Ilford XP2 - What's your EI recommendation?

Arjay

Arjay

Time Traveller
Local time
12:45 AM
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
794
I normally use silver halide films for BW, but for travelling, I also want to have a C-41 chromogenic BW alternative.

Up to now, I used Kodak BW 400 CN for that purpose, but I never came to like how the film renders shadows: Even if I expose BW400 CN @ ISO 200, I still get severe clipping (abrupt transition from dark grey to pitch black) with this film. Maybe I'm spoilt from using Tri-X ...

So, I am looking for an alternative chromogenic BW film such as Ilford XP-2. Can I expect to get better shadows if I use XP-2, say - at ISO 200? I want to be able to have the film developed in a plain, unmodified C-41 process.

What's your EI recommendation for XP-2 ? Do you think that XP-2 produces better shadow tonality than BW400 CN ?
 
How are you metering? I normally set a Leica through-lens meter to 250 (bright sunny days) or 320, or spot meter the shadows at 400.

But yes, I prefer XP2 tonality.

Cheers,

R.
 
I read in this forum many suggestion to set the meter at 200/320 to have the best shadows. I was surprised because I had good result setting one of my camera at 400 iso, as the box says. Than it happened that I used the same camera to shoot slides and the were all overexposed. So I learn that I was setting 400 iso but the camera was working as if they were 200 ! Coclusion: what Roger says !
robert
PS Meantime I hjad my camera checked !
 
Roger Hicks said:
How are you metering? I normally set a Leica through-lens meter to 250 (bright sunny days) or 320, or spot meter the shadows at 400.
Click to expand...
My Hexar does center-weighted TTL metering off the focal plane shutter blades, so I presume I should set the ISO value to 250 (high-contrast scenes) or 320 (low-contrast), right? Effectively, I use my Hexar most of the time in aperture-priority auto-exposure mode.

My camera's meter definitely doesn't do spot metering... Anyway, if I understand the reflected light spot metering concept correctly, then spot-metering shadows @ ISO 400 is more or less equivalent to center-weighted reflective metering @ ISO 250/320. Correct?
 
I probably prefer BW400CN to XP2, but I shoot both at box speed. If I were shooting people, then maybe I'd shoot at 320 though.
 
If you spot meter the shadow (zone III, I suppose) @ISO 400, this is a making a dark shadow object to an average grey. Essentially you give it +2 stop over-exposure (i.e. ISO 200).
 
Arjay said:
My Hexar does center-weighted TTL metering off the focal plane shutter blades, so I presume I should set the ISO value to 250 (high-contrast scenes) or 320 (low-contrast), right? Effectively, I use my Hexar most of the time in aperture-priority auto-exposure mode.

My camera's meter definitely doesn't do spot metering... Anyway, if I understand the reflected light spot metering concept correctly, then spot-metering shadows @ ISO 400 is more or less equivalent to center-weighted reflective metering @ ISO 250/320. Correct?
Click to expand...

Dear Arjay,

First para: yes.

Second para: the key phrase is "more or less". In other words, usually, yes, but with VERY long brightness ranges (a beach with caves in the cliff behind it, a church with bright light streaming through the windows) then you will do better with true spot metering (1 degree or less, not the half-assed stuff in cameras) or simply by 'favouring' the shadown when metering (point the camera at the darker areas, not the lighter ones).

Although it doesn't apply in your case, I'll add that exactly how you meter the shadows with a limited-area meter will matter too. Applying corrections from a 'mid-tone' is one way of doing it, but rarely the best way: far better to use highlight and shadow indices, where they are provided.

There's a new module about this, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/over-under-indices.html, but note that there is a mistake at the very end about IRE scales: it should read that IRE 1 is 2-2/3 stops below (nor 2-1/3 stops) and IRE 10 is 2-1/3 stops above, not 2-2/3. You can see the error if you look at the scale: my only (poor) excuse is that the scale reads right-to-left for 1 to 10, and I read it left-to-right. I must have bee tired. The web-master has been notified and should change it soon.

Cheers,

R.
 
dng88 said:
If you spot meter the shadow (zone III, I suppose) @ISO 400, this is a making a dark shadow object to an average grey. Essentially you give it +2 stop over-exposure (i.e. ISO 200).
Click to expand...

Dear Dennis,

Two stops over would be EI 100 if you used the main index (which you shouldn't: see reply to Arjay above). That would normally result in grievous overexposure.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger, thank you very much for all that valuable information. I'm looking forward to working through your linked training module!

I've always been a little at odds about center-weighted exposure metering (always too much guesswork), but didn't care much about it during the times when I exclusively did analog photography. Actually, I revisited those concepts only when I started shooting digital, where all those concepts are much more critical due to digital's reduced latitude.

I guess today, I treat my (analog) negative scans much more thoughtfully than I ever did during my 'old' analog days. This is going to be an interesting ride ...

I guess I should really learn to use external exposure meters too, since they would give me more influence in how I measure.
 
Last edited:
I tried XP2 from 50 to 1600 ISO, and you get the best tonality around ISO 100, but the sharpness takes a hit, so I settled on EI 200. However, no matter how you expose it, you will never get the tonality as nice as with Tri X or HP5+. For me, the two applications where these films excel is in portraiture, and when shooting extremely high contrast scenes, like at night.

XP2@200

1809723689_dc74921bc5_b.jpg


484286831_ee00e53112_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom