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