Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> -----Original Message----- > From: B. D. Colen [SMTP:BDColen@earthlink.net] > Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 12:13 PM > To: Leica-Users@Mejac. Palo-Alto. Ca. Us > Subject: [Leica] XP2 "Super" > > Does anyone have any experience yet with the "new" XP2, and if the answer > is "yes," how is it? How does it compare to the "old" XP2, and how does it > compare to Tri-X and T-Max? [Buzz] B.D.-- Bear in mind that these are just my personal observations and preferences based on shooting without artificial light. Also, I do not use a meter, but adjust exposure by eye, which I find quicker. I used to use Tri-X a lot, its a great all around film with good latitude. A very forgiving emulsion. I have never liked T-Max for my purposes, fast shooting with available light. I find that it doesn't have the latitude of other films and that the exposures have to be spot-on to get good results. As to the Kodak C-41 B&W film, I just don't like it. About XP-2 "Super." I loved XP, I liked XP-2 better, and I think that Super is an improvement based on having shot only about ten rolls. I haven't yet made any big prints from the Super, but it appears to me to have better grain and definition than the old XP-2 without sacrificing the latitude I need. I seem to be getting about two stops or more either way, though without a meter its hard to say for sure. Also, I have always liked the look, call it luster of Ilford films, and XP-2 Super seems to be in this tradition. But then, I still miss the old DuPont Velour Black. I will leave it to the more technically inclined to give you a less subjective and perhaps more accurate evaluation. Buzz