back alley
IMAGES
for those who use ilford's xp2 film...
how do you normally rate it?
how do you normally rate it?
a quick poll
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 53
- Views 655
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I always use the mfg rating on all film. I'm just wierd that way I suppose...
William
William
l.mar
Well-known
It's my understanding that "pushing" chromogenic B & W films, such as XP2 and Kodak "B & W" does not work that well. That said, I've shot XP2 at 320, and it works o.k. I would be interested in hearing anyone else's experiences with shooting at other than mfg. recommended speeds, as I shoot quite a bit of chromogenic B & W film.
I always set the camera to 2/3 stop less than the rated ISO of any C-41 film, whether I'm using an in-camera meter or hand-held incident meter.
I've used XP1 and XP2 Super a lot, and have gotten best results at EI 250. I'm now using a lot of Fuji NPZ800 in the 220 size, rated at EI 500.
These films all seem intolerant of underexposure, and are bordering on underexposure at the rated ISO speed. They're typically very tolerant of overexposure, almost impossible to totally block up the highlight density on the negatives.
So treating the films as if 2/3 stop slower than rated is for me a bit of a safety margin against underexposure, and a way to bring some additional richness to the shadowed areas of the image. I really dislike that ugly grainy foggy look of underexposed shadows!
To be clear, I make no mention of my metering or exposure practices to the processing labs. They have their standard C-41 process to follow, and that's fine with me. I have asked for push-processing with XP on occasions when I've used the rated 400 ISO in low-contrast situations to boost negative density. This works fine too, especially for wet-darkroom printing.
I've used XP1 and XP2 Super a lot, and have gotten best results at EI 250. I'm now using a lot of Fuji NPZ800 in the 220 size, rated at EI 500.
These films all seem intolerant of underexposure, and are bordering on underexposure at the rated ISO speed. They're typically very tolerant of overexposure, almost impossible to totally block up the highlight density on the negatives.
So treating the films as if 2/3 stop slower than rated is for me a bit of a safety margin against underexposure, and a way to bring some additional richness to the shadowed areas of the image. I really dislike that ugly grainy foggy look of underexposed shadows!
To be clear, I make no mention of my metering or exposure practices to the processing labs. They have their standard C-41 process to follow, and that's fine with me. I have asked for push-processing with XP on occasions when I've used the rated 400 ISO in low-contrast situations to boost negative density. This works fine too, especially for wet-darkroom printing.
K
Kris
Guest
I shoot nearly all C-41 and B&W films at half its nominal speed. Like Doug, I find rating the films at nominal speed will give me ugly grainy foggy look in the dark part. The only exeption is TMax 100, which somehow doesn't like overexposure.
Why is it that negative film nominal speed seem to be faster than its actual speed? Haven't seen in in transparency land.
Why is it that negative film nominal speed seem to be faster than its actual speed? Haven't seen in in transparency land.
M
Marc Jutras
Guest
Ilford's documentation on XP2 says it can be used from EI 50 to 800.
There was a discussion about this on photo.net and people were talking about how it's almmost impossible to blow the highlights with it. On the opposite, darker ares can look muddy so anything from 400 up is not so good.
200 and lower seems to be the best. At 50, there's a loss of detail but at 100, it's really beautifull.
Some guy (don't remember his name and can't find the thread) posted a home made test. Here's the picture he posted.
There was a discussion about this on photo.net and people were talking about how it's almmost impossible to blow the highlights with it. On the opposite, darker ares can look muddy so anything from 400 up is not so good.
200 and lower seems to be the best. At 50, there's a loss of detail but at 100, it's really beautifull.
Some guy (don't remember his name and can't find the thread) posted a home made test. Here's the picture he posted.
L
lkgroup
Guest
I shoot nearly all XP2 at 200 unless I need the speed and then only to 400. I went though a stage of shooting only Ilford XP2 and developing in Tetranal C-41 kits. I probably went through 50+ rolls of 35mm. Even though I liked the negatives and the prints I always waited until I had 8 rolls of 36 exposed before processing. I wanted to take advantage of the maixmum number of rolls in the chemstry.
I have gone back to Tri-x so I can do 1-2 or so rolls at a time and a more timely fashion.
Leo
I have gone back to Tri-x so I can do 1-2 or so rolls at a time and a more timely fashion.
Leo
peter_n
Veteran
Used at 320 it seems OK. For some reason I rated T400CN at 400 and that turned out much better. Probably the development lab. 🙁
I have used 200 because that is what you guys said was best.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I was advised at another site to rate XP2 and Kodaks B&W C41 film at 200. I have done this and the results have been good. This makes sense as most C41 process films seem to do better with some overexposure. Underexposure of these films seems to really bring out the grain . Marc's example photos were very informative.
P
Peter
Guest
I personally expose XP2 at 400 as recommended by the manufacturer. I agree with the experience of other members here that XP2 is very tolerant to over-exposure as I have over-exposed 2 stops and the photos turned out very good. But I have rated XP2 at 800 and the result is increased grain and muddy shadow. It all depends what kind of photography you are doing. If one is doing fine-art or portrait, I think exposing XP2 at a slower speed will produce very fine images. If one is doing documentary or street photography and require a bit more speed for the action. A bit of grain may be acceptable and even desirable in my opinion.
Marc's illustration shows the loss of shadow contrast and detail, that muddy look, that I find even more objectionable than the grain increase. In color neg film there's often an odd ugly color cast in those muddy shadows too, sometimes greenish...
The grainy look comes from the dye clumps being further apart. Here's an example shot with XP2 with CV 2.5/75mm wide open, and underexposed (my cat Cinnamon):
The grainy look comes from the dye clumps being further apart. Here's an example shot with XP2 with CV 2.5/75mm wide open, and underexposed (my cat Cinnamon):
Here's another in similar light with XP2 at EI 250, not underexosed, with 2.8/90mm Tele-Elmarit wide open (her name is Suwannee):
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
It should metter alot, besides rating, how do you meter the scene. I always used it at 200-250 myself, although only in 120-format (never actually tried 135 format xp2). I use a handheld meter in reflective mode, and modify the reading if there's high contrast stuff in the scene (e.g., I underexpose 1-1/5 or even 2 stops if spotlit people are the subjects i want to have correctly exposed).
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
"In color neg film there's often an odd ugly color cast in those muddy shadows too, sometimes greenish..."
Doug, i also noticed it, but could not judge if it's in the negative, or if it's due to the lab trying hard to get out some details from the dark regions. If it's not the lab, then, on ANY image the very dark zones hsould look like that, isn't that true? I mean, "underexposure" is just another way to say, there's less light hitting the negative, which is always the case for a scene with contrast variation of 5-6 stops.
Huh, that's a bit confusingly written, so here's what i mean: on a "correctly exposed" frame, there are regions which are "overexposed" (those come out bright) and regions that are "underexposed" (the shadows). In the shadows thus, there should always be this kind of grainy greenish muddy tone - unless it's left to go very dark on the print, by the lab.
In other words, the negative should not know the difference between a part of the scene that is 3 stops darker than the average gray, and a 3-stops underexposed average gray scene; but the lab will see if it's the latter and will print shorter to get some details out. Am i completely wrong?
Doug, i also noticed it, but could not judge if it's in the negative, or if it's due to the lab trying hard to get out some details from the dark regions. If it's not the lab, then, on ANY image the very dark zones hsould look like that, isn't that true? I mean, "underexposure" is just another way to say, there's less light hitting the negative, which is always the case for a scene with contrast variation of 5-6 stops.
Huh, that's a bit confusingly written, so here's what i mean: on a "correctly exposed" frame, there are regions which are "overexposed" (those come out bright) and regions that are "underexposed" (the shadows). In the shadows thus, there should always be this kind of grainy greenish muddy tone - unless it's left to go very dark on the print, by the lab.
In other words, the negative should not know the difference between a part of the scene that is 3 stops darker than the average gray, and a 3-stops underexposed average gray scene; but the lab will see if it's the latter and will print shorter to get some details out. Am i completely wrong?
Last edited:
I think you're right, that the grainy muddy effect becomes evident when the print is made lighter in an attempt to get nice tones in the medium-tone and light areas from an underexposed neg. When those parts of the picture are exposed properly, the muddy effect disappears into the black.
I can help push those muddy tones into the black by exposing a little more. 😉
I can help push those muddy tones into the black by exposing a little more. 😉
back alley
IMAGES
so far, 13 rate it at under 400 and 6 rate it at 400 or over.
i too rate it at under 400, usually 200 and am quite pleased with the results. i'm actually starting to quite like this film.
joe
i too rate it at under 400, usually 200 and am quite pleased with the results. i'm actually starting to quite like this film.
joe
Solinar
Analog Preferred
On my medium format cameras with the "Old" Compur- Rapid shutter speed progression I use XP2 @ 200, without a filter and @ 100 with a Y-2 filter attached.
On my cameras that use the "newer" shutter speed progression I expose XP2 @ 250.
Like any other C-41 film the highlights will block-up, if you aren't careful. To me, the shadow detail is worth preserving.
On my cameras that use the "newer" shutter speed progression I expose XP2 @ 250.
Like any other C-41 film the highlights will block-up, if you aren't careful. To me, the shadow detail is worth preserving.
T
That Guy
Guest
I've always rated it, an all other films I use, at the manufacturers rating. And I've gotten results both beautifully detailed and terribly grainy. Mostly I attribute it to how well I composed and metered the scene.
Marc's post was very good and I had to print it out and stare at it and the screen for a good five minutes before I could get a good feel for the test image. The result seem a little deceiving. The subject and background are different in each test image. And aperature settings have changed for each. The "50" looks to be about a 1.7 and the "800" about a 4.5 maybe. So it's hard to get an objective feel for each of the exposures.
However, from the test images, I like the "400" best. The faces have good tonality. The highlights aren't too strong. And the detail in the foreground (paper towels, it appears) is quite evident.
I might have to try this experiment myself.
Marc's post was very good and I had to print it out and stare at it and the screen for a good five minutes before I could get a good feel for the test image. The result seem a little deceiving. The subject and background are different in each test image. And aperature settings have changed for each. The "50" looks to be about a 1.7 and the "800" about a 4.5 maybe. So it's hard to get an objective feel for each of the exposures.
However, from the test images, I like the "400" best. The faces have good tonality. The highlights aren't too strong. And the detail in the foreground (paper towels, it appears) is quite evident.
I might have to try this experiment myself.
Of course I agree with you about the shadow detail. I think you'll find though that the blocked highlights are only in the scan or print, and that plenty of detail is there in the negative for you to take.Solinar said:
If you're doing your own scanning, do another scan favoring the light areas, and then you can blend that detail into your final image. If you're doing your own wet prints, you'll find the detail by burning in the bright areas. In my experience, it's nearly impossible to block up the highlights in any C41 neg!
Similar threads
