Thanks for posting the pics, Steve. I don't much care for the tonality that XP-2 seems to deliver. My only reason for using it was for some quick turnaround at the lab and not wanting to shoot color and convert to B&W later. Well, thanks again!
shel Steve Jolly wrote: > > http://www.elvum.net/gallery/grace_joe_engagement > > http://www.elvum.net/gallery/grace_joe_engagement/gje25 is probably the > best-lit of the selection. > > All the b/w portraits in that album were shot on XP2 super. > > All the chromogenics are a bit odd, I gather - they have some advantages > beyond the debatable one of C41 processing (eg according to the > datasheet you can expose XP2 at anything between EI50 and EI800, even at > multiple speeds on the same film, without loss of contrast). The effect > is a little odd though, I agree - I don't think it's *just* that I can't > light portaits... ;-) > > S > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Yeah ... there's something about the contrast and tonality > > that I don't like either. That's why I asked if anyone had > > some portraits they made using this film. After all, it > > could be my own fault for improperly exposing it, or the > > labs error, or maybe just a crummy scan on the CD. > > > > Clint Austin wrote: > > > >>Shel the reason I might not continue to use XP-2 is the contrast does not > >>look right. I dont know if the kodak brand film would be better, alot of the > >>blame might be on me for not using filters. Just a thought the whole folder > >>is located here: > >>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=382221 > > > >
