Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site tymix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
From: kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: Questions on films
Message-ID: <278@tymix.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Aug-84 16:30:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: tymix.278
Posted: Thu Aug 16 16:30:29 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 02:39:55 EDT
References: <1306@nsc.UUCP>, <1607@ucbvax.UUCP>
Organization: Tymshare Inc., Cupertino CA
Lines: 29

I strongly recommend that any 35mm photographer, whose real love is
black and white, give Ilford XP1 film a try.  It is rated ASA 400 and
has the fine grain and resolution of the Real Slow films.  In a comparison
I made recently, it appeared to do better with respect to the above than
Ilford's Pan F (ASA 50).  It is a so-called chromogenic film; applies color
film technology to black and white.  The final image on the negative is
a brownish-black dye.  It can be processed as if it were Kodakcolor, i.e in
C41 process, but the grain is finer if you process it yourself in Ilford's 
kit.

The film has an amazing dynamic range.  The first roll I tried, I deliberately
shot the same scene three times, rating the film respectively at ASA 400, 200,
and 100.  By playing a bit with the paper contrast, I was able to get identical
prints from all three frames.

Finally--Where grain does show first is in the thin places on the negative.
What you are seeing is the statistical distribution of the dye particles.
But those thin places on the negative will be the dark places on the print--
just where grain is the least noticeable.  

The one limitation is that it can't be pushed and remember: thin is grainy.
If you want to push to ASA 800 or 1600, you are better off with TriX.

I have used no other B&W film for the past three years, except this past 
month in order to make some comparisons.

Herb Kanner
...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner