Sunday, April 24, 2022

4×5" Treasure: Kodak Super-XX film (Abandoned Films 09)

Dear readers, I thought my experiments with discontinued films had come to an end when I used a roll of 120-size Gold 100 film in Louisiana in 2021 and then some 35mm Kodak BW400CN in Jackson and North Carolina. Oops, I forgot my box of 4×5" Kodak Super-XX film in the freezer. From Wikipedia:

Kodak's standard high-speed film from 1940 to 1954, when Tri-X was introduced in smaller formats. Discontinued before 1960 in roll-film formats, but sheet film was available until 1992. Originally 100, later 200 iso when safety factor was reduced. Relatively coarse grain. Very long, almost perfectly straight-line characteristic curve, great latitude made it ideal for variable developments, both longer and shorter, water-bath development, special compensating formulas.

Tri-X replaced replaced XX (three Xes rather than two, get it?), although the two overlapped for many years. Many photographers loved Super-XX because of its smooth contrast and subtle grey tones. Kodak still makes a version of Super-XX for cinematography. Some companies repackage it in 35mm cassettes for 35mm photographers, but I have not tried the roll film version.

A treasure of expired film from the freezer

My box had been frozen for decades. It was in the freezer of a dear friend who passed away two years ago.  I had never used Super-XX before and wanted to try it. Here is a small selection of my initial test photographs. 

Neuman Store, Canada Cross Road, Utica (135mm ƒ/5.6 Caltar-S II lens, 1/8 ƒ/32)
Parking lot, Levee Street, Vicksburg (135mm ƒ/5.6 Caltar-S II lens, orange filter, 1/2 ƒ/22)
Kansas City Southern rail yard, Vicksburg, 6/7/21 (240mm ƒ/9 G-Claron lens, deep yellow filter, 1/4 ƒ/45)
Porch, 1211 Monroe Street, Vicksburg (90 mm ƒ/6.8 Angulon lens, 1/2 ƒ/22.5)
BelAir Plaza, Hwy 80, Jackson (135mm ƒ/5.6 Caltar-S II lens, yellow filter, 1/15 ƒ/22)

These negatives were thin. I exposed them at EI-64 and possibly I need to allow another stop of light (EI=32). It is also possibly that the lab underdeveloped them these frames. I will show more examples in some future articles. Also, I will load film holders and try again as the spring advances.  

1 comment:

Jim Grey said...

These scanned well at least. Sometimes the scanner can rescue a thin neg.