Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
Here is a night shot on XP-2 that has plenty of contrasty lighting:
Wayne
Wayne
exposure and XP2
- Thread starter jaffa_777
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 32
- Views 4K
raid
Dad Photographer
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
Raid: Fabulous portrait!
I guess I simply grok chromogenics in general. XP2 is my top pick, but, as mentioned earlier, Kodak's BW 400 will do nicely as well, although I find myself approaching it a little differently in terms of exposure. But the stuff works.
The top image was taken with XP2 in a Ricoh GR1, taken in summer 2001. The bottom image, taken last autumn at dusk, was with Kodak BW 400 in a Hexar RF, 50mm f/2, wide open (I think).
- Barrett
I guess I simply grok chromogenics in general. XP2 is my top pick, but, as mentioned earlier, Kodak's BW 400 will do nicely as well, although I find myself approaching it a little differently in terms of exposure. But the stuff works.
The top image was taken with XP2 in a Ricoh GR1, taken in summer 2001. The bottom image, taken last autumn at dusk, was with Kodak BW 400 in a Hexar RF, 50mm f/2, wide open (I think).
- Barrett
Attachments
raid
Dad Photographer
Barrett,
Both images are great,but the second one is intrigueing.
Raid
Both images are great,but the second one is intrigueing.
Raid
jaffa_777
Established
ok, heaps of feedback. Love this forum!
So it looks like I may be metering incorrectly?
Avotious, your pics at 400 in contrasty light are excellent. Now I am even more confused, obviously I can shoot at 400, but have I overexposed or underexposed, now that is the intriguing question. Now I am not sure which one. If I am to downrate my iso, surely I will overexpose even more. Surely this will blow highlights even more? Or does it work the opposite on way on film evening up the contrast between light and dark?
Wayne, thanks for your help. I am not familar with the zone system, but your explanation does make sense. I think what I am gonna do is get this girl in the same situation and bracket my exposures and write them all down. Then I will definately know where I stand with this film.
So it looks like I may be metering incorrectly?
Avotious, your pics at 400 in contrasty light are excellent. Now I am even more confused, obviously I can shoot at 400, but have I overexposed or underexposed, now that is the intriguing question. Now I am not sure which one. If I am to downrate my iso, surely I will overexpose even more. Surely this will blow highlights even more? Or does it work the opposite on way on film evening up the contrast between light and dark?
Wayne, thanks for your help. I am not familar with the zone system, but your explanation does make sense. I think what I am gonna do is get this girl in the same situation and bracket my exposures and write them all down. Then I will definately know where I stand with this film.
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
Raid: Thanks!
In the case of the second photo: shiny things intrigue me in daylight, but they really mesmerize me at night. They're also tougher to capture at night, making it an interesting challenge. A playground slide takes on an interesting aura (perhaps reminding me of my shildhood bedroom, where objects that were familiar and innocuous by day became mysterious, and sometimes scary, at night). This particular night, the entire playground [more pictures in my Gallery] took on quite a different persona under stadium-style lighting, and I spent a good half-hour chasing reflections while Sig. Other looked on (far from being bored, she pretty much got into my antics as well).
- Barrett
In the case of the second photo: shiny things intrigue me in daylight, but they really mesmerize me at night. They're also tougher to capture at night, making it an interesting challenge. A playground slide takes on an interesting aura (perhaps reminding me of my shildhood bedroom, where objects that were familiar and innocuous by day became mysterious, and sometimes scary, at night). This particular night, the entire playground [more pictures in my Gallery] took on quite a different persona under stadium-style lighting, and I spent a good half-hour chasing reflections while Sig. Other looked on (far from being bored, she pretty much got into my antics as well).
- Barrett
Last edited:
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
Barrett,
Love the slide at night photo!!
Wayne
Love the slide at night photo!!
Wayne
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
Avotius
Some guy
jaffa_777 said:
Thanks, a few tips from what I have noticed using this film:
Be careful of strange grain in image. I have shots some at 320 and 400 and every once in a while I get an odd image that is overly grainy for some reason that has to do with the film.
The lens I used for those shots for the most part was the Voigtlander 35mm pancake 2, a lens known for being a pain in the ass with contrast, but I find with a little extra care scanning its not a problem and makes good punchy black and white images. Some of the shots like the dog were from the leica 50 elmar redscale, not the most contrasty lens every but no slouch and a few blown highlights show that, but over all great.
My opinion is this film is not the most forgiving ever but not so bad. For instance HP5 can take a lot more punishment but we all know why we shoot xp2 if we are shooting it. I find that xp2 when you shoot it at 320 then scan with a less aggressive contrast curve it doesnt have and problem with blowing out, when I shoot at 400 then adjust for aggressive contrast it can be a little over the top but thats the way I like my bw.
jaffa_777
Established
ok thanks Avotius,
so if I was to shoot at 320 in the same contrasty situations, should I be metering for the highlights on the bright litt side of the face, (which is what I do for digital and get good results), or should I be metering for the mid shadows which will tell the camera to use a longer shutter.
Actually I have been thinking, that if digital performs well by metering for the highlights and film performs better metering for the mid greys, then that makes digital at least one stop faster at any comparative iso for the same results? What do you think?
so if I was to shoot at 320 in the same contrasty situations, should I be metering for the highlights on the bright litt side of the face, (which is what I do for digital and get good results), or should I be metering for the mid shadows which will tell the camera to use a longer shutter.
Actually I have been thinking, that if digital performs well by metering for the highlights and film performs better metering for the mid greys, then that makes digital at least one stop faster at any comparative iso for the same results? What do you think?
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
hmmm
b&w film - for low key pictures: meter for shadows, -2.5 stops if I want shadows near black with details; for high key pictures: meter for highlights, +2.5 stops if I want highlights really white.
C41 (color&mono, XP2 included) - I meter from mid tone, sometimes +1 stop.
Slides/digital - meter from highlights.
Now the tricky part. How do you meter if you scan your picures (or print from scans)? I meter C41 for highlights if I scan - for me black without details is less ennoying than pure whilte - I am nocturnal beast 🙂
b&w film - for low key pictures: meter for shadows, -2.5 stops if I want shadows near black with details; for high key pictures: meter for highlights, +2.5 stops if I want highlights really white.
C41 (color&mono, XP2 included) - I meter from mid tone, sometimes +1 stop.
Slides/digital - meter from highlights.
Now the tricky part. How do you meter if you scan your picures (or print from scans)? I meter C41 for highlights if I scan - for me black without details is less ennoying than pure whilte - I am nocturnal beast 🙂
szekiat
Well-known
hmm, starting to dig this xp2. I've been shooting tri-x for the better part of the last 3 years, but recently, looking at avotius' works, i'm giving this film a lot more thought!
SCOTFORTHLAD
Slow learner,but keen!
Fascinating to read through this thread.Thoughtful and generous advice,and great picture examples throughout!
Over the years I have generally been using 400asa. colour neg film without paying too much attention to my camera's meter,other than taking a reading off the ground,and then generally intentionally overexposing by a stop, as the film is very forgiving.My results have always been pretty satisfactory,subjectively speaking of course.
I have employed the same 'technique',if you can call it that,with XP2, but to be honest,with not the same success/satisfaction ratio.
All of my films have been lab printed,but as I would like to get into scanning and printing myself,probably using XP2,perhaps I need to think about exposure a lot more,if I want to succeed
This advice is a great start.
Brian.
Over the years I have generally been using 400asa. colour neg film without paying too much attention to my camera's meter,other than taking a reading off the ground,and then generally intentionally overexposing by a stop, as the film is very forgiving.My results have always been pretty satisfactory,subjectively speaking of course.
I have employed the same 'technique',if you can call it that,with XP2, but to be honest,with not the same success/satisfaction ratio.
All of my films have been lab printed,but as I would like to get into scanning and printing myself,probably using XP2,perhaps I need to think about exposure a lot more,if I want to succeed
This advice is a great start.
Brian.
Similar threads
