XP2 Users

[joebt]

I purchased a Mint Demo M6TTL 0.85 in the December 2007 time frame. Everything works just fine on the camera--just perfect. I have only shot Pan-F 50, and Efke 25 in it, and I develop the film at home. However, I just shot 4 rolls of XP2 on Sunday, and each roll was over exposed by as much as a stop. I had the ASA set for 400, but perhaps I should set it for ASA 200? I do not have this problem with my much older 0.72 M6TTL.

I developed a roll of Pan-F on Saturday, and it was fine, and I had the ASA set for ASA 50. Does anyone find this behavior with XP2?

 

[sockeyed]

If you're considering exposing it at 200 instead of 400, it sounds like your film is underexposed instead of overexposed. Are your negs thin or dense?

I've used a fair amount of XP2 and found that it delivers nice images at around 250 although 400 images are totally usable.

 

[joebt]

Yes, you are correct, they are underexposed. I was able to lift shadows but I did not think they should have been as dark as they were... Here is a sample of what it looked like after I lifted the shadows.

http://www.pbase.com/rafikq/image/102874654

 

[cjm]

Just expose it at 200-250 and have it processed normally at 400. Have you exposed XP2 at 400 on your .72 M6 with results different than these?

 

[joebt]

Yes, I have used XP2 in my 0.72 M6 and it worked fine. I metered the same scene in my house using a hand held light meter, and the same lens on both M6's and the reading was basically the same, so now I'm thinking that perhaps it was an error made when processed at the store.

 

[Pablito]

Probably just the film. This film looks better when shot at 200 or so, as others have said. At 400 it looks thin.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I have used the Fuji equivalent (manufactured for them by Ilford) and treated it just like any other C41 film.

There is so much exposure latitude there since the C41 process was designed to suit low end P&S cameras that if you leave the film at the shop for prints and/or scan the machine will sort it out.

 

[JohnTF]

Yes, I have used XP2 in my 0.72 M6 and it worked fine. I metered the same scene in my house using a hand held light meter, and the same lens on both M6's and the reading was basically the same, so now I'm thinking that perhaps it was an error made when processed at the store.

Have discovered a similar situation when testing anoher camera, if you want to test the camera, shoot some E6 and send it off to Kodak.

My XP2 has looked a bit thin the last time out, and I too tested the meter against a hand held, so am backing up to square one with the E6 test.

I shot an XP2 roll at EI 200 and it looked rather normal, but as it is harder to evaluate negative film, I am going to the tried and true diapositive approach.

Most of the prints made by the processor were "N" from the EI 200 roll. I am trying to see what is what before I send it for service.

Regards, John

 

[funkaoshi]

I shoot it at box speed with no problems.

 

[Florian1234]

I shoot it at box speed with no problems.

Same here.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

To add to what I wrote above: I use the Fuji at 400 also.

When Ilford first launched XP1 almost thirty years ago they made a great deal out of you could use it at any ISO between 200 and 1600 (or similar). But I still use 400.

 

[LeicaM3]

may be your faster speeds are off?

expose it at 400 and use it slower speeds to see if it still holds true since you know that slower speeds seem to be on target from the 25 and 50 films