chris_tennyson1 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 And I have officially entered the strange and chaotic world of Leica.. Again! Ihad an M6 once before but it had a shutter problem that was a pain to getrepaired. In the end I got rid of the camera after only a roll or two because Ijust couldn't trust it. So there we have it! Now I am just trying to work out which film to use. I wouldprefer to use XP2 if I can because there are few labs near me that can do Blackand White processing, and I don't want to do it myself. I scanned some from myfirst roll and wasn't happy with the sharpness, but then it was on an epsonflatbed which is arguable in handling 35mm negs. I think it is time to break outthe Nikon Coolscan IV and see how that handles. Here are a few questions for you all. Anyone else have some shots they can showme taken with the XP2? I used to shoot it all the time rated at 100 on my ContaxT2 and loved it. I am sure it is just a scanning issue at this time but I dunno! Well thats all for now :P I am sure you will start to hear from me more and morenow that I am in debt and can do nothing else but post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBaker Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Some XP2 shot in Paris in December<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBaker Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 A second<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBaker Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 A third<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBaker Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Finally. All were scanned with a drum scanner<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_swanson Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Here's one. 75 'lux @1.4 XP2. My only complaint about XP2 is I've never had it processed anywhere, I mean from Pro Lab to CVS that doesn't leave filth on the film. My home developed TX hung in a bathroom is far far cleaner. Minolta 5400 sees all and scans all that crap. I don't like digital scanner cleaning.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Neil, is there anything stopping you washing the negs yourself (properly) before scanning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmdelux Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Harry, thank you. Great shots. Chris, welcome back. If you liked XP2 w/ your T2, your asph will bring it to a new level. I've been shooting HP5 lately.....I think I'm goin to be shootin more of that stuff. Best -Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tennyson1 Posted July 12, 2006 Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 Thanx everyone! The shots look great.. Clearly it isn't a fault of the film I am having but the scanning! Definatly time to get out the Nikon scanner. I'd prefer the Minolta I think but eh. The Nikon is already at work so I am sure it will do! I'll post some shots when I get something worth while! It could also be that I haven't scanned anything in a looooong time! I shoot Canon digital mostly, but I also have an Xpan so I haven't completely sworn off film!:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_clark Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 "Neil, is there anything stopping you washing the negs yourself (properly) before scanning?" No wonder British people get such awful service if this attitude is a typical reaction to what passes for a job done. There is only one way negatives should come back and that is CLEAN. In three years of having film developed (at a professional lab) in India, my negs were always clean. If they can do it with their wretched and unreliable infrastructure, surely a UK lab can. There really is no excuse. Unless, of course, you like the doormat treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_kincaid1 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I've had a lot of trouble processing and scanning b&w film, and have almost given up on it. Even though I'd like to make it work. I haven't seen any advantage with XP2 over color film converted in PS. Here's a recent shot in color with Kodak 160vc converted to b&w in photoshop to emulate Agfa 25 pan film. Someone please critique it from the point of view of b&w or XP2.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_kincaid1 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Converted in PS to emulate Agfa 25 pan b&w film.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Chris, Ilford state that if you overexpose XP2, grain is improved but at the expense of some sharpness. Why not expose it at, say 200? I find this gives a beautiful grain free image and with good sharpness. At its stated 400 it has excellent sharpness too, but perhaps without quite the smoothness of tone as that seen at 200. At 100 you may be making your life unnecessarily difficult. Having said that, I suspect that with the Coolscan you will find the output much superior to the Epson flatbed Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 "I haven't seen any advantage with XP2 over color film converted in PS." Essentially I agree with you - but the obvious advantage of XP2 is you can also make a silver gelatin print in a good old darkroom should you want to. There is still and I suspect there will always be an aesthetic difference between these and the digital print. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 <div></div> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tennyson1 Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 Larry, Had you shown me just the black and white I would have said yes absolutly, but in this particular shot for some reason I am drawn to the color one more.. I don't know why. Maybe because its very muted and subtle? I'm also colorblind so you know :P Robin, Thats a great idea about going with 200. I think I will give that a try and see what happens. Best of both worlds maybe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_kincaid1 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Chris, that's because you like color. Or in this case, the color brown. I thought about just posting the b&w version, but the would negate my question: why not shoot in color and convert to b&w? If someone like Chris (or my wife)likes the color version better, it's sitting right there on the negative. But in this case, would XP2 or b&w film have done a better job with the b&w print? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tennyson1 Posted July 14, 2006 Author Share Posted July 14, 2006 No I don't think it would have. You got good tonal range and so forth with it so I don't think you are missing anything. It's a nice mood b/w or color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now