RE: Chromogenic BW Film
erm, I think you have misunderstood something. I have never used XP2. The conclusions I stated were based solely on Ilfords technical article that YOU posted. The difference in grain for different exposures would be evident whether you shot a whole roll or a single frame at a different rating. Therefore mixed rating films is as valid as re-rating an entire roll. I do not say whether the results are any good or not. My posting was based on the fact that you said 'It should be noted that nowhere in the data sheet could i find anything that said exposing a roll using different film speeds was acceptable or good practice.' I merely pointed out that while the article was much more technical than this, that is precisely what it said. Even if you/we dont like the effect on grain, Ilford says the grain improves with rerating. I dont want to get into pedantism, and based on what you and others have observed, I seriously doubt their claims, but I can see the theory, as presumably you can based on your post regarding Kodaks claims for Tri-X. Rob Brigham -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 21 May 2001 18:05 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film Rob Brigham wrote: Surely the phrases 'extremely wide exposure latitude of XP2' and 'No matter which film speed is chosen, standard C41 processing is recommended.' confirms that the exposure lattitude of the neg is wider than paper so over or under exposing a single frame by a stop or two can be corrected at the printing stage with no noticeable effect as the final print will always be 18% grey by default. That's nonsense - at least to me. There are differences in grain and negative density (as specifically stated in Ilford's description). That, to my eyes, produces a noticeable effect. Also, see Mark's comments. Other noticeable effects. While a film may have a wide exposure latitude, varying exposures will produce different results. It can't be helped. Whether or not the results are acceptable, or even noticeable, depends on how critical you are and whether these differences are meaningful to you. They are to me. Perhaps Mark I are a bit more critical than you when it comes to judging print quality or seeing the results of different exposures. The only effect would be the change in characteristic of the grain etc, Agreed. You are contradicting yourself g. Of course, etc may cover a pretty broad range of characteristics. Which other characteristics were you thinking of when you wrote that? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... there is no point in pressing the shutter unless you are making some caustic comment on the incongruities of life - Phillip Jones Griffiths - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
Interesting idea, Bill. While I used to use XP-1s variation in contrast, higher speed in contrastier lighting, I never thought of doing so rigorously as would need to be done to approximate the zone system. I don't see why it wouldn't work with a little serious testing. --Tom William Robb wrote: Tom inadvertantly brings up the beauty of the chromogenics. They are the films that allow the roll film camera shooter to actually utilize a meaningful zone system of exposure. Stay with me on this for a moment. I hope I can make some sense here. The traditional BW shooter has 2 controls at hand. We use exposure and development to hit a specific contrast range. That contrast range is the one which prints well on the paper we like to print on, more or less. So, within this framework of 3 variables, we go to work. So, what happens when we lock in another variable. The contrast range is already locked, now we lock the development with the use of the C-41 process (Has anyone actually tried to push XP-2?? Just curious). So, what we need is a wide latitude film with a characteristic curve that will give a different contrast range throughout it's exposure slope. For example, it may have a somewhat steep slope at the lower end, flattening out as the exposure increases. This is what the chromogenics do. More than once, I have gone off on a rant about exposure ranges and film latitude. If the scene fits within the film's usable range, then a usable ( not neccesarrily optimized ) print can be made from the resulting negative. Dye image films have an extraordinary usable range. They don't block up the way silver image films do. XP-1 had a range in exess of 10 stops. I bet XP-2Super and T-400CN have longer ranges. The average scene is less than 7 stops, and is closer to 6 stops. Go measure some scenes if you don't believe me, but make sure your meter is colour blind, or else your measurements are useless. Tri-X (the favourite film of the PDML, according to Albano's survey) has a very long toe with a moderate slope. What this means it that Tri-X has a lot of exposure latitude. It also means that Tri-X responds well to development controls. I don't know if this means anything in context, but it just came to mind. Anyway, we were talking about exposure controls. The idea is to fit a particular exposure/development combination into a given scene. Since the chromogenics seem able to give a variable exposure slope depending on exactly where the exposure range sits on it, it is possible to use meaningful zone system controls with them. Sometimes we forget that St Ansel invented the Zone system when emulsions were thick, and had somewhat short exposure ranges. Now, emulsions are thin, and have very long ranges. Now, rather than having a long toe, we have a long shoulder. The Zone system user can work with it, though it is not a replacement for a darkroom and custom film processing and printing. I just wish the emulsions were harder and more permanent. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, none is 400 ASA precisely. Both Kodak and Ilford are variable 100-800 ASA speed films, with a marketing peak of 400. One can shoot at any speed he likes better the grain, tone range, contrast, etc. What the heck is a marketing peak? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... there is no point in pressing the shutter unless you are making some caustic comment on the incongruities of life - Phillip Jones Griffiths - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
Indeed, a key attribute of these films is that you need not commit the entire roll to one ISO setting. Rather, you can choose your setting, frame by frame, without fear that you will under- or overexpose the other frames. Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, none is 400 ASA precisely. Both Kodak and Ilford are variable 100-800 ASA speed films, with a marketing peak of 400. One can shoot at any speed he likes better the grain, tone range, contrast, etc. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
On 21 May 2001, at 9:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, a key attribute of these films is that you need not commit the entire roll to one ISO setting. Rather, you can choose your setting, frame by frame, without fear that you will under- or overexpose the other frames. Gee Paul, I hope Shel isn't following this thread any longer :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, a key attribute of these films is that you need not commit the entire roll to one ISO setting. Rather, you can choose your setting, frame by frame, without fear that you will under- or overexpose the other frames. That doesn't sound right, and is counter to my experience. Some time ago I did what I called a typical consumer shoot and used three different rolls of C41 BW film. The idea was to shoot the rolls and just drop 'em off at the handiest lab I could find. One roll - perhaps Ilford - was shot using variable EIs and the results were all over the place. They were terrible. I can see shooting an entire roll at one EI, 200, 400, 800, and getting consistent results, but not shooting as you've suggested. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... there is no point in pressing the shutter unless you are making some caustic comment on the incongruities of life - Phillip Jones Griffiths - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
Unfortunately, I caught that ... -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... there is no point in pressing the shutter unless you are making some caustic comment on the incongruities of life - Phillip Jones Griffiths Rob Studdert wrote: On 21 May 2001, at 9:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, a key attribute of these films is that you need not commit the entire roll to one ISO setting. Rather, you can choose your setting, frame by frame, without fear that you will under- or overexpose the other frames. Gee Paul, I hope Shel isn't following this thread any longer :-) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
While I haven't shot chromogenic BW since 1987, I distinctly remember more than one review citing the frame-by-frame flexibility, at least for Ilford XP-1. I can't recall what happens to the +2 or -2 ISO frames; they werern't rendered less usable, just different. I don't believe it was about grain.Contrast, perhaps? What do the chromogenic filmmakers' websites say? Is this claim currently being made? Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, a key attribute of these films is that you need not commit the entire roll to one ISO setting. Rather, you can choose your setting, frame by frame, without fear that you will under- or overexpose the other frames. That doesn't sound right, and is counter to my experience. Some time ago I did what I called a typical consumer shoot and used three different rolls of C41 BW film. The idea was to shoot the rolls and just drop 'em off at the handiest lab I could find. One roll - perhaps Ilford - was shot using variable EIs and the results were all over the place. They were terrible. I can see shooting an entire roll at one EI, 200, 400, 800, and getting consistent results, but not shooting as you've suggested. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I haven't shot chromogenic BW since 1987, I distinctly remember more than one review citing the frame-by-frame flexibility, at least for Ilford XP-1. I can't recall what happens to the +2 or -2 ISO frames; they werern't rendered less usable, just different. I don't believe it was about grain.Contrast, perhaps? What do the chromogenic filmmakers' websites say? Is this claim currently being made? Excerpted from the Ilford site: XP2 SUPER is a chromogenic film. This means that the dyes which make up the image are formed during development rather than being present in the film or added later. The extremely wide exposure latitude of XP2 SUPER is the result of the unique relationship between exposure and grain in chromogenic films. The best balance of sharpness and grain is obtained when XP2 SUPER is exposed at EI 400/27. However, down-rated or overexposed XP2 SUPER negatives have finer grain, the opposite of that expected and obtained with conventional films. Up-rated or underexposed XP2 SUPER negatives have only a slight loss in quality. EXPOSURE RATING XP2 SUPER film has a speed rating of ISO 400/27° (400ASA, 27DIN, EI 400/27) to daylight. The ISO speed rating was measured using standard C41 processing. Although rated at ISO 400/27°, XP2 SUPER can be exposed over the range EI 50/18800/30. When higher speed is needed, XP2 SUPER can be rated at up to EI 800/30. For finer grain, when speed is less important, rate the film at EI 200/24, although for finest grain it can be rated as low as EI 50/18 if required. CHOOSING THE RIGHT FILM SPEED FOR THE JOB Best overall quality EI 400/27 Finer grain (with easy printing) EI 200/24 Finest grain (but with denser negatives) EI 50/18 Note No matter which film speed is chosen, standard C41 processing is recommended. It should be noted that nowhere in the data sheet could i find anything that said exposing a roll using different film speeds was acceptable or good practice. Of course, you can go to the web site and read the entire PDF file yourself. http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/bw.html -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... there is no point in pressing the shutter unless you are making some caustic comment on the incongruities of life - Phillip Jones Griffiths - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Chromogenic BW Film
Does this just relate to a wider exposure lattitude? If you the exposure lattitude of the neg is wider than the paper (as is the case for most colour C41) then over or under exposing by a stop or two can be corrected at the printing stage with no noticeable effect as the final print will always be 18% grey by default. Rob Brigham -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 21 May 2001 15:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film While I haven't shot chromogenic BW since 1987, I distinctly remember more than one review citing the frame-by-frame flexibility, at least for Ilford XP-1. I can't recall what happens to the +2 or -2 ISO frames; they werern't rendered less usable, just different. I don't believe it was about grain.Contrast, perhaps? What do the chromogenic filmmakers' websites say? Is this claim currently being made? Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, a key attribute of these films is that you need not commit the entire roll to one ISO setting. Rather, you can choose your setting, frame by frame, without fear that you will under- or overexpose the other frames. That doesn't sound right, and is counter to my experience. Some time ago I did what I called a typical consumer shoot and used three different rolls of C41 BW film. The idea was to shoot the rolls and just drop 'em off at the handiest lab I could find. One roll - perhaps Ilford - was shot using variable EIs and the results were all over the place. They were terrible. I can see shooting an entire roll at one EI, 200, 400, 800, and getting consistent results, but not shooting as you've suggested. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Chromogenic BW Film
Surely the phrases 'extremely wide exposure latitude of XP2' and 'No matter which film speed is chosen, standard C41 processing is recommended.' confirms that the exposure lattitude of the neg is wider than paper so over or under exposing a single frame by a stop or two can be corrected at the printing stage with no noticeable effect as the final print will always be 18% grey by default. The only effect would be the change in characteristic of the grain etc, but this would be no different for a single frame to a whole film. This is very different to slide film etc where the processing needs to be different for different ratings. I didnt believe in the idea at first, but you are confirming it, not disproving it! Rob Brigham -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 21 May 2001 15:54 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I haven't shot chromogenic BW since 1987, I distinctly remember more than one review citing the frame-by-frame flexibility, at least for Ilford XP-1. I can't recall what happens to the +2 or -2 ISO frames; they werern't rendered less usable, just different. I don't believe it was about grain.Contrast, perhaps? What do the chromogenic filmmakers' websites say? Is this claim currently being made? Excerpted from the Ilford site: XP2 SUPER is a chromogenic film. This means that the dyes which make up the image are formed during development rather than being present in the film or added later. The extremely wide exposure latitude of XP2 SUPER is the result of the unique relationship between exposure and grain in chromogenic films. The best balance of sharpness and grain is obtained when XP2 SUPER is exposed at EI 400/27. However, down-rated or overexposed XP2 SUPER negatives have finer grain, the opposite of that expected and obtained with conventional films. Up-rated or underexposed XP2 SUPER negatives have only a slight loss in quality. EXPOSURE RATING XP2 SUPER film has a speed rating of ISO 400/27° (400ASA, 27DIN, EI 400/27) to daylight. The ISO speed rating was measured using standard C41 processing. Although rated at ISO 400/27°, XP2 SUPER can be exposed over the range EI 50/18-800/30. When higher speed is needed, XP2 SUPER can be rated at up to EI 800/30. For finer grain, when speed is less important, rate the film at EI 200/24, although for finest grain it can be rated as low as EI 50/18 if required. CHOOSING THE RIGHT FILM SPEED FOR THE JOB Best overall quality EI 400/27 Finer grain (with easy printing) EI 200/24 Finest grain (but with denser negatives) EI 50/18 Note No matter which film speed is chosen, standard C41 processing is recommended. It should be noted that nowhere in the data sheet could i find anything that said exposing a roll using different film speeds was acceptable or good practice. Of course, you can go to the web site and read the entire PDF file yourself. http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/bw.html -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... there is no point in pressing the shutter unless you are making some caustic comment on the incongruities of life - Phillip Jones Griffiths - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
Shel wrote: I can see shooting an entire roll at one EI, 200, 400, 800, and getting consistent results, but not shooting as you've suggested. I've tried playing around with using a different EI. I shot a few rolls at 160. I was really displeased with the results. Scanning the film was difficult due to the higher density and I could not squeeze out a print I was happy with. I much prefer the tonal rendition at 400 not to mention, again, that it scans really well... Mark - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
Rob Brigham wrote: Surely the phrases 'extremely wide exposure latitude of XP2' and 'No matter which film speed is chosen, standard C41 processing is recommended.' confirms that the exposure lattitude of the neg is wider than paper so over or under exposing a single frame by a stop or two can be corrected at the printing stage with no noticeable effect as the final print will always be 18% grey by default. That's nonsense - at least to me. There are differences in grain and negative density (as specifically stated in Ilford's description). That, to my eyes, produces a noticeable effect. Also, see Mark's comments. Other noticeable effects. While a film may have a wide exposure latitude, varying exposures will produce different results. It can't be helped. Whether or not the results are acceptable, or even noticeable, depends on how critical you are and whether these differences are meaningful to you. They are to me. Perhaps Mark I are a bit more critical than you when it comes to judging print quality or seeing the results of different exposures. The only effect would be the change in characteristic of the grain etc, Agreed. You are contradicting yourself g. Of course, etc may cover a pretty broad range of characteristics. Which other characteristics were you thinking of when you wrote that? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... there is no point in pressing the shutter unless you are making some caustic comment on the incongruities of life - Phillip Jones Griffiths - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
Alin Flaider wrote: I do expose rolls at the same speed (usually 400 or 800), but that is for consistency reasons only - to ease the lab's job. Ocassionally however, I did shoot several frames at a different speed and the lab delivered those images with a vague tint of blue or sepia on the colour paper. That won't a problem for you - you do your own enlargemnt on true bw paper, don't you? Yes - but I don't use chromogenic film, preferring the real stuff which gives me much greater creative control. I just experimented with it to get a sense of what it could do. However, I can see where I might use it in a specific situation, but certainly not as a general rule. BTW, according to Kodak, Tri-X (and other conventional BW Kodak films) has enough latitude that it can be exposed one stop under and processed normally. So, it seems, it's possible then to shoot several conventional BW films at both 400 and 800 on the same roll with standard processing. Source: Kodak Black White Darkroom Dataguide ISBN 0-87985-606-5 -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... there is no point in pressing the shutter unless you are making some caustic comment on the incongruities of life - Phillip Jones Griffiths - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
- Original Message - From: Tom Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 21, 2001 12:24 PM Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film I used to use XP-1 extensively. Souped in the XP-1 developer (worked better than C41 on XP-1. XP-2 is supposed to be optimised for C-41) it was usable from ASA 100 to ASA 3200. The grain was about the same but contrast and density varied with to film speed. If you changed film speed you had to print differently, so prints tended to be inconsistant with automated processing if you shot different speeds on the same roll. --Tom Tom inadvertantly brings up the beauty of the chromogenics. They are the films that allow the roll film camera shooter to actually utilize a meaningful zone system of exposure. Stay with me on this for a moment. I hope I can make some sense here. The traditional BW shooter has 2 controls at hand. We use exposure and development to hit a specific contrast range. That contrast range is the one which prints well on the paper we like to print on, more or less. So, within this framework of 3 variables, we go to work. So, what happens when we lock in another variable. The contrast range is already locked, now we lock the development with the use of the C-41 process (Has anyone actually tried to push XP-2?? Just curious). So, what we need is a wide latitude film with a characteristic curve that will give a different contrast range throughout it's exposure slope. For example, it may have a somewhat steep slope at the lower end, flattening out as the exposure increases. This is what the chromogenics do. More than once, I have gone off on a rant about exposure ranges and film latitude. If the scene fits within the film's usable range, then a usable ( not neccesarrily optimized ) print can be made from the resulting negative. Dye image films have an extraordinary usable range. They don't block up the way silver image films do. XP-1 had a range in exess of 10 stops. I bet XP-2Super and T-400CN have longer ranges. The average scene is less than 7 stops, and is closer to 6 stops. Go measure some scenes if you don't believe me, but make sure your meter is colour blind, or else your measurements are useless. Tri-X (the favourite film of the PDML, according to Albano's survey) has a very long toe with a moderate slope. What this means it that Tri-X has a lot of exposure latitude. It also means that Tri-X responds well to development controls. I don't know if this means anything in context, but it just came to mind. Anyway, we were talking about exposure controls. The idea is to fit a particular exposure/development combination into a given scene. Since the chromogenics seem able to give a variable exposure slope depending on exactly where the exposure range sits on it, it is possible to use meaningful zone system controls with them. Sometimes we forget that St Ansel invented the Zone system when emulsions were thick, and had somewhat short exposure ranges. Now, emulsions are thin, and have very long ranges. Now, rather than having a long toe, we have a long shoulder. The Zone system user can work with it, though it is not a replacement for a darkroom and custom film processing and printing. I just wish the emulsions were harder and more permanent. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
Shel wrote: SB Does anyone know why all the chromogenic BW film on the market is SB 400 speed? Why not some other speed? Actually, none is 400 ASA precisely. Both Kodak and Ilford are variable 100-800 ASA speed films, with a marketing peak of 400. One can shoot at any speed he likes better the grain, tone range, contrast, etc. Servus, Alin - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
Mark Dalal wrote: snip 3) Each film has its own use. I don't think XP-2 is suited to landscape, street, or still-life. But it makes a pretty darn good portrait film. I've used it for model shots and I've been extremely pleased with it in that regard. snip Interestingly enough, I have a b+w printing book by a guy named Eddie Ephraums. It's a pretty good book, and he gives details on how he printed about 20 pictures. All of them are landscapes, and all are shot on XP-2. He *could* be an Ilford pimp, I don't know. ;) I'm not a particularly big fan of his prints, nor do I use XP-2, but he does seem to like the film's properties for the sort of things he shoots, and he does seem to know what he's doing. The name of the book is Gradient Light. tv - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
- Original Message - From: Mark Dalal Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film William Robb: FWIW, I think XP-2 is Crap with a capital C. I did a microscope analysis of the grain of normally processed T400CN and Ilford PanF+ which had been processed in Rodinal. The chromogenic had much finer grain, though it wasn't anywhere near as sharp. A few points: 1) I'm not sure how putting a 400 ISO chromogenic film against a 50 ISO BW film souped in one of the highest accutance developers is a fair comparison. It did compare favourably. The analysis was an after the fact thing. I had done a model shoot with PanF+, and decided to test a roll of the T400CN during the shoot. When I was printing up the images from the T400CN, I was quite amazed at how fine the grain was, so I decided to have a look through the microscope. I was quite impressed by how fine the grain was: nearly non existent. 2) Sharpness isn't the only measure of a film. Boy, you are preaching to the converted on this one. I like a less than sharp film for portraiture, especially with medium format. It gives a much smoother fleash tone. 3) Each film has its own use. I don't think XP-2 is suited to landscape, street, or still-life. But it makes a pretty darn good portrait film. I've used it for model shots and I've been extremely pleased with it in that regard. Has a really nice, smooth look to it that I think is great for skin tone. It prints well and most importantly, scans better than any other BW film I've worked with. It allows me to digitally proof so I can decide what frames I'll take to the darkroom to print. I do like XP-2 for portraiture, it has a very nice smooth skin tone and excellent gradation. The downside of it is how very soft the emulsion is. It is extremely easy to damage during handling. This, to me is a fatal flaw. While I am a very careful film handler, accidents do happen. With XP-2 I cannot use the negatrans on my enlarger. This is the only film that has ever been damaged by my negatrans. If Ilford would fix this, it would be an extremely good film, though not for landscapes, as you have pointed out. So no, I don't think it's crap : ) Wanna fight about it? William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Chromogenic BW Film
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 19, 2001 7:23 PM Subject: Chromogenic BW Film Does anyone know why all the chromogenic BW film on the market is 400 speed? Why not some other speed? I suspect the emulsion technology is considered good enough that a slower speed isn't needed, the chromogenics were originally marketed to the zoom lens crowd, so the extra film speed is a bonus, and Ilford has been marketing XP-1/XP-2 for the past 20 years as a 400 iso, so anything slower would likely be risking being viewed as a step backwards. FWIW, I think XP-2 is Crap with a capital C. I did a microscope analysis of the grain of normally processed T400CN and Ilford PanF+ which had been processed in Rodinal. The chromogenic had much finer grain, though it wasn't anywhere near as sharp. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
