Re: [Leica] With XP-2, why develop B/W?

[Rolfe Tessem <rolfe@ldp.com>]

Julian Koplen wrote:

> 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?


XP-2 Super is a terrific film, but it is certainly not all things to all 
people. Since you don't have a wet darkroom, it is obviously a no-hassle 
way to go. If you do have a wet darkroom in which you make prints, the 
additional equipment to develop B&W film traditionally is also extremely 
easy to integrate. Of all the B&W chromogenic films, XP-2 Super is most 
designed to be printed on B&W paper since it lacks the orange mask of 
most color films. I suspect that most minilabs would have trouble with 
it (although not Fuji Frontier labs probably).

I use a Jobo ATL-1000 to process film in my darkroom and run a lot of 
C-41 through it. It is actually easier to maintain control of the C-41 
than B&W since the processor heats the chemistry to 100 degrees F and 
maintains it there for the color process. B&W is strictly a room 
temperature affair, with no tempering by the machine (I think this has 
been changed in the newer ATL-1500). Therefore, I tend to shoot XP-2 if 
I'm shooting mainly color negative with a roll or two of B&W mixed in as 
   I'm able to process it all at once.

In 35mm, XP-2 Super seems to deliver smooth tonality at some expense of 
perceived sharpness. I've also used XP-2 Super in medium format, where 
this signature quality seems less obvious. As someone else has 
commented, it seems a bit thin in the shadows unless exposed at EI200 
but the highlight detail seems to go on forever.

Having said all that, my current favorite B&W film is (new) Delta 400 
developed in Xtol. It is noticibly sharper than XP-2 Super while still 
maintaining good tonality and a lot of "guts" in the midrange, which I 
find lacking in the TMAX films. To me, it feels like a "better" Tri-X.

After a number of positive comments in the recent film survey, I'm also 
trying the "old-technology" film Efke 25. The results really surprised 
me, as it seems to be much better than what I remember from Panatomic-X 
and the other 25 speed films in their heyday. Erwin Puts recently 
commented in his newsletter that he sees no resolution advantage to the 
slow films over the current crop of "new-technology" 100 speed films 
such as TMX and Delta 100. This may be true if you're shooting 
resolution targets, but I assure you that the pictorial results of Efke 
25 are vastly different (and IMHO more appealing) than TMX, which to me 
has always exhibited a thinness in the midrange that seems impossible to 
  overcome.

So the short answer to your question is, there is no reason to feel bad 
about using XP-2 exclusively, but there are a lot of other options out 
there, each of which gives somewhat different results -- for better or 
worse.

Regards,

Rolfe



- -- 
Rolfe Tessem      |     Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
rolfe@ldp.com     |     96 Morton Street
(212) 463-0029    |     New York, Ny 10014

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html