Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] With XP-2, why develop B/W?
From: "Julian Koplen" <jkoplen@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 16:58:03 -0500
References: <000c01c1b7ec$59c656e0$4300a8c0@tbirdad>

One more issue, if I may.  Any info on how XP-2 responds to conventional use
of filters for enhancing B/W tonality (yellow, red, etc?)

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

Replies: Reply from Rolfe Tessem <rolfe@ldp.com> (Re: [Leica] With XP-2, why develop B/W?)
In reply to: Message from Colin <CJV@home.com> (RE: [Leica] With XP-2, why develop B/W?)