Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 6:52 PM -0600 3/11/02, Jeffery L. Smith wrote:
>I think XP2 looks better pulled and still developed normally. Is
>there a word for that (other than overexposed)?
>
>JLS
>
>
>At 04:25 PM 3/11/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>>At 2:59 PM -0800 3/11/02, Bill Clough wrote:
>>>TEXAS
>>>CORPUS CHRISTI
>>>11 March 2002
>>>
>>>Can anyone offer their experiences in pushing either T400CN
>>>or Ilford XP2 to 1600? Is one better for this than the
>>>other?
>>>
>>>Right now, I have to have film processed at the local
>>>one-shop.
>>>
>>>Thanks--
>>>
>>>--Bill Clough
>>
>>
>>
>>Both bad. C-41 doesn't push well generally, and the B&W ones do
>>better pulled a bit than even shot at their rated speed. I guess if
>>you've seriously underexposed some rolls, try pushing, but expect
>>ugly, large, mushy grain and no shadow.
>>
>>Neopan 1600, T-Max 3200 or Delta 3200; even Tri-X an HP5 are much better.
>>
>>--
>> * Henning J. Wulff
You're right. That's exactly what I meant; not pulled
(underdeveloped) but overexposed. I rate XP2 at 200 or 250, and have
it developed normally. Fine grain, lots of detail, slightly mushy and
flat, but great for scanning and then sharpening to get the acutance
you want!
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html