jaffa_777
Established
I need some help in learning how to expose xp2 and black and white film in general.
I have noticed that when I am in flat, even light, exposing xp2 at 400, the negs come out really beautifull and a bit more contrasty than I originally saw the situation. When I move someone into some more contrasty light like some nice window side lighting, most of my pics are coming out blown with non retrievable highlights and shadows falling to black. This confuses me because I thought film had way higher latitude than digital, and my digital pics of the same subjects are coming out nicely. Why is this?
I come from digital where I have learn't to expose for the highlights and bring the shadows up a little in post. This works well. I am exposing the same way for film, but have a feeling from my results that this is the wrong way? Do I need to overexpose in contrasty situations with XP2? What do I need to do? I know this film is cabable of much better results!
(I have a digital brain which automatically tells me "Save the Highlights!")
Cheers
I have noticed that when I am in flat, even light, exposing xp2 at 400, the negs come out really beautifull and a bit more contrasty than I originally saw the situation. When I move someone into some more contrasty light like some nice window side lighting, most of my pics are coming out blown with non retrievable highlights and shadows falling to black. This confuses me because I thought film had way higher latitude than digital, and my digital pics of the same subjects are coming out nicely. Why is this?
I come from digital where I have learn't to expose for the highlights and bring the shadows up a little in post. This works well. I am exposing the same way for film, but have a feeling from my results that this is the wrong way? Do I need to overexpose in contrasty situations with XP2? What do I need to do? I know this film is cabable of much better results!
(I have a digital brain which automatically tells me "Save the Highlights!")
Cheers
amateriat
We're all light!
We'll need a bit of background here: what camera and metering setup are you using? (Also: are you scanning the film yourself, and, if so, how?)
XP2 does have a ton of latitude, but hardly infinite, and its limits can be tested easily with inattentive metering, which sounds like the issue here. It's important to know your meter, whether built into the camera body or handheld. There's also the matter of finessing the film-speed setting. I tend to pull the film to EI 320 for extra detail, rather than shoot it straight at ISO 400 (just made a beautiful 13x19" from scan off a "forgotten" 2002 roll last night, exposed just this way). Underexposure will reduce contrast somewhat, but the emphasis here is on knowing and understanding the contrast range of what you're photographing, which boils down to knowing your meter and your film. I'm certain others will chime in here with their experience; XP2 is rather popular around here.
- Barrett
XP2 does have a ton of latitude, but hardly infinite, and its limits can be tested easily with inattentive metering, which sounds like the issue here. It's important to know your meter, whether built into the camera body or handheld. There's also the matter of finessing the film-speed setting. I tend to pull the film to EI 320 for extra detail, rather than shoot it straight at ISO 400 (just made a beautiful 13x19" from scan off a "forgotten" 2002 roll last night, exposed just this way). Underexposure will reduce contrast somewhat, but the emphasis here is on knowing and understanding the contrast range of what you're photographing, which boils down to knowing your meter and your film. I'm certain others will chime in here with their experience; XP2 is rather popular around here.
- Barrett
sirius
Well-known
XP2 does not respond well to being under-exposed. It becomes very contrasty. Rather than setting your ISO to 400 try metering for 250. I think you will find your images improve a lot. Mine did.
jaffa_777
Established
thanks Barrett,
I am using a nikon f3 using the camera's 60/40 metering . And yes I am scanning the film myself using a nikon 9000 using silverfast Ai HDR. Even though I am scanning the contact sheet shows many shots to be blown as well. I am really confused as whether I have underexposed or overexposed. Maybe I should be using a handheld meter?
I am using a nikon f3 using the camera's 60/40 metering . And yes I am scanning the film myself using a nikon 9000 using silverfast Ai HDR. Even though I am scanning the contact sheet shows many shots to be blown as well. I am really confused as whether I have underexposed or overexposed. Maybe I should be using a handheld meter?
richard_l
Well-known
A lot of people rate it at 200 instead of 400. For me it seems to work best at 250 or 200.
amateriat
We're all light!
Jaffa: Well, your setup certainly isn't lacking. 
Try pulling the film: XP2 can be easily rated down to EI 200 (or even down to EI 50, but that gets a bit esoteric). Try rating the film at 200, then 320 (yep, you can do it on the same roll), shooting the same or similar subject(s) that gave you trouble before.
Also, you might want to tweak your scanning routine, starting with your basic settings. (Are you using Nikon's software, or a third-party application such as VueScan or Silverfast?) As you can tell, you have a lot to play with here, which is actually a good thing.
- Barrett
Try pulling the film: XP2 can be easily rated down to EI 200 (or even down to EI 50, but that gets a bit esoteric). Try rating the film at 200, then 320 (yep, you can do it on the same roll), shooting the same or similar subject(s) that gave you trouble before.
Also, you might want to tweak your scanning routine, starting with your basic settings. (Are you using Nikon's software, or a third-party application such as VueScan or Silverfast?) As you can tell, you have a lot to play with here, which is actually a good thing.
- Barrett
Last edited:
jaffa_777
Established
Ok, well I think the message coming through so far is to overexpose in these situations.
Exposing film is certainly different to exposing digital. If I was to overexpose the pic in digital, it's say goodbye to the photo and hello beautifull white snow storm. I think I have to relearn my evil ways.
But I tell you, the pics that have come out good, certainly make me want to keep perservering with this film. Portraits look wonderfull with this film when exposed properly, and give me gorgeous rich and smooth textures that I can never get with digital.
Unfortuantely I cannot show the good exposed pics here, as they were taken for a company shoot.
Exposing film is certainly different to exposing digital. If I was to overexpose the pic in digital, it's say goodbye to the photo and hello beautifull white snow storm. I think I have to relearn my evil ways.
But I tell you, the pics that have come out good, certainly make me want to keep perservering with this film. Portraits look wonderfull with this film when exposed properly, and give me gorgeous rich and smooth textures that I can never get with digital.
Unfortuantely I cannot show the good exposed pics here, as they were taken for a company shoot.
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
I think you're on your way. And, IMO, XP2 is an amazing film. You'll likely be up to speed with it almost before you know it, especially, but hardly limited to, portraiture. Show some examples here once you have them.
- Barrett
- Barrett
jaffa_777
Established
Ok, here is one I can show.
It is probably the best of the blown bunch. I had to burn the side of her face quite a bit and also dodge the other half. Saying that, I was able to perform a lot more rescue work on this film photo and make it look half decent vs a digital one. If a digital image is blown I usually just throw it out, unless if that is the look I want.
I didn't focus on her eyes in this shot. I focussed on her hair which is why she wanted the pics. I wish I had focussed on her eyes now.
It is probably the best of the blown bunch. I had to burn the side of her face quite a bit and also dodge the other half. Saying that, I was able to perform a lot more rescue work on this film photo and make it look half decent vs a digital one. If a digital image is blown I usually just throw it out, unless if that is the look I want.
I didn't focus on her eyes in this shot. I focussed on her hair which is why she wanted the pics. I wish I had focussed on her eyes now.
fishric
Established
Hello Jaffa,
I love XP2 and have used it a lot, but it is designed for an enlarger , not a scanner. It produce quite dense negatives even at "normal" exposure, take a look through a loupe against a bright light and you will see the highlight detail you thought was lost.
The darkroom user can use pre-flashing to bring up the highlight detail without losing the shadow detail. Not an option with a scanner.
Burning in will only work if there is something there to burn.
Regards, Richard F.
I love XP2 and have used it a lot, but it is designed for an enlarger , not a scanner. It produce quite dense negatives even at "normal" exposure, take a look through a loupe against a bright light and you will see the highlight detail you thought was lost.
The darkroom user can use pre-flashing to bring up the highlight detail without losing the shadow detail. Not an option with a scanner.
Burning in will only work if there is something there to burn.
Regards, Richard F.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Richard: What about two scans, one for shadow, one for highlights, and combining the two in post processing?
OT, but these two images were on Kodak 400BW CN, mini-lab scans (high rez TIFF) with very little post processing -- Olympus XA:
I have XP-2 in two bodies right now; I'm going to make some bracketed exposures and see how the scans work.
Earl
OT, but these two images were on Kodak 400BW CN, mini-lab scans (high rez TIFF) with very little post processing -- Olympus XA:
I have XP-2 in two bodies right now; I'm going to make some bracketed exposures and see how the scans work.
Earl
Last edited:
Avotius
Some guy
Mmmm xp2 yummy when shot at box speed:
notice blown out area on newspaper
dog is blown out
high contrast situation, no blow outs
notice blown out area on newspaper
dog is blown out
high contrast situation, no blow outs
Avotius
Some guy
yes xp2 is not a very forgiving film, because but if you are worried about blown highlights then underexpose, for the most part I find a blown highlight here and there but most of the scenes I shoot are very high contrast and its ok for me in most situations.
These shots at 320 are a little nicer in overall tones but I prefer the contrast of shooting at 400 a little better.
Love those skin tones
Good full range here but just not my taste
Some bright spots here, it was a very bright day
These shots at 320 are a little nicer in overall tones but I prefer the contrast of shooting at 400 a little better.
Love those skin tones
Good full range here but just not my taste
Some bright spots here, it was a very bright day
amateriat
We're all light!
Richard: with all due respect, I would say nothing could be further from the truth regarding XP2 and scanning. I regard XP2 to be among the most scanner-friendly films available, and it has long been my go-to film with scanning and wet-darkroom printing in mind. I find myself having to make but few post-scan adjustments to make good-looking prints in fairly short order. If one cannot strike a reasonably decent scan from a frame of XP2 (barring some serious error in either exposure and/or development), the fault most likely lies elsewhere.fishric said:
And, there's quite a bit of adjustment that can be made to a scan in the name of highlight/shadow retention, arguably with a higher degree of precision and control than with anything short of a serious darkroom setup and a seasoned tech at the enlarger (and, for the record, I'm the last person to take a swipe at the wet darkroom vis-a-vis digital, but I wanted to try and get this one matter straight).
(Of course, Avotius says more in a handful of images than I've said here)
- Barrett
Last edited:
fishric
Established
Perhaps I was a little careless with the wording of my last post. The point I wanted to make was that Xp2 and Fuji ncn400 have a lot of latitude and it's worth making the effort to get the detail from negative to paper.
Having said that, is it always desirable ?
I really like Avotius' images and I don't think for one moment I'd admire them any more if I could see more print on the newspaper or hairs on the dog's back, I smiled at the two young rascals in the doorway, I don't need to see the warp and weft of their clothes.
I'm quite pleased with my scanned prints, the equipment I use is middle to low budget. My darkroom is in crates since I downsized to a bungalow. If I tapped into Mrs. F's retail therapy fund there are printers now available that can equal darkroom print quality.
To summarise before I wander even further off topic, XP2 is brilliant, good images can be recovered from exposure errors that most other films wouldn't allow. Considered exposure will yeald wonderful images.
Regards,
Richard F.
Having said that, is it always desirable ?
I really like Avotius' images and I don't think for one moment I'd admire them any more if I could see more print on the newspaper or hairs on the dog's back, I smiled at the two young rascals in the doorway, I don't need to see the warp and weft of their clothes.
I'm quite pleased with my scanned prints, the equipment I use is middle to low budget. My darkroom is in crates since I downsized to a bungalow. If I tapped into Mrs. F's retail therapy fund there are printers now available that can equal darkroom print quality.
To summarise before I wander even further off topic, XP2 is brilliant, good images can be recovered from exposure errors that most other films wouldn't allow. Considered exposure will yeald wonderful images.
Regards,
Richard F.
raid
Dad Photographer
I use XP2 quite often, and now always at ASA200 setting. It works for me this way. The images come out very smooth looking. I don't worry too much about a "wrong" exposure with XP2. The film can handle it.
Raid
Raid
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
jaffa_777,
Here are my 2 cents worth. In my opinion it is not an ISO rating problem per say but a metering problem that you are dealing with.
I looked at your example photo and the histogram suggests to me that the over all average value would be about a Zone III or a little higher in film speak. Your camera meter wants everything to be 18% gray or Zone V so it suggests an exposure setting that is in reality 2 stops over what the scene represents. In your example the girl's face on the highlight side should be about Zone VII with her skin that is not highlighted should be about Zone VI for caucasian skin. When your camera over exposed the scene by two stops it placed the highlight value of the girl's face on Zone IX which results in blown highlights. Is my explanation clear as mud?
When you meter a scene with film you need to decide what is the most important part of the scene and meter to render that part accurately. For portrait photos I would meter to expose the face correctly and let the rest of the scene fall where it may.
Here are a couple of photos that I took using XP-2 rated at 200. This allows me to take a meter reading and my meter wants to have 18% gray or Zone V but I am placing my portrait values at Zone VI in reality because I am over exposing by one stop.:
There are still some highlights that are "hot" in the examples.
Wayne
Here are my 2 cents worth. In my opinion it is not an ISO rating problem per say but a metering problem that you are dealing with.
I looked at your example photo and the histogram suggests to me that the over all average value would be about a Zone III or a little higher in film speak. Your camera meter wants everything to be 18% gray or Zone V so it suggests an exposure setting that is in reality 2 stops over what the scene represents. In your example the girl's face on the highlight side should be about Zone VII with her skin that is not highlighted should be about Zone VI for caucasian skin. When your camera over exposed the scene by two stops it placed the highlight value of the girl's face on Zone IX which results in blown highlights. Is my explanation clear as mud?
When you meter a scene with film you need to decide what is the most important part of the scene and meter to render that part accurately. For portrait photos I would meter to expose the face correctly and let the rest of the scene fall where it may.
Here are a couple of photos that I took using XP-2 rated at 200. This allows me to take a meter reading and my meter wants to have 18% gray or Zone V but I am placing my portrait values at Zone VI in reality because I am over exposing by one stop.:
There are still some highlights that are "hot" in the examples.
Wayne
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
I always use a spotmeter for critical exposure control.
Raid
Raid
gavinlg
Veteran
MAN some of these examples are nice! I've used bw400cn before and I didn't really like it - too little contrast and too fine grain, but these xp2 examples are awesome!
I'm going to try some @ box speed this week
I'm going to try some @ box speed this week
raid
Dad Photographer
I have hundreds of uploaded scans with XP2. Here is a link for photos taken with a Pentax 85mm/1.8 SMC and XP2:
http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=630690
Raid
http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=630690
Raid