XP2 Super, what speed for scanning?

What speed should I rate Ilford XP2 Super for scanning with Nikon

Coolscan V ED?

I like finer grain and more contrast of ISO 200, on the other hand

flatter negatives scan better.

 

Thank you!

 

Miha

I would err on the side of overexposure, since underexposed XP2 (like colour neg film) looks pretty bad when scanned. Try bracketing your next roll and see if there are significant differences between 200 and 400, etc. with your setup.

ISO 200-320.

My preference for adding contrast is to rate the film at ISO250 and use a medium-yellow filter. My scanner is a Minolta, however, which uses a different light source than Nikon's.

I had good results exposing it as ISO 200 film, using a medium yellow filter for the extra contrast (not much, but it just seems to give it more punch), and then scanning it normally. Once scanned, you have to increase the contrast.

Thank you very much!

 

Miha

This film is very good at ISO 100-200.

<I>I like finer grain and more contrast of ISO 200, on the other hand flatter negatives scan better. </i><P>Then don't use XP2. Shoot a color negative film with more pictorial contrast like UC 400 / Supra /NPH / Superia and desaturate. <P>I still have no idea why you guys use B/W chromogenics, and then scan the film. It's completely redundant and a waste of time. All you've done is thrown out all the color information in the original scene for no reason. XP2 ix not Tri-X. The B/W chromogenics are nothing more than color blind C-41 films, essentially the equivelant of turning down the color saturation control on your color television set to watch everything as a B/W movie. If you want the wide lattitude, flexibility, and easy scanning of these films, at least shoot color C-41 film and learn to use channel mixer.

Dear Scott,

 

Not quite. Ilford summed it up quite nicely by saying (accurately) that XP2 is a black and white film with dye technology added while others' chromogenics are indeed colour films with the colour taken out.

 

Many find the tonality of XP2 to be different from (and superior to) desaturated chromogenics; it is also sharper than most.

 

Finally, why do you feel the need to be so aggressive, and dismissive of others, when you post your own opinions which are usually at best disputable? There are others on this forum who know quite a lot about photography too; it seems odd that you arrogate to yourself the role of fons et origo of all knowledge.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Scott flogs that dead horse the way I flog Microphen and Diafine. Some of us tend to repeat ourselves a bit.

 

I doubt using the types of filters normally associated with traditional b&w photography on color films would produce the same results in digital tweaking as using those filters with chromogenic monochrome films. That alone may be reason enough to use the C-41 process monochrome films.