PDA

View Full Version : What exactly have I got here?



Toyo
26-Oct-2017, 23:26
Today I was given a bag containing photographic emulsions - various.
There are some glass plates wrapped in decaying black paper as well as these three boxes of ...........
The boxes are unopened but in a sad state.
The two larger are Kodak Super XX and the smaller is unknown Kodak ????.
The larger are of full plate size and the smaller half plate.
What is in the boxes - film? glass plates?
Any help appreciated
T

171233171234171235

xkaes
27-Oct-2017, 05:15
Parakeet cage liners

mdarnton
27-Oct-2017, 06:49
Boxes say "Plates", so I'm guessing . . . . . plates?

Jim Jones
27-Oct-2017, 06:59
Perhaps the only practical use for these is to strip off the present emulsion and apply new emulsion. Some people still do this, much like it was done 150 years ago.

Mark Sampson
27-Oct-2017, 07:57
Kodak changed its graphic design on the boxes in 1972, and that style was current from c.1940. Not that it makes any difference; the plates inside must be completely fogged by time (even if you had a camera and holders to take them), and the boxes are too crusty for a collector of Kodak ephemera (of which there are a few). Oh well.

LabRat
27-Oct-2017, 08:31
Yea, probably fogged by now, and the disintegrating box probably means that also the inner wrapping inside is also crumbling, so probably not clean, and box might have had moisture damage, so maybe inside too... I have unpacked several old gel filters (from the 50's???) that were very stuck to the packing liner...

Back when flexible backed films were introduced in the 19th century, Eastman had a tough time convincing all pro photographers that it was OK to use the new film rather than what was considered superior glass plates, and as I understand, many still used these well into the 20th century, my guess for a portrait or commercial photographer as it was different to retouch (and old habits die hard, sometimes)... Astrophotographers continued to use them as they would not buckle during very long exposures, and images were on a stable backing...

If you notice many early film holders, they would be made to hold a plate, but also have an adapter sheath to hold film so they could hold "traditional" plates, so inexpensive to try out the new films, but one could switch back... (Little did they know at the time what would happen to all of those nitrate backed films in the future...) :-0

But if you do have any plate holders, why not give it a try at a very low EI, and see if the base fog is not too great... (You might be able to enlarge on them to make a positive, too...) Develop a plate in a tray with emulsion up... Might be able to scan if an image can be seen... Might have a "primitive" look (if any)... Maybe you can "doodle" on them with retouching leads if any image, or strip emulsion with hot water and bleach, re-coat with plain gelatin, then doodle or make an emulsion as a project...

Steve K

goamules
27-Oct-2017, 09:07
I hear the "probably fogged by now" refrain a lot. And I contrast it with the posts of people who find old cameras with undeveloped film, who then develop passable pictures. I'd shoot a couple and see.

barnacle
27-Oct-2017, 10:09
Which reminds me: I have a bunch of 1920s plates that I won in an auction *and* a camera that they'll fit. Must see how bad they are!

Neil

Chauncey Walden
27-Oct-2017, 11:46
I have a couple of crates of GI 1940's vintage Kodak plates that I ought to play with sometime. Any special developer recommended?

Toyo
27-Oct-2017, 14:46
Thanks everyone for the feedback.
Yes, I did check a little on the internet before asking my question and discovered that Kodak Super XX was a film.
And yet the boxes do indeed say "plates".
The rear of one box has the stamp "BACKED" and I was unaware of quite what that meant as well, in this context.
T

Robert Opheim
27-Oct-2017, 17:09
I remember developing a box of super-XX film on film rather than glass in the early 1970's. At that time I was using D-76 for everything. Benzotriozole (anti-fog solution) might help as well. Are the plates wrapped in paper or plastic and if the plastic is sealed the plates might yield something and with anti-fog solution. According to net info it was sold up to 1992 in sheet film format. I think I did a zone system curve plotting of Super XX film in the mid 1970's. It had very straight curves for zone system development.

Toyo
27-Oct-2017, 18:32
OK, I have examined one of the other boxes that was opened and it did indeed contain Super XX on glass plates.
The plates were stuck together inside their decaying paper wrappers so there might be little hope for the those in the unopened boxes as they seem to be from the same vintage.
Thanks to all
Tom

LabRat
27-Oct-2017, 23:12
I have a couple of crates of GI 1940's vintage Kodak plates that I ought to play with sometime. Any special developer recommended?

DK-50 is recommended as it controls swelling, clean working, and contains a restrainer...

Steve K

Pere Casals
28-Oct-2017, 05:13
Oh... I think AA and YK were Super XX users !!!!!


I'd just take one plate and I'd expose an Stouffer wedge (T2115 like) on it.

Now I perfectioning my DIY glass plates and I'm pretty sure that my emulsion get's more fog in one week that a kodak ancient plate in a century :)

First, it would be interesting to know how this plates are keeping some sort of useful activity after such a long period. It's like openning a 1940 good wine bottle, sure wine is not "perfect", but anyway it is a ceremony.

There are nice exemples of very old found films that were developed succesfuly with "recoverable" old latent images. http://www.westfordcomp.com/

Here you have an advantage, as you can calibrate the plates again by exposing an Stouffer wedge on it... then you can determine best exposure.

Sure it will be a "lomographyc" result, but by knowing how it is still working you have the chance to use that for creativity. Perhaps some areas would be worse.

One important thing it would be development, you should search general technics to develop ancient film, sure those plates have a very delicate emulsion and probably it would be good to develop it in cold water and longer time to allow the emulsion stay in place. Perhaps fog can be diminished with adding some Benzotriazole to developer, should be investigated, this effect would be seen in the calibration.

Super XX says that can be handled under W 3 safe light, so should be ortho and you can make calibration under safe light, a convenient way. So it would be good ASAP to inspect a Super XX plate under safe ligth to see how the surface remains, and if fungus damaged it.

In special those Super XX plates, if still working, would be very nice to shot, one can feel like Ansel with that !!!

I don't know you, but I would get a large ammount of fun with it !!! :rolleyes:

xkaes
28-Oct-2017, 06:25
Sure it will be a "lomographyc" result, but by knowing how it is still working you have the chance to use that for creativity. Perhaps some areas would be worse.

In special those Super XX plates, if still working, would be very nice to shot, one can feel like Ansel with that !!!

I don't know you, but I would get a large ammount of fun with it !!! :rolleyes:

I shoot 4x5 Kodak Royal-X Pan made in the 1960's. Fortunately for me, the boxes I have have never gotten damp or wet -- and since I've had them, they have lived in a freezer. Royal-X Pan is a fast film similar to Kodak's 2475 and 2485 Recording films -- very fast and very grainy. Kodak rates it at ASA 1250, but I shoot it usually at ISO 800. It is probably similar to Super XX. I use D-76 1+1. Tons of "Lomography" fun, especially with soft-focus lenses or pinholes! Landscapes look like results from the late 1800's Romantic/Pictorial period.

interneg
28-Oct-2017, 12:09
Super XX says that can be handled under W 3 safe light, so should be ortho and you can make calibration under safe light, a convenient way.

Super-XX was never an Ortho film - there's an old Kodak dataguide somewhere on archive.org if you want the spectral plot - it apparently had very even colour sensitivity which made it Kodak's choice for separation film for Dye Transfer etc - and that was probably why it lasted in production till the end of dye transfer production. It was a type-b panchro film I recall from the data sheet & about 1/3 stop slower under tungsten (like most panchro films - it's just that most films today state the daylight speed only). Most faster Ortho films lose about a stop of speed under tungsten.

Also, pretty much anything that needs a green safelight is panchro sensitised, & that safelight is really only for inspection after a certain amount of development time has elapsed, not for viewing the undeveloped film. Kodak's #2 or Ilford's 906 safelight filters are the ones you want for fast Ortho materials.

Toyo
28-Oct-2017, 13:09
Many thanks everyone for the responses - they are valued.
I was speaking to a friend last night and he thinks he can source a camera that takes glass plates this size.
We are looking towards having some fun with these old plates anyway.
Tom

Pere Casals
28-Oct-2017, 13:28
Many thanks everyone for the responses - they are valued.
I was speaking to a friend last night and he thinks he can source a camera that takes glass plates this size.
We are looking towards having some fun with these old plates anyway.
Tom

Let me suggest another way, use it as it was print paper to obtain positive slides.

xkaes
28-Oct-2017, 13:29
Here's the scoop on SUPER-XX. It is ASA 200 and except for the base is NOT like 2475 or 2485.

171311

Toyo
28-Oct-2017, 13:40
Let me suggest another way, use it as it was print paper to obtain positive slides.

I had not thought of that - thank you
Tom

Toyo
28-Oct-2017, 13:41
Here's the scoop on SUPER-XX. It is ASA 200 and except for the base is NOT like 2475 or 2485.

171311

Much appreciated xkaes
T

Pere Casals
29-Oct-2017, 10:26
Much appreciated xkaes
T

Just one thing, with very old film, ISO / ASA speed changed in 1960. A pre 1960 ASA 100 it is the same than ASA 200 post 1960, see here ASA section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed.

Still the actual speed may have changed a lot with aging, so a test should be done.

xkaes
29-Oct-2017, 10:37
The ASA that I listed, from Kodak's F-5 publication, lists SUPER-XX at ASA 200, and Tri-X at ASA 400, so I assume that Kodak rated both AFTER the change. In any case, it's best to run some sort of test, even without the added problems of age and storage conditions.

Pere Casals
29-Oct-2017, 12:28
The ASA that I listed, from Kodak's F-5 publication, lists SUPER-XX at ASA 200, and Tri-X at ASA 400, so I assume that Kodak rated both AFTER the change. In any case, it's best to run some sort of test, even without the added problems of age and storage conditions.

It should be this, I've just found that Super-XX was ASA 100 before 1960 and ASA 200 after 1960:

"Speed: Daylight ASA 100, later 200, when safety factor was reduced" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_discontinued_photographic_films#Kodak_Super-XX

It also says that it was made until 1992 in sheets, but roll formats were discontinued as early as 1960, 32 years earlier !!

I guess that Karsh success with Super-XX could be a contributing factor for the extended product life in the sheet formats...

interneg
29-Oct-2017, 13:52
It should be this, I've just found that Super-XX was ASA 100 before 1960 and ASA 200 after 1960:

"Speed: Daylight ASA 100, later 200, when safety factor was reduced" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_discontinued_photographic_films#Kodak_Super-XX

It also says that it was made until 1992 in sheets, but roll formats were discontinued as early as 1960, 32 years earlier !!

I guess that Karsh success with Super-XX could be a contributing factor for the extended product life in the sheet formats...

It was the main colour separation film for dye transfer from transparencies etc & that's why it lasted till 1992 in sheets, but no longer. It had specific qualities that matched dye transfer well in terms of colour sensitivity etc. The BW fine art market was small potatoes in comparison & quantity of film used. Main markets were not Adams/ Weston/ Karsh wannabes, but rather people making dye transfers for publication, advertising etc involving compositing , retouching, colour replacement/ alteration etc that Photoshop rapidly displaced it from.

Pere Casals
29-Oct-2017, 14:52
It was the main colour separation film for dye transfer from transparencies etc & that's why it lasted till 1992 in sheets

I was not aware of that...

Anyway it was an important emulsion, I knew about Super-XX when reading about Citizen Kane cinematography, Toland made a nice job with it...

Mark Sampson
29-Oct-2017, 16:44
Super-XX was Kodak's 'fast' film from the 1940s. Speed and grain-wise it was surpassed by Tri-X Pan, which was introduced around 1954. So the smaller formats disappeared quickly. A look at the curves show that the color sensitivity curves lay right on top of one another- vital when shooting separations. And it had a straight line forever- useful for alt-process photographers. Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee are the Super-XX die-hards- they bought a large amount of the last batches in 1992 and are still using it, printing through the inevitable fog.

Pere Casals
30-Oct-2017, 01:25
Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee are the Super-XX die-hards- they bought a large amount of the last batches in 1992 and are still using it, printing through the inevitable fog.

Nice to know that Smith/Chamlee are Super-XX lovers. I had been reading some proficient photographers stating they strongly preferred Super-XX vs Tri... of even saying that it simply was much better for their work.

It would be interesting to know why they love it. By now I simply know that I'm not able to emulate (or copy) the Karsh footprint (not extrange...) , but I'd like to know what was in Super-XX that made him love it.




A look at the curves show that the color sensitivity curves lay right on top of one another- vital when shooting separations.

What's about grain/sharpness, IMHO Super-XX was not a good color separation film, in special if enlargements had to be made. Color separation film is usually low speed, sharp and fine grain.

Anyway IMHO it has some good "filmic" features for that: long straight line, so it still could be a choice for those works not requiring fine grain/sharpness, if price was good.



About spectral sensitivity, for color separations requisite is that spectral sensitivity is panchromatic, orthopanchromatic can also be useful with proper correction factor if it can still see the peak of each channel. For color separation the important thing is filters used, or the specific "color" of light for each channel. Even it is possible to use a narrow band for exposing each channel, because in fact the spectral information is reduced to 3 channels at taking time.

At the end what it is important to indirectly measure (in color separation) is the ammount of "silver exposure" that was in the negative layers before color developer, it is less interesting what spectral spread had the color dyes, comming from color clouds, as this can be reproduced again in a post process.

What I see in color separation is that we can make a separation that tries to preserve the particular film food print, or aiming the channel peak with a narrow spectral window, so we get something related to the silver content of each layer before color developer, then we can remove most of the film footprint from the result, and later we will be able to get any footprint if we want.

Anyway for color separation, IMHO, what is really important is filters for each channel, the filter selection may also consider the spectral sensitivity of the separation film...

interneg
30-Oct-2017, 10:37
Nice to know that Smith/Chamlee are Super-XX lovers. I had been reading some proficient photographers stating they strongly preferred Super-XX vs Tri... of even saying that it simply was much better for their work.

It would be interesting to know why they love it. By now I simply know that I'm not able to emulate (or copy) the Karsh footprint (not extrange...) , but I'd like to know what was in Super-XX that made him love it.

A characteristic curve that was pretty much a straight line & the ability to raise & lower the contrast over a broad range were the two main attractions. TMY-II exposed off the toe can do the straight line thing pretty well, & there are solutions when you need to expand flat contrast situations - Super-XX was a good solution for its time, but suffered in the grain & resolution departments.

Karsh was all about lighting to a contrast range, not about mucking around with processing times & exposure - why bother if you can light to the 7-stop range of G2 paper? It's about tungsten fresnels, bounces, flags & playing the fall-off behaviour.


What's about grain/sharpness, IMHO Super-XX was not a
good color separation film, in special if enlargements had to be made. Color separation film is usually low speed, sharp and fine grain.

Anyway IMHO it has some good "filmic" features for that: long straight line, so it still could be a choice for those works not requiring fine grain/sharpness, if price was good.



About spectral sensitivity, for color separations requisite is that spectral sensitivity is panchromatic, orthopanchromatic can also be useful with proper correction factor if it can still see the peak of each channel. For color separation the important thing is filters used, or the specific "color" of light for each channel. Even it is possible to use a narrow band for exposing each channel, because in fact the spectral information is reduced to 3 channels at taking time.

At the end what it is important to indirectly measure (in color separation) is the ammount of "silver exposure" that was in the negative layers before color developer, it is less interesting what spectral spread had the color dyes, comming from color clouds, as this can be reproduced again in a post process.

What I see in color separation is that we can make a separation that tries to preserve the particular film food print, or aiming the channel peak with a narrow spectral window, so we get something related to the silver content of each layer before color developer, then we can remove most of the film footprint from the result, and later we will be able to get any footprint if we want.

Anyway for color separation, IMHO, what is really important is filters for each channel, the filter selection may also consider the spectral sensitivity of the separation film...

You have to remember that a lot of stuff printed via dye transfer was from (minimum) 4x5, a lot of it was from 5x7, 8x10 etc & rarely printed bigger than 20x24 (at least until relatively later in the dye transfer era) - in that context the grain of Super-XX was less of an issue & its contrast controllability (which controlled saturation) & colour sensitivity were far more important. Even a 3-4x off 8x10 starts to show visible grain - & preventing excessive graininess on 35mm dye transfers seems to have been one of the biggest debates in the dye transfer world. Right at the end of the dye transfer era, Kodak seems to have started to suggest TMX as a way to experiment with in-camera separations etc.

I'd also strongly suggest you view some dye transfers 'in the flesh' to experience & understand their distinctive characteristics.

And that's before we consider the dye transfer variant for making dyes from colour negs - but that was limited to maximum 16x20 prints I recall.

Finally, if you want to play with colour separation, apparently the #70, #98, #99 set offers the most accurate results.

Pere Casals
31-Oct-2017, 02:36
A characteristic curve that was pretty much a straight line & the ability to raise & lower the contrast over a broad range were the two main attractions. TMY-II exposed off the toe can do the straight line thing pretty well, & there are solutions when you need to expand flat contrast situations - Super-XX was a good solution for its time, but suffered in the grain & resolution departments.

Karsh was all about lighting to a contrast range, not about mucking around with processing times & exposure - why bother if you can light to the 7-stop range of G2 paper? It's about tungsten fresnels, bounces, flags & playing the fall-off behaviour.



You have to remember that a lot of stuff printed via dye transfer was from (minimum) 4x5, a lot of it was from 5x7, 8x10 etc & rarely printed bigger than 20x24 (at least until relatively later in the dye transfer era) - in that context the grain of Super-XX was less of an issue & its contrast controllability (which controlled saturation) & colour sensitivity were far more important. Even a 3-4x off 8x10 starts to show visible grain - & preventing excessive graininess on 35mm dye transfers seems to have been one of the biggest debates in the dye transfer world. Right at the end of the dye transfer era, Kodak seems to have started to suggest TMX as a way to experiment with in-camera separations etc.

I'd also strongly suggest you view some dye transfers 'in the flesh' to experience & understand their distinctive characteristics.

And that's before we consider the dye transfer variant for making dyes from colour negs - but that was limited to maximum 16x20 prints I recall.

Finally, if you want to play with colour separation, apparently the #70, #98, #99 set offers the most accurate results.


Thanks for the info, I'm interested in experimenting triple color-filtered BW glass plate negative, I'll start with those wrattens you point. This is not separating colors from film, but from scene, but it should work close.

interneg
31-Oct-2017, 12:58
Thanks for the info, I'm interested in experimenting triple color-filtered BW glass plate negative, I'll start with those wrattens you point. This is not separating colors from film, but from scene, but it should work close.

Shouldn't make any difference between in camera or darkroom separations. A lot of colour work was done in this manner on single-shot cameras with the filtration done by pellicle beam-splitters inside the camera. Check out the work of Madame Yevonde to see what could be done with those cameras in the pre-Kodachrome era.

Good luck!