SXX

Here's a pic for your amusement.

<i>(Moderator's note: Please don't upload images in bmp, tiff or other uncompressed formats. They take forever to load over dialup connections and are slow even over DSL. Almost invariably a jpeg will suffice.<p>

Also, I can't simply remove the oversized image file without also removing the entire comment to which it was attached. Worse, if the oversized image file is attached to the initiating question or comment, I can only delete the entire *thread*. Sorry, that's just the way photo.net's software works.<p>

Thanks for your cooperation,<p>

Lex)</i><p>

<p>

=================================<p>

<p>

And an old one.<p>

Nice work with the box. Of course, if Super XX were still around, it wouldn't be celebrating its 50th anniversary. I'm not sure, but I think it came out as a replacement for Super X maybe in the late 30's or early 40's.

BTW, where'd you find the old box of XX 127?

Hey, I bet they'd sell some of that stuff! For a second I thought it was for real. I'll take a 100 roll pro-pack of 35mm, please. How about some DuPont SX Pan while we're at it? And I'd love to get my hands on a couple of cases of DuPont Varilour BTW in 8x10 and 11x14. That was my favorite paper of all time!

You can buy old boxes online and on Ebay at times. Yah this box didn't work as well as my Pan X box, but its all in fun. I bought a double pack of 120 box that had a film in it dated 55. I exposed the film and had it developed not long ago, but the neg was completely black. It was an experiment. Back then it was a 100 speed.

>That was my favorite paper of all time!<

 

I thought that was Zig-Zag.

Tease!

Had Super XX in roll and 35mm sizes survived it probably would have had its rating listed as ASA 200 (like the sheet film was) in 1960 when the safety factor for b/w films was reduced. I found a 1960 magazine a while back that actually had the proposed ratings posted a short time before they went into effect. Interesting note, Plus-X, then a paltry ASA 80, was given a rating of 160, but was changed to ASA 125 for packaging. I don't know if any boxes ever came out with a 160 rating or not. I don't remember as I was only 3 years old when all this happened. Thankfully, my father still has most of his old photography magazines :)

 

Cheers,

 

MIke

What, am I the only one who noticed the SXX box was 220 format? With the only true B&W Kodak packs in 220 being 320TXP, it'd be very welcome to have another emulsion available. I have one camera capable of dealing with 220: my Kodak Reflex II, which has a perfectly functioning film counter that can be reset in mid-roll (though it would require aggressive trimming of the 220 feed spool and taking up to 620). And I have reels that will hold 220, also.

 

Hmmm... Gotta get the focusing smoothed out so I can try 220 in it...

If 220 Tri-x is TXP, then 220 Super XX could also be XXP? Yeah, I got too much time on my hands, I admit it.

No Super XXs actual Kodak letters are SXX. No joke.

With a code like that, would you have to be over 21 to buy it? Could they even sell it "over the counter" without carding you? }:^0 }:^)>

Plu-X was briefly marketed as an ASA 160 film before being downgraded to 125. Eastman Plus-X Negative motion picture film is still ASA (ISO) 80. I think that when 220 first came out in the mid 1960's it was supplied in that size also.

How is SXX different from Kodak's Doube X (5222) motion picture filmstock?

Anyone?

 

feli

Guys;

 

Ummm, I have two boxes of this.

 

Still Good!

 

Ron Mowrey<div></div>

Hey Ron,

 

Why not send over a few sheets to play with. I have a lonely old Graflex waiting here. :)

Scott;

 

I have 4 hungry 4x5 cameras here myself. They would be unhappy with me if I ever let go of this film. They love the flavor.

 

Ron Mowrey

Scott, it was a good amusement but the type design for "S" is not matched to the other letters. Those letters are not as beautiful as those on pre-2002 Kodak packages, but if you want to modernize Super XX pan, bad flavor of typography is a part of it!

Yah I know the S doesn't match. I was using Photoshop to type and didn't know what font would match. It also doesn't have the black shading the others do. I guess someone on here could go over it again if they had spare time to play.

 

Oh well Ron- I tried to bum a couple sheets off ya, but I understand. :) I just want to see what the look of this film is like compared to everything else these days. What characteristics make Super XX standout from others? I know its grainier and softer. It makes me wonder if it does look like the Double X film another mentioned on here. I found Double X had a lot of contrast on the prints I got back.

Scott;

 

I can spare 5 sheets. You seriously interested?

 

It is a tad foggy, but otherwise looks fine.

 

E-mail me.

 

Ron Mowrey

Super XX is different from present day emulsions in two ways. It can respond to prolonged development since gamma infinity is higher. Today's emulsions are made so that gamma suitable for pictorial use with enlarging papers is obtained more easily.

Another is that Super XX can produce pronounced increase in MTF curve in low-mid frequencies when mild accutance developer is used. The resolution and granularity are inferior to tabular grain or even Tri-X but Super XX can give stronger accutance effect.

I'm not sure what all that means in plain English, but accutance seems to deal with sharpness as far as I know. I take it this is an excellent portrait film. Or is it more used for landscapes? I'm just trying to visualize what the tech info would look like.

 

Ron, sure I'll try 5 sheets. Do you still rate it at 200 or have you gone down to 100 now to help the fog? Also if this is developed in Xtol comercial- what developing time would you suggest?

I've never shot any Super XX sheet film (don't worry, Ron, I'm not trying to talk you out of any-we'll let Scott make the comparison), but I have shot quite a bit of Eastman Double X. It's grain and contrast remind me of Tri-X (not the latest version since I haven't shot much of it yet).

All this talk of sheet film makes me want to get out the old Crown Graphic. Got some outdated Royal Pan I could try.

BTW, I've really enjoyed this thread.

 

Regards,

 

Mike

Managed to snag a roll of vintage 35mm Super XX. Doubt if I'll try taking any photos with it. Maybe I'll put it on display with an old Retina. Just love the painted metal can that it came in. I remember all the Kodachrome and Plus-X my father shot during the sixties coming in the colored cans. By the time I started taking photos in 35mm they had moved to the unpainted metal cans.<div></div>

Scott -

 

What Ryuji is saying is that Super-XX can give a heightened sense of sharpness on relatively "coarse" detail like subject edges but doesn't have the resolution to discriminate really fine detail. It is also somewhat grainy.

 

It's really astonishing how much more resolution modern emulsions have vs. classical emulsions. Here are some examples:

 

Efke 25: 115 lp/mm

Kodak 400TX: 100 lp/mm

Kodak TMY: 125 lp/mm

Kodak Plus-X: 125 lp/mm

Kodak TMX: 200 lp/mm

 

So, in effect, modern 400 speed emulsions can have better resolution than traditional 25 speed films.

 

How much does that extra resolution matter? That's debatable. In my experience my eye could look at some pretty big enlargements from Efke 25 at close range before sensing information is missing - and in the meantime it is captivated by the accutance and tonality of that enlargement.