Kodak Super XX

[FriedLouisStudio]

Oh yeah, I mixed a lot of DK-50 and D-76 for my parents' studio in my youth. From cans in the 60s, then pouches in the 70s.

For print developer and fixer, we had five-gallon cubitainers of concentrates by "Russell Chemical" delivered. "Redi-Tone", "Redi-Fix", and for graphic arts line negatives, "Redi-Lith". (I wish I'd photographed these cubes back then, because I couldn't come up with anything googling.) Moving these into position - a piano bench under the big darkroom sink - and washing and attaching their spigots, then schlepping the empty cubes out for trash, was a standard part of my photographer's assistant work.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Unlike many here, I did not begin with black and white photography, but will color printmaking; and it is as an adjunct to that I learned tight process control of black and white sheet films, densitometer plots n' all. That coincided with the Cibachrome revolution itself, and its need for serious supplementary masking contrast and color balance controls.

Nearly all the extant literature revolved around SuperXX, along with Pan Masking film and Ortho Litho in relation to dye transfer printing. Well, dye transfer dyes bleed a little, so somewhat disguise the graininess of Super-XX; but Ciba was an incredibly crisp medium. Meantime, Kodak was beginning to give mixed signals about their commitment to dye transfer and those films particularly related to it. Parallel to that, they were formulating a whole new generation of films centered around TMax, not only in relation to general photography, but also industrial usage and even astronomical plates. That made a lot of sense going forward, but also brought the necessity of a whole new learning curve.

Meanwhile, once I had some momentum going in my color printing success, it brought me into interaction with dye transfer printers and their own knowledge base, and that whole generation who prized the old classic films like Super XX for their special qualities in general. I had an itch to experiment with them in the context of black and white printmaking too, but at the time, was only shooting 4x5, not yet 8X10; and Super-XX was just too grainy for my taste.

TMax 400 came to the rescue, although it didn't yet have the smooth evenly dispersed grain of the present TMY400 product, but was still a big improvement in look. FP4 served as my medium speed film, but was frustrating when deep deep shadow gradation was desired, along with specular highlight detail. And VC papers weren't impressive yet. I did a lot of shooting up in the mountains above timberline. But my background in fine-tuning various films for sake of technical applications in color printing was invaluable. I understood how curves work, and how to choose and control them. So to me, seeming subtleties in distinction between "straight line", medium toe, and long toe films, are not inconsequential, but critical aspects of choosing an appropriate film to begin with. It does make a difference. But alas, Super-XX did not survive the TMax asteroid strike, and was given a blow which soon proved fatal. And with Bergger 200 now gone too, it's kinda the end of an era. TMax has won.

 

[BrianShaw]

I’ll have to try some TMax or TMY one day… sounds like a miracle film. Didn’t one of them block UV, making alt process difficult/impossible? Does it still block UV??

 

[MattKing]

I’ll have to try some TMax one day… sounds like a miracle film.

If it had appeared when I was using a lot of 35mm Tri-X, I would have been overjoyed!

 

[koraks]

Didn’t one of them block UV, making alt process difficult/impossible? Does it still block UV??

TMX in sheet film formats (so not 35mm or 120) will block around 3 stops of UV, yes. AFAIK the base was never changed in this respect and it still does this. TMY doesn't and should work fine for alt. process printing.

And yes, both are great products.

 

[MattKing]

TMX in sheet film formats (so not 35mm or 120) will block around 3 stops of UV, yes. AFAIK the base was never changed in this respect and it still does this. TMY doesn't and should work fine for alt. process printing.

And yes, both are great products.

T-Max 100 - TMX - also attenuates UV in 120 as well. I have a nearly blank cyanotype to prove it .
As I understand it, it isn't due to the substrate itself, but rather a UV blocking component of the emulsion itself. And that component cannot be removed by the end user.
I assume that this applies to the film in 135 as well.

 

[faberryman]

Unlike many here, I did not begin with black and white photography, but will color printmaking; and it is as an adjunct to that I learned tight process control of black and white sheet films, densitometer plots n' all. That coincided with the Cibachrome revolution itself, and its need for serious supplementary masking contrast and color balance controls.

Nearly all the extant literature revolved around SuperXX, along with Pan Masking film and Ortho Litho in relation to dye transfer printing. Well, dye transfer dyes bleed a little, so somewhat disguise the graininess of Super-XX; but Ciba was an incredibly crisp medium. Meantime, Kodak was beginning to give mixed signals about their commitment to dye transfer and those films particularly related to it. Parallel to that, they were formulating a whole new generation of films centered around TMax, not only in relation to general photography, but also industrial usage and even astronomical plates. That made a lot of sense going forward, but also brought the necessity of a whole new learning curve.

Meanwhile, once I had some momentum going in my color printing success, it brought me into interaction with dye transfer printers and their own knowledge base, and that whole generation who prized the old classic films like Super XX for their special qualities in general. I had an itch to experiment with them in the context of black and white printmaking too, but at the time, was only shooting 4x5, not yet 8X10; and Super-XX was just too grainy for my taste.

TMax 400 came to the rescue, although it didn't yet have the smooth evenly dispersed grain of the present TMY400 product, but was still a big improvement in look. FP4 served as my medium speed film, but was frustrating when deep deep shadow gradation was desired, along with specular highlight detail. And VC papers weren't impressive yet. I did a lot of shooting up in the mountains above timberline. But my background in fine-tuning various films for sake of technical applications in color printing was invaluable. I understood how curves work, and how to choose and control them. So to me, seeming subtleties in distinction between "straight line", medium toe, and long toe films, are not inconsequential, but critical aspects of choosing an appropriate film to begin with. It does make a difference. But alas, Super-XX did not survive the TMax asteroid strike, and was given a blow which soon proved fatal. And with Bergger 200 now gone too, it's kinda the end of an era. TMax has won.

For a little historic perspective, Kodak discontinued Super-XX sheet film in 1992. That was also the year Kodak discontinued dye transfer materials effectively killing dye transfer. And Ilford replaced FP4 with FP4+ a few years before that. So what Drew is talking about occurred more than 30 years ago. It is not so much "TMax has won" as it is Tmax won a long time ago.

 

[BrianShaw]

Seems like yesterday to me too.

 

[MarkS]

Several pages back, someone suggested that we use currently available films to support the manufacturers, rather than using discontinued/long-expired emulsions. An admirable sentiment... in fact there are tiny amounts of Super-XX (or Plus-X, Ektapan, Royal Pan, Super-Pancho-Press, or any other long-gone film) left to shoot. So my using a couple of Tri-X film packs from the '70s can not possibly affect Kodak and Ilford's bottom line. Even if I love the way this 50-year-old film looks, there isn't enough of it to make a serious body of work. and I'm continuing to shoot fresh FP4+ alongside it. Making pictures with these old emulsions is just an enjoyable curiosity!

 

[Alan9940]

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.

No, you weren't the only one. I tried TMax 100 when it first came out and I've re-tried it a few times over the years, but I never warmed up to it. Going back to Super-XX...I shot a bunch of this film in 8x10 and, for the natural scene subjects I generally shot, it was an absolutely lovely film! Compared to my next favorite (Tri-X), Super-XX had a much steeper toe and the mid-tones were unmatched by any film (then or now) IMO. I'd be using it today, if it was still available.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here was a common problem : people accustomed to Tri-X 320 and Plus X Pan didn't trust the steeper toe of TMax like they should have, so placed their shadow value readings too high up on the curve. Combined with the fact that TMax develops high contrast rather easily, they ended up shouldering off the highlights, and then blamed a film they didn't really understand yet. Too many were still thinking in terms of certain habitual Zone System mantras that didn't fit this newer film very well. But Super-XX had an even steeper toe, and longer overall straight line, so was more forgiving.

But present TMax, in both speeds, is more malleable than the original 100 version. There was kinda a disconnect between the designers of TMax and its initial marketing in conjunction with D76, which wasn't such a great idea with respect to breaking through old Zonie habits, like placing shadow values clear up on the belly button of Zone 3, and then trying to compress or minus develop to offset that error. You end up with a significant sag in the curve using D76 that way, and poorer rather than crisper shadow and midtone tonality.

Super-XX users, however, were more accustomed to HC-110 or DK50; and Super-XX was an exceptionally malleable film when it came to development. It was almost like culture shock making the adjustment to what Kodak's advertising folks were telling people to do with TMax, just to promote its sales along with their most common developer stocked on camera store shelves. Of course, they redressed the issue with a special line of TMax developers, in effect, admitting they had started off on the wrong foot. And once pyro addiction had gotten ahold of many of us, we never looked back; it worked wonders with TMax 400, and also did quite a bit to taming highlight repro in the 100 speed product.

 

[xkaes]

That might explain my problems with TMAX, but I'm too deep into DELTA (among other things) to consider switching horses mid-stream.

 

[faberryman]

Again, from an historical perspective, TMax films were introduced in 1986, and, unsurprisingly, have been improved a couple of times in the intervening 35 years. TMax Developer was introduced at the same time as TMax films, but was not recommended for use with sheet films. John Sexton discovered it caused dichroic fog. Thus, photographers continued to use their old standby developers like D76 and HC110. Kodak later introduced TMax RS Developer to address the issue.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Which Delta? D100 and D3200 are very different animals. If D100 is overexposed about a stop, you can make it behave somewhat similarly to TMax 100. But you do have to overcome its toe with that extra exposure boost. D3200 has an exceptionally long toe to in order to faux-forgive serious underexposure when people shoot it at its advertised speed of 3200, even though their own spec sheet fine print admits its really more like 1000 speed. I shoot it at 800.

I usually coach beginners to start their learning curve with a middle-of-the-road film without any rude surprises or any fussy exposure and development temperament. FP4 is ideal in that respect. For many, that's the only film they ever use. But I like to use multiple films.

When my older brother was in the photo academy in the mid 60's, preparing for a commercial photography career, all the students were expected to master three specific films : Super-XX for industrial and commerical shooting, Plus X Pan for studio portraiture, and Tri-X 320 as the middle-of-the-road journalistic choice. "Small format" in professional circles still meant 4x5 back then, unless one was a war or news correspondent, or made their living doing color slide shows (he had a friend with a slide shows career, even lucratively). So much has changed !

 

[takilmaboxer]

When TM100 first came out, I tried it and didn't like it; the highlights kept blowing. So I tried Super-XX, but it was too grainy. With time and practice I realized that the TM100 gave a long straight line IF the development was carefully controlled. Too long a time and the highlight contrast was higher than that of the mid-tones and the highlights blew. The T grain films are picky with respect to technique and I was accustomed to old school thick emulsion films like Verichrome.
If you examine the D log E curves for TM films they are cut off arbitrarily at the higher density (Zone IX+). In reality the straight line continues past that cutoff. These films can be useful if you're careful.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yep. TMax films do exactly what Kodak claims they will, and what they were designed to do, namely, functionally replace a whole suite of previous films. But that fact is dependent upon different specific development regimens for those different applications, with a new learning curve for each.

 

[Disconnekt]

Several pages back, someone suggested that we use currently available films to support the manufacturers, rather than using discontinued/long-expired emulsions. An admirable sentiment... in fact there are tiny amounts of Super-XX (or Plus-X, Ektapan, Royal Pan, Super-Pancho-Press, or any other long-gone film) left to shoot. So my using a couple of Tri-X film packs from the '70s can not possibly affect Kodak and Ilford's bottom line. Even if I love the way this 50-year-old film looks, there isn't enough of it to make a serious body of work. and I'm continuing to shoot fresh FP4+ alongside it. Making pictures with these old emulsions is just an enjoyable curiosity!

As I see it, people shooting expired film still helps out the film industry, even if "indirectly". It still has to get it developed, so those of us who shoot it still spend money one way or another supporting the industry to a degree, some develop it at home (still gotta buy chems, archival sleeves, etc.) & some send it out to a lab to get dev'ed/etc. where the labs get money to pay bills, and they still gotta buy chems & other stuff).