>
>
> On 18/07/2005, at 7:53 PM, jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> So my question is does anyone see any disadvantages (other than
>> speed) to
>> running xp2 at 100asa? if not why do ilford recommend 400asa? or am I
>> missing somthing...
>
> I remember a test of the chromogenics years ago - XP2, T400CN, Kodak
> B&W and Konica. Almost all showed far better results at 1 stop over
> (200 ISO) and 2 over but little difference between those two. Perhaps
> 160ISO is ideal? Improved contrast and tone were mentioned (and
> everyone was trying to get better contrast out of them). I think 400
> is the highest rating allowed for useable results - just like Delta
> 3200 is much better at 800ISO but you can go the extra two stops
> under if you insist.
> AndrewF
I'll have to check the scans again but I think 2 stops over showed a
reasonable difference over one. But I did take more time looking at the
extreme cases then one stop under and over.
I guess I am going to have to try 3 stops over and see what happens...
James
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|