I have quite some experience with XP2 Super (bought a couple of bulk rolls so I had to use them all! :oT ) and I didn't quite reach the same conclusion. XP2 has indeed very large exposure latitude but it does so at the expense of grain and tone compression. I initially bought it for concert shooting and ended up with outdoors use of up to 200 ASA. It doesn't scan very well either: it yields a very compressed histogram that barely allows a couple of processing steps before the noise builds up, even in 16 bit BW. Delta 100 and even the contrasty APX 100 and 400 deliver much cleaner, large histogram scans that are more suitable for post processing. That said, once I got used with its limitations it delivered some nice results, so I guess I can confirm the consistency. ;o) Tough, in-house traditional BW processing is very accessible and the results can easily exceed camera/lenses/scanner performance; also with just a bit of practice one can get the same level of consistency as with C41. At least now that I gave up to E6 processing I'm beginning to rediscover the virtues of true BW emulsions...
Servus, Alin Godfrey wrote: GD> I loved C41 film for this ... I could compress or expand the GD> dynamic range of the capture by adjusting the ASA and exposure, GD> the film processing remained utterly consistent and repeatable. GD> All the effects in rendering and textural qualities, tonal GD> adjustment, etc, I did from 1992 on using high resolution scans GD> and image processing software. More predictable, more useful to GD> me. GD> Others prefer differently, I know, but I was extremely happy to GD> be rid of the darkroom to render my photographs. I much prefer GD> working in the light... ;-) GD> Godfreyh
