X delivers a truly vintage black-and-white look, one we’ve come to associate with the old masters of photography. The film comes straight out of the mid-century photojournalist playbook, replete with visible chunks of grain, medium contrast, and that sweet paintbrush-like motion blur characteristic of old-school film. And if you push it a little bit in development or throw it into a contrasty situation and nail the exposure, Double X instantly delivers that gritty, stark, look that every film noir buff and HCB wannabe dreams of.

This look makes Double X particularly well-suited to documentary-style photography. It imbues images with the grit prized by street photographers as well as the smooth tonality that landscape photographers crave, depending on how you treat it. For however limited Double X is technically, it can actually accomplish quite a bit in nearly any shooting scenario. In fact, the only time I’d avoid using Double X is when shooting traditional portraits, but this really comes down to taste.

It’s true, Double X isn’t a technically impressive film. It can’t hold a candle to newer t-grained emulsions or even the updated versions of traditionally grained films like Tri-X or HP5+. But then again, it doesn’t need to be technically impressive. It’s a beautiful, classic film that has delivered us some of the most revered pictures in cinema’s history. It’s served many in their search for black-and-white perfection for well over fifty years, and today it can still give us photo geeks a true taste of the cinematic.

Want to shoot Eastman Kodak Double-X?

Get it on eBay

Get it on Amazon

Shop B&H Photo’s film

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

Josh Solomon

Josh Solomon is a freelance writer and touring bassist living in Los Angeles. He has an affinity for all things analog. When not onstage, you can find him roaming around Southern California shooting film and humming a tune.

All stories by:Josh Solomon
  • Your commentary here mirrors my experience with Eastman Double-x. It’s certainly not as versatile as some of the faster speed films, but man does it look nice. FPP also offers this in 100′ rolls, so bulk loaders can have their fill of that Eastman goodness.

  • It looks a bit like others’ results with ADOX Silvermax 100, developed in Fomapan. I have three exposed rolls sitting in my freezer waiting for ambient temperatures to drop in the south of France, as at 30º to 35º for the last four weeks and that is at 2500 feet altitude, development times are just too difficult to judge and I am not prepared to mess about with ice cubes. Aren’t we lucky to have those wonderful folk at FPP pushing the experimental boat out for us? Wilson

    • I’ve actually never experimented with ADOX films, good to know! And yes, FPP’s doing a wonderful job of keeping these films ready to shoot for all us nutcases!

  • I’ve only shot a few rolls of Double-X, so not lots of experience. I have found I like using it most in my Pentax Spotmatic with 50 Super Tak. This film really shines with the Super Taks.

  • I am a big fan of this stuff(thanks for including some of my shots Josh!). I have more on order right now, and I just love the look. Some of the more common Ilford and Kodak black and white shot at box speed can look like a black and white digital file, especially if you’re using a camera with really good autoexposure. They’re just a smidge too smooth and perfect. This stuff just has such a likable look that I’m not really bothered by its limitations. I got my processed rolls back, and I felt more excited to shoot more of the same film than I’ve felt in a while.

    • I feel you about modern films! It’s the reason why I tend to shy away from super modern films like TMAX, FP4, etc. Glad you’re enjoying Double-X so much!!

  • Merlin Marquardt August 4, 2017 at 2:52 pm


  • I’m a devoted Tri-X/T-Max b/w shooter, but I rolled the dice on this XX and I rather like it. The blacks are incredible, deep and rich. I agree that blown highlights are easy with this film, but if you expose for the highlights a little you should be okay. I shoot at ISO 200; I get mine from FPP and that’s what it says on the label.

  • Sure, a very contrasty b&w film as it has a reduced latitude, but I love the look of classical b&w it gives…. I made a couple of albums with this film and was always satisfied with the result! You can have a look at https://www.lomography.com/homes/vicuna/albums/2082810-in-between-xpan or https://www.lomography.com/homes/vicuna/albums/2076770-entlebuch-biosphere-2-xpan and https://www.lomography.com/homes/vicuna/albums/2102215-minolta-cle-test-2

  • I actually have pushed this film to 1600 using good old rodinal developer. I had to burn in the highlights a bit in order to recover them while printing due to the high contrast that i got, but it turned out looking pretty good!!

  • I tried the cinestill version of this film, they call it Bwxx. Totally agree with what Jim said, blown highlights are a problem. A pretty big one for me since I metered most of my first roll for the shadows. But when you get it right it looks pretty amazing.
    Some of the highlights can be recovered from the scans in post (if you’re into that kind of thing).
    Have two more rolls to go, so hopefully I’ll get more consistent results next time.

  • More likely than not, the lower latitude you find is due simply to the lower speed.Faster films have inherently more latitude (excepting Tabular-grain types).

  • have few rolls.
    Going to be using HC110 @ 68 degrees F
    What times did you find work if shooting @ ISO 200?

  • Hil folks,

    I did the step this year and bought a 400ft roll, respooled on 100 ft rolls. And I begin to love this film. Maybe it is due to the fact that you have to invest time in research and thinking before developing (what I never had to do before with any other stock, as it is easy to find many recipes and experience anywhere). But between 100 and 1000 ISO (my current experience) in D-76 and a hybrid workflow the film delivers stunning results. I cannot confirm the blown highlight if in PP the highlight slider is pulled down. There ist still many information available. Of course a shot from a black tunnel on a sunny scenery will not deliver shadow details as well as good highlight accentuation. But even my digital camera would not do so, too.

    I think one has to understand this film which is probably not made with the same intention than still film as it is intended for as copying it to positive film before being projected in a cinema. In my opinion you must get an idea (and I just began) of the possibilities of PP to draw out the best potential of this stock. Anyway, I love it and do not worry if I will have to shoot the whole 400ft by myself.

    Keep shooting and supporting KODAK 😉

  • Probably my favorite black and white film. I dev it in Rodinal, 1+50 for 9 minutes. Outstanding. I don’t see any problems with latitude. Judging from the development times and amount of grain, my guess is this is really a 400 speed film shot at 250 for “safety”. That was a common practice in the 50s before meters were more accurate. Cartier-Bresson actually used HP3 when it was still rated as an ASA 250 film. They later uprated it to 400, same emulsion.

  • Excellent article. I just picked up my first roll of Double X and can’t wait to see the results. (Oh, and I believe that Pentax shown is an SV and not a Spotmatic.)

  • Michael S. Goldfarb February 6, 2022 at 12:26 pm

    I recently shot my first roll of this emulsion in my Olympus Pen F, rated at 200 (though I only metered about half the time, and just estimated exposure on the rest), and developed in D-76 1:1, 9 minutes at 71 degrees.

    Wow, I am seriously impressed. This will be my main film for half-frame photography going forward. What it lacks in exposure latitude compared to Tri-X, it more than makes up for with its rich blacks and slightly “grittier” grain. It’s gorgeous! I’d recently been shooting Ilford FP4+ in the Pen F, trying to get back to the great results of yesteryear with dearly departed films like Agfapan APX 100 and Plus-X… and was continually disappointed. Double-X to the rescue!

    Oh, and I didn’t find the allegedly narrow exposure latitude a problem. Almost all the stuff where I estimated exposure was usable, and in cases where I bracketed (when you get 51 shots on a 24-exposure roll, shooting an extra frame or two is nothing), one was always good.

    I mean, I’ll never stop shooting Tri-X, it’s the all-time classic… but Double-X has a beautiful, even MORE old-school look.

  • Hi Folks

    I come back to you with some more experience with this emulsion. I still love it and bought my second 400ft roll (in order to never run out of stock). In between I accidentally shot this film on a concert and was extremely happy with the results (for those who are interested you may have a look here: https://www.rimpl.photo/experiences )
    My favorite developers are D-76 and ADOX FX-39.

    I hope Kodak will not discontinue this stock as long as I am taking pictures.


  • Thanks for your review.
    A question about B&W movie films. If this isn’t a positive that can be directly projected for viewing, what reversal process was used to make it a positive and how did the it effect the films character after the transition? Do you have any sample of before and after?

    Thank you,
    Frank Wolff

  • Michael S. Goldfarb July 24, 2023 at 10:32 am

    Frank, Eastman 5222 is purely a motion picture negative film. It’s NOT a reversal film (such as Kodak 7266 Tri-X 16mm Reversal Film, which is designed to be bleached/flashed/etc. and yield a direct positive). It works just like regular still-camera film, it only makes a negative… which then has to be printed.

    For movies, the negative is ultimately contact printed frame by frame onto other 35mm stock to yield a positive for projection. It’s probably NOT the same Eastman 5222 emulsion, but one designed specifically for making positive workprints and release prints.

    For our purposes, Eastman 5222 yields still-camera negatives that you enlarge or scan to make positives… exactly like any other 35mm b/w film.

Leave a Reply

Josh Solomon

Josh Solomon is a freelance writer and touring bassist living in Los Angeles. He has an affinity for all things analog. When not onstage, you can find him roaming around Southern California shooting film and humming a tune.

All stories by:Josh Solomon