cjb wrote:
>For those in the UK, see Nov 99 _Practical_Photography_ for a review
>of all of them. They trashed the Konica, which is at odds with reports
>from list members.
>
I have this issue of PP. Results from XP2 Super look like a conventional
100asa film - there's crisp grain there. T400CN is much finer, but probably
not as sharp. It has a brownish cast, which is not present in XP2. Konica VX
has a strong orange cast and is noticeably grainier. Kodak Select B&W also
has the strong cast, and is a bit of a poor relation next to the T400CN.
I also checked a review of XP2 Super in Camera & Darkroom (then titled
Darkroom User) issue 36. The tester found that, while T400CN is a good deal
finer grained that XP2 Super, he found that the crisper result of the Ilford
film gave more impressive results. He suggests that if you use grain as your
sole criterion of quality then yes, it would be a better film (though he
suggested that this was misguided).
Resolution tests suggested the XP2 was capable of higher resolution, and
could resolve 801p/mm at ISO400. T400CN achieved 75lp/mm, and both films
held 70+lpm across 7 stops (-2 to +5).
With regard to printing, he says "there is no doubt that T400CN gives much
more neutral prints on colour paper." However, Ilford claim that improving
the performance on colour paper would inevitably compromise performance on
monochrome paper.
So it looks like you get the choice of flavours in your chromogenic b&w
films. I suggest trying the two side-by-side and see which you prefer. No
one film is the 'best' for all photographers, all subjects and all situations.
Simon E.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|