erm, I think you have misunderstood something. I have never used XP2.
The conclusions I stated were based solely on Ilfords technical article
that YOU posted.
The difference in grain for different exposures would be evident whether
you shot a whole roll or a single frame at a different rating.
Therefore mixed rating films is as valid as re-rating an entire roll. I
do not say whether the results are any good or not.
My posting was based on the fact that you said 'It should be noted that
nowhere in the data sheet could i find anything that said exposing a
roll using different film speeds was acceptable or good practice.' I
merely pointed out that while the article was much more technical than
this, that is precisely what it said. Even if you/we dont like the
effect on grain, Ilford says the grain improves with rerating.
I dont want to get into pedantism, and based on what you and others have
observed, I seriously doubt their claims, but I can see the theory, as
presumably you can based on your post regarding Kodaks claims for
Tri-X.
Rob Brigham
-----Original Message-----
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 May 2001 18:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Chromogenic B&W Film
Rob Brigham wrote:
>
> Surely the phrases 'extremely wide exposure latitude of XP2' and 'No
> matter which film speed is chosen, standard C41 processing is
> recommended.' confirms that the exposure lattitude of the neg is wider
> than paper so over or under exposing a single frame by a stop or two
can
> be corrected at the printing stage with no noticeable effect as the
> final print will always be 18% grey by default.
That's nonsense - at least to me. There are differences in grain
and negative density (as specifically stated in Ilford's
description). That, to my eyes, produces a "noticeable effect".
Also, see Mark's comments. Other noticeable effects.
While a film may have a wide exposure latitude, varying exposures
will produce different results. It can't be helped. Whether or not
the results are acceptable, or even noticeable, depends on how
critical you are and whether these differences are meaningful to
you. They are to me. Perhaps Mark & I are a bit more critical than
you when it comes to judging print quality or seeing the results of
different exposures.
> The only effect would be the change in characteristic of the grain
etc,
Agreed. You are contradicting yourself <g>. Of course, "etc" may
cover a pretty broad range of characteristics. Which other
characteristics were you thinking of when you wrote that?
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... there is no point in pressing the shutter
unless you are making some caustic comment
on the incongruities of life" - Phillip Jones Griffiths
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
