Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Richard, I thought the same conclusions had been arrived at by Gordon Hutchings in his similar comparison in View Camera Mar/Apr 1999 but on checking that was his comparison of Arista's films with Ilford's products (same animals I think). Gordon reviewed Bergger 200 in the Sept/Oct 1998 issue of View Camera and sang its praises... ...when Burkhardt Kiegeland (the maker of Lotus View cameras) visited me here in Wales a couple of years ago he brought his portfolio of 8x20 and 12x20 (inch!) mounted contact prints made on Kodak Azo processed in Amidol from PMK/Bergger negatives (Burkhardt tray processes SIX sheets of 12x20 at a time would you believe!) and they were simply stunning. I remember one image of an autumnal scene which looked grainy in the fore and middle ground... examining the print through a loup revealed that the grains were individual fallen leaves. Ed Buziak / Publisher Camera & Darkroom magazine ed.buziak@camera-and-darkroom.co.uk http://www.camera-and-darkroom.co.uk - ---------- >From: Disfromage@aol.com >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: Re: [Leica] Ilford Delta 100 now Bergger 200 OT >Date: Sat, Apr 8, 2000, 4:42 am > > >In a message dated 04/07/2000 3:54:33 AM, Ed Buziak wrote: > ><<BTW: Did you know that Ron Wisner (of Wisner Cameras) is trying to establish >a user base for the old Kodak XX sheet film so that he can negotiate with >Kodak on its reintroduction... continuing exciting times for traditional >monochrome workers I think.>> > >Ed, >That is good news! We need as many materials as we can get. It is my >understanding that Bergger BPF 200 was designed to be a close replacement for >XX. I read an article by Phil Davis, I think in Photo Techniques where he >tested them both, and found them to be not identical, but very close. The >Bergger has that same kind of terrific straight line response. I don't know >if you've noticed yet, but I like this film! > >Richard Wasserman