amateriat
We're all light!
Gabriel & shadowfox: From here, your images look great, and confirm my experience with XP2 (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Kodak's BW400CN). It helps to get one's exposure values nailed down, of course, but that's the case with any film. The convenience factor, in terms of processing, is pretty hard to resist (and, at $2.50 a roll for local developing with 45-minute turnaround, highly cost- and time-effective). Scanning is almost ridiculously easy, completing the picture.
- Barrett
- Barrett
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Thanks, shadowfox.
Barrett: you can't see the links I posted?
Barrett: you can't see the links I posted?
amateriat
We're all light!
Gabriel: My goof...I meant your pics, not Jan's. Correction made. I particularly like the first one.
- Barrett
- Barrett
jan normandale
Film is the other way
@ CJC.. thanks for posting the set of negatives. Obviously there's a difference. I will have to think about that issue some more.
@Gabriel.. I'm impressed with the Ilford.. I used it once and it was not near your results. I like what you are getting. Perhaps I'll have to reconsider it over the Kodak BW .. and I'm happy with that as you know.
@Gabriel.. I'm impressed with the Ilford.. I used it once and it was not near your results. I like what you are getting. Perhaps I'll have to reconsider it over the Kodak BW .. and I'm happy with that as you know.