Ilford XP2, without a doubt. He definitely didn't steer you
wrong. Just be careful about OVER-exposing. It's forgiving,
but, but the shoulder kicks in so low that there is no
straight-line section. If you want to give it an extra 1/3 stop
to protect shadow detail, that's ok, but I wouldn't be shooting
it at 160 or 200. Highlight details hold very well, but tonal
separation suffers due to the looooonnnnng shoulder.
When shot at 160 or 200, XP2 becomes a bit too dense. It's
already a stop slower in the darkroom (enlarger) due to base
density, and that extra stop of emulsion density really
lengthens your enlarger time.
A caution with XP2 that you might have a chat with your lab
about. The base density will reduce with extended wash time.
Standard C41 process will not clear all the dye out. I've had
to soak negatives in water before printing them.
XP2 is VERY fine grained and gives a tight, but traditional
silver BW film look. Totally different stuff than any of the
Kodak C41 stuff.
If I didn't have my own B&W lab setup, I wouldn't hesitate to
shoot XP2.
AG
--- JOHN DUGGAN wrote:
> Lets try this again....Sorry mail playing up..
> For Ag..And any other B+W/ Darkroom experts..
> I intend shooting 10 / 12 rolls of B+W during the summer
> holidays.I usually use Ilford HP5, Delta 400, Delta 100.
> Camera shop manager / friend suggested Ilford XP2.
> Ratiolale being that he could run the negs through his
> developing tanks in a few mins.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|