I'll reply to my own question here, quoting a previous good explanation
from AG that I just reviewed now understanding what he was talking
about:
"Your main difference between C-41 B&W films and traditional B&W
films is the shoulder and toe. Traditional films typically have
long straight-line sections and small curves at the top and
bottom of the response. C-41 B&W films start the shoulder (top
curve) about midway in the response and get continually
compressed as you go up. Same with the toe. The toe (bottom
curve) is so long that you do gain some shadow detail, but it's
hard to get a good DMAX (solid black) in your prints. These
long curves are nice for exposure flexibility (under/over expose
by two or more stops), but this flexibility comes at the expense
of tonal seperation. You'll lose those lovely smooth gradients."
Still seems worth giving a try.
James
On 6 May 2004, at 23:18, James Royall wrote:
>
> Following AG's advice I'm looking into XP2 and the Kodak equivalent. It
> turns out these films can be exposed at different ISOs (from 50 to 800
> in the case of XP2) frame by frame and then processed as standard. You
> get the usual trade off of grain vs speed without having to commit the
> whole role to one setting. (digital owners pipe up here) Photography is
> all about compromise, so where's the catch? What am I going to give up
> for this flexibility?
>
> James
>
>
> The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
> To contact the list admins:
> mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus List Problem"
>
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|