: Re: Chromogenic BW 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
Interesting idea, Bill. While I used to use XP-1s variation
in contrast, higher speed in contrastier lighting, I never
thought of doing so rigorously as would need to be done to
approximate the zone system. I don't see why it wouldn't
work with a little serious testing.
--Tom
William Robb
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, none is 400 ASA precisely. Both Kodak and Ilford are
variable 100-800 ASA speed films, with a marketing peak of 400. One
can shoot at any speed he likes better the grain, tone range,
contrast, etc.
What the heck
Indeed, a key attribute of these films is that you need not commit the
entire roll to one ISO setting. Rather, you can choose your setting, frame
by frame, without fear that you will under- or overexpose the other frames.
Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, none is 400 ASA
On 21 May 2001, at 9:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, a key attribute of these films is that you need not commit the
entire roll to one ISO setting. Rather, you can choose your setting, frame
by frame, without fear that you will under- or overexpose the other frames.
Gee Paul, I hope
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, a key attribute of these films
is that you need not commit the
entire roll to one ISO setting. Rather,
you can choose your setting, frame
by frame, without fear that you will under-
or overexpose the other frames.
That doesn't sound right, and is
Unfortunately, I caught 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
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 21 May 2001, at 9:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
grain.Contrast, perhaps?
What do the chromogenic filmmakers' websites say? Is this claim currently
being made?
Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, a key attribute of these films
is that you need not commit the
entire roll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I haven't shot chromogenic BW since 1987, I distinctly remember more
than one review citing the frame-by-frame flexibility, at least for Ilford
XP-1. I can't recall what happens to the +2 or -2 ISO frames; they
werern't rendered less usable, just different.
be 18% grey by default.
Rob Brigham
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 May 2001 15:40
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film
While I haven't shot chromogenic BW since 1987, I distinctly remember
more
than one review citing
needs to be
different for different ratings.
I didnt believe in the idea at first, but you are confirming it, not
disproving it!
Rob Brigham
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 May 2001 15:54
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film
Shel wrote:
I can see shooting an entire roll at one EI, 200, 400, 800, and
getting consistent results, but not shooting as you've suggested.
I've tried playing around with using a different EI. I shot a few rolls at
160. I was really displeased with the results. Scanning the film was
difficult
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
Alin Flaider wrote:
I do expose rolls at the same speed (usually 400 or 800), but that
is for consistency reasons only - to ease the lab's job. Ocassionally
however, I did shoot several frames at a different speed and the lab
delivered those images with a vague tint of blue or sepia on the
- Original Message -
From: Tom Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: May 21, 2001 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film
I used to use XP-1 extensively. Souped in the XP-1
developer (worked better than C41 on XP-1. XP-2 is supposed
to be optimised for C-41
Shel wrote:
SB Does anyone know why all the chromogenic BW film on the market is
SB 400 speed? Why not some other speed?
Actually, none is 400 ASA precisely. Both Kodak and Ilford are
variable 100-800 ASA speed films, with a marketing peak of 400. One
can shoot at any speed he likes better
Mark Dalal wrote:
snip
3) Each film has its own use. I don't think XP-2 is suited to landscape,
street, or still-life. But it makes a pretty darn good portrait film. I've
used it for model shots and I've been extremely pleased with it in that
regard.
snip
Interestingly enough, I have a b+w
- Original Message -
From: Mark Dalal
Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW Film
William Robb:
FWIW, I think XP-2 is Crap with a capital C.
I did a microscope analysis of the grain of normally
processed
T400CN and Ilford PanF+ which had been processed in Rodinal.
The
chromogenic had much
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: May 19, 2001 7:23 PM
Subject: Chromogenic BW Film
Does anyone know why all the chromogenic BW film on the
market is
400 speed?
Why not some other speed?
I suspect the emulsion
19 matches
Mail list logo
