[Leica] XP-2
Ken Carney
kcarney1 at cox.net
Wed Nov 25 11:58:48 PST 2015
$500 doesn't buy much of a power cord :).
http://www.essentialsound.com/essence-power-cord/
Ken
On 11/25/2015 1:22 PM, Bill Pearce wrote:
> No you're missing out on the meaningless bullshit. It's like guys that
> think their stereo sounds better with a $500 power cord from the amp
> to the wall, but are clueless about the wires from the wall to the
> breaker box to the street. It's like the monks arguing over the number
> of angels on the head of a pin. I was just thinking, as I read the
> business about Samsung exiting the camera business how things have
> changed. I think that today you can get results from FF/APS/MFT that
> are more than good enough for anyone.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Dante Stella
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:48 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] XP-2
>
> Does a 1/3 stop even make a difference? Or is 320 a lucky number that
> people remember from TXP120? Serious question.
>
> I see references everywhere to rating 400 film of various types at
> 320, and it seems a bit strange because few film cameras are accurate
> and consistent enough to predict a blanket rule with an almost
> insignificant amount of overexposure. Virtually anything with a leaf
> shutter is already overexposing by at least that much -- meaning that
> "320" really means 250, and 2/3 stop is much more noticeable than 1/3.
> And with all mechanical shutters, each speed can have a different
> error in a different direction. The other thing is that C-41
> processing, at least commercial processing, is not that consistent
> either.
>
> And having put a densitometer to silver negatives exposed at one-third
> stop increments with very accurate electronic shutters, it does not
> tend to drag meaningful detail out of the toe. And it makes zero
> difference to tones on a straight-line film like TMY. Maybe things are
> different with XP2, but even eyeballing its curve, it seems doubtful
> that (an actual) 1/3 stop would do very much.
>
> Or maybe I'm missing the magic here? I take the suggestion seriously
> coming from you, but it still seems slightly superstitious.
>
> Best,
> Dante
>
>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Paul Roark <roark.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Overexposure lowers grain but also lowers contrast. I used 320
>> most. You
>> can use the typical negative film approach -- expose for the shadows and
>> let the highlights go where they may. It's hard to burn them out
>> with that
>> film.
>>
>> Paul
>> www.PaulRoark.com
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Bryk Oliver
>>> <oliverbryk at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> How should I rate XP-2 if none of the images will be printed?
>>>
>>> Thanks for any advice based on experience,
>>>
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
More information about the LUG
mailing list