Kodak Super XX

I don't understand the fascination with old school films. I tried Super-XX in 1983, in 4X5, and didn't like it - too grainy. We have several great films available to us in 2023 - let the old stuff go. Keep today's film producers in business - by shooting their products.

takilmaboxer said:

I don't understand the fascination with old school films. I tried Super-XX in 1983, in 4X5, and didn't like it - too grainy. We have several great films available to us in 2023 - let the old stuff go. Keep today's film producers in business - by shooting their products.

Click to expand...

Nope...there are still old films available that do what new films can not.

Your last sentence makes no logical sense whatsoever.

takilmaboxer said:

I don't understand the fascination with old school films. I tried Super-XX in 1983, in 4X5, and didn't like it - too grainy. We have several great films available to us in 2023 - let the old stuff go. Keep today's film producers in business - by shooting their products.

Click to expand...

Because different films have different characteristic curves that give you a different "look". Different emulsions are more- or less sharp, contrasty, have a long toe, a short toe, have shoulder roll off in the highlights, etc.

For example. the now deceased Efke PL100 M is probably the sharpest film I've ever used (thankfully, I have some frozen). It's a thick traditional emulsion that has to be handled with great care when wet but it stains amazingly well in Pyro developer and gives you edge sharpness like nothing I've ever seen.

Thanks why.

takilmaboxer said:

I don't understand the fascination with old school films. I tried Super-XX in 1983, in 4X5, and didn't like it - too grainy.

Click to expand...

I think that means you'd hate Kodak Royal-X. It's one of my favorites for 4x5. ISO 1250. Of course I love Agfapan 25 and Gigbit 25 too -- but for different subjects.

There are indeed some wonderfully versatile films available today for large format shooters. TMax 400 is one of those. But nothing currently made is a direct replacement to Super-XX. And it had quite a bag of tricks of its own, some of those traits understandably prized by contact printers and UV alt printers. Once you get into 8x10 or ULF, grain is not much of an issue. When it first came out, Super-XX was considered "fine grained", while "small format" film implied 4x5.

I am too young and don't have direct experience with some of those old films. But I love reading the threads where they are discussed. My interpretation of that is none of it matters in the age of scanning. Once people start nostalgically recalling how film XYZ allowed them to control shadows/highlights or bringing meaningless terms like tones separation it becomes clear what they are nostalgic about. The good ole "analog" tricks to control the curve. Well... none of that matters to us, hybrid people, because we can bend the curve to any shape digitally. All we need is a good long+straight starting point and decently looking grain. That's what the modern emulsions deliver.

I am not trying to start "why scan?!" flame war. Simply pointing out that since 99.99% of people scan their negatives, this effectively kills the need (market) for various B/W emulsions catering to the wet printing workflow. And the scanning crowd has unlimited options for digital bending of T-Max 400 or HP5+ to their will.

Steven Lee said:

since 99.99% of people scan their negatives,

Click to expand...

I missed which poll you were referring to.

Let's see. This is still the so-called Analog side of the forum. So it's perfectly legal here to state that quite a number of us might call scanning a rather poor substitute for directly printing film. Yeah, a few people get good at mimicking their own past darkroom work via that workflow, but only because they knew what look they wanted to begin with. I can't imagine ANY of them doing what I did in just an afternoon session yesterday in terms of the sheer nuance of tonality and gradation available to a darkroom printer with ease, which I've never seen adequately mimicked digitally short of very expensive tri and quad industrial press operations; and I'm not referring to common offset.

Curve bending is not the same thing at all as having a straight line film. If it can be bent and reconfigured using a computer app, it can be done by some traditional masking technique too, and has been myriads of times before you were born. But if it ain't on the exposure to begin with, then neither category of methodology will work.

But even putting TMY400 and HP5 into the same phrase doesn't make sense if you're speaking of straightening out curves, because TMY has a significantly longer straight line to begin with. And I have sure shot and printed a lot of both. And once you do apply heavy hand to reconfigure a curve, it doesn't mean you'll have consistent quality the whole distance.

And finally, film scanners are dying off way faster than film itself ! The mere notion that 99.99 % of people who still actually shoot film, scan it, is, as they say, MALARKY! It's like those political polls based on a statistical sample of three people standing around in a fishing bait shop who are all cousins, being polled by yet another cousin, there for the same sort of bait.

Just to be clear: I really do not want to get into the digital side here. I mentioned that only because it's relevant to this topic. Often I've been wondering myself: why some films survived while others were discontinued? Obviously, market forces is the answer. But what's the driving force behind those market forces? I think the answer is versatility. The most versatile and flexible emulsions won, and digital processing is just the most popular way of exploiting their versatility.

Steven Lee said:

Just to be clear: I really do not want to get into the digital side here. I mentioned that only because it's relevant to this topic. Often I've been wondering myself: why some films survived while others were discontinued? Obviously, market forces is the answer. But what's the driving force behind those market forces? I think the answer is versatility. The most versatile and flexible emulsions won, and digital processing is just the most popular way of exploiting their versatility.

Click to expand...

Not just versatility.
Also because usage changed.
When I started doing wedding photography, the quality of 35mm film was such that it was barely usable for most, but not all of what the customers wanted and required.
Modern 35mm film can do almost everything that I asked of 120 film back in that time. And that incudes (or would include) 35mm film in an entirely optical workflow.
When I was doing newspaper photography, the quality of reproduction at the newspaper printing stage meant that the relatively grainy higher speed 35mm films were fine for that end use. If you were using film now for newspaper work, most of the output would be shared digitally, but the higher quality of modern printing methods would be well matched to modern films.

Vaughn said:

Nope...there are still old films available that do what new films can not.

Your last sentence makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Click to expand...

My apologies, I'm saying that if you like a modern emulsion, keep buying it, so they'll keep making it. The older emulsions died out due a lack of market. If they fit your style, use them. But having shot every available (to me) Kodak B/W emulsion available over the last 50 years, I'm quite happy with what's available now. If I found a freezer full of 120 Panatomic-X and Efke 25 at an estate sale, I'd certainly buy it, but I'm not going to base my style on them.

I've stated it before, Steven, but one reason for Kodak's sea change in film manufacture is that they sought to replace multiple film applications by introducing a new product line which was highly versatile, and appropriate for all film format sizes, namely the TMax series. It was conceived of as replacing Super-XX as a color separation film, PlusX pan as a portrait film if appropriately developed, Tri-X as a journalistic and general purpose film, and even Tech Pan for a number of forensic and scientific applications. That change made a lot of business sense going forward. But old dogs don't like learning new tricks, and pros tended to like their particular film choices just as they were, without the need to alter development regimens or re-train assistants. So the long tug of war began; and in the end, the only dinosaur that remained was Triassic-X, after its own near-extinction.

Super-XX required a dedicated coating operation which either meant rebuilding the whole apparatus once it wore out, or phasing it out and standardizing on modern thin-emulsion coatings. The handwriting was on the wall. Bergger 200 was a reasonably worthy EU replacement for Super-XX, and might still be around if the facilities were. Foma 200, on the other hand, only shares the straight-line characteristic and none of the other features. So that leaves us with two speeds of TMax as the best alternate, not quite the same length of straight line, but with far finer grain and distinct improvements in spectral response, some of it more apparent in technical applications than general photography.

So yeah, we still have some excellent film choices, probably the best ever. But there still reasons to be nostalgic about older films and prior printing papers and the special kind of looks they could provide. And that fact isn't forgotten by manufacturers either. Any "retro" product is a forward-looking & backward-looking aspiration.

But I can't think of a single black and white or color film at the present specifically designed around scanning or hybrid usage. Kodak did at one point overcoat some of their sheet films for sake of better scanning, namely, less Newton ring risk. That was important once "retouching tooth" was no longer applied to many b&w sheet films and they became slicker. And it helped darkroom workers like me for the same reason. But the emulsions were the same, or underwent their own slight internal evolutions parallel to being optimized for optical printing applications too. It's RA4 papers which have mostly been re-tweaked for sake of cooperating better with scanned or digital file content, not films themselves.

So the long-term trend in film so far has not been dominated by any alleged proliferation in DIY scanners at all, but by the progressive downsizing of cameras made possible by finer-grained, higher acutance films of superior quality control, along with better lenses. And due to that fact itself, many of those smaller shots are harder to do full justice to without serious Creo and drum scanners, themselves being kept alive mostly by cannibalizing spare parts from other old one.

Steven Lee said:

The most versatile and flexible emulsions won

Click to expand...

Yet another poll that I missed. Looks like I need to pay more attention.

The only polls I've seen found that the films that "won" are the ones that sold the most & made the most money -- which is basically the same thing.

It's a good thing I stocked up on Agfapan 25 and Ektar 25 when I did.

Well, I'm glad I stocked up on Ektar 100 instead, and especially in 8x10 sheets. It's a helluva better film than Ektar 25 in every respect, even when shooting 35mm.

In my experience a true straight line film is an uncommon thing. S- or J- shaped curves are much more common.

DREW WILEY said:

I've stated it before, Steven, but one reason for Kodak's sea change in film manufacture is that they sought to replace multiple film applications by introducing a new product line which was highly versatile, and appropriate for all film format sizes, namely the TMax series.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a culture war between engineers and photographers I am closer to the Ilford community due to geography/history, but what you've described reminds me of the Delta vs HP5+ split in this camp. Either way, I agree that the choices we still have in the B/W market are pretty fantastic, and I haven't even tried some options like the ADOX products.

@takilmaboxer Depends on the developer maybe? HP5+ in DD-X or Xtol can give you remarkably straight and long curve. Drew disagrees with me here as he preferes the T-Max series, but I have not bumped into any HP5+ limitations regarding the length of its straight curve. Even living in a boring NorCal with a lot of annoying sun and mid-day contrast, HP5+ gives you plenty of range with minimal effort, assuming you're not deficient with your digitization workflow. Not to sound like a fanboy, but I see no reason to use other ISO 400 films.

I have many many examples why HP5 struggles with high contrast. I shot and printed a lot of HP5 in 8X10. It can really be lovely. For example, out along the coast when the fog is in, you get natural softbox conditions where HP5 ca perform superbly, but once the sun breaks out around noon or so in the redwoods, you've got an 11 or 12 stop range to contend with, which can be fascinating to compose with, but which also presents a real challenge for most films, including HP5.

So I'd typically go out with one 8X10 holder with HP5 in it, another holder with either TMax 400 or Bergger 200 in it, and a third holder with color film. But I found both HP5 and Bergger 200 too grainy to my taste for smaller 4X5 usage.

With care, TMY400 can handle 11 stop range without resorting to compressing or ZS minus tactics. Old Super XX could handle it fine, as well as Bergger 200, but not HP5, not even FP4 or Delta 100, although there are ways of improving all of those in such cases. With HP5, I'd use supplementary masking, which in effect is the original version of curve control, yet with added benefits like precise control of edge effect, along with a certain amount of automatic dodging and burning if produced with that in mind. But even then, it's no match for TMax films in the first place.

If you are of a one-film mindset, then by all means, figure out every realistic trick you can do with it. I've discovered that TMY is a far more versatile film than HP5, and I don't need to worry about its grain in smaller formats. But I still often resort to other films like HP5 and FP4 for their own features and signature look, as well as for sake of their gentler price point. I generally keep FP4 and TMX100 on hand for masking and duplicating purposes, so might as well shoot some of that too. Fuji Acros has been another favorite, and in small formats, all kinds of things including Pan F once in awhile, and when it was still around, a lot of Efke R25, which itself had a very long scale film (just the opposite of Pan F with its exaggerated S-curve and very limited contrast scale better suited to falling snow and rain or beach fog). All of them can produce excellent prints if wisely used.

So I enjoy working with all kinds of films; but I learned a long time ago the merits of a "straight line" film when that's what you really need. Of course, it's all relative. Straight line films have a toe too; it's just very short. Or I should say, they had a very short toe, in the past tense. Foma 200 is a last straight line film still around, but is no substitute for the flexibility of the "Rest in Peace" 200's. So yeah, if Super XX could be reincarnated, I'd buy it.

With today's technology, they could probably not just reincarnate it, but improve it as well. But would it sell?

DREW WILEY said:

Well, I'm glad I stocked up on Ektar 100 instead, and especially in 8x10 sheets. It's a helluva better film than Ektar 25 in every respect, even when shooting 35mm.

Click to expand...

Ektar 25 and 100 were introduced in 1989 and discontinued in 1994. A new and different Ektar 100 was introduced 2008. I assume you think the new Ektar 100 (2008) is better than the old Ektar 25 (1988), which comes as no surprise since you rarely hear photographers lamenting the passage of older color films when they are replaced with new and improved versions. I also assume that you stocked up on the new Ektar 100. The new Ektar 100 film is currently available in rolls and sheets up to 8x10, so if any anyone is interested in stocking up, now is the time. In 8x10, it will run you $229 for a box of 10 sheets. Kodak realized a while back that it was more profitable to sell boxes than film. Kodak is looking into developing a new line of shelving to accommodate the increase in boxes you are going to need for a proper stockpile.

DREW WILEY said:

I have many many examples why HP5 struggles with high contrast. I shot and printed a lot of HP5 in 8X10. It can really be lovely. For example, out along the coast when the fog is in, you get natural softbox conditions where HP5 ca perform superbly, but once the sun breaks out around noon or so in the redwoods, you've got an 11 or 12 stop range to contend with, which can be fascinating to compose with, but which also presents a real challenge for most films, including HP5.

So I'd typically go out with one 8X10 holder with HP5 in it, another holder with either TMax 400 or Bergger 200 in it, and a third holder with color film. But I found both HP5 and Bergger 200 too grainy to my taste for smaller 4X5 usage.

With care, TMY400 can handle 11 stop range without resorting to compressing or ZS minus tactics. Old Super XX could handle it fine, as well as Bergger 200, but not HP5, not even FP4 or Delta 100, although there are ways of improving all of those in such cases. With HP5, I'd use supplementary masking, which in effect is the original version of curve control, yet with added benefits like precise control of edge effect, along with a certain amount of automatic dodging and burning if produced with that in mind. But even then, it's no match for TMax films in the first place.

If you are of a one-film mindset, then by all means, figure out every realistic trick you can do with it. I've discovered that TMY is a far more versatile film than HP5, and I don't need to worry about its grain in smaller formats. But I still often resort to other films like HP5 and FP4 for their own features and signature look, as well as for sake of their gentler price point. I generally keep FP4 and TMX100 on hand for masking and duplicating purposes, so might as well shoot some of that too. Fuji Acros has been another favorite, and in small formats, all kinds of things including Pan F once in awhile, and when it was still around, a lot of Efke R25, which itself had a very long scale film (just the opposite of Pan F with its exaggerated S-curve and very limited contrast scale better suited to falling snow and rain or beach fog). All of them can produce excellent prints if wisely used.

So I enjoy working with all kinds of films; but I learned a long time ago the merits of a "straight line" film when that's what you really need. Of course, it's all relative. Straight line films have a toe too; it's just very short. Or I should say, they had a very short toe, in the past tense. Foma 200 is a last straight line film still around, but is no substitute for the flexibility of the "Rest in Peace" 200's. So yeah, if Super XX could be reincarnated, I'd buy it.

Click to expand...

This depends somewhat on how you process HP5+. I stipulate to your observations on HP5+ but ... it can be made to handle a huge SBR with care in how you develop. In the image below the range of light from the darkest shadows of the bushes to the leaf surfaces under direct late sun illumination was pretty large. Unfortunately, I don't recall how large. The combination of developing in highly dilute developer for a very long time gave full shadows and preserved the highlights.

Now, if the film really is limited to 11 stops or less of SBR (I don't know, I've never plotted it myself) then what's going on here is a mapping of the natural SBR into that more limited film dynamic range. Still, the film captured a very large SBR rather comfortably.

(I realize that there is room to quibble about the interpretation of the image. This is a scan of a silver print, and different people would approach the interpretation differently, but there is plenty of negative to fiddle with here.)

faberryman said:

Kodak is looking into developing a new line of shelving to accommodate the increase in boxes you are going to need for a proper stockpile.

Click to expand...

Good one!
They do have to make up for all the paper boxes they no longer sell.

faberryman said:

Ektar 25 and 100 were introduced in 1989 and discontinued in 1994.

Click to expand...

Slight correction, it was Ektar 25 and 125 that was introduced in the 80's, the current film is Ektar 100.

Don_ih said:

Good one!
They do have to make up for all the paper boxes they no longer sell.

Click to expand...

Then there is the issue of refrigeration. How many 10 sheet boxes of 8x10 Ektar can you fit in a refrigerator? Would that constitute a stockpile? And how many refrigerators are you going to need for the other films you are stockpiling? You're probably going to have to upgrade your electrical service.

Craig said:

Slight correction, it was Ektar 25 and 125 that was introduced in the 80's, the current film is Ektar 100.

Click to expand...

Ektar 125 (rather than Ektar 100) was introduced in 1989. Ektar 125 was replaced with Ektar 100 in 1991. Ektar 100 was discontinued in 1994. Pretty short lives for color film.

@DREW WILEY I was specifically referring to HP5+ versatility with the scanning workflow. Again, this is the "analog" section but the way how we process films defines our requirements and, therefore, versatility.

Here's a flat (linear) scan of an extremely high contrast scene. The house is in a deep mountain shadow, and the hot tub area is burred even further, meanwhile the trees are hit by the direct sunlight which is even harsher at Tahoe elevation. There's no clipping. There's texture in all shadowed areas and the highlights are not blocked.

The original 16-bit ITFF can be edited to look like anything. The histogram is "smiling ear to ear" i.e. it contains more tonal values than any monitor or paper is capable of reproducing. From now on it's about deciding which information to throw away, and I have the full tonal scale to apply any kind of contrast curve I want.

I'm not criticizing T-Max films, only pointing out how versatile HP5 is.