ISO rating for Kodak Super-XX ?

[crawdiddy]

OK, before the groans begin, I tried searching for this info, but found nothing. So I'm posing the question.

What ISO rating should be used for vintage Kodak Super-XX High Speed Panchromatic film?

I purchased the unused film in 620 format, for the spool (for my Medalist). But the film was sealed. Slightly expired (1956). So I may as well see what it'll do.

I'm thinking it should be about ISO 200, right? Plus-X is 125, Tri-X is 400.

Also, how should I develop the stuff afterward? Massive Dev Chart does not list this film.

I know some of you guys are going to know this. Maybe Al Kaplan? Charjohncarter?

I'll appreciate your suggestions. Thanks, Dan.

 

[crawdiddy]

bump
bump

 

[MartinP]

I think you mean "exposure index", rather than ISO . . . ? 😉

There are other things to consider, given the age of the film. There will probably be a bit of fogging due to (at least) cosmic radiation and (possibly) environmental damage to the film during it's storage. This makes results a bit random, but there are a few threads here about successful development of latent-images from decades ago covering topics such as fog-reducing development techniques etc. I don't recall any threads covering using fifty year old film as camera stock now.

On the other hand, your unused roll might even be ebay-able, then you can buy yourself some 620 cores with the 'profit' !

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Tri-X used to be ASA 200 when first introduced, and Plus-X was slower.

Tom A shoots this film. But, the more modern movie-film version is probably faster than Vintage film. Plus, old film might need a little more light. I've shot Kodachrome over 20 years out of date. It came out.

I seem to remember an ISO 100 rating "in the day". I'll try to find an old photobook in the basement- but no promises...big basement...

 

[cmedin]

I would shoot it at ISO 50 and soup in Diafine.

 

[wlewisiii]

Officially, at EOL, it was a 200 ISO film. However, that roll is from before the great rating change in the early '60's which would mean a rating of 100. Cmedin has the right idea but I'd be even less optomistic - shoot at 25, dunk in Diafine & expect significant fog.

There are additives that are supposed to reduce fog in cases like this but I've never used them so I can't remember what they are.

You might do better asking at APUG.

William

 

[crawdiddy]

I would shoot it at ISO 50 and soup in Diafine.

I've only used D-76 for film. I notice Massive Dev Chart for Diafine says 3+3, or 4+4 or 5+5 for development times of many films. What does that mean?

 

[Freakscene]

Do not use Diafine. The times described are for each of the baths because Diafine is a two-bath developer with developing agents and alkali largely separate. Use HC110 or another low-fog developer. Diafine might seem like it is useful because it takes care of the time/temperature issue, but it does encourage fog, which you are likely to get a LOT of on this roll. Mail this guy: http://www.westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm and find out what he does, maybe.

Marty

 

[crawdiddy]

Do not use Diafine. The times described are for each of the baths because Diafine is a two-bath developer with developing agents and alkali largely separate. Use HC110 or another low-fog developer. Diafine might seem like it is useful because it takes care of the time/temperature issue, but it does encourage fog, which you are likely to get a LOT of on this roll. Mail this guy: http://www.westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm and find out what he does, maybe.

Marty

Interesting photos alright, Marty. Of course my roll is NOS.

 

[dmr]

I'm not old enough to actually have shot Super-XX, but it was one of my dad's fave films and he talked about it a lot. IIRC, it was originally ASA 64 or 100, forget which.

 

[drewbarb]

I'm not old enough to actually have shot Super-XX, but it was one of my dad's fave films and he talked about it a lot. IIRC, it was originally ASA 64 or 100, forget which.

Yeah- my Dad talked about shooting it @ ASA 64 too.

Some pretty sound advice here. I agree with advice to aim low in terms of speed- especially after this much time. If you have enough, you might try stand dev'ing some in dilute Rodinal. However, HC-110 is known to be a relatively low fog developer, and that might be my first go-to choice.

 

[David William White]

I recently shot some 5.5" Aerial Recon RP (rapid processing) Super-XX that expired in April '55. The label on the can says 'Exposure Index 100'. I rated it at 64 just in case. I cut it down and loaded it into 4x5 holders. I developed half a dozen sheets in Rodinal 1:25 for between 4 and 8 minutes. The best contact prints came from the shorter end, i.e. about 5 minutes. After that, fog became very pronounced and contrast suffered.

 

[dmr]

Not to come off sounding like a total snot here, but why in the world would somebody want to shoot (other than to maybe see if it works) film that is almost as old as I am?

I recently came across some unused Fuji color film, sitting in a cool but not cold location, which was about 10 years old. I was very disappointed with the results. Background fog and boocoo grain! ;( I didn't use it for anything important, thankfully.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Color film with its dye does not fair as well as b&W or Kodachrome.

as to why? Use old cameras, probably going to shoot old film if you find it...

 

[crawdiddy]

Not to come off sounding like a total snot here, but why in the world would somebody want to shoot (other than to maybe see if it works) film that is almost as old as I am?

I recently came across some unused Fuji color film, sitting in a cool but not cold location, which was about 10 years old. I was very disappointed with the results. Background fog and boocoo grain! ;( I didn't use it for anything important, thankfully.

It's a fair question. This film expired in July 1956, which is 5 months after I was born. So the film is definitely older than I am. And I don't have much of an answer that you didn't figure out-- I want to see if it works. But on a nostalgia level, I also want to see how the 1956 technology is holding up. I'm still walking around, and haven't assumed room temperature yet. At least I don't describe myself as "foggy" yet.

Of course I was only seeking 620 spools, and the film was a bonus.

 

[dmr]

Of course I was only seeking 620 spools, and the film was a bonus.

I guess that's a fair reason. I do know that you can re-spool 120 as 620.

Back then they had metal spools. (I don't remember wooden ones, but I know they once existed.) A couple years ago I bought my first 120 in many many years and was surprised that it was on plastic spools.

 

[crawdiddy]

I guess that's a fair reason. I do know that you can re-spool 120 as 620.

Back then they had metal spools. (I don't remember wooden ones, but I know they once existed.) A couple years ago I bought my first 120 in many many years and was surprised that it was on plastic spools.

I bought a Kodak Medalist recently. Built like a tank, decent lens (Ektar 100mm f3.5). It takes 6x9 cm images. They look HUGE compared to 35mm. Anyway, the camera only uses 620 film. The compartments are very tight-- 620 spools barely fit in them. And it requires 620 spools in both supply and take-up. Unlike my Brownie Hawkeye, which can use 120 supply spool, but 620 take-up.

The 620 spools, which have a metal core, are thinner when loaded with film. And the metal flange is much thinner than the clunky plastic flange of 120. I guess metal spools were just too expensive to manufacture :-(

 

[dmr]

Somewhere on the net there is or was a "101 ways to make 620 out of 120" page, and one of the ways was to use 120 film unspooled, rolled up with only a take-up spool. Of course you had to load it in the dark. 🙂