Ilford XP2 Super 400 underexposed..

[ywenz]

.. is no good. Sigh... I'll make sure to use real 1600 film next time..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ywen/sets/1582634/

 

[back alley]

actually, it's much better when shot at 200 and developed normally.

 

[ywenz]

I wanted to test out the "claimed" range of the XP2 by Ilford, 200-1600 range. Shot the roll at 800 with an f4.5 lens.. eww, I don't want to be caught in that situation again!

 

[back alley]

it's good to do your own testing but don't forget the search function here.
it can save you some time & expense at times.

joe

 

[raid]

As mentioed above; XP2 Super seems to do best when setting the ASA to 200-250.

 

[richard_l]

I wanted to test out the "claimed" range of the XP2 by Ilford, 200-1600 range. Shot the roll at 800 with an f4.5 lens.. eww, I don't want to be caught in that situation again!

Where in the world did you get those numbers? The latitude of XP2 Super is ISO 50 to ISO 800 with optimum around ISO 200.
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/XP2SGB_QX.pdf#search='ilford%20xp2%20latitude'

 

[aad]

I found the Kodak stuff to work a bit better underexposed.

 

[Chaser]

call me wierd but sometimes i think shadow detail isnt always needed ... i like the look of high contrast...but not always...

 

[ywenz]

i'd perfer to have more info to begin with and then tune out shadow detail in post, should I need to...

 

[taffer]

XP2 uses to render 'dirty' shadows when underexposed, OTH if you have nothing else to shoot with... just take the shot, it's better than nothing 🙂

 

[Nick R.]

I think that if you metered this scene the range of exposures would have been beyond the scale of any B&W film, as, for example, the foreground cups and background shadows in the shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ywen/73690910/in/set-1582634/
Had you cropped tighter around lighter reflecting faces and shirts, the black shadows would not have been so prominent.

 

[pedro.m.reis]

Newbie question

Newbie question

Newbie question here.... In C41 processing we can make pull/push processing also?
In this particular case of XP2, if i use it at 200 i must tell the lab that to them adjust the processing??

 

[peterc]

In this particular case of XP2, if i use it at 200 i must tell the lab that to them adjust the processing??

No. C41 is a standard process. They put your film in the machine and it comes out the other end. C41 films have a lot of exposure latitude and will give acceptable results over about 5 stops. So, using xP2, you can take shots at ISOs ranging from 50 to 800 and all will be printable. However the best results will fall in the 200 to 400 range.

Peter

 

[pedro.m.reis]

So assuming this, in one roll, the same roll, i can make photos with ASA 50-800 ?
Where would be the "correction" ? in the printing?
If i make 2 photos, at the same object, one after the other, one rated at 50 and the other at 400, what would be the diference on the neg, and on the picture?

 

[peterc]

So assuming this, in one roll, the same roll, i can make photos with ASA 50-800 ?

Yes, you can mix ISO/ASA 50 to 800 all on the same roll. The C41 process doesn't change.

Where would be the "correction" ? in the printing?

Yes. The frames exposed at 50 would be somewhat overexposed, but not so badly that they'd be unprintable (highlights would definitely be blown out). And those exposed at 800 would lack shadow detail, but they'd be printable.

If i make 2 photos, at the same object, one after the other, one rated at 50 and the other at 400, what would be the diference on the neg, and on the picture?

It would depend on the subject. I would not recommend using 50 for a snow or beach scene. However, for flat lighting (fog or a dull day in the rain) rating the film at 50-100 would probably work well.
Where XP2 and Kodak's similar film shine is in allowing you to preset an exposure (say 1/250 at f/11 on a nice afternoon on the street) and then shoot away with only focus to worry about. The latitude of the film will compensate for a 1 or 2 stop variance either way.

Peter

 

[pedro.m.reis]

So, where do B&W "normal" films differ?
I can always compensate 1 or 2 stops in printing no? Just asking....
And Slide (positive)?
Is it the "latitude" ?

 

[peterc]

So, where do B&W "normal" films differ?

You generally pay a heavier price (grain, blown out highlights, completely blocked shadows) with "normal" black and white.

I can always compensate 1 or 2 stops in printing no?

In most cases with normal black and while you can compensate in printing for exposure mistakes. But compensation is usually best done in developing. Overexposure will almost completely eliminate highlight detail and underexposure will lead to larger grain and no shadow detail.

And Slide (positive)?

Slide film has a latitude of about 1/2 stop either side of ideal ... and many would argue a 1/3 to 1/4 stop.

C41 films were invented for amateur photographers using low-tech automatic cameras (Kodak instamatics and the like). The object was to get printable negatives under a wide variety of conditions using equipment with really sloppy tolerances. Thus, C41 films generally have a wide exposure latitude.

Peter

 

[Russ]

.. is no good. Sigh... I'll make sure to use real 1600 film next time..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ywen/sets/1582634/

I get great results when burn it @ 320 or lower. I never go above that. If I need or want speed, I go with Neopan 1600. Great stuff.

Russ

 

[ywenz]

All these talks about correction willl be made in printing.. what if you're scanning instead of printing? Can the same be said? Or would it then depend on the sensitivity of your scanner to pick up the subtle tonal differences on an over/under exposed negative?

 

[pedro.m.reis]

Haaha!
So that's why they tell me that one only see what is doing if using positive films.......

Thanks Peter 🙂