Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Colin, Thanks for the thoughts. At least I'm not alone. As you've helped me think about it, I believe my motivation will be to go for the high speed stuff and thereby get some low light capability that XP-2 won't provide. If I expose the film, then I'll just have to develop it. :) Also thanks for sharing your pictures. Demon's Alley does sound and look spooky, but those images were upstaged by that great looking pug in the "friends" picture. Made my day. Regards...........Julian - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin" <CJV@home.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 2:50 PM Subject: RE: [Leica] With XP-2, why develop B/W? Julian, I tend to feel the same way. At 400 speed, I use only XP-2. I use other films because I'm not comfortable pushing XP-2, so it's always Tri-X or something else above 400. Below 400, it's Scala or APX25 for me. XP-2 isn't the *best* film out there, but I love the look. At ISO400, it has relatively little shadow detail, but seemingly infinite highlight detail. It looks, to me, as though a red filter was used all the time. I submit some of my own shots here as illustrations: http://www.availabledark.com/html/wnj05.htm http://www.availabledark.com/html/ali11.htm http://www.availabledark.com/html/friends22.htm I can't think of any other film that gives me that look. I guess the only other reason one might use a "real" B&W film is longevity. Regards, Colin http://www.availabledark.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of > Julian Koplen > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 2:32 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: [Leica] With XP-2, why develop B/W? > > > The question in the subject line has to do with a certain > resistance on my part. I assembled most of the materials > necessary to process my own B/W negatives, as I had done some > 35 years ago. But each time I prepare to get some > conventional B/W film for home processing, I ask myself "why > not just use XP-2 with its smooth tonality and fine grain, > then pay Wal-Mart $1.80 for C-41? > > Obviously, if one needs 3200 speed or super fine detail, that > could be a reason to use conventional B/W, or if one simply > enjoys the process, but aside from that, for general shooting > where ISO 400 is adequate, why isn't everybody just using > XP-2? What special are you getting from Delta 400, FP-4, Tri-X, etc? > > For background, I gave up my Valoy II and became dormant in > the hobby many years ago, but am now taking a few pictures > again, getting negatives done at Wal-Mart, and then doing the > rest with my computer, Picture Window 3.x, and Epson 1270. > > Thanks for any insights (and hopefully, for the inspiration > to wet my own again). > > Julian - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html