Digital BW, The Print

On 9/6/2012 8:16 AM, Tony Sleep wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2012 David Kachel wrote:
> > I must admit you've got me on that one. What is a "highly compressed
> > density
> > curve"?
>
> I think "WS" means that it's very non-linear - most of the response of the
> chromogenics is a short toe followed by one long shoulder. There isn't a
> straight bit anywhere. At least with XP1/2, TCN seemed to be flatter
> through the midtones.
>
> He's also right that the shadows could get gruesome if underexposed. I'd
> forgotten that. Despite Ilford's claims of broad exposure latitude it was
> actually _really_ fussy about exposure if you wanted quality results. If
> you weren't, you'd still get a picture but underexposure gave great ugly
> splodges in the dark tones
>

Hopefully this isn't too far off-topic in a Digital B&W *Printing* group.

My experience with both Ilford and Kodak chromogenic film is they under-expose
poorly - just like the color emulsions that they really are.  XP2 is worse, with
huge blotches in otherwise no detail, where T400CN/BWC (which, I'm sure, is
the same emulsion on a different base) falls into a noisier darkness, probably
just smaller blotches.

Kodak's BWC-series is faster (I expose it at EI400) where XP2 works best for me
at EI200.

> and over exposure made the whole upper half of
> the tonal range flat and muddy
>

My experience is that XP2 is prone to this in reasonably contrasty
scenes where BWC is less so.

Cheers,
Dana  K6JQ



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]