Super-XX Pan

[htmlguru4242]

I just bought a lot of expired film, which includes a 25-Sheet box of Super-XX Pan, expired in the 1970s. It has apparently always been refrigerated.

What is the likeliness that it is still good? Exposure / development recommendations?

Alternatively, does anyone who likes/knows how to use this film want it? There may be a better use for this than my experiments.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I used some from the same era a few years ago and it was just fine. I used D-76 for 9 minutes. I used ISO 100 for the exposure. It looked good, but a tad dark and / or foggy. It may have been dark due to the fog. The prints were OK.

PE

 

[David Lyga]

The biggest factor in using this film will be in giving it adequate exposure. Off hand, I would say that with constant refrigeration you could do a clip test at EI 100. If at room temp for those decades I would try EI 25. With both, develop for about 20% more than Tri-X to counteract the effect of the fog reducing the contract (but probably not necessary if refrigerated). This should easily get you into the ball park. - David Lyga

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I have a bulk roll of 35mm from the late 60's, supposedly always kept cold its quite fogged and I have to shoot at 6 or 12 to get anything close to worthwhile. Good for trying to emulate an 1800's photography look if you know what I mean...

 

[Photo Engineer]

I should add for the record, that my film was stored at RT for about 25 years past the expiration date. I also gave a box to a fellow APUG member and he got good results with it.

PE

 

[htmlguru4242]

Awesome , guys. We shall see what happens.

 

[c6h6o3]

Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee bought all the remaining stock of Super-XX from Kodak when its discontinuation was scheduled. Circa 1994. It's incredibly fogged. However, I've seen prints that Michael made from his Chicago project a couple years ago and they are stunning. Best work he's ever done. I asked him what the difference was and he said "thinner negatives". He had to back off on the exposure in order to keep from blowing highlights since the high base fog puts him so far up the curve before he even exposes the film. I'd say that the high fog turned out to have given him an advantage because the prints he makes from it are magnificent. But I believe he went back to rating it at box speed instead of half box speed as he had been doing.

 

[htmlguru4242]

Its that fogged from only '94? Wow. My only significant experience with older films is Panatomic X from the mid 1980s (I think) and it developed like new.

 

[c6h6o3]

Panatomic-X is very different film from Super-XX, the latter being the last of the thick emulsion films. That's why water bath development worked so well with it.

 

[David Lyga]

htmlguru4242 and all:

Just remember 'the saving grace' with regard to using heavily fogged film (if this is the case in this instance):

Give considerable overexposure then, after fixation, use Farmers reducer to lighten up the unexposed areas. This works very well in many instances, since with overexposure you build up shadow detail and, thus, will not negate the shadow detail with reduction.

With Farmer's reducer, the shadow detail can be then brought back down to its proper lower level. Hence, you will actually end up with a negative that DOES look normal and is not diffult to print. - David Lyga