David is correct. I save my limited supply of Super XX for images with trees, particularly wet ones, and good skies, which are rare in Southern Cal.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]
Fair enough. I'm afraid that Super-XX was gone by the time I had access to anything to shoot it in, so I've never actually seen it in the flesh. In a way (loosely) similar to my missing the response of Agfapan 100 in the desert.
As for the hippie-chicks, there are pictures from relatives, or hanging in my older colleague's offices which indicate that with or without the hyphen, there were there in the 70s.
From the Kodak B&W Darkroom Guide, 1974:
Royal-X Pan: rollfilm, 1250 ASA, Medium grain, Moderately Low resolving power
Royal-X Pan 4166 (Estar thick base): sheet film, 1250 ASA, Medium grain, Moderately Low resolving power
Royal Pan 4141 (Estar thick base): sheets, roll, 3.5" rolls, film packs, 400 ASA, Fine grain, Medium resolving power
Super-XX Pan 4142 (Estar thick base): sheet film, 200 ASA, Fine grain, Medium resolving power
Ektapan 4162 (Estar thick base): sheets, 3.5" rolls, film packs, 100 ASA, VF grain, Medium resolving power
Tri-X Pan: rolls, 35mm magazines and rolls, 70mm, 400 ASA, VF grain, medium resolving power
Tri-X Pan Professional: roll film and film packs, 320 ASA, VF grain, medium resolving power
Tri-X Pan Professional 4164 (Estar thick base): sheet film and 3.5" rolls, 320 ASA, VF grain, medium resolving power
On top of being a different emulsion from Royal Pan, Tri-X Pan (400) was also offered in many different formats. Perhaps there were some coating issues as well, so that Royal Pan emulsion was harder to coat on a 35mm base, IDK.
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
My first favourite film was Kodak Super Panchro-Press. I was dumbfounded when it was discontinued. Then, I began a long association with SuperXX. A wonderful film, there was nothing beyond its' capability. I figured it would be my film until I could no longer make photographs. After all it was a great all-around film, and the colour separation folks used almost nothing else. Yeah, right.
Now I use Tri-X. I mention that as a warning.
Last edited by panchro-press; 02-07-2008 at 01:55 AM. Click to view previous post history.
<------ still crying myself to sleep nightly over HIE.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I remember Royal X Pan which, like Agfa Isopan Record and Ilford HPS, was a "superspeed" film with normal tonality, low to medium resolution and coarse grain. As I recall, the recommended developer for Royal X Pan was DK-20, which always produced a lot of dichroic fog for me - in Rodinal, on the other hand, Royal X Pan was a dependable grain-effect film, rather like GAF 500 in color.
Up here they are called Humboldt Honeys, and they are still around...though the younger ones tend to have that rat-nest sort of hair style rather than straight hair down to their...ahh...belts. The older ones are going gracefully gray.
Originally Posted by jd callow
Arcata, California...where the Sixties meet the sea....
PS...I made my first 4x5's with Royal Pan and used Super-XX a bit back in the late 7o's, early 80's. All worked fine for me. And in my Rollei I used Vericrome Pan.
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can be a good day of exercise.
Phillip Hyde turned me on to Super XX in the early '80s. It's legendary status is well deserved for all the reasons that others have mentioned. Additionally it had a thick emulsion on a very thick base, that allowed for N++ and N-- with relative ease, as well as easy retouching. Super XX and Pyro was a match made in chemistry heaven. When I go back to one of my 600+ 8x10 Super XX negatives, I can't help longing for its return, regardless of the deadly goop it was made with.
We used Royal Pan, not Royal X for weddings and portraits, I ran across some old Bride's portraits the other day, now over 50 years old and they look pretty good, lack of grain, etc.
Never tried the X version.
I think anybody who plans on being in film for the next 5 years or more should have two manufacturers in their film bin. No telling when the Bean Counters at Kodak pull the plug on film.
Ektapan was meant to match the speed and contrast of color negative film- to be used alongside VPS II in the studio portrait business. The large studio that I shot for c.1980 used it in 70mm long rolls. I forgot about it after that- until about 7-8 years back I decided to try it outdoors in 4x5. My 'zone system' tests suggested that it was slow and contrasty. Which surprised me, but the negatives didn't lie. I made a couple of good photographs with it; it worked well with low-contrast subject matter, but I never bought any more when it was gone. I went back to TXP.