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 wrot
D]
Subject: Re: Chromogenic B&W 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
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: May 21, 2001 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Chromogenic B&W Film
> I used to use XP-1 extensively. Souped in the XP-1
> developer (worked better than C41 on XP-1. XP
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
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 t
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
difficu
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:
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 B&W Film
While I haven't shot chromogenic B&W since 1987, I distinctly remember
more
than one revi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> While I haven't shot chromogenic B&W 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 diffe
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 B&W Film
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Indeed, a key att
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] wro
[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
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 S
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 preci
[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 th
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Dalal"
Subject: Re: Chromogenic B&W 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 Ilfor
Mark Dalal wrote:
>
> 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.
Interestingly enough, I have a b+w prin
Shel wrote:
SB> Does anyone know why all the chromogenic B&W 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 bett
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: May 19, 2001 7:23 PM
Subject: Chromogenic B&W Film
> Does anyone know why all the chromogenic B&W film on the
market is
> 400 speed?
> Why not some other speed?
I suspect the emu
19 matches
Mail list logo