kshapero
South Florida Man
Quoted in The Online Photographer:
"
So here's how to shoot XP2 Super, according to me. It's simple. This yields the highest percentage of results of the best quality—I don't care a whit for "make do" solutions that yield only acceptable results. Using camera metering:
• For regular shooting in most normal lighting, use EI (ISO) 200.
• For shooting in extremely bright and/or contrasty lighting, like harsh full sun and shadows, use EI (ISO) 100. This insures adequate shadow detail, and the highlights won't block up.
• For shooting in low and low-contrast lighting—and this includes indoor shooting and "available darkness"—use EI (ISO) 400—or even a little higher, although I personally don't recommend ever going all the way to (gasp) 800.
That's it. Beyond those adjustments made to accommodate the prevailing light, you can let the camera's meter set the exposure and you'll get a high percentage of good results (a bit higher, of course, if your metering skills are good). And you can switch settings on the same roll all you want—the processing is not adjusted and is always the same."
"
So here's how to shoot XP2 Super, according to me. It's simple. This yields the highest percentage of results of the best quality—I don't care a whit for "make do" solutions that yield only acceptable results. Using camera metering:
• For regular shooting in most normal lighting, use EI (ISO) 200.
• For shooting in extremely bright and/or contrasty lighting, like harsh full sun and shadows, use EI (ISO) 100. This insures adequate shadow detail, and the highlights won't block up.
• For shooting in low and low-contrast lighting—and this includes indoor shooting and "available darkness"—use EI (ISO) 400—or even a little higher, although I personally don't recommend ever going all the way to (gasp) 800.
That's it. Beyond those adjustments made to accommodate the prevailing light, you can let the camera's meter set the exposure and you'll get a high percentage of good results (a bit higher, of course, if your metering skills are good). And you can switch settings on the same roll all you want—the processing is not adjusted and is always the same."
GarageBoy
Well-known
It works for xp2 because its a c41 film
djhurley92
Established
Sounds good to me. I think the advice to expose a dark scene at iso 400 or greater is because if you're using the off-camera exposure meter, it'll be valuing something that is much darker than mid-grey as mid-grey. So you can 'get away' with exposing a little less to represent the scene accurately, and save getting a shaky image. I might have got that a little wrong...
Aristophanes
Well-known
I've not tried the 100 but the 200/400 formula works for me.
ianstamatic
Well-known
HP5 tri-x and tmax400 can all be shot from 200-1200asa with great results.
HP5 at 200 in bright sunlight is beutiful
HP5 at 200 in bright sunlight is beutiful
rodinal
film user
Valid only for chromogenic films: Ilford XP2, Kodak T400CN, Fuji CN400, Konica VX400 and the like.
f16sunshine
Moderator
This. I fully agree.
djhurley92
Established
kshapero
South Florida Man
Yes, that makes sense.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Chromogenic films by Ilford and Kodak produce great negatives, and accept a few f-stops of overexposure without any problem, as all C-41 films do, but underexposure of 2 f-stops without extending development time is going against film design... B&W negative film is different: it accepts different levels of exposure for the same scene (say, 3 f-stops) being all of them usable, both for scanning and wet printing, but that's because of negative film's wide latitude, and on it (common negative) those differently exposed negatives indeed are different, and even a lot more if we're pushing, while on a chromogenic film, those three scenes would produce similar negatives in comparison... So I guess the practical answer is yes: all negative films accept more than precise metering... Only when pushing two f-stops above box speed it becomes really critical, especially talking about underexposure...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
ianstamatic
Well-known
sorry for my transgression.
regarding development i'm talking 200-1200 asa without any push or pull, esp using a compensating dev like xtol
regarding development i'm talking 200-1200 asa without any push or pull, esp using a compensating dev like xtol
KansanTim
Established
I think rodinal's answer is exactly right, that the advice should be applied specifically to chromogenic films like those listed.
However, I don't think it's particularly good advice. I don't mean that it won't get you perfectly good results much of the time, but more that it's just low-information rules of thumb that may work for you or may not. I think reading something like Ilford's datasheet on XP2 is more informative, that explaining the reasoning behind the exposure choices helps more, and that ultimately you should try to work out your EI settings according to your metering and your results.
What I would say about XP2 is the following:
1. Like all other b/w negative films, giving enough exposure for the shadow areas you want detail is the most important exposure concern. If you aren't certain about exposure and aren't going to bracket, erring on the side of overexposure is generally preferable.
2. Unlike conventional b/w films, overexposure reduces graininess, so if you want finer grain, give more exposure (Ilford mentions EI 50 as finest grain).
3. Overexposure reduces sharpness and resolution, as negative consequences.
4. Unlike conventional b/w, you develop the same no matter your EI setting, so any change in EI is effectively just taking advantage of the very wide latitude of the film, because it will have only one true ISO speed (no changing developers) and no "push" or "pull" development.
With those points in mind, it seems to me that the original advice is just taking points 1 and 2 and recommending overexposure to make sure you get enough shadow detail, assuming the consequence is small because it makes grain even finer. I personally don't like that advice, because I don't want to sacrifice the sharpness (point 3) if I don't have to, so I personally would use a higher EI (especially higher than the 100 recommendation), but then be careful about metering shadows in contrasty situations to be sure that I'm not underexposing. Your mileage may vary depending on how you meter (and how you use EI's, because I think of XP2 as always having a single EI, because I'm not changing development). So, I would take the information of the effect of your choices from 1, 2, and 3, and work out your own rules of thumb (which might end up being the same as the original advice). I also think the low-light advice is poor: he paired it with low contrast lighting when low-light is often high contrast lighting. If it's truly low-light, where you can't give as much exposure as you would in normal conditions, then just give as much exposure as you can while still keeping camera and/or subject movement within acceptable limits, counting on the latitude to save you.
However, I don't think it's particularly good advice. I don't mean that it won't get you perfectly good results much of the time, but more that it's just low-information rules of thumb that may work for you or may not. I think reading something like Ilford's datasheet on XP2 is more informative, that explaining the reasoning behind the exposure choices helps more, and that ultimately you should try to work out your EI settings according to your metering and your results.
What I would say about XP2 is the following:
1. Like all other b/w negative films, giving enough exposure for the shadow areas you want detail is the most important exposure concern. If you aren't certain about exposure and aren't going to bracket, erring on the side of overexposure is generally preferable.
2. Unlike conventional b/w films, overexposure reduces graininess, so if you want finer grain, give more exposure (Ilford mentions EI 50 as finest grain).
3. Overexposure reduces sharpness and resolution, as negative consequences.
4. Unlike conventional b/w, you develop the same no matter your EI setting, so any change in EI is effectively just taking advantage of the very wide latitude of the film, because it will have only one true ISO speed (no changing developers) and no "push" or "pull" development.
With those points in mind, it seems to me that the original advice is just taking points 1 and 2 and recommending overexposure to make sure you get enough shadow detail, assuming the consequence is small because it makes grain even finer. I personally don't like that advice, because I don't want to sacrifice the sharpness (point 3) if I don't have to, so I personally would use a higher EI (especially higher than the 100 recommendation), but then be careful about metering shadows in contrasty situations to be sure that I'm not underexposing. Your mileage may vary depending on how you meter (and how you use EI's, because I think of XP2 as always having a single EI, because I'm not changing development). So, I would take the information of the effect of your choices from 1, 2, and 3, and work out your own rules of thumb (which might end up being the same as the original advice). I also think the low-light advice is poor: he paired it with low contrast lighting when low-light is often high contrast lighting. If it's truly low-light, where you can't give as much exposure as you would in normal conditions, then just give as much exposure as you can while still keeping camera and/or subject movement within acceptable limits, counting on the latitude to save you.
__jc
Well-known
I fully concur with the advice as given in TOP. I used XP2+ in Mexico a couple of years ago - I needed to get films developed each day - and did exactly as stated in the advice. The brightest day I experienced there I was doing an assignment at the town dump in Oaxaca - I was using my 28mm Elmarit at 1/50 sec (I wanted to use some fill flash) and I had no option but to dial in 100ISO, even with a green filter on the lens. The film delivered superb results at this setting. However I equally found that, in dark interiors, 400ISO was the limit that I'd want to go speed-wise. But 200 (or 250ISO) in less extreme conditions returned a really lovely balance of tonality and contrast.
XP2+ @ 100ISO
XP2+ @ 100ISO