Super XX clone?

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael - it's all academic anyway, since both of these films are unavailable to new
purchasers. 100TMax is capable of a high degree of expansion, and will hold an almost
straight line in certain developers (but alas, has a totally different look than Super-XX).

True, but T Max 100 has a couple of things that need to be put into the correct perspective.

First T Max 100 has a UV coating on it that disqualifies it (or makes it very challenging) for any process using a UV as an exposure light source. We asked Kodak to leave this coating off of T Max 400 and they agreed to do so. Secondly, T Max 100 has a long history of optimal results favoring rotary processing and the consistency that comes from it. No necessarily a bad thing but it is a limiting condition that needs to be dealt with. Lastly is the look of the results and this is a personal judgement call.

There is no question that Super XX was a grainy film. But in contact prints this is not an issue. However that was then and this is now.

[John Bowen]

Can T-Max 400 be developed by inspection or does it still have the magenta dye?

Henry

Henry,

This reminds me of the question one of my math teachers used to ask; "did you walk to school today or bring your lunch?"

Yes, T-Max 400 can be developoed by inspection. I do it all the time, but I use an infrared monacle to do it. A Green Safelight won't work with T-Max 400. And, yes, T-Max 400 still has the magenta dye.

Happy Thanksgiving,

[Drew Wiley]

Michael - don't get the thing about 100TMax being optimized for rotary. It processes
superbly by other means too. Just a matter of the correct developer. A bit fussier than
some films in the highlights, but predictable. I've shot it in every format I own and am
quite comfortable with the film, though I don't like it for certain subjects and am aware
of the UV issue, though it doesn't affect me personally. My late brother left behind a
lot of Super-XX negs from the old days, and I hope to print a few of these eventually
because he is one of those folks who indulged in all kinds of tricks Super-XX was known for - reticulation, high-contrast grain enhancement, water bath, etc etc. I liked
it too, but have obviously moved on, then on again, then ...

[Oren Grad]

At the top of this thread, Christopher Nisperos cops to having invented the canard that BPF200 was a Super XX lookalike.

As Paul Butzi rightly points out later in the thread, this little fabrication wasted people's time, energy and money.

I tested BPF200 with D-76 and intensely disliked it. It combined a very abrupt shoulder with a sort-of-straight-line midrange that wasn't long enough to allow for decent shadow detail at any reasonable exposure. The only good results I ever saw from BPF200 - and there were some - were from other photographers who used pyro developers.

I remember discussing this with Phil Davis. Based on his own tests, he was appalled at the claim that BPF200 was more or less the same as Super XX.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael - don't get the thing about 100TMax being optimized for rotary. It processes
superbly by other means too. Just a matter of the correct developer. A bit fussier than
some films in the highlights, but predictable. I've shot it in every format I own and am
quite comfortable with the film, though I don't like it for certain subjects and am aware
of the UV issue, though it doesn't affect me personally. My late brother left behind a
lot of Super-XX negs from the old days, and I hope to print a few of these eventually
because he is one of those folks who indulged in all kinds of tricks Super-XX was known for - reticulation, high-contrast grain enhancement, water bath, etc etc. I liked
it too, but have obviously moved on, then on again, then ...

I have some T Max 100 in the freezer. What developer and process works best for you? I am always game particularly when I am sitting on the materials.

[sanking]

I remember discussing this with Phil Davis. Based on his own tests, he was appalled at the claim that BPF200 was more or less the same as Super XX.

And Phil also observed that BPF 200 was not a true ASA 200 film, and he was correct. I tested it several times with tight sensitometry controls and it always came out about ASA 100, as Phil had found.

What irks me about all of this is the deliberate misrepresentation of the film as a SuperXX "lookalike'. That was simply untrue, unless you were comparing BPF 200 to Super XX from the 1940s or 1950s as Ian has suggested, but in 2000 who would have been doing that?

Sandy

[IanG]

Oren, the current Volkswagen Golf is quite different to the first Golf of 1974, yet both are related and carry the same name.

This is why Fortepan/Bergger 200 could be claimed to be similar to Super XX, because it was a direct descendant of the Kodak film and made in a former Kodak plant with ex Kodak equipment & technology.

The mistake is that people dismiss the claim without understanding or realising the background.

Perhaps dodgy marketing in the US made some people think the Fortepan 200 it would be similar to the the last generation of Kodak's own Super XX, and one company in particular were to blame. However in the UK and EU the Forte films were sold as old style thick emulsions with no hype except when sold by Bergger.

Ian

[Drew Wiley]

A combination of replies: I have been rating Bergger 200 at 200 ever since it came out
and have gotten superb shadow separation well down into Zone I or below. PMK. This
seems to mimic the results Gordon Hutchings got when he called it the best marriage
of film and developer ever in his own experience (again, for projection printing). 76 developer will throw a slight bow into the curve, and a distinct one into 100TMax. For
color sep work I use a modified version of TMax RS with a toe-cutter in order to get
something very close to a straight line way down into the shadows. The extent of this testing was way beyond anything I might contmplate for general use, including three completely different filtration systems. For general shooting I develop both T-Max films in PMK, though I have tested certain other pyrog and pyrocat formulas with decent results. Have done similar tests with 400TMax and FP4+.

[sanking]

Perhaps dodgy marketing in the US made some people think the Fortepan 200 it would be similar to the the last generation of Kodak's own Super XX, and one company in particular were to blame. However in the UK and EU the Forte films were sold as old style thick emulsions with no hype except when sold by Bergger.

Ian

OK, that is probably true since the only untrue hype I saw came from representatives of Bergger who suggested that BPF 200 was especially made with a Bergger formula, and thus different from the less expensive Forte 200 and J&C 200 sold in the US. That claim was simply false and totally misleading.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

Sandy - I found that true with Bergger in general. A bit of marketing BS. But I first
purchased the Fortepan 200 film under the Lotus label, which never made the claim of
it being a direct substitute for Super XX. What I don't know is true of not, is the claim
some supposed insider made that all the later batches of Super XX were in fact made
in E Europe using very antiquated equipment which simply didn't match Kodak's long-range plan for modular mfg.