Testing Super-xx Help

[jd callow]

Ordered the ABC+ and TF4 Fix. Now I'll bone up on st. Ansel's (do two shots) <u>Neg</u> and should have something to report in week or two.

I would go with the HC110 and follow Ansel's recommendations, but there appears to be a broader knowledge base for Pyro here and I may need the feedback.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you are using pyro and Ansel's methods (as opposed to development by inspection, which Weston and Karsh used, and Michael Smith uses today), you will probably get more accurate densitometer readings using a color densitometer on the blue channel. A B&W densitometer can detect the silver density, but is less accurate in detecting the stain density, which increases proportionally with the silver density.

 

[jd callow]

I'll be using a color densitometer (I dont have access to a B/W densitometer)and Ansel's methodology. I don't have the set up for tray development. I have a great deal more confidence now that I'll be able to nail a good combination for this film. I am somewhat intimidated by the B/W experience here and feel compelled to produce some kick ass work so that y'all won't think this film was wasted on some bumkin.

 

[edbuffaloe]

Aggie, I would definitely like to know how to make such dividers. Where do you get stainless wire? I have heard of a manufactured tray that will take 6 4x5 negs.

 

[lee]

I could have processed a bunch of film in trays while you make the thing. Most of the scratches I have encountered happen in the wash when I am not careful but I have that under control and have not scratched a piece of film in years.

lee\c

 

[jd callow]

Recieved the developer and fix today. I'll start teasting this weekend and hould have something to report by this time next week.

 

[jd callow]

Ok. I'm going through the destructions for ABC+ Pyro Developer and it says I need to mix an A, B, and C solution. I first pre-soak my film in solution C. I mix a ratio of A:1.5, B:3.0 with H₂O:100 and begin the film development with this mix. After I fix I take solution C and run for two minutes.

Are all you ABC Pyro users frustrated chemist? No. Most of You are chemists. Well, I’m familiar with using tech sheets as a starting point and ISO ratings as optimistic guesses, but I'm not sure how to deal with the use of solution C. Is this a step that does not require any concern? Do I simply follow the directions for solution C and concentrate on dev times v. exposure?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Interesting. ABC+ sounds really quite different from ABC. With ABC you mix all the solutions together (there are different views about the ratio) and one doesn't typically use the spent developer as an afterbath, as with PMK. If you want the convenience of roller processing with a pyro developer, I guess you have to accept a little less convenience somewhere else.

 

[lee]

What is solution C? If it is just sodium metaborate it should work like that. The common theory these days is that the after soak is not necessary, lblut you didn't hear that from me. For the first time I would simply follow the directions and see what happens and then report in.

lee/c

 

[jd callow]

Solution C is 1.5g of Sodium Metaborate and 1000ml H₂O. I will follow the directions and use the times stated for Bregger 200. I will be rereading <u>The Negative</u> this weekend.

Should the sxx fail I have a couple of 100 sheet boxes of FP4+ I can use instead. I hope it doesn't get to that.

 

[LFGuy]

The metaborate will add to the stain just like the PMK reuse of the developer as an afterbath. The metaborate or used PMK developer provides an alkali environment for stain formation.

 

[lee]

How did the test go on the super XX? Interested parties want to know.


lee\c

 

[jd callow]

As I mentioned I got the chems. I also bought some collaspable bottles, distilled water and an additional strobe head (old photogenic flashmaster). Total expenditure minamal... traded some xtol for the collaspable bottles, 6 gals distilled H₂O 5.00, strobe on ebay 30.00.

Set everything up went to do some testing of my lighting and my meter quit. Changed batteries still brocken. So I bought a gossen luna-pro F on ebay 100.00. Good for night and flash no spot capabilities though! X-{

I'm, attempting to do some thing I don't do well -- be patient. I should have the meter shortly and will start testing as soon as I get it. I could do some sunny 16 or use the meter in my Mamiya or my wife's FE2, which is one of the best meters I've used in camera, but I want to do it under as much control as possible.

I'll keep you updated.

 

[lee]

Thanks for the update. Stay in touch and I am sure you will.

lee\c

 

[jd callow]

I went rifling through the last of the film freezers and found anouther box 'o sxx. I'm not sure if this one will be up for grabs or not. If the product is still good I sure will try.

 

[clogz]

As to Super XX: I just read in a German photo magazine (Foto Magazin) which devotes a large part of its March issue on B&W film (rejoice my friends!, rejoice!) that Bergger (a French brand) film is very much like the old classic SuperXX. Also the Bergger film is manufactured by Forte in Hungary. Might as well try Forte film, mightn't we?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've tried Fortepan 400 under the "Classic Pan" label, and I'm not impressed. Not enough density range for good contact prints there.

Bergger insists that while there are various "European" (read: "East European") plants that make their films, the emulsion formulas are their own, and Bergger isn't just rebadged Fortepan 200. I guess someone should do some tests with a densitometer and find out.

I'll probably try the Bergger, though, because it's the only thing easy to come by in 11x14" other than HP5+, and I'm not a big fan of HP5+.

 

[clay]

The developer and densitometer data proved to my satisfaction that Fortepan 200 and BPF-200 are indeed the same film. They've made great claims to be the second coming of the late Super XX, but everything I have seen indicates that claim to be complete nonsense.

If you look at the old published H&D curves for Super XX, it showed a short toe and an amazing linearity over a wide range of developing times (and the resulting wide range of contrasts) - which was why it was a favored film for those doing color separations for dye transfer - perfectly predictable gamma along the whole exposure scale. BPF doesn't have the linearity, nor the wide range in contrasts. In conventional non-staining developers it is a complete dud for processes that need a high contrast negative. In D-76 1:1, it reaches gamma infinity at about 12 minutes and just gets higher and higher levels of base+fog. For making platinum/palladium negatives, it works in pyro developers that can be developed to a lower contrast with the UV blocking stain providing the boost to a higher apparent contrast that this process requires. I use it in 12x20, and it is a great film for high contrast scenes, and is almost impossible to overdevelop. In low contrast scenes that need the highest contrast bump possible, I would recommend using rollo pyro, even if you process in trays. The extra activity of that developer will be the only chance you have at getting a platinum-ready negative.

It is much grainier than comparable speed films from the great yellow father and that British outfit. It is a film that can be made to work, but don't expect miracles. They certainly did not clone SuperXX, although one wouldn't know from guerilla marketing hype. Have you noticed that the company itself doesn't really make that claim? It is just an urban legend perpetuated by a few select 'lead users'. There are no 'magic bullets' in films and developers and almost all of them can be made to work pretty well with some experimentation. Except, of course, the combination that I am currently using and am not at liberty to divulge.......


Clay

 

[clay]

Just wanted to make sure that everyone realizes that my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I made the remark about my secret film/developer combination. I don't want any pleading emails!

I shoot my toes off regularly, and am still looking for the holy grail myself. But meanwhile, I use old tried and true combinations that work just fine.

Clay

 

[c6h6o3]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clay @ Feb 19 2003, 04:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In D-76 1:1, it reaches gamma infinity at about 12 minutes and just gets higher and higher levels of base+fog. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
In ABC pyro BPF 200 seems to hit the gamma infinity wall at about 16 minutes, which works out to about N+2 for me. Anything more than that reduces contrast by increasing only general stain.

Since Super XX will never be available to me I have no interest in its properties. I only care about materials that I can use. If I need to expand any more than +2, I'll do it in the printing.

 

[jd callow]

<center>Dead Link Removed
My lovely and accommodating wife, the jolly countess</center>

The replacement flash meter might be weeks away (an ebay story requiring a thread all its own). So I decided to do some testing without the benefit of a meter.

I set up my lights in a way that might maximize the tonal range and shot some type 55 (iso 50) polaroids. Once I had what I thought was a good exposure (f11). I shot two sheets of film at what would correspond to ie25, 50 and 100.

I developed the first group with an exposed sheet and unexposed sheet in stock Microdol-x. I used the times from the digitaltruth.com web site for bregger 200, 11.5 minutes at 20°c. The film exposed at iso 25 looked about a half stop overexposed and, conversly the sheet shot at iso 50 looked about a half stop under exposed. Both of these would produce a good print though. The unexposed sheet had a small amount of base fog and the exposed sheet could be used by an arc welder. I'll run these under a densitometry Monday. There was no visible grain through an eight x loop and the tonal range was great. The weave of the cotton knit top, where the exposure is greatest were clearly visible and the shadows in her hair had detail.

I then took the other set of three plus one unexposed and one exposed sheets and souped them in stock D76. I developed this batch for 14 minutes at 20°c. I figured this would more or less come close to cooking the film, but would give me an idea of how much speed i could gain with D76. Digitaltruth.com recommends 9 minutes for stock D76 and bregger 200.

All three negs looked good, or at least very printable! The sheet rated at 100 was the best of the bunch. There was slightly more base fog than the microdol-x negs and the exposed neg was equally as dense (probably denser -- I'll know more monday).

The scans don't quite do the negs justice, but they are close enough.


I would like this film to be as close to 100 speed as possible. So microdol-x is probably not going to swing it for me. I'm going to borrow a friends meter and do some shooting this weekend and try the ABC+Pyro next.

The bottom line is this film is very usable if not perfect! It is also a bit of a relief, I've been selling this and other stuff for the guy I got this from on ebay. It is nice to know I have not been selling crap.

 

[Donald Miller]

I vote for your wife...she definitely outshines the film, fine as it is...What she saw in you, I'll never know...Good luck..

 

[jd callow]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dnmilikan @ Feb 21 2003, 02:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I vote for your wife...she definitely outshines the film, fine as it is...What she saw in you, I'll never know...Good luck..</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
my wife says thanks and she says she married me because I promised to read her Hemmingway -- I lied and she doesn't let me forget it.

opps

now she says it was for immigration papers.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Once you get the time sorted out, you can add a restrainer to reduce the base fog. I've used Edwal Liquid Orthazite, which contains benzatriazole, for this. Start with 5 ml per 500ml working strenth developer. Add more if you don't see an effect, but don't add so much that it reduces film speed.

 

[jd callow]

<center>Dead Link Removed
The wrinkly old git and the lovely Mrs</></center>


I finally ran some tests using ABC+ Pyro.

Similar to the tests I ran with Microdol-X and D76, I shot multiple sheets at three different exposures, separated the sheets and processed them at different times to try to nail down a good combination of exposure and development times. The film was rated at an ei of 75, 150 and 300. Anything slower than an ei of 75 really won’t be advantageous. I developed the film with an unexposed sheet, an exposed sheet (as in waved under a light) and one sheet each at each exposure setting.

I used the times supplied with the chemistry for bergger 200 rated at 100 – 8min @ 20°c. The film came out a sickly pea green. The exposed sheet didn’t appear as dense as the exposed sheets from the D76 and Microdal-X tests. The unexposed sheet appeared to have a bit more density than those from the prior tests. All three exposures looked passable with the one rated at an ei of 75 appearing to be the best. I developed a second batch at 10min with the hope of increasing the speed about a stop. As before, the exposed and unexposed sheets looked lighter and darker respectively with regard to the previous tests – it did not appear that this batch was any denser than the prior ABC test. At first the middle exposure seemed to be the best neg.

The staining of the film is deceptive.

I made some prints from this batch using the neg exposed at 150. The neg required a #4 contrast filter and a 25 second exposure (at f/11, 8x10 enlargement). The paper I was using was Kodak polymax that is at least a year old. This may account for the flatness of the image or the stain may flatten the image similar to a lower contrast filter. The long exposure leads me to believe that the thinner appearing negs may be the better exposures. I didn't make any prints from any other negs -- something that I'll need to do.

I will test the Dmax and Dmin’s of this batch and compare them to the other tests (assuming the stain makes this feasible). I suspect I’ll need to make more prints and run one more set of tests to nail down the best times and exposures.

I also did a 10x enlargement of from this neg it looked very good revealing some grain on close inspection.