First Rolls of CineStill BwXX

One of the things I appreciate about developing my own film at home is the knowledge that I did it correctly. Having sent my undeveloped film to a variety of labs for processing, I never have known exactly how they developed it. Even with just a little experience, I’ve learned how important correct chemistry temperature and developing times are.

One potentially revealing sign is the difference I see in how my scanner produces images from negatives developed by labs versus those I’ve developed at home. Over these past several years, for instance, I’ve shot many rolls of Ilford FP4 Plus. Whenever I’ve attempted to apply SilverFast’s FP4-specific scanning profile to negatives developed by a lab, my images have often appeared rather underexposed. More recently, however, I developed my first round of FP4 myself. Using that same scanning profile, I now get images that appear like I expect them to appear. Have these various labs been underdeveloping my film all this time?

In the case of Ilford FP4 Plus, following instructions carefully has resulted in a good set of negatives. But my recent experience with CineStill BwXX, which is Eastman 5222 Double-X motion picture film respooled into 35mm cartridges, didn’t go quite as well.

Curious about this film stock especially after reading Blue Moon’s review and seeing film photographer J.R. Smith’s July 2019 and June 2022 posts, I was inspired to try out a few rolls myself. Besides, I thought it was kind of cool to be able to shoot the same film stock as what was used to make parts of Oppenheimer (2023), Casino Royale (2006), and many other movies.

Having read one film photographer’s recommendation to look for high-contrast subjects under bright sunshine, I spent some time shooting various subjects under mostly sunny conditions last week.

I knew that one potential hiccup was development times. I have only one developer on hand: Ilford Ilfosol 3. CineStill’s advice for BwXX offered limited guidance on using Ilfosol 3. For shooting at EI 400, they specified 15 minutes in Ilford Ilfosol 3 at 1+9 dilution and 20° C/68°F. Since I am still a beginner when it comes to developing my own film at home, I was unwilling to try out another type of developer like CineStill D96 black and white motion picture developer.

I also understood that CineStill BwXX (Eastman 5222 Double-X, really) is a variable-speed emulsion with a base EI of 250 under daylight and 200 under tungsten light. I wanted to stick as close to this as possible, and I figured that shooting this film at 400 wasn’t too far off that mark. Although I knew I was pushing this film stock a bit, I was optimistic about possibilities.

That optimism was misplaced.

If I am fussy about one thing, it’s about being precise about following instructions where this kind of thing is concerned. I carefully measured the temperature of my chemistry and kept my exposed film in an exact 1+9 dilution of Ilford Ilfosol 3 for precisely 15 minutes.

But even with my painstaking attention to detail, what emerged out of my developing tank were negatives that were quite dark. Reasoning that shooting film with a base sensitivity of around 200 at EI 400 meant that I underexposed the film by about one stop—I didn’t overexpose, in other words—the only explanation that remained in my mind was that 15 minutes of developing time was too long. I likely overdeveloped the film.

Upon scanning, it was clear that most of my images appeared completely blown out. In virtually every instance, I struggled to tone down image brightness.

Either Blue Moon’s comment about some film photographers finding CineStill BwXX to be unforgiving of over- or underexposure came to pass for me, or this film stock is just fussy as far as developing it is concerned.

Unlike my earlier mishap with using Kodak Tri-X at a recent protest event, this round of film developing didn’t involve exposures I was keen to have come out well. I knew I was shooting this film as a test run. Still, it’s a little frustrating.

I don’t feel like I’ve given CineStill BwXX a fair shake. But since I’m definitely settling into the mindset where I want to focus on learning the strengths and weaknesses of one or two film stocks, and since BwXX runs a bit on the pricey side for me, I probably won’t be reaching for more of it anytime soon.