Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hm, if test results confirm Ilford's product description, there is indeed a possiblity that tester and manufacturer are honest. Can that be? Today? .-) Coming back to the 400 and beyond question, XP2 and TCN offer a combo of image quality, exposure latitude and easy printabilty that is hard to beat, unless you absolutely want to develop b&w film at home and unquestioned archival quality. Cheap and convient processing and proof printing at drugstores or one hour labs, at least for me as an amateur, is another bonus. I compared Delta 400 (old) and HP5+ side by side and found for me that the finer grain and resolution is not worth the extra hassle when printing. I also like you use my older, unmetered cameras. I am however not a breadearning pro, but an amateur playing with cameras and shooting film for fun. I don't have that much lab practice as the pros and semi-pros on the list. Sometimes, I screw up things and this rather more often than a consumer lab. Over the years I lost only one (120) film that way. I keep that in mind when I look at the theoretically inferior archival quality of XP2/TCN. Sometimes I even give HP5+ to the drugstore, with surprisingly good results. For processing at home, I feel safer with HP5+. Hans-Peter