Spyderco Native C41BK

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: This review may cost me money.*

The Long Version: Of all of the knives that I own, there are two that emerge as strong favourites any time I need to do actual work. One is the 3" clip-point Voyager, and the other is the Spyderco Native.

The Native has an unusual leaf-shaped blade; some will call it "spear point" but only one side is sharpened. The cutting surface is about 2.5 inches long with a continuous curve, and there's a finger choil toward its base. Coupled with the short but broad handle the knife has an exceptional grip for my average-male-sized hand, and the patented round hole in the blade makes for a natural hold when choking up for fine work. When closed the gentle curve of both the handle and the rear of the blade makes it easy on the pocket. The metal clip is strong enough, and can be mounted on either side of the handle at the butt-end of the knife. The plastic handle is textured on both sides.

When coupled with the unsexy but reliable lockback mechanism, the end result is a very solid and serviceable knife. The curve of the broad blade gives it tremendous cutting power for its size, while the false edge gives it a fine point. Most of my work is breaking tape and boxes, and the belly of the Native works even better than the secondary point of a "Tanto" blade design. The extremely aggressive serrations are part of that, but I might be willing to trade my fully-serrated model for a 50/50 split edge. Perhaps I'll just buy a second plain-edge model and be done with it.*

There's only thing that I've changed on my knife. The square-cut thumb rest on the top of the blade is fairly agressive, so I took a Dremel to mine and rounded off the sides a bit. It makes the knife a little more pleasant to hold. Aside from that, I'll touch up the plain edge of the CPMS30V blade with a diamond stone occasionally, and have used one of Spyderco's ceramic serration sharpeners a couple of times over the past eight years. Otherwise the knife has been completely maintenance-free.

I have only one complaint about the Native, and it really has nothing to do with the knife. Prominently stamped on the blade is "Golden Colorado USA Earth". While the all-embracing wholism is a nice change from the Manly Man atitude and weaponized lawn implements of Cold Steel and their ilk, the last time I felt the need to specify my planet as part of my address I was in kindergarden. Sure, Spyderco is proud that the Native is made in America from American steel – hence, I hope, the name – but their enthusiasm is too easily mockable. There's a lot to be said for understatement.


updated 12 aug 2011: *sure enough, I've talked myself into a new plain-edge knife. It's not a Native, but it is a Spyderco. My review of it is here.

last updated 12 aug 2011

Ilford XP2 Super

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: All I did was take pictures…

The Long Version: I suppose the question has to be: "Why bother?" In this age of digital photography, why bother with film at all? In a time when computer processing allows infinite adjustability as colour turns into monochrome, why bother with black and white film? And if I'm going to the trouble of using an anachronistic medium, why bother stopping half-way there? Why not just go all the way to the classic silver films like Tri-X?

Ilford XP2 Super – hereafter simply "XP2" – is a modern monochrome film that's built with the same dye-based technology as colour negative film. This means that it can be processed in the chromogenic C-41 chemistry that's used by every mini-lab in the world. The only other black and white film that can do that is Kodak's 400CN; internet wisdom has it that the Kodak film is better for prints straight from the minilab, while the Ilford film is better for everything else. I've never used the Kodak, and I've never done lab prints, so I can't really comment on that.

Traditional B&W film needs to be processed in different chemistry from colour negatives. While that's relatively easy to do at home with a minimum of equipment and space, commercial processing is rarely available and really misses the point. There's a whole sub-set of photographers who relish the craftsmanship and care that can customize the development of each roll for the very best results. As with any bastion of photographic tradition, hand-processed silver B&W photography has a huge range of slightly different options, each with their own advantages, disadvantages, and mythos to learn.

Me, I'm a digital photographer, even though I mostly use film. I scan the developed negatives and post-process them in Lightroom, just like any camera raw file. I have great respect for traditions and appreciate the craft, but have no desire to partake in it myself.

XP2 is the perfect companion for digital photography. Developed XP2 has no silver grains to cause aliasing problems when it's scanned, and it's tremendously tolerant of overexposure. Traditional B&W film has grain in the highlights, which is exaggerated by overexposure; chromogenic film has its grain in the shadows, so excessive exposure actually reduces the grain, along with a bit of sharpness. This gives it a different look from silver films, more akin to digital images, but with the exceptionally long tones that remain a solid advantage for those of us who don't need instant gratification.

I use XP2 in both 135 (35mm) and 120 formats, and there's no remarkable difference between the two except for the usual improvements in detail and tone that the larger negatives offer. I typically use it at iso320 in my small-format cameras, although I've recently been exposing it at 250 with good results. My medium-format machines don't have built-in meters, and I'll occasionally run them as much as a stop hotter. With its forgiving exposure latitude combined with the complete absence of white balance issues, using XP2 is by far the easiest thing I can do with a camera.

The only downside to working with a lot of monochrome film is that it' so monotonous in postprocessing; there's nothing bleaker than spending days facing a Lightroom catalog that's screen after screen of relentlessly grey thumbnails. After a half-dozen rolls I find myself longing for the smoothness of Portra or the punch of Ektar, so there's no way that I can commit to just using XP2 no matter how much I like it. But photos in black and white look great in singles and fantastic in a series, which makes it all worthwhile.

So why do I bother with XP2? I like it, it's easy, and it looks good. That's more than enough for me.

last updated 5 aug 2011

Elsewhere on the Web: Buying Cameras

The Long Version: Bill Beebe has been kind enough to let me post a few articles about buying cameras on his own site. Part One is about buying that first "serious" camera, while Part Two – really, part one-and-a-half – looks at building it into a system. The final instalment, which is possibly my favourite, is what I go through when I'm tempted to buy something new. I'm not famous for my impulse control, but I think it works out okay.

Of course, I could be wrong.

last updated 4 dec 2010