Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Peter, the XP-2 Super? The older XP-2 film was quite grainy. Did you rate and compare the films at other speeds too, e.g., ISO 200? - -- Arne In message <5.1.0.14.2.20020121095459.00a76db0@pop.2alpha.net>, "Peter A. Klein" writes: >Is XP-2 inherently more grainy than Portra 400 B&W? I just got a roll of >XP-2 back from my neighborhood Walgreen's pharmacy's Kodak minilab. It was >*very* grainy--more like 3200 film. I checked the film with a 30x pocket >microscope, and it is indeed very grainy on the negative--it's not just >grain aliasing on the scanner. I'll post a couple of examples in the next >few days--there were some good shots, even if they look like Navajo sand >paintings. > >A roll of Portra 400 B&W processed at the same place by the same technician >a couple of months ago was beautiful, and not grainy at all. Both films >were exposed at ISO 400, and the negs don't look underexposed to me. > >Can some failure in the C41 processing cause such grain--exhausted >solutions, bad temperature control, etc.? I won't be using that minilab >again if they can't be consistent. Convenience is nice, but not if it >ruins the pictures. I've been collecting bottles, and will get on the >Tri-X and Xtol 1:3 bandwagon very soon. > >--Peter Klein >Seattle, WA > >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html