Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Julian, It is a personal choice. I too was quite taken with XP2 Super a couple of years ago. But in the end I decided that I could not get it to look like "real" B&W. In addition, I often found the processing wanting, with scratches etc. on the negative. Most non-professional labs treat the negatives like s**t since they assume that the consumers just care about their 4x6 prints and will never even look at the negs. So I develop the films myself either way, and then I might as well use the real B&W films and get the benefits--control over the development process, high speed when needed, grain as I want it, better perceived sharpness. Nathan Julian Koplen wrote: > 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? - -- Nathan Wajsman Herrliberg (ZH), Switzerland e-mail: wajsman@webshuttle.ch Photo-A-Week: http://www.wajsman.com/indexpaw2002.htm General photo site: http://www.wajsman.com/index.htm - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html