Kodak Super XX

[xkaes]

Most of the images on my laptop look significantly better that the photographs in my photo albums, which, on average, are execrable.

Come on. You're comparing prints to slides. Slides always win in the WOW category.

Still, although I've got a lot of slides, I don't have any on my walls.

 

[faberryman]

Come on. You're comparing prints to slides. Slides always win in the WOW category.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I was comparing prints to slides. Most of the prints in my photo albums are prints from color negative film. All of the images on my laptop are digital. That's the nature of images on laptops. A few were scanned from black and white film or from prints.

 

[Steven Lee]

@faberryman I suspect he's referring to the fact that photographs on a computer monitor are more akin to projected slides, as in emitting vs reflective medium. Just like slides, computer monitors offer far higher reproduction range (vs captured) than prints.

 

[xkaes]

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I was comparing prints to slides. Most of the prints in my photo albums are prints from color negative film. All of the images on my laptop are digital. That's the nature of images on laptops. A few were scanned from black and white film or from prints.

Of course, but on a computer screen you a seeing an image with light coming through it -- not reflected off of it. Apples and oranges.

 

[MattKing]

Speaking more generally - comparing images viewed by reflected light vs. images viewed by transmitted light.
Indeed - apples and oranges.

 

[faberryman]

Of course, but on a computer screen you a seeing an image with light coming through it -- not reflected off of it. Apples and oranges.

Did you read the portion of Drew Wiley's post to which I was responding?

Sadly, all a lot of people know is what they see on a computer or cell phone screen. The accepted standard has never before been so dismally low.

 

[faberryman]

Speaking more generally - comparing images viewed by reflected light vs. images viewed by transmitted light.
Indeed - apples and oranges.

I was responding the the quoted portion of Drew Wiley's post.

Sadly, all a lot of people know is what they see on a computer or cell phone screen. The accepted standard has never before been so dismally low.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's when you can put a transparency on the wall, that's when you've done something. And I'm not referring to a big backlit transparencies, though there is that too. That's what Dennis Brokaw told me when if first started exhibiting Cibachromes. He was the main writer of Kodak's Dye Transfer how-to publication, and meant it as a complement. But in skilled hands, dye transfer did it due to its exceptional purity and transparencies of dyes, while Ciba offered a different door of opportunity to the same end.

But we're off on a tangent. In black and white printing, it's entirely possible to convey a sense of delicate backlit luminosity. And that's based of careful control of the tonality. There is no one prescription to do that, but it certainly helps to have high quality papers responsive to carefully exposed and developed negatives. Yet personal intuition and experience, with a little bit of luck, is foremost.

But computer screen viewing of color images? Just an improved TV. An old school slide show wins hands-down. What I had to re-learn, however, is exposure. What worked wonderfully in terms of projecting Kodachromes didn't work so well in terms of printing them. Then I soon went to sheet film anyway, and shot that with prints in mind to begin with.

 

[Steven Lee]

But computer screen viewing of color images? Just an improved TV. An old school slide show wins hands-down.

But a RA4 print for viewing of color images? Just pieces of colored dirt stuck to a bleached tree. An old school TV wins hands down
When it comes to trading nonsense you don't have the monopoly for "skilled hands", Drew.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hmmm ... methinks you've never seen a decent color print in your entire life, let alone a Cibachrome, dye transfer, or even an RA4 Fuji Supergloss print. I have an old TV sitting on the floor. The cat sometimes pisses on it. Even it knows the difference. But it does perk up and get excited if there is a songbird nature segment on PBS. Yet I suspect I'm talking to someone who doesn't even hear the melody; so what's the point? You apparently don't print, or speak its language, so why would you appreciate the special beauty of prints, even black and white ones? It's a foreign dialect to you.

And speaking of "colored dirt" in that manner might offend a true pigment printer or fresco painter, or Navajo sand painter. Much of the colored dirt on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel cost more per weight than gold. But you can jump into your
DeLorean time machine, and argue with Pope Leo about those bills.

 

[xkaes]

Makes me want to pull out my projector and look at some Kodachrome 25 shots -- on the BIG screen. Talk about life-like. Almost 3-D.

But maybe not -- I might end up ripping all the prints off my walls.

 

[Steven Lee]

Lots of angry and bitter people on photo forums... Drew, you need to relax man. So much focus on the medium, tools, processes, name dropping, chest puffing and animal cruelty. Seriously, you should offer your cat some of your closely guarded masterpieces to enjoy the melody!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Relax??? You sure don't get it. A great performance does require a lot of technique. Even birds know that. But that's OK. Just enjoy what you do best.

 

[xkaes]

I gave up giving personal advise to women a long time ago, and that same, learned skill has served me will on the Internet.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, here we are on a thread about Super-XX of all things, a film generations of extremely technique-conscious pros depended on, and had to master in order to make a living, not only in the very demanding dye transfer industry, but even in the Library of Congress photo archiving and duplication Dept. Yet I'm uptight? Heck, I'm just a mouse compared to running into one of the old grizzly bears of Super-XX days. Whatever ...no skin off my back. But it would help if those chiming in actually knew what that particular film was for, and who used it, and why, before suggesting all of this is just a mothball topic.

 

[Steven Lee]

IIRC the answer was, according to you @DREW WILEY, that Kodak felt that the T-Max series was good enough to use cases traditionally served by Super-XX. So they killed it. Despite my fierce disagreement with your general philosophy of photography and the communication style, your explanation sounds reasonable, so thanks for that.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Unfortunately, my intro to LF photography was right at the time The Great Yellow Father, (in its Infinite Wisdom) decided to discontinue Super-XX, Ektapan, Ektalure, DK-50, et al., so I didn't get to explore the capabilities therein...except as a starving college student looking for bargains in the expired film & developer bins.
My calibrations were for a Plus-X and Acufine combination.
Tmax 100 & 400 were in their infancy, and all my early negs from them looked awful thin, like 2 stops under-exposed...
"That's the way they're supposed to look!"...says Kodak.
"Umm... No". says me.
My eyes were, and still are, calibrated for old-school thick-emulsion films.

 

[braxus]

TMAX killed Super XX too? What old B&W film didn't TMAX supposedly kill? Panatomic X, Plus X, now Super XX, what else? I dont find TMAX to be the do all film that is suggested here.

 

[koraks]

OK, after several counts of not so subtle trolling, one count of misogyny and a truckload of off-topic banter, let's steer this thread back into SuperXX territory. Thank you.

 

[xkaes]

TMAX killed Super XX too? What old B&W film didn't TMAX supposedly kill? Panatomic X, Plus X, now Super XX, what else? I dont find TMAX to be the do all film that is suggested here.

I tried TMAX when it first came out -- and was hoping for the best. I was very disappointed -- and I know I wasn't the only one. Fortunately there were alternatives, and there still are. I never had the "pleasure" of trying Super-XX, but I'm sure I would have liked it. At that point I was using Afgapan 25, 100, & 400, along with Kodak Royal-X (and 2475/2485 for 35mm) -- and still am.

As they say in Florida -- "Any port in a storm!"

 

[chuckroast]

Unfortunately, my intro to LF photography was right at the time The Great Yellow Father, (in its Infinite Wisdom) decided to discontinue Super-XX, Ektapan, Ektalure, DK-50, et al., so I didn't get to explore the capabilities therein...except as a starving college student looking for bargains in the expired film & developer bins.
My calibrations were for a Plus-X and Acufine combination.
Tmax 100 & 400 were in their infancy, and all my early negs from them looked awful thin, like 2 stops under-exposed...
"That's the way they're supposed to look!"...says Kodak.
"Umm... No". says me.
My eyes were, and still are, calibrated for old-school thick-emulsion films.

You can roll your own DK-50.

If you want and older film look, try Adox CHS 100 II, Fomapan 200, or Kodak Double-X.

I am getting amazing results with Double-X exposed at EI 250 when EMA processed in Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:250 (2min initial agitation, 10 seconds at 21 and 41 min, pull at 60min). The negs are just razor sharp and the dynamic range it holds is pretty great. I've not yet printed the latest batch but, under a loupe, it sure looks like old school negative territory..

 

[faberryman]

I remember the days when we drove on bias ply tires. The ones with the wide white walls were best.

 

[chuckroast]

I remember the days when we drove on bias ply tires. The ones with the wide white walls were best.

I remember Tri-Chem Packs ... have a stack of them here, actually.

I remember Kodak Pro Packs of 20 rolls of 120 film.

I remember when 35mm cans were metal.

I remember when the color scheme for Plus-X was purple.

I remember when Tri-X had an ASA of 320.

I remember Polycontrast paper and below the lens filters.

I remember the Ektamatic paper processor and the paper that went with it.

I remember when 620 and 127 film sat next to Instamatic cartridges at the store.

Now, if I could just remember where I put my keys ...

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

I recall most of that. Also, when D-76 powder used to come in cans, when shorter 35mm rolls were 20 exposures, and when selenium light meters and flashbulbs were still state of the art. And yeah, that purple Plus-X!

 

[chuckroast]

I recall most of that. Also, when D-76 powder used to come in cans, when shorter 35mm rolls were 20 exposures, and when selenium light meters and flashbulbs were still state of the art. And yeah, that purple Plus-X!

View attachment 347804

Ohhhh, the feels that gives me ...

(I have a bunch of DK-50 in cans here with the two part internal packaging. Still great after all these years.)