Substitutes for Super XX

[Jeff Buckels]

Okay, so we can forget EK bringing back Super XX. Ron Winsner got back to me on this and, you know, said we can just forget it.... So, Kevin Kemner writes tha t Forte 200 is very closely related to Super XX -- very similar sensitometry dat a (made in an old EK facility too). What does anybody know about the connection between Forte 200/Super XX? Also, any comments on the Bergger 200? Raved abou t in the Film Developing Cookbook, but it was reported recently in another threa d that Gordon Hutchings stated at a recent workshop that he's no longer using th e Bergger due to inconsistency.... -jeff buckels (albuquerque)

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Since everybody's meters, lenses, shutters, working methods, eyes, and subjective opinions can differ, why not answer your own questions by buying a box of each and trying them with your equipment and your methods, and then look at them with your eyes and form your own subjective opinions. that way you will have an answer that you can trust. Kevin

[kthompson]

You've probably already seen it, but didn't View Camera have an article a year or so ago about the Bergger film? Other than that, I'd say to just get a box & see for yourself...on the other thread someone referred to the Forte film as being Super-XX on a polyester base, but I think (with the exception of the pack films) Super-XX was always on an Ester base. Ester is Kodak's trade name for a Polyester base. I'm not a big zone system photographer, but I do view the discontinuation of Super-XX in the same way as the death of the other more "traditional" films used in copywork & separation/interneg work. About the same time Super-XX was discontinued, so was Commercial Film. This year (last month actually) Kodak announced the end of Pro Copy Film, and SO-132 Duplicating Film. So, with the exception of Tech Pan, that's pretty much it for the traditional lineup of copy films from Kodak. TMAX 100 though, can fill in the gap for some of this though, maybe not for the landscape type, zone system stuff you'd want to do.I talked with Kodak via email about the dupe film and Pro Copy, and while I am not thrilled with their decision to end production, I do understand the market reality they are facing. Now, I'm having to relearn how to make dupe negs in 2 steps with available films.

[David R Munson]

Well, seeing as Super XX was discontinued before I even got into photography, I can't make any direct comparisons, but for the last few weeks I have been experimenting with Bergger BPF 200. I've been shooting it at 100 and developing in PMK for 11 minutes with very nice results. In PMK, image stain is very good and general stain is almost nonexistant. So far, all the negatives I've shot with the stuff are beautiful (aside from the few that I screwed up the other day- stupid mistake on my part). Highlight and shadow information has been exactly where I've wanted it to be and the midtones are absolutely gorgeous. Haven't done much n+ or n- with it yet, so I can't comment on how well it responds to zone system controls. However, my initial impression of the film is good.

[Anselmo DiMedici]

For what it's worth, Gordon did not make the statement mentioned in this thread, nor on this website. I spoke with Gordon on this topic and explained what was said. It's funny how thing tend to get a little screw up as statements get passed from person to person.

Yes, Bergger BPF200 experienced a coating flaw on 3 emulsion numbers back in 1998. The problem was resolved and film has since been very consistent. I guess that's the end of that story...

Being responsible for paper and film sales in North America, I take these kinds of conversations quite seriously. LF film sales doesn't make tons of money for little companies like Bergger. It's a passion of the heart for me, being a LF photographer myself.

Rumors like this tend to discourage folks from trying a product, thus creating soft sales in a portion of the product line. Most businesses don't hang on to products that lose money.

All I can say is please be kind, use products that manufacturers make available, so you don't have to complain when they do pull them.

[Kevin Kemner]

Hey!

I thought my ears were ringing! Here's the Forte Co. history page for anyone interested.

http://www.forte-photo.com/e/history.htm

As for the sensitometry just check Gordon Hutchings review of Bergger in View Camera. In the same article he reviews the Forte Films. I've used Forte in PMK for about six months and have been very satisfied with the results. Expansion and Contraction have been very easy and while I haven't done any tests with a densitometer there doesn't seem to be any toe or shoulder to the film. The base used on the film is much more flexible than the base used by Kodak, Agfa, or Ilford. The film has more grain than some newer films although when stained I haven't noticed any difference between Fortepan and FP4+. One real positive is the film is cheap so if your interested give it a try.

Thats my 2 cents.