Bergger Question

[chris_todd]

The Berrger developing question before this one made me think...I have heard people for years now bemoaning the loss of Super XX film, like it was the death of black-and-white thirty-plus years ago when it vanished. So, how come if Bergger 200 is supposed to be the new replacement, it hasn't taken the black-and-white world by storm? Seems like if Super XX was as needed as I heard, every store and photographer should be rushing for BPF. Yet, it seems to be rather difficult to get, only mail order, really.

I don't mean to say anything about the film, I am yet to try it, and I suspect it is very nice. It is the lack of reaction, by all those who I get the impression use a lost film as an excuse, that I find interesting. I was told once by a former professional studio photographer, that he wouldn't be able to do good black-and-white after his supply of 35mm Panatomic X ran out. What rubbish. The man had an 8x10 camera, even. The romance over the lost Super XX strikes me the same. Super XX has a new replacement...so what are people doing with it?

[volker_schier1]

As discussed before on this listserv at length: Bergger film is

rebadged Fortepan 200, a good old emulsion, but definitly not

identical to Kodak Super XX. The use of classic emulsions like Efke or

Forte depends -- as you point out -- on several factors: Format is

certainly one. The tonal rendition and contrast handling of these

films is beyond doubt superior to modified crystal structure films,

the grain size will not be able to compete. The classic emulsion also

respond better than modified crystal films to different developers.

The advantages of these films in a larger format starting with 120 for

me outweigh the other factors. If you are looking for the finest

possible grain, than this film will be nothing for you. I would not

use Fortepan 200 in 35 unless I was looking for some grain. Also the

price for Bergger films is simply rip-off. In most European countries

the Fortepan 200 in 35mm sells for about $2 per roll (the price often

will be cheaper if you buy a ten pack), in Hungary for much less. In

the US most dealers will charge you around $5.50 per roll.

[xosni]

I never tried Bergger films, but I use Fortepan a lot. If you are

looking for fine grain, forget about this kind of films. I use it in

120 format. The tonal rendition is definetly superior to any of the

new technology films. As a rule, never use a superfine grain

developer with this kind of films; you will get a muchy grain. I like

to develop in Rodinal, and DK-50 1:1- really sparkling high lights

with high acutance. I also found that normal grade paper (2-3) are

not able to exploit the best tonality of this film (I'm talking about

Fortepan 200 and 400). I like to over develop a little- don't worry

about that- and print on grade one.

 

<p>

 

The only films that come closer in terms of tonality, but with much

finer grain, are APX and Verichrome pan (now discontinued!). I lost

any hope with Kodak!

 

<p>

 

Xosni

[ed b.]

I've used Super XX in 4x5 and Bergger in 120, and have to say they

seem like quite different films to me, but perhaps the difference was

due to the format. They are both old-style emulsions, as has been

said above. Ansel had plenty of opportunity to use Super XX, but he

preferred Tri-X. Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee seem to be the

current champions of Super XX (they're still using old stock), but

for the life of me I can't believe it could make that much difference

in contact prints. For my personal work with 120 rollfilm, I prefer

the T-Max and Delta films--I get quite good tonality from them, as

well as fine grain and better speed.

 

<p>

 

B&H sells both Bergger BRF 200 and Fortepan 200 for $2.95 per roll.

[david_parmet1]

Can't say if it's XX (I've only been doing bw for a few years) but it

looks lovely in PMK so it's become my standard film for that

soup.

 

<p>

 

Calumet has it for $2.99 for a roll of 120.

[volker_schier1]

Dear Ed, you are certainly right about the characterstics of Super XX.

According to the B&H website the 35mm version of the Bergger

film currently sells for $4.95, which is definitly more than the

Fortepan. The last Calumet flyer I got listed the 35mm version for

$5.50. Considering the Hungarian retail prices -- wholesale the prices

would be much lower -- I still consider this more than a sound markup

by Bergger. Perhaps you refer to the 120 version, which is sold

cheaper?

[doremus_scudder1]

OK guys, I need a little documentation here concerning the Bergger

films being simply repackaged Fortepan. To my knowledge, Bergger is

manufactured in France, Fortepan in Hungary. The founders of the

French company are supposedly former employees of the Guillemot-

Bosflueg company, the makers of the original Zone VI Brilliant. If

indeed the Bergger BPF film is just a repackaging of the Fortepan, I

would like to know. That way I can buy the cheapest version of the

same film. However, I have seen no real documentation. In other

words, is there any proof out there?

[volker_schier1]

Check the archive of this listserve. People have recently compared the

film by running development tests and -- as far as I remember -- one

contributor recently even ran a curve of both film. No one will doubt

that this is 100% proof if curves turn out identical. Also read the

response by Bergger USA. They had to admit that they do not

manufacture a single product. There is no Bergger factory. By the way:

I checked prices with Fotoimpex in Berlin. They sell a 10 pack of

rebadged Fortepan 400 in 120 (under their "classic" brandname) for the

equivalent of around $1.20 per roll. They are surely no charity and

also make money.

[sal_santamaura]

Volker, I'm curious. Do you or any members of your family have a

financial interest in Fotoimpex?

[volker_schier1]

Dear Sal, certainly you may ask this question. Simple answer: NO

[ed b.]

I wasn't even aware the Bergger film was made in 35mm, as I hardly

ever use 35mm anymore. Yes the prices of the Bergger 120 and

Fortepan 120 films are identical at B&H.

[chris_todd]

Thanks for the replies. I have begun to suspect one of the answers to

my original question is that few people lug 8x10's around anymore,

and smaller cameras don't work well with older, grainy films. I

wonder what dear ol' Ansel would be using nowdays...probably TMX-100

in his antique Hassy!

My original post is indicative of my frustration with many

photographers I meet who complain more than they create. The people

who answered this post are not those type of people, since they have

real world suggestions.

The "who makes what" situation is interesting in that it makes me

wonder what gets shipped from the Ilford plant in unlabled boxes. I

think I remember someone saying they had trouble with the Bergger

film base curling. That is the very reason I dislike Ilford,

especially in 120.

I especially wanted to say thanks to Ed Buffalo for creating his

great photo site, and for trying all those different films and

processes he does. It is nice to see someone who not only talks about

creatives processes, but who actually goes out and uses them.

Thanks Again,

Chris

[alec1]

Not that its any easier to get, nor that my source is FotoImpex in

Berlin, but let me add another film for consideration - Fomapan

t200. To me, its just like the old Tri-X [when they still put a lot

of silver in it] and produces rich blacks like Super XX. Made in the

Czech Republic, IMO it compares favorably with Bergger. In fact its

so good the Great Yellow Father prevents its official import.

[chris_todd]

Now, I am quite sure Kodak has no control over who imports other

films. If they did, do you think Fuji would be allowed in? There

might be a problem with East Bloc countries, but certainly not

whether or not Kodak wants competition or not.

I learned the hard way a few years ago not to base portfolio images

on products that you may only be able to get once or twice. At least

the big names are available.

[alec1]

I understand there is a fight over patent application. FOMA just

isn't big enough to fight Kodak right now.

[volker_schier1]

Fomapan T200 has been my standard material for many years, together

with Efke 50. For me Fomapan T200 shows by far the best combination of

tonal rendition and acutance. Additionally it has finer grain than

Fortepan. I think that it is very different to Fortepan film in most

characteristics and I cannot praise it enough. According to the

information I have there was never an argument between Kodak and Foma

about patent infringement. What Kodak did was to put pressure on the

dealers not to carry Foma film, otherwise Kodak threatened to rethink

doing business with them. It is difficult to get hold of Foma film in

the US, especially in 120 and sheet formats, since there is no

importer and most European mail order companies will not ship to the

US. Therefore I do mention Fotoimpex, because they are my source for

many of these lovely products such as Foma, Efke and Calbe, products

which I otherwise could only obtain in Europe and I would hate to get

along without. In 35mm Fomapan T200 is available as Paterson Acupan

200 film.

[volker_schier1]

By the way: The new name for Fomapan T200 is Fomapan 200 Creative.

[don_spangler1]

I was just looking at the B&H ad in Shutterbug. I do not see Bergger

film listed at all. There is Forte and Patterson though.

As for Fotoimpex.de. I have purchased from them for several years.

Mirko, the owner, takes a personal interest in his customers and has

formed a treasure of black & white supplies. Perhaps the best in the

world. He makes purchasing just as easy as buying from B & H.

Anyone that buys from him will be "hooked" on his great products and

service.

A leading USA photographer/lecturer/and educator recently tried

Fotoimpex's fiberbase Classic (Forte) Museum paper and has declared

it the best there is. I have used it and there is no equal. It is

available in graded and multicontrast. it is triple weight, clean

whites, beautiful tonality, slightly warm.