First chromogenic processed... first scans... disappointment and a few questions

[gyuribacsi]

Hallo everybody!
Now a very dumb question. I thought, using XP2 would give me the opportunity to shoot in very different light situation. Some shots at ISO 400 some at 800 or some at 200 or lower.
Now i can see in my photos and from the posts here ISO 400 or higher is to fast for XP2. The same I heard about Tri-X and TMAX.

BW-Films with high density (of silver) are quite a quirk to scan and it is true, the prime scan-results of XP2 or Kodak BC are very disapointing and flat so you have to do very much Silverfast and PS work after.

So what film for my demands?

Regards

george

 

[peterm1]

I have never scanned anything printed on any film of any type that did not require some Photoshopping, and sometimes this has involved quite a lot. I always "budget" time for at least some curves work, some de-noising, some color saturation / work and quite often some deJPeging as well. Some pictures require more, some less. In part this is because my flatbed scanner is now about 5 years old and is by definition old technology but it would not surprise me for other photographers who scan to have a similar experience.

I use chromogenic film quite a lot and like both its convenience and the tones it provides. It is very forgiving as regards exposure (which suits old cameras without light meters) and I usually shoot at 200 ASA because I find that the tonality is nicer than at 400 ASA while it still has some latitude either way if I get the exposure wrong. This could be part of the reason you are disappointed with the scans. If you shoot at higher ASA settings there will be more artifacts especially in shadow areas.

 

[faris]

Hi Keith,

Slightly off thread, but newcomer to film thus interested to know what does
rating the film at 200 instead at 400 do. of course it makes it a slower film.

does one still process it as a 400 film.

Thanks.

I've used a lot of this film and discovered it won't tolerate underexposure and what you describe in the shadows is what I used to consistently get until it clicked!

I agree with Tim ... your shots look pretty good to me and I think if you shoot it at 200 instead of box speed you'll be surprised at the improvement! 🙂

 

[rogue_designer]

rating the film at 200 instead at 400 do. of course it makes it a slower film.

does one still process it as a 400 film.

Since its a C41 process film - there is no adjustment to the processing.

Now i can see in my photos and from the posts here ISO 400 or higher is to fast for XP2. The same I heard about Tri-X and TMAX.

I mostly shoot my TriX between 800 and 1600 - but I also process it accordingly. So - not too fast, if you plan for it. What you can't do is shoot a wide range of effective exposures and use just one processing time.

 

[Hiyawaan]

Under/over rating

Under/over rating

Hi Keith,

Slightly off thread, but newcomer to film thus interested to know what does
rating the film at 200 instead at 400 do. of course it makes it a slower film.

does one still process it as a 400 film.

Thanks.

Hi Keith,

First under rating doesn't change the film speed but only your lightmeter 's setting.

I can only speak for XP2 as I use it. If I need speed I'll rate it at 320 cause it is not a true 400speed film imo, and doesn't handle under exposure well. And love it at 50 for it's creamy skin tones.

Rating it at iso 320-50 gives you more detail in the shadow area's and because it is chromogenic the highlight don't block up like with traditional halide films. So you can print through them.

With halide films you expose for the shadow detail and adjust your development for the highlights. Since you cant do this with C41 film/process you must expand/contract the contrast range in the light/dark room.

Convenience does come at a price.

Alex

 

[zuikologist]

Alex - I agree. I use the Neopan chromo film and ISO 200 seems just about right.

 

[charjohncarter]

I gave up on this type of film, because of the reasons you gave.

 

[Graham Line]

Thanks a lot everyone for your replies. I must conclude that my things don't look that bad after all... and that flat scans are pretty normal out of the scanner.

I'll try to overexpose the Kodak next time. Now I have a bunch of XP2 rolls to try. Do you advise to overexpose it as well?

200-250 is about right for XP2 Super; if you want a true ISO400 B&W in C-41, Fuji Neopan 400CN (not sold in North America) seems to deliver.
Don't know if you have experience in wet printing, but it helps me to think of the original scan as the negative -- you get as much tone and detail as you can, then go to work burning in highlights, adding mid-range contrast and so on.
There are several frames from XP2 Super in my gallery.
This one is slightly underexposed and you can see a little roughness:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=37683&ppuser=1085

 

[keithwms]

Ocean7, those scans look good to me. It's all a matter of curving.

When I scan slides, the scans look optimal, tonally, straight from the scanner. But on the other hand, I have no "curve latitude" at all with slides. A slide expands a narrow 5 or 6 stop SBR into a big whopping density range on the slide. The chromogenics are quite different; as mentioned above, you get a flatish scan that you can then curve. So it can be argued that chromogenics are better suited to a digital or hybrid analogue workflow in which you may intend to do extensive tone editing.

I had soso results with the bw400CN but actually it isn't half bad, just not as detail-sharp as I'd expected. Indeed xp2 is better and it has a nicer base, for my purposes.

Both usually want to be overexposed by as much as a stop or so.