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 was using XP2 and then XP2 Super exclusively for about two years. I loved it, and still do. It has great tonal range, and ridiculous exposure latitude. However...I have recently discovered that, at least with my equipment, Tri-X scans better than XP2, particularly in the shadow areas, which you get a lot of doing available light work. Anyone want to trade an unopened 100 foot roll of XP2 Super for the same of Tri-X? :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of claire > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 3:21 PM > To: leica-users > Subject: [Leica] ......... chromo film....... > > > 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 > >