Tris wrote:
>I haven't used this Ilford film emulsion you mention. Come to
>think of it I can't recall you talking about it...
>...By the way, my seeming bias against Ilford product dates
>back to my first trial of it when I shot for newspapers
(half->tones on newsprint are hardly definitive tests but
really, the >difference between HP5 and Tri-X was noticeable
even there).
HP5+ developed in Ilfotec DD-X 1:9 is a dead-ringer for Tri-X
these days. In fact, I'd suggest that it is better than Tri-X
because it produces exactly the same thing 1/3 stop faster.
It's good enough for me that I'm totally converting over to it
for my 4x5.
Delta 400 in DD-X is what Tri-X always wanted to be. If it was
available in 4x5, I probably wouldn't shoot anything else in any
format. In my opinion, this is the best B&W film/developer
ever. You can completely alter the look from modern
"plastik-emulsion" to classic "Tri-X/Plus-X" with just a minor
change in exposure/paper grade during printing. Extremely
versitile in so many ways.
Now, about the XP-2. For resolution testing, it's a very nice
choice. There is little reason to criticize it. It lacks a
little bit in the acutance department due to the dye-cloud
structure, but it has a higher resolving ability than any other
400 speed film. Even surpassing 100 speed films. The C-41 based
monochrome films can be a bit mushy in the low values, but
highlights are amazingly sharp.
I haven't been able to do testing yet due to time and money
contraints, but definitely will do some for my own edification.
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|