Ilford XP2,how good/bad is it?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

What is Ilford XP2 like? I have been told that people don't like it because it has no tone and horrible to print,etc.I was also told by a pro' that no other pro's use it.

Does anyone have any input on this and examples of photographs shot on XP2?

Many thanks,Karl

-- Karl (karlwhite@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002

Answers

or any other chromogenic b/w films?

-- Karl (karlwhite@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

Read this article by Van Riper.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), January 28, 2002.

Karl,don't fall for the old 'if the pro's don't use it it must be crap'thing.Buy a roll,do a few test shots of your favorite subject,get it developed and decide for yourself if you like it.

"It's not the rod that catches the fish"

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 28, 2002.


So what film do you use Phil?

-- Karl (Karlwhite@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

Well not XP2 for a start,it's crap......no,only joking!I use Fuji neopan 400 for b/w,but only because I get it for 99p($us 1.50?)a roll.When you shoot upto 20 rolls of film a day you use whatever is cheapest.B/w 400 (HP5,TriX,Tmax,etc)are pretty much the same.

The only reason I don't use Chromogenic b/w film is because it is the work of the dark-one and I fear change.......and I can only dev/print black and white.

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 28, 2002.



I use XP2 occasionally. Like all films, it has positive and negative attributes. On the positive side, there is little grain, it can be processed anywhere, it scans well, and it has good tonality. On the negative side, you can't control the results the way you can with a traditional black and white film, it scratches easily, and it is supposedly non-archival. If you really want good results, you should print it properly on black and white paper (or scan it and do an inkjet print) rather than getting the rather sickly color you will get with machine prints. (Why someone would spend thousands of dollars on a camera and then regularly get machine prints is something I don't understand anyway.)

examples of photographs shot on XP2

Here's an example, shot on XP2 rather than the current XP2 Super.


Woman Working, XP2, Copyright 1999 Jeff Spirer


-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 28, 2002.

Another boneheaded remark from Phil Kneen. Ignore him. He's dead wrong: all 400 B+W are NOT the same. There are dramatic difference in tone, range, and grain.

I suggest you go to Photo.Net or Photographyreview.Com for well- researched assessments of B+W films.

-- Victor (VSantiago8@aol.com), January 28, 2002.


The article pointed to by Niels H. S. Nielsen is a good article. However, if you have access to a good lab with a Fuji Frontier machine, the orange film base of the Kodak films looks more like a liability than a benefit. I started using B&W chromogenic last year after buying a new house and putting my darkroom in boxes (some day it'll come out). At this point, I can only imagine how much more difficult it'll be to print from the couple of rolls of Kodak Select (orange base) I've shot than the dozens of rolls of XP2 (neutral base) I've done (of course, if I were to use graded paper rather that the multi-grade paper I use, it would probably be easier).

The 4x6's I've gotten out of the Frontier have shown little difference between the two. Because of the way the Frontier works, a knowledgable operator can easily print B&W images with no discernable color cast (and I'm fairly certain that they can do this from color negs or even color slides). (And they're some of the best damn machine prints I've ever seen.)

If you have a darkroom, I think it would certainly be worth your while to give it a try and see what comes of it.

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), January 28, 2002.


"Another boneheaded remark from Phil Kneen. Ignore him. He's dead wrong: all 400 B+W are NOT the same. There are dramatic difference in tone, range, and grain."

Right Victor,I could post 4 photo's taken on 4 different 400 asa b/w and could tell me which was which? Victor,there's a website I think you should visit.....www.ineedtogetoutmore.com

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 28, 2002.


Phil Kneen: I've watched this forum a few weeks and only now feel an urge to participate. You're wrong, truly, about B+W films. There are dramatic and subtle differences in emulsions and composition which enhance or detract from images. You're of course entitled to your opinion; but on a purely objective basis you're wrong in the extreme. I hasten to add that your second comment is nasty and spiteful -- entirely out of line with the informative approach of this forum.

-- Terry Butler (terry.butler@bbc.co.uk), January 28, 2002.


Victor.Phil posted a humourous,lighthearted and honest reply and you just insult him,why?Most people I have spoken to have said the same as Phil,400iso black and white film IS all pretty much the same and it's all in the printing.

-- Karl (karlwhite@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

Another thing to keep in mind with these "CN" films like XP2 is that they are not archival like properly processed traditional B/W films. Rumor has it that as much as a 10-15% loss in negative density can occur over a ten-year period. Unless this type of film is absolutely neccessary for some reason, I would stick with the regular stuff.

-- Tom Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), January 28, 2002.

Children,children! If you think I give a toss what you think about me you are very much mistaken.I make a living out of photography and not out of selling 400 asa black and white film.I give not one iota about the 'subtle differences in tone'or 'defraction indexes'.The magazines and newspapers I sell to buy my work because it is exellent photography.If you don't like what I say then don't read it.

Some of you lot are sad beyond belief!

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 28, 2002.


I can't get past the scatches that every processor I've tried puts in the stuff.

-- John F (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

Karl, I am very impressed with XP2 Super. Beautiful creamy tones. I have had over a dozen rolls developed and not one scratch anywhere. I have found it to be a very forgiving film. Even in bright sun I get details in the highlights and shadows. I don't know if it is true but have heard many times over the internet how it is easier to scan than traditional B&W. I have seen beautiful prints from my processor done in their traditional darkroom from this film. I have a lot of examples on photo.net scanned from 4X6 prints (obviously not the best method)that I can email you since I can't get on photo.net now to provide a link.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), January 28, 2002.


Regarding the debate about ISO 400 B&W films -- stating that all of them are "pretty much the same" is like saying that all red wines taste alike. Even Tri-X and HP5+, which are often cited as giving very similar results, appear different to my eyes -- and yes, I'd bet a brick that I could pick out prints made from one or the other in a stack of 8x10s.

And I agree with the comment -- made by Jeff, I think -- that the main disadvantage of the chromogenics is the impossibility of adjusting development to suit the contrast range of the original scene. I only use conventional B&W films, and virtually never rate them or develop them according to the manufacturers recommendations. But, if you are only shooting small quantities of film, and do not process yourself, this may not be an issue.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), January 28, 2002.


RE: all 400 b&w film is the same.

From my limited experience, I noticed that if you're developing film yourself, the non t-grain film tends to give better negatives (i.e more detail) This is through usage of tmax 400 and tri-x.

-- Ken Kwok (kk353@yahoo.com), January 28, 2002.


Ilford XP2 and other chromogenic black & white films (my results are in line with Van Riper's) are good for proofs--when you have to hand out a bunch of photos to a group, who might then purchase a real B&W print produced the traditional way.

The Ilford is notoriously hard to control, frame by frame, at the lab. Some shots will be brown, some purple, with no apparent rationale. Kodak's C-41 B&W films are more uniform.

Shoot chromogenic B&W when ease of production and distribution are the overriding concerns.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 28, 2002.


I'm with Phil on this.He did say "pretty much the same",NOT "exactly the same".

-- Craig (craigsmith@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

There's just no telling them Craig!

I'm stuck at home with a broken foot,given the choice of watching 15 to 1,countdown and old series of Startrek OR winding-up this bunch of geriatrics? I'll go for the latter(and scan some 400asa black and white negs)!!!

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 28, 2002.


This is an example scanned from a 4X6 (obviously at the mercy of the printer). The negative itself is sharp with beautiful tones.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), January 28, 2002.


Scratches - These are caused by dodgy roller transport processing - go to a pro-lab where they use dip and dunk and you'll be fine. XP2 is a fine film that prints very easily in my darkroom and exhibits very good sharpness. The only real worry is that you can get reticulation if they heat dry it too quickly: again the answer is to use a good lab. Try rating it at 250: it's a fine film. Pro's always say that everything other than the stuff they use is crap - I used to tell people that tri-x was the only b+w film - worth using it's a lot of nonsense.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 28, 2002.

Here is another example. Also flat bed scanned. Steve is right this film is best rated at 250. In this shot the lighting was bad and was exposed with a 35/2 wide open at 1/30 sec. I don't use a meter but judging from the density of the neg was rated around 600. You get a little more grain at that speed.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), January 28, 2002.


XP-2 is "Gutsier," while Kodak is "creamer." My XP-1 negatives from the 1970s make prints today identical to the first ones (dispells lask of archival myth). Because the Chromogenics have such great latitude you don't need to vary development for N-1, N+1, etc. They produce sharper, less grainy negatives than any other 400 rated film (I rate it at 250, which is 1/3 stop faster than Tri-X), with far greater exposure latitude. For me the only downside is difficulty focussing in the enlarger because the grain is virtually absent. I don't know why anyone would use anything else.

-- (bmitch@home.com), January 28, 2002.

Scratches - These are caused by dodgy roller transport processing - go to a pro-lab where they use dip and dunk

My comment regarding scratches includes post-processing handling. It has a delicate surface. I do get my dip and dunk processed, but I found out early on that you have to be a bit more careful with it than other films.

Regarding the flame war, well, who cares?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 28, 2002.


I've been using the Ilford chromogenic film in its successive incarnations since they began making it. It isn't best if you only get machine prints on color paper, unless your lab happens to have a Fuji Frontier machine, but if you have decent technique and make your own prints in a real darkroom, the combination of XP-2 Super and Leica lenses will produce 16x20s that rival medium format.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), January 28, 2002.

You havn't answered my question Victor.You started this by being rude about Phil.

-- Karl (karlwhite@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

bmitch@home (!) FWIW, I absolutely agree with the gutsier/creamier comment and also about the problem with focusing under the enlarger becuase of the lack of grain. Also, chromogenic films in general tend to need grade 3.5 in my experience rather than the nominal grade 2 that people tend to develop their standard b+w film to print on.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 28, 2002.

Traditional B&W film is extremely expensive to have processed around my area, and my developing tank has been dry for 30 years and I intend for it to stay that way. I used XP-2, XP-2Super, T400CN, BW+, and Portra B&W. Of all those films, only the last two could I depend on decent results from machine processing on color paper; the rest I needed to pay my pro-lab extra to hand-coddle or else print on B&W paper. So the only truly C-41 B&W's are Kodak's BW+ and Portra. That said, I have asked my lab to simply turn the color saturation down to "zero" on the scanner for some color negs and the results are pleasing in most cases. I do not agree that all 400 B&W films are the same. The chromogenics (C-41) seem to possess a much broader tonal range and I like them much better than any traditional B&W I've ever used, going back several decades. Either the grain or the contrast range of the "real" B&W films disappointed me, or would have forced me to do my own developing and printing, which I absolutely abhor.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 28, 2002.

EEY PHIL KNEEN: I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH ON YOU ON THE WEB. NOT ONLY ARE YOU NOT A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER, AS YOU CLAIM, BUT YOU'RE A CENTRAL HEATING ENGINEER. I SUPPOSE IT'S BETTER THAN CLEANING TOILETS, BUT NOT BY MUCH. FOR YOUR INTEREST, HERE'S WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT YOU ON THE WEB. Phil Kneen from Braddan in the Isle of Man has twice been runner-up in the Isle of Man Centre Road Racing Championship, in the Manx Grand Prix he finished seventh in the 1984 Junior and 1985 Senior Races. A central heating engineer, married to Margaret with two daughters Sarah and Katie, he has ridden in the TT since 1990.

-- Hector (HectorBlaise@aol.com), January 28, 2002.

Hi, Karl:

You asked for XP2 examples. I've been shooting Ilford XP2 and CN400 for a while and in photonet here I keep pictures you can see.

Please keep in mind that this is strictly amateur work so that not all of the obvious defects can be readily attributed to the kind of film but to my fault(s). However, I agree that printed results from an average lab could be difficult to accurately anticipate: I also shoot slides and they usually render right the images I anticipated while shooting or extremely close. This is specially so concerning tone rendering, of course.

These photos have the minimun of additional work other than the lab's. In most cases they have been only "autobalanced" with Microsoft Photo Editor while scanning with a table top scanner. In summary these are nearly raw results and could possibly be of interest to you because of it. After going through knowledgable dark room work they should look a lot better (or so I hope). In fact the sepia printed versions look noticeably better already though only machine produced in the lab.

I have also noted that results are more consistent after I began rating the film at ISO 250.

The scratches problem has also attacked me. It shows in the form of black spots of varying shape, size and location. I originally blamed the lab because I carefully checked my cameras several times and haven't been able to find any probable cause. But I have never experienced the same problem with other emulsions though all my photos are processed by the same 1-hour lab.

Karl, I'll be happy if this work serves any purpose of your interest.

Regards.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), January 28, 2002.


I find I have to use graded paper to get a good print with XP2. Printing on VC paper doesn't work for me. Comments? (Of course, the best negative is the one with the scratches on it!)

-- John F (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

Hector.Have a look at a Manx telephone book.How many Kneen's can you count? According to you I was winning world class motorcycle races when I was 13 years old! YOU FOOL!!!!!

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 28, 2002.

01624 842862/islandlighthouse@hotmail.com

Give them a call Hector,maybe you could ask them if you can commission me for some work?

-- Phill (philkneen@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.


Everyone quit your bitching. Go shoot some film instead.

I don't care for XP2 Super, I think Kodak's 400CN is beautiful. I have not tried the new Portra stuff. I suppose there is an archival issue, but who's gonna care when your dead?

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), January 28, 2002.


Funny, I also did a google search for Phil Kneen and came up with the TT racer. I assumed I had simply turned up another Phil Kneen. Why assume someone's a liar?

As for film being all alike or not, I think it's a matter of application. For the kind of photography I do, just about anything will do so long as it has reasonable colours and doesn't cost much. For my Bombay slums project I shot around 250 rolls of film. Since I was doing it on my own dollar, I used E100 because it's really cheap, and had it processed in India, because it's really cheap. I wouldn't say that all colour slide film is the same, in fact it obviously isn't, but for my use the finer aspects of colour are not very important. If I was doing fashion or product photography, I would obviously be more pernickety.

If I was going to be doing B&W photography, I'd probably choose the film for similar practical reasons - cost, ease of processing and scanning. The finer details don't interest me simply because they're just not important to documentary photography, IMO. What counts there is the human or descriptive content of the picture, not the signature of the film.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 28, 2002.


Well not XP2 for a start,it's crap......no,only joking!I use Fuji neopan 400 for b/w,but only because I get it for 99p($us 1.50?)a roll.When you shoot upto 20 rolls of film a day you use whatever is cheapest.B/w 400 (HP5,TriX,Tmax,etc)are pretty much the same. The only reason I don't use Chromogenic b/w film is because it is the work of the dark-one and I fear change.......and I can only dev/print black and white.

That,above,is what I wrote.Let's look at the KEY PHRASES:-

only joking!

pretty much the same

I fear change

I can only dev/print b/w

All aimed at one person and that was Karl.He took them with the honesty and humour intended.

By the way,do a google search on Father christmas,you'll find there's more than one.

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 28, 2002.


Everybody says it.Try a roll. 1 is enough. 1 is too many. My printer hates it.I hate it. I use Ilford everywhere else... B/w is my main area of creativity.The Kodak CN films way better. More possibilities....Printed one photo 20x24,looks like large format. The XP-2 at Enprint 4"x6" looks like bad original Minox format....

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

It does seem Phil is being attacked unreasonably for his opinion. However it is wrong. Saying, for example that Tri-X is (chunky grain, extreme latitude, probably the most forgiveable film exposure and processing wise) at all similar to Tmax, which though extremely fine grained (for 400ISO) has very narrow latitude and is not at all forgiving is simply ludicrous........

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 28, 2002.

jason I use and print both. The differences are very small. Somebody's doing something wrong with your XP2.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 28, 2002.

While I do think some of the responses to Phils opinion is uncalled for, he is wrong. To say TriX (chunky grain, extreme exposure latitude, probably the most forgiving film processing and exposure wise) is anything like Tmax (very fine grained, short exposure latitude and very finicky in processing and exposure), would be like saying 'Leica or Lomo - take your pick'..........

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 28, 2002.

Right,for those with learning difficulties,I will say this one last time.

ALL 400asa black and white film is,printed in a newspaper,magazine,book,website,poster,etc,etc,etc,company brochure,catalogue,cd cover,etc,etc,etc,etc.....PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 28, 2002.


Bob,you seem to be repeating yourself?

-- Craig (craigsmith@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

Phil: Of course we believe you, sorry about the foot. Took the wrong line again at Bradden Bridge, is it?.................

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), January 28, 2002.

Wow David,did you find a map of the TT course? Isn't David clever!

-- Simon Pontie (simonpont@aol.com), January 28, 2002.

The pro photo hsop I use occassionally doesn't like to print XP-2. Their prints have more color variation with XP-2 than any other lab and T400CN or 400+B/W.

Here are some photos with both films:

XP-2 (with Kiev 88/80mm) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=269984 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=269991

T400CN (with Leica CL/40mm) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=320408 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=320409 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=331082 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=320402 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=320407

-- John Sonewald (jsonewald@aol.com), January 28, 2002.


I've just decided that Phill has offended me. (or not) I've also decided that he can make it up to me by flying me to The Isle for the TT, put me up for the duration, make sure I get all the access I need, and feed me three squares a day. That would make me feel better, I'm sure!!! Seriously though, I am jelous of you, Phill. On the top of my "to do before I die list" is the Isle of Man TT... What was this thread about again?

-- Lance Goins (goinsphoto@hotmail.com), January 28, 2002.

But Phil, Karl didn't ask what film was best for "ALL 400asa black and white film is,printed in a newspaper,magazine,book,website,poster,etc,etc,etc,company brochure,catalogue,cd cover,etc,etc,etc,etc.....PRETTY MUCH THE SAME". Gee, what if he wanted to use it for some other purpose than what you want to use it for. If he, for example wanted a film to give him the best 16X20" fibre base exhibition print - THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH ALL THE SAME would be really bad advice. If you're going to make recommendations with specific end results in mind you should state those as well. Don't you think.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 28, 2002.

I started using XP1 about 15 years ago then progressed to XP2 and now CN400 so I'll say a few words based on experience. First of all why would you want to shoot XP2/CN400 when "better" films with wider tonal range such as TMX, TX, Delta, etc., exists? XP2 is particularly good at retaining shadow details and suppressing highlights in high contrast scenes. This is the same reason why at times I choose to use color print film over color slides - to contain contrasty scenes. XP2 is the kind of film that gives good results practically no matter what. However it does not have the tonality of TX nor the smoothness of TMX but it is practically ideal sans the free lunch. Don't use it for low contrast scene else it will come out flat. TMY will be better for low key shots. I have never used CN400 in the wet printing but did print XP1/XP2 regulary. I would use grade 3 and not enlarge beyond 11x14. The dyes will not allow a decent print beyong 11x14. I have printed XP1 12 years later and noticed no deteration of the dyes. Today I prefer CN400 in a film scanner and machine proofs. CN400 scans better than TMX and much better than TX. If you have a meterless M2, M3, IIIf or whatever then CN400 is a gem of a film. Shoot it at asa 200 for best results. If you find yourself having to do an outdoor event middle of the day and the thought of using direct fill gives you nausea then shoot CN400. Give it a try.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 28, 2002.

Karl: Hope you've enjoyed the show! (and I hope you like motorcycle racing - since we seem to have wandered off in that direction.)

RE XP2 - I've used it. It has finer grain exp. for scanning than 'silver' films. EXCEPT that, like color C-41 film, and the opposite of silver film, it gets very grainy if underexposed.

Since I shoot B&W almost entirely so that I can process it myself in the wee hours when labs aren't open, I stick with the 'normal' silver films. But XP2 scans very well the few times I've used it.

At a very gross level (no double-entendre intended) I agree with Phil - most 400 films look pretty much the same - which explains all the threads asking "What film did Salgado use?" If we could tell which film by looking, we wouldn't have to ask.

But Bob is also right - there are very subtle differences in grain, tonality, true speed, etc. I just shot a comparison of Delta 400 and Tri-X to check out which I will end up using as my standard 400 film - but it's not necessarily a difference that a client would notice - I just want a film I'M happy with.

Some psychologist has written about the 'Narcissism of small differences" - which theory intrigues me. It does seem sometimes that we get to arguing about (and wallowing in) the finest possible distinctions - between films, lenses, exact amount of shutter noise, etc. - and wind up frozen on the riverbank entranced by minutiae while life goes on without us.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 29, 2002.


The Narcissism of Small Differences - sounds like an advertising slogan for Leica!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 29, 2002.

Rob - exactly - much better than "sometimes less is so much more [expensive]"

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 29, 2002.

No Bob,Karl asked me what film I used,I told him and I told him why I used it......The world went mad.

PETTY-the word that pretty much sums you lot up(please note I said 'pretty much').

Lance,you are welcome here anytime.TT week is bigger than christmas here.

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), January 29, 2002.


The XP2 Super is a good film. Pushed 1 stop it works very well rated at ISO 640 (but not the ultimate in shadow detail). However, it is three times the price of Tri-x and the developing is four to five times as expensive (compared to home developed tri-x).

It prints nicely on Agfa multigrade RC, but long exposure times. In 120-format I have printed this film on graded fiber paper (Emaks) which worked very well. It really tests your enlarger lens. I compared two enlarger lenses at small prints on the same paper, using the same aperture (8.0). The prints were 4x6 inches and the best enlarger lens gave MUCH more detail.

In summary, a good film but too expensive to use.

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), January 29, 2002.


Claims of chromogenic films fading are true. I've shot two rolls of B/W C-41 films in the last ten years and one is showing extreme fading. Both were stored in "archival" (high-density polyethylene sleeving) in the dark. It's possible to have a lab re-stabalize the negs. I chose to make internegs from the frames I wanted to keep. Anyone concerned with the consevation of their work should read "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs" by Henry Wilhelm. It contains very useful info on how to store all photographic materials for stability and longevity.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), January 29, 2002.

Thanks Steve - good tip. (I'm off to check out my old stuff now)

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 29, 2002.

The wildly popular American TV show "Seinfeld" was about nothing except the Narcissism of Small Differences.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 29, 2002.

I've used XP2 for years, shot it at 200, and it looks great. Very fine grain (if even noticable), beautiful tonal range, great detail in shadows and highlights. I'm going to try it at 250. It's what I like - and my clients like it too (not a commercial).

Process in drop tank, hang to dry - no scratches. But the emulsion is delicate. Anyone have experience with Scala?

-- Brooke Anderson (dbadners@videotron.ca), January 29, 2002.


I have shot some Scala and while it is beautiful film the disadvantages are many: not very convenient to process yourself or by someone else; expensive; printing very troublesome as Ilfochrome and other slide to print processes are color so getting pure b&w requires work; scanning isn't as ideal. For projection of course is best but I don't like my b&w this way.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 30, 2002.

Scala would be ideal for me if I could get it processed in town in 2 hours like E-6.

As it is - well, I'm not willing to put up with a 2-week delay for Kodachrome, and even less willing to put up with a 2-week delay for B&W when I can do it in 30 minutes in the bathroom.

Looks nice, though.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 30, 2002.


Earth to Leica forum:

Fascinating thread- Narcisism of Small Differences Indeed: entertaining way to spend a bit of dead time.

Aestheic and political considerations aside, Salgado's prints are the ideal IMHO, and they are done on TriX. His printer is a master, and that is what makes most of the differences, again, IMHO.

Forty years ago I knew REAL pro photogs who made good livings with an M3 and 2 lenses with TriX and little has changes.

I also have some prints by a guy named Dick Delagi from Massachussetts made with R4s, Summicrons and XP1 which will stand up to anything anywhere made with 4x5 or less.

The small differences can be narcisitic as well as the difference between mass production and Great Art. (Devil in the details!)

I am just now listening to a Bach fugue played on a banjo and marimba: it is still as beautiful as on a Harpsichord or Piano and this is all up to the artist.

Keep up the chatter-great fun and often (pretty) enlightening.

AS an old Norton owner I too remember the name Phil Kneen from years ago and I would like to know for sure if it is the same guy.

Well, out too shot a roll of TX in Singapore: 32 Deg and 90% humidity. I need to put some water aside in the airconditioned room to cool to 25 deg so I can process the film. The water coming out of the tap is about 28-30 Deg.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ