I heard a rumor that Fortepan 200 in sheet sizes is the same as the old Kodak Su per XX, but on a different base. I emailed Forte about it a while back, but they still haven't emailed back, so I thought I'd ask this here. Can anyone here con firm this, based on prior knowledge or firsthand experience? If it is, I'd be pa rticularly interested in if it's as versatile as far as the zone system as doubl e x was.
It is certainly possible. Isn't Forte produced in an old Kodak plant? Fortepan 400 is often compared to Tri-X, but I haven't tried it yet myself to confirm that. I just ordered a box of Classic Pan 400 in 8x10", which www.fotoimpex.de says is actually Fortepan 400.
I just received a box of 8x10 fortepan 200 from www,eightelmphoto.com in Canada.I think it cost about US$55 with shipping. I've never used XX so I can't give a valid comparison, but if it is XX I'm curious as to what pyro formula would give the best results. If PMK is suited for modern films, would ABC give better results with fortepan 200? Any ideas?
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Anchell and Troop ("The Film Developing Cookbook", Focal Press, 1998) say that Bergger BPF200 is similar, but not identical, to Super XX.
Hi,
Never used the Fortepan 200 (and the private label counterparts) myself but I'm told that it is not equal just similar, it stains very well in Pyro and is grainy.
For the archives: AFAIK: several but not all of the papers and films offered under the privatlabel of companies like www.Fotoimpex.com, www.Bergger.com and www.Moersch-photochemie.com are nothing else than Forte papers and films. Bergger recently updated their website and has a 400 asa film listed as of April 2002 (in the french section).
Greetings,
Huib
http://home.plex.nl/~hsmeets
I use the forte 200, rated at 100 and I let Steichen Lab in Toronto develop it like triX (8x10). The results are excellent highlights hold up very well and the shadows have separation. I have been told this is not the same as bregger. that is bregger does not buy forte and repackages it, But I have been told that forte is made at the same plant on the same machinery that Kodak used but left when they left the country, Of course at that time Kodak was making SuperXX on that machinery, So its the same but it isn't. ????
Who cares it is a great film and the results of experiments need to be posted !!!
I, for one, would really appreciate some authoritative comment on this topic. Especially on the questions of whether Bergger films are Fortepan repackaged (I always thought that there was a Bergger factory in France, but I may be mistaken), or whether Fortepan 200 and 400 are old-style Kodak Super XX and Tri-X respectively. Does anyone out there have any conclusive info? Regards ;^D)
I don't have any conclusive information, but I have used Super XX in the past and Fortepan 200 today, and they strike me as quite different films. They may share some characteristics, but they are not the same. I wonder if Michael Smith has ever tried the Fortepan, because I know he still uses Super XX--he could give us a more authoritative answer.
As probably the last regular users of Super XX on the planet, Paula and I might indeed be in a position to answer this question. Seems we need to do a test comparing Bergger 200 and Fortepan with Super XX. One of these days we'll get to it. Someone send me and email (not on list) and let me know where to get Fortepan. Thanks. We know where to get the Bergger. (Great film incidentally, only a little bit slow.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks