Fortepan 200 / Super XX?

[erik_asgeirsson]

I heard a rumor that Fortepan 200 in sheet sizes is the same as the old Kodak Super XX, but on a different base. I emailed Forte about it a while back, but they still haven't emailed back, so I thought I'd ask this here. Can anyone here confirm this, based on prior knowledge or firsthand experience? If it is, I'd be particularly interested in if it's as versatile as far as the zone system as double x was.

[david_goldfarb]

It is certainly possible. Isn't Forte produced in an old Kodak plant?

Fortepan 400 is often compared to Tri-X, but I haven't tried it yet

myself to confirm that. I just ordered a box of Classic Pan 400 in

8x10", which www.fotoimpex.de says is actually Fortepan 400.

[john_kasaian2]

I just received a box of 8x10 fortepan 200 from www,eightelmphoto.com

in Canada.I think it cost about US$55 with shipping. I've never used

XX so I can't give a valid comparison, but if it is XX I'm curious as

to what pyro formula would give the best results. If PMK is suited

for modern films, would ABC give better results with fortepan 200?

Any ideas?

[michael_feldman1]

Anchell and Troop ("The Film Developing Cookbook", Focal Press, 1998)

say that Bergger BPF200 is similar, but not identical, to Super XX.

[huib_smeets]

Hi,

 

<p>

 

Never used the Fortepan 200 (and the private label counterparts)

myself but I'm told that it is not equal just similar, it stains very

well in Pyro and is grainy.

 

<p>

 

For the archives: AFAIK: several but not all of the papers and films

offered under the privatlabel of companies like www.Fotoimpex.com,

www.Bergger.com and www.Moersch-photochemie.com are nothing else than

Forte papers and films. Bergger recently updated their website and

has a 400 asa film listed as of April 2002 (in the french section).

 

<p>

 

Greetings,

 

<p>

 

Huib

 

<p>

 

http://home.plex.nl/~hsmeets

[edward_burlew]

I use the forte 200, rated at 100 and I let Steichen Lab in Toronto

develop it like triX (8x10). The results are excellent highlights

hold up very well and the shadows have separation. I have been told

this is not the same as bregger. that is bregger does not buy forte

and repackages it, But I have been told that forte is made at the

same plant on the same machinery that Kodak used but left when they

left the country, Of course at that time Kodak was making SuperXX on

that machinery, So its the same but it isn't. ????

 

<p>

 

Who cares it is a great film and the results of experiments need to

be posted !!!

[doremus_scudder1]

I, for one, would really appreciate some authoritative comment on

this topic. Especially on the questions of whether Bergger films are

Fortepan repackaged (I always thought that there was a Bergger

factory in France, but I may be mistaken), or whether Fortepan 200

and 400 are old-style Kodak Super XX and Tri-X respectively. Does

anyone out there have any conclusive info?

Regards ;^D)

[ed b.]

I don't have any conclusive information, but I have used Super XX in

the past and Fortepan 200 today, and they strike me as quite

different films. They may share some characteristics, but they are

not the same. I wonder if Michael Smith has ever tried the Fortepan,

because I know he still uses Super XX--he could give us a more

authoritative answer.

[michael_a._smith1]

As probably the last regular users of Super XX on the planet, Paula and

I might indeed be in a position to answer this question. Seems we need

to do a test comparing Bergger 200 and Fortepan with Super XX. One of

these days we'll get to it. Someone send me and email (not on list) and

let me know where to get Fortepan. Thanks. We know where to get the

Bergger. (Great film incidentally, only a little bit slow.)

[jim_shanesy]

In The Negative, Adams extolled the virtues of water bath development ad nauseum. Some of his best work simply wouldn't have been possible without it. (Moonrise, Hernandez NM and Early Morning, Merced River are just two examples.) He cautioned, however, that it only works with the old style thick emulsion films, the last of which was Super XX Pan. I tried ultra compensating development of Tri-X and HP5 with PMK and a Kodalk bath (Adams also suggested that alkali in the water would help preserve shadow detail); it didn't work worth a damn.

 

The real question for me is: Are either Bergger 200 or the Forte 200 thick emulsion films, a la Super XX Pan, which could revive the time honored practice of water bath development for extra compensation?