> 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...
Hmm. You REALLY want my opinion?
Here goes: If you are scanning the negs and never plan on
optical enlargements you rate the film so it gives you the best
possible results for your specific system. However...
I find overexposed XP2 a thing of horror to print well in the
chemical darkroom. XP2 is all shoulder and toe and has no
straight-line section. This is why it is so flexible in
exposure. The problem is, when you overexpose the film, you are
trying to pack too much information into a narrow brightness
band on the emulsion. In essence, you are using only 1/2 of
your emulsion. The result is a lack of tonal seperation in the
high values as well as the inability to get as clean of blacks.
(usually not as big of a problem with digital post-processing).
As to why everexposed XP2 (and the Kodak variants) are sharpest
has to do with the design of the dye layers.
In the chemical darkroom, chromogenic films are a lot harder to
use than traditional B&W films. The gamma is off. To correct
the gamma, we have to resort to all sorts of nasty tricks that
cannot be told in the presence of small children.
AG
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|