Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I use XP2 Super as the standard film in my IIIf, rated at the nominal 400. It has sufficient exposure latitude to allow me to dispense with metering and just guess. However, after an initial infatuation with this film, I have concluded that for my more serious work with the M and R systems, I prefer to stick with real B&W (or Agfa Scala). There is also the fun of trying different developers etc. that the chromogenic films take away. I do process them myself too, but C41 processing is only done one way, period. Nathan claire wrote: > Dear All...... > Any of U out there use (almost exclusively) chromogenic film (eg. kodak > TCN400 , Ilford XP2 , Konica VX400 ) when doing available lite photography ? > > By upping the ASA to 800 or 1600, U will still have grain free pics..... > > Just want to know how and whether or not U guys take advantage of such film. > How heavy a weightage U place on the choice of film when doing available > lite B&W photography. > > Since the chromo films are sharp , grainfree, able to be upped in the ASA > without any loss of quality......... wouldn't this be THE choice over the > staple TMax series and such....? What are your views and experiences ? > > Then there is the argument that the beauty of true B&W film is in the hint > of grain itself.... hence the chromo films are a cop-out. > > Peace > TMLee - -- Nathan Wajsman Overijse, Belgium General photo site: http://belgiangator.tripod.com/ Belgium photo site: http://members.xoom.com/wajsman/ Motorcycle site: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/1704/