Testing Super-xx Help

[David A. Goldfarb]

It may just be the lighting, but the ABC+ images look like they have much better shadow detail than the earlier ones and there's plenty of highlight information.

The stain is deceptive.

You should test on the paper you plan to print on and calibrate your development times for the paper. VC papers might like a contrastier neg than graded papers, but Azo will like a contrastier neg than enlarging papers. If you are enlarging, you'll also find that a diffuse light source works better with a contrastier neg as compared with a condenser enlarger.

 

[jd callow]

Top to bottom, I think the ABC+ produced a better neg. The only change made between these shots and the prior batch was that I used a white background. This may have bounced some light back into the subject area (it was about 5' away and unlit).
I have no idea what papers I'll be using. I like Agfa's FB VC papers, but I've never really explored all the paper choices. I plan on doing enlargements exclusively -- any suggestions would be welcome.
.

 

[Donald Miller]

Hey, I still stand by my word. I vote for your wife!!! How you ever got that lucky, I will never in the world understand. That poor girl needs to get her vision prescription checked. Oh well!!!!!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There are lots of good papers out there these days, and the differences are subtle and hard to quantify. The best thing to do is get a bunch of 25 packs, print the same negative on each of them, and pick from there. My enlarging paper of choice these days is Cachet (Maco) Expo graded. You can get it from freestylecamera.com. Galerie has brighter whites. Forte Elegance is warmer. Oriental Seagull is colder. I lean toward graded papers but keep some Ilford MGFB IV on hand for negs that benefit from split grade printing or some grade that I can't get in a graded paper I like. Eventually I'll get around to comparing various VC papers.

 

[jd callow]

Here are the densitometer reading for the 4 test batches. There appears to be no appreciable difference between the two ABC+ tests and yet I was able to get an extra stop in speed by adding 25% to the first batch's development time.

According to the book on the desintometer I used (gertag-mcbeth) .30 = 1stop. If this is the case I would be getting 8 stops with D76, 7stops with Microdol-X and about 6 stops with ABC+ Pyro.
<table width="100%" border="1" bordercolor="#808080">
<tr>
<td width="50%" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">Dev. Time temp</td>
<td width="25%" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">DMin</td>
<td width="250%" bgcolor="#C0C0C0">DMax</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ABC+ Pyro, 8min 20c</td>
<td>.29</td>
<td>2.13</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ABC+ Pyro, 10min 20c</td>
<td>.30</td>
<td>2.09</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Microdol-X, 11.5min, 20c</td>
<td>.26</td>
<td>2.31</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>D76, 14min, 20c</td>
<td>.33</td>
<td>2.71</td>
</tr>
</table>

 

[lee]

Are these density readings raw data? What is the d min? subtract that from the raw data and look for 0.10 at zone 1. If you can get to 0.10 or there abouts then I would reshoot a gray card at the exposure that gives you 3 stops over what the meter says to shoot and then measure that. If you are high for 0.10 then reshoot and reduce the zone 1 exposure. If the zone 1 number is low then reshoot and give more exposure. Then subtract the film base + fog and that should be in the 1.20 range for condenser enlargers and about 1.30 for diffusion or contact printing. The 0.10 will tell you the film speed and the 1.30 will be the development times. This would give me more information than how many stops I could get.

zone 1 can be found 4 stops under what your meter says is the good exposure.
zone VIII can be found 3 stops over what your meter says is the good exposure. This will give you reliable data. PITA but valuabe data.

lee\c

 

[Donald Miller]

What appears as a gain of one stop in film speed in increasing development time on the two batches of ABC may actually be a buildup of total density within the negative. If one were to develop a particular film to maximum development then the total density will increase (both low values and high values). I agree with what Lee has stated as the important things to determine in film testing. The first is film speed and the second is contrast. Film speed is a matter of emulsion and exposure. Contrast is a measure of development. I would be inclined to believe that the same number of zones would be obtainable with ABC if the developing time were extended.

 

[Jorge]

As Lee stated, you have to look for Dmin of 0.1 over Base + Fog. The other one is that pyro must be read on the blue channel, it appears you read the pyro densities on the visible light channel thus the values are much lower than the D76 and Microdol results. The density of pyro developed negative is the combination of the silver density and the stain density. It appears you are reading only the silver density.

Even with your results there seems to be a problem, lets take your result for D 76. If you substract your Dmin from your Dmax, you get a density range of 2.38, supposing you did this over a ten stop range and you are printing on a paper which has an exposure scale of 1.2 (meaning you can only fit a negative wich has a range of 1.2) you have about 1.1 left which would be unprintable in the paper.

A 2.38 DR negative would be very hard to print or even unprintable even in palladium with no restraint used. On a silver paper which usually has an exposure scale of 1.2 this negative would be way overdeveloped. If you are thinking azo then this paper has a ES of 1.95, your negative would still be outside the capabilities of azo. For example I have tailored my developing for palladium prints at a density range (DR) of 1.8. anything that falls outside this range would be either accent white or accent black, as you can see your negative would still have tones which are way outside of this range.

Generally when one "pushes" film which in reality is developing for a greater contrast index, a higher level of base+fog is associated with it thus the appereance of a "higher" speed, in reality what one is doing is giving the film less exposure to account for this greater base + fog.

So first, did you calibrate your densitometer? if so, what was the B+F of the films? Do you know what is the ES of the paper you want use?

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Well, I see I came to this thread very late, having just arrived back home. To start from the beginning: Based on work with thousands of sheets of Super XX I recommend a film speed of 100. Maybe 125 or 160 or 200 depending on the general fog level, if any.

I'd develop it for sure in ABC Pyro and NOT ABC+ or Rollo Pyro or PMK. Super XX is a soft film and it works best with a developer that gives greater separation in the middle grays.

Fixer: Rapid Fix without hardener for 4 minutes.

And if you want the best prints, print on Azo. The long scale of Azo compliments perfectly the long scale of Super XX. You should easily be able to print a 2.38 negative.

I'd like to see a piece of the exposed film. If you have a reject negative, or even one cut in half, could you send it to me. I'll pay postage. Thanks. Or send a good negative, perhaps one that you have trouble printing because of the extremely long scale, and I'll print it on Azo for you and send the print and negative back. Contact me at michaelandpaula@michaelandpaula.com

Michael A. Smith

 

[jd callow]

Sorry I haven't replied any sooner. I'll try to answer your questions in some order...

1. These are 'raw' figures the dmin was pulled from a developed unexposed sheet the dmax was pulled from the sheet waved under a light. The idea here is that I will be able to use these sheets to determine if I'm over developing the film (ie am I just gaining fog). The sheets exposed at 25 through 300 will help me match the exposure to the dev and dev time. I have always been under the assumption that Dmin was the density of an unexposed but developed bit of film.
2. I obviously have to reread the <u>Negative</u> as promised before. I have no Idea how "Dmin of 0.1 over Base + Fog" is obtained nor what it means
3. The readings are from the blue cannel, but I suspect that regardless of how the ABC+ neg is read it is a horse of a completely deferent colour than the negs developed without a stain -- Rendering this kind of comparison suspect. That being said, the Dmax is visibly thinner than the Microdol-x and D76 negs.
4. There is a distinct difference between the neg's from the two ABC+ batches. The sheet exposed at 150 and developed for 8 min is visibly thinner (not simply having less contrast) than the sheet exposed at 150 and developed for 10 min. My suspicion is that 8 min is insufficient development for the film.
5. I think that most of the neg's are printable. The comments inferring that they are not optimized for printing and that the neg needs to be matched to a paper is understood and respected.
6. ABC+ (, PMK and or Rollo) Pyro not being the best developer(s) for this film is somewhat disheartening. I assume that rotary processing is equally inappropriate. This presents me with a bit of a dilemma, I do not have the facility for tray development --I haven't the space, nor experience. I would prefer not to learn at the expense of this film
7. Is AZO good for enlargements as well as contacts? My plan was to use this film for enlargements.

I have more or less hit the wall of my current knowledge. It sounds as if I need to better understand the relationship between exposure and development with eye toward the paper it will be used upon.

 

[Donald Miller]

I hope that Michael readdresses your concerns and questions as well. He will approach this from an entirely different direction then what you are attempting.
I will attempt to answer your questions in regard to testing for film speed and development time if you choose to continue in the testing that have started.
To test for the speed at which this film will expose properly in your system, I would set up an evenly sunlit surface large enough to fill the ground glass of your camera with the lens focusing set at infinity. This does not mean that the camera needs to be focused on the surface, only that the camera be adjusted for infinity. The surface must fill the ground glass, however.
Meter the surface with the ISO on the meter at the manufacturers rated film speed. Insert a holder into your camera adjust the shutter to give four stops less exposure then the meter indicated. Pull the darkslide 1/4 way out and give the four stop less exposure. Pull the darkslide another 1/4 way out and give a second exposure at the same lens setting. Pull the darklide another 1/4 way out and give the another exposure at the same setting. Reinsert the dark slide and remove from the camera. Develop this film at the suggested development time for the developer that you are wanting to use. Do not concern yourself at this point with development times so long as you are using the recommended times, since that will be near enough to give the results needed at this juncture. Measure the density of the unexposed 1/4 sheet and record that density. Measure the density of each of the remaining 1/4 portions. The first portion that you will find that gives you the density of .10 above the density of the unexposed film will be the film speed rating for that film. I would imagine that you will find it in the second exposure.
Once you have determined the film speed and if in fact it falls on the second exposure, the you will know that your particular film is in fact exposing at 1/2 of the manufacturers rating. That is not uncommon with Kodak film, in my experience.
For the determination of film development times, leave the camera set up as in the first test; adjust your meter to the corrected ISO which you determined. Meter the surface once more and adjust the lens for 3 stops more exposure then the meter indicates. This will be a Zone VIII rating and will be the tonality that will give you textured white in a print value. Expose three sheets of film at that exposure setting. Develop them one at a time. The first at the suggested time for the developer that you choose. When dry, measure the density of that exposure. If it is above 1.30 with a diffusion enlarger or 1.20 with condensor enlarger reduce your development time on the next sheet that you develop by 15%. Again measure the density of that dried sheet of film. This should be nearer your desired density. You should be able to extrapolate a new development time for the last sheet. Develop it at the new corrected time and measure the density again. It should be very near if not at the desired density.
Always change only one thing at a time. If you do this testing you will find that your negatives, if accurately metered, will print on a grade two paper.
In the event that Michael does not weigh in, Azo is a contact printing paper. So you would have 4X5 prints from your 4X5 negatives. These can be quite intimate and appealing. There are enlargers available for enlarging Azo but conventional enlargers will not suffice. There is a great deal of good knowledge at www.michaelandpaula.com.
I hope that this affords you some direction. Good luck.

 

[Jorge]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcallow @ Mar 15 2003, 08:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Sorry I haven't replied any sooner. I'll try to answer your questions in some order...&lt;ol&gt;[*]These are 'raw' figures the dmin was pulled from a developed unexposed sheet the dmax was pulled from the sheet waved under a light. The idea here is that I will be able to use these sheets to determine if I'm over developing the film (ie am I just gaining fog). The sheets exposed at 25 through 300 will help me match the exposure to the dev and dev time. I have always been under the assumption that Dmin was the density of an unexposed but developed bit of film.[*]I obviously have to reread the <u>Negative</u> as promised before. I have no Idea how &quot;Dmin of 0.1 over Base + Fog&quot; is obtained nor what it means[*]The readings are from the blue cannel, but I suspect that regardless of how the ABC+ neg is read it is a horse of a completely deferent colour than the negs developed without a stain -- Rendering this kind of comparison suspect. That being said, the Dmax is visibly thinner than the Microdol-x and D76 negs. [*]There is a distinct difference between the neg's from the two ABC+ batches. The sheet exposed at 150 and developed for 8 min is visibly thinner (not simply having less contrast) than the sheet exposed at 150 and developed for 10 min. My suspicion is that 8 min is insufficient development for the film.[*]I think that most of the neg's are printable. The comments inferring that they are not optimized for printing and that the neg needs to be matched to a paper is understood and respected.[*]ABC+ (, PMK and or Rollo) Pyro not being the best developer(s) for this film is somewhat disheartening. I assume that rotary processing is equally inappropriate. This presents me with a bit of a dilemma, I do not have the facility for tray development --I haven't the space, nor experience. I would prefer not to learn at the expense of this film&lt;/li&gt;[*]Is AZO good for enlargements as well as contacts? My plan was to use this film for enlargements.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;I have more or less hit the wall of my current knowledge. It sounds as if I need to better understand the relationship between exposure and development with eye toward the paper it will be used upon. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Ah....sorry, I guess I got too technical, must have sounded like a know it all jerk...

1.- no, that is base plus fog. Incidentally if your developed sheets had that high of a base plus fog then you might have a little bit of fogging in the film, if a film has a typical B+F anywhere from .1 to .2 and yours has a .3 then you have about 1/3 stop of fog, this is no big deal and you can account for this on your film speed test.

3.- ABC and ABC+ pyro negs will always look "thinner" than a regular developer neg, dont discount them they can still print pretty good. I have not found any film that cannot be improved by using pyro.
Why dont you try printing one?

7.- Azo wont work for enlargements, unless you are willing to spend $5000 on the new head Durst is making.

But lets forget about all that, why dont you borrow the trick Les MaClean showed us for filter factors. Go outside and take pictures that have shadows as well as highlights. So take one at the recommended manufacturer film speed and bracket +/- 1/3 stop, +/- 2/3 and +/- 1 stop. Develop the roll (or sheets)and print the negs, the one that look best is the speed you use with the same developing time.

Since printing in silver is much easier, that is what I used to do and did not bother about all the testing and sensitometry. The story is different if you wish to print in pt/pd etc. I have found out after many dollars that the most important part is the negative, if you dont get the right contrast in the neg, the prints will look like crap....have many of them to show....

So if you dont feel like reading the negative this is what I would do. BTW if you really want to learn sensitometry the BTSZ book is better, but it is a hard read.

OTOH I have seen the pictures you have posted and they are very good, why dont you just follow the same procedures you use for those films?

 

[jd callow]

Sometimes posting on sites of this nature is a kin to standing buck naked in the middle of the road.

dnmilikan:
Thank you very much I will do as you suggest. Offline, another member has suggested essentially the same course of action.

Jorge:
As a matter of due diligence I should have been boneing up instead of meandering in the dark. Thank you for the kind words about my posted images. Testing colour films is far easier or at least much different -- or were you referring to the images posted in this thread?

Michael appears to be a very busy guy. Among the things I'd like to discuss with him is rotary development v. tray development. Is tray development that much superior or to what degree am I short changing this film by using rotary development?

 

[Donald Miller]

I tray develop my film. Not having processed sheet film in rotary drums, I have no comparison to make. The method that Jorge uses is apparently the method that will give the most even tray development (brush development). The difficulty, as I understand it, with rotary processing of sheet film is that a greater agitation and oxidation occurs and thus conventional tray developers will not work very well in rotary processing. I don't know what your available space is, I use four trays of 8X10 inch size for my 4X5 sheet film and use ABC pyro mixed from the individual chemical ingredients according to the formula on Michaels web site. I have heard that the Pyrocat HD formula developed by Sandy King is very good and economical to use. The formula for that developer may be found on Unblinkingeye.com.

The photographers that use rotary processing seem to indicate that they also gain even development using their method. The Rollo Pyro formula is one that I have seen mentioned in that process but there may be and probably are others as well. If you want to pursue your rotary processing, then I would talk to other photographers that do so and follow the consensus of their experience. I imagine that you will find photographers that rotary process by posting a question on this and other forums.

I wish that I could be of more help to you, but my experience is limited as I have previously indicate. Good luck, I concur with Jorge in that your posted images seem very good insofar as tonality and exposure. It may be that you already have a workable system and are in search of an elusive "Holy Grail".

 

[Jorge]

I was thinking of the posted images on this thread, they seem to have very good tonality, very nice skin tones......and I concurr with everybody else, she is way too cute for you.....

 

[jd callow]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ Mar 15 2003, 02:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>......and I concurr with everybody else, she is way too cute for you.....

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
It is kind of funny -- the wrinkled old troll gets the cutie

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Azo is a contact printing paper. That being said, there is someone who has applied for patents for a light source that he is developing that will fit onto all enlargers, will not be a hot bulb, and will not be that expensive. Paula and I met with this fellow last week and he is progressing. When he is finished and has a final product, I believe Azo will be the B&W paper of choice for everyone who cares about making fine prints.

I have always tray processed, so cannot comment on rotary processing. Tray processing is the simplest, easiest way to go. I am not by nature a technical fellow so if I do something one way and anyone wants to do it the same way they can count on the fact that it will be absolutely the easiest way to do something. That leaves all of the energy for vision, which is what this is all about, isn't it?

 

[Jorge]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Michael A. Smith @ Mar 15 2003, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Azo is a contact printing paper. That being said, there is someone who has applied for patents for a light source that he is developing that will fit onto all enlargers, will not be a hot bulb, and will not be that expensive. Paula and I met with this fellow last week and he is progressing. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Did you make any enlargements?

 

[David Hall]

Mr. Callow,

As someone who is trying tray processing after years of rotary processing, I think I have two thoughts to add:

1) The advantage to trays is that with the green safelight you can get as perfect a negative as the exposure is going to yield, every time. Perfect contrast for whatever you want it to be, that is.

2) Rotary processing works great if you've got the time and temp down. But it's a little like doing rollfilm and the zone system...ALL the sheets in the drum get the same development time, temp, etc. So you cannot adjust for one that might be +1 and one that might really be +1.5, the way you could if you inspected them all individually in trays. Other than that, there is no real difference. Since those minute differences mean a few seconds more or less of water bath for me, they really make no practical difference.

3) Wait, there is one other thing: Michael's ABC formula doesn't work in the drum, although PMK and WD2D and the others all work in trays. So in a drum you can't use the one developer that Michael recommends for the film you use. Other than THAT, you'll be just fine.

dgh

 

[Michael A. Smith]

We made an enlargement when we met with the inventor several months ago. The exposure times were quite reasonable but the prints did not turn out well due to coverage problems with the bulb. He has corrected that--although we did not see the new bulb--it is being manufactured--we did see drawings and it looks as if it will work. We did learn that it a difficult and expensive thing--having a special light bulb manufactured. My guess is that this is still 6 months or more away, but it is definitely happening.

 

[sanking]

I developed 20 sheets of 12X20 Super-XX last spring and summer that had an expiration date of 1992. It had been stored in either refrigeration or freezer for most of the time since it was originally purchased. For exposure I rated the film at an EI of 200 and there was no loss of film speed from age. I assumed that that the film would have quite a bit of fog so I decided to develop the first sheet in D76 1:1 rather than my standard Pyrocat-HD formula. For the rest of my negatives I rated the film at EI 100 and added about 5-10ml of a 1% solution of benzotriazole to the developer. This lowered the b+f to about 0.25 - 0.30.

As for time of deveopment I have some test data made some 10-12 years ago with Super-XX and D76. If you will tell me what kind of printing you are doing and what CI you require for your negatives I will send you a suggested time.

I definitely would not recommend using ABC or any other staining developer with old film if you plan on doing any kind of alternative printing with UV lights because the stain plus fog makes for unbearably long exposure times.

Sandy King

 

[jd callow]

Although I've not shot any of this film since I last posted to this thread, nor have I followed any of the advice regarding testing, I went and shot a close friends graduation pictures with it.

I used the data I aquired in my own feeble testing.

I have posted an (there was a url link here which no longer exists) with a (there was a url link here which no longer exists) of the image in the tech gallery.

My thoughts are that this is some wonderful Film!!!

 

[Deckled Edge]

My thoughts are that this is some wonderful Film!!!

Yeah. That's what we all thought, right up to its discontinuation. May it rest in peace. I was wistfully looking through some 200 8x10 Super XX negatives yesterday. It was a great run while it lasted.

 

[sanking]

Yeah. That's what we all thought, right up to its discontinuation. May it rest in peace. I was wistfully looking through some 200 8x10 Super XX negatives yesterday. It was a great run while it lasted.

I used a lot of Super-XX film before it was discontinued and had a pretty good idea of its outstanding qualities, which are, 1) long straight linear curve with virtually equal response to red, green and blue light, and 2) great for expansion and contraction development.

At the time, however, I did not use sensitometry and had no idea how it really compared to some of the newer films until recently when I had a chance to run BTZS testing of some Super-XX film from Michael Smith's cache. Although the film I tested is now at least thirteen years or so old it still had outstanding expansion and contraction potential, comparable to the best films today in this regard. The film had a fairly high B+F from age, over about log 0.35, but this did not present a problem except for printing with UV processes. It is also rather slow acting, even with a very energetic developer such as ABC 1:1:1:7. However, with this developer it is an excellent film for development by inspection, even with the age and B+F.

There is really nothing exactly like Super-XX available today. BPF 200, which has been touted as a replacement for Super-XX, fails miserably in the area of expansion and contraction, especially where you need these qualities with a relatively high CI as for printing with AZO or alternative processes. TMAX-400 has outstanding expansion and contraction potential but it is very fast acting and the magenta stain apparently interferes with seeing the image during DBI. All things considered the closest thing to the old Super-XX on the market today in my opinion is Efke PL 100.

Sandy King