Ilford XP2 question

[Warren T.]

Hi Folks, I'm beginning to use more XP2 lately, and was wondering if you more experienced users of XP2 can give me some hints for shooting this film for optimum results. On my last roll, I shot it in my Bessa R at ISO 400. The results were a bit too contrasty for my taste, and I had a problem with blown highlights in some shots. Would it better to pull it to ISO 250? I read that this would result in better tonality and finer grain. At ISO 400, I am not very pleased with the grain quality (it looks a bit muddy and not well defined).

Or could this be the result of the cheap, one hour lab that I used to process it?

TIA,

Warren

 

[back alley]

my gallery has lots of stuff shot on xp2. it's a very nice film.

most of mine was shot at 200 with no change in dev. time (same as 400)

joe

 

[Roger Hicks]

XP2 developed normally is quite a low-contrast film, requiring half a grade to a grade harder paper than most conventional films, so this is a puzzling inquiry. Who is making the prints, and how?

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogeramdfrances.com)

 

[nwcanonman]

It's not the Ilford. It could be the 1 hr lab, the lens or the lighting.
Here's a couple I took with XP2, with a Bessa R and the Industar-50 lens (which I got free when I ordered a J-12!)
XP2 looks best (to me) shot at 320asa.
😉

 

[richard_l]

I almost never get blown highlights with XP2. I usually rate it at 250 or even 200. It looks muddier and grainier at 400, in my experience.

 

[peter_n]

Warren are you talking about scans or prints?

 

[Warren T.]

Thanks for all the replies.

Roger, the prints are coming off of a common minilab processor at the 1 hour place.

Peter, I usually consider the 4x6 prints from the 1 hour lab to be proofs. I was hoping that the contrast problem would be just in the prints, but when I scanned the negatives with my film scanner, I found that it was in the negatives as well.

I think I have a plan now:

- Shoot at 200 or 250
- Try a different lab
- Be more careful with my exposure (and maybe expose for highlights?) I'm relatively new to using the Bessar R, so I'm not experienced with its metering pattern.

Thanks again.

Warren

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I would have to agree that its the lab. I think that when they print, their systems average between exposures. I often had blown highlights in the print but the film is fine upon scanning at home (I don't have a wet darkroom).


I had also considered that the XP2 I bought had been too cold when I shot with it, and that it may behave differently when chilled. I saw some graininess and crumby highlights in one roll that I know was cold when shot. I later shot with a roll that I made shure had reached room temperature before shooting.

An XP2 Super (warmed up) example can be seen here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=9974&cat=4891&page=1

This was shot at the rated 400 ASA

 

[Warren T.]

I did get at least one good image

I did get at least one good image

I just uploaded it to My Gallery...

Not sure how to include a thumbnail, but here's the link.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=10576&cat=500&page=1

Warren

 

[Doug]

Nice looking XP shots! It's been my experience, supported by comments from others, that it's almost impossible to blow the highlights in any C-41 film, including XP2. If you're seeing it in lab prints, I'd blame the lab. But if you're seeing it in the scans you make yourself, I'd suggest you may need to have the scanner give more exposure.

In flat light, XP2 tends to look a bit dull, and it handles high-contrast situations very well, recording plenty of shadow and highlight information. I set the meter to EI 250 for this and other C41 films to pick up more richness in the shadows, and this doesn't blow the highlights.

 

[Roger Hicks]

just a thought:

If the highlights are blown in your scans, maybe you are giving too MUCH exposure at the taking stage, leading to a greater Dmax than the scanner can handle. Unlikely but a possible explanation of an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon. As Doug says, irt's all but impossiblle to blow XP2 highlights, though in my experience, the odd curve shape of Kodak chromogenic films makes it easier with those.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[Warren T.]

Hey Guys! Doug's comments about adjusting the scanner made me try scanning that shot again. After playing around with the scanner's levels, I got a usable image!

Up to now, I've been lazy about my film scanning, usually just accepting the scanner's output without playing with level much. I prefer to play with the levels in Photoshop.

Unfortunately, my wife said that I could not show that picture in public 🙂. (it's just a shot of her at a restaurant, sidelit by a window.)

So thanks for this discussion, and all the great ideas that everyone contributed!

Regards,

Warren