Ilford XP2 super and real B&W film

[fredus]

Hi there,

 

Do you use your XP2 super as any other 'real' B&W film as far as

exposure or do you expect the higher lattitude of XP2 to make up for

any eventual exposure mistake ... ?

 

Fred

[johnmarkpainter]

XP2 looks best when it is exposed correctly (big surprise huh?)

 

It's not like it is infallible or anything...if it is underexposed, it looks underexposed...but

you can still get a print out of it.

 

jmp

[svante.johansson]

I scan all my negatives and adjust the contrast quite a bit. In my opinion XP2 deteriorate rapidly when underexposed, but one or two stops of overexposure improves the film. Shoot it at 200 (develop normally) and you will get the extra latitude.

[patrick_s2]

I pushed a roll to 800 last week as a test because have heard so much about this film's lattitude. The stuff came back way grainy. I can safely say I'll never try that again.

[fredus]

I like my print to be very contrasty ... Shouldn't I underexpose quite a bit (rate it a 640 for example ... ? ) just like I would do with regular black and white ?

 

Fred

[dave_redmann]

re: "I pushed a roll to 800 last week as a test because have heard so much about this film's lattitude."<P>

 

It sounds like you may be confused; ability to perform well when pushed and latitude are not exactly the same thing. If you just exposed it at EI 800 and had it developed normally, you <I>did not push</I> it; you simply under-exposed it by one stop. This will tell you something about the film's under-exposure latitude, which is probably a lot less than its over-exposure latitude. I would expect considerable extra graininess with one-stop underexposure.<P>

 

On the other hand, if you truly pushed it, which requires deviating from the standard C-41 processing and is highly unlikely to be done at your corner mini-lab, this may tell you something about the film's pushability--its ability to control contrast, minimize grain, maintain color fidelity (not really applicable here), etc. when pushed.

[jose f.]

My experiments with push processing XP2 haven't been all that successful; there are other films to shoot at 1600.

 

Overexposure by a stop helps fill in shadow details; the best way to build contrast seems to hanging a deep yellow or orange filter on the lens, or else printing with something stronger than a #3 polycontrast filter.

[doug_bennett]

"I like my print to be very contrasty ..."

 

Then this may not be the film for you. I've had decent results using XP2 for portraiture, and the C-41 negs print quite well in the darkroom. But it is decidedly a lower contrast, less sharp film than, for example, Tri-X.

[adrian_tuazon]

I find I get higher (than normal) contrast if I overexpose XP2. I rate it at 250 or 320 and usually ask my lab for 'punchy' prints. I never underexpose XP2 as it becomes grainy and loses contrast.

[dougmiles]

I have used Ilford's chromogenic for about 20 years. Though Ilford claims good results up to EI 800, I agree that it gets pretty grainy. On the other hand, even the rated ISO 400 seems on the edge of underexposure to me, so I've settled on EI 250. It smooths out very nicely with a bit of overexposure.

 

It has wide latitude, but tends toward low contrast. If the scene and lighting are also low contrast, then I like to move it up to EI 400 and add 50% to the developing time to punch things up. The worst that can happen with this is blocking up some highlights, thus the higher EI.<div></div>

[chris_waller]

I use XP2 occasionally for portraits - its fine grain and controlled highlights give me more latitude if the lighting is difficult. But I don't like its rendering of shadows and it doesn't have the punch of conventional b+w film.

[edhombre]

Has anyone tried Fuji Neopan 400CN yet? I believe it's based on XP2 super but imho has a little more snap... Any other opinions?

[dave_s]

To ask it a different way: is there any existing BW film with more overexposure latitude than XP2?

 

I ask because my main use for XP2 is in a beater camera that lives in my car trunk. The meter's dead and I usually guess the exposure. Sometimes I'm right.

[gerald_widen]

The XP2 will be perfect for what you are looking for. When I decided I wanted to go back to the wet darkroom I knew it wouldn't happen for a year or more. So to keep it easy I started shooting the XP2. I later started to shoot and develop Delta 400 since it can be done with just a tank and a few chemicals. By the time the darkroom was set up I had a decent amount of negatives of both films. <p> I find printing both films very easy. The XP2 requires a little more contrast and slightly longer exposure times but to be honest the results from both films look great and very similar in my 8X10 prints. The XP2 handles bright sun extremely well and you will probably get more latitude than any other film. <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/481111-lg.jpg">HERE<a/> in an example of the Ilford in bright sun at a pool. There is detail in the white of the towel and skin tone of my son, there is also detail in the dark bathing suit and my sons dark hair.

[svante.johansson]

Dave,

 

I don�t know about every other film in the universe, but the overexposure latitude of XP2 is immense. When I began suspecting that it is really an ISO100 film I took the enclosed picture as an experiment (pardon the boring subject matter).

 

The film is exposed after ISO100, basic measurement taken on the northern sky, and developed normally in a Fuji Frontier machine. The shot was made on a day with very slight haze. The difference in brightness between the sunlit wall and the dark structure on the left is about seven stops when measured with the in-camera semi-spotmeter. The tubular structures on the right are made of stainless steel and are reflecting the sun.

 

I scanned the negative in a Minolta DSE5400 using Vuescan taking care to preserve the full tonal range of the negative. This yielded an extremely flat picture that I have adjusted heavily, using curves in Photoshop. I was amazed that signal clipping did not occur neither in highlights nor in shadows � not in a single pixel. Close inspection of the stainless steel areas revealed that the gradient to almost white is quite smooth. If you look closely you can see a reflection from the glass ceiling of the shopping mall on the sunlit wall. The grain of the darkest areas is much finer and of a more pleasant structure than it is when the film is exposed after ISO400.

 

I have very little experience with traditional b/w methods but in terms of latitude XP2 is truly impressing. I can understand that people working in a wet darkroom have trouble getting �punch� and sharpness out of the film, but these problems are easily overcome in the digital darkroom, to which XP2 seems eminently suited.

 

Kind regards

 

Svante<div></div>

[gareth_harper]

First of all XP2 is a real pan B&W film.

XP2 has a wider lattitude than conventional B&W film.

It's ideal for contrasty conditions. It's not so great in flat lighting.

It has finer grain than conventional film, though the grain can become thick and nasty in the shadows if underexposed.

It has a softer look than conventinal film, mostly down to it's very fine grain.

It has a certain seemless creamy look and can be great for flattering portraits.

It is not suitable for push or pull processing.

It's very easy to print in the darkroom, ir prints around grade 3.5 to 4 on a condensor head almost always no matter how the film is exposed.

Ilford recommend it is used at 400asa (surprise surprise), I like to rate it at 320asa, I've tried at 250asa but find that the neg while still printing well is getting too thick for my liking.

I often bracket conventional B&W film, I very rarely bracket XP2 due it's wide lattitude.

[tony_p4]

Although I'm a lover of HP5+ if I have to work in conditions where there is going to be problems with latitude, then XP2 is my number one choice rated at either 320 or more often these days 250. XP2 is very efficient for street shoots or even the odd wedding as I know that I don't need to worry about blowing the highlights and as such can concentrate on the shadows for my exposures.

[scott_eaton]

XP2 *is not* a conventional B/W film other than the initial coupler layer.

 

XP2 is a conventional, C-41 color neg film that has only one monochrome dye, and lacks an obnoxious orange mask. In all other respects, XP2 is just like any other 400 speed C-41 color neg film you buy off the shelf. Typical of color print films, it has massive over-exposure tolerance, but little under-exposure tolerance.

 

For conventional darkroom printing, XP2 serves the purpose as a very high lattitude 200'ish speed B/W film. Great for high contrast conditions like the exellent example above, or portraiture. For scanning, I have no idea why you'd use XP2 when materials like UC 400 and HD 400 will beat XP2 in terms of sharpness, provide a color layer to work with during desaturation, and have more contrast.

[mark__5]

" XP2 has a wider lattitude than conventional B&W film"

 

please elaborate with details of what type of range you are talking about please.

[tony_p4]

Well it wasn't the intention but after loading some street shots, I now have a folder containing FP4+, HP5+ and XP2. I can't comment on other makes as Ilford fits in with my style and what I like.<br>

<br>

They can be found <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=401987">HERE</a> if anyone wants to see the 3 films all together. Tony

[tonghang_zhou]

Tony, I'm surprised the difference in the 3 films are quite small as shown in that folder, and your other folders as well. I don't see grains in your HP5+, for example. What format film do you use? Did you scan the negatives or prints? What scanner, any post-scanning enhancements? Very nice photos by the way.

[tony_p4]

Hi Tonghang - The difference in grain is there and once you get use to seeing it they really stand out. HP5+ is much grainier going down to XP2 which is very smooth. DDX has a lot to do with keeping the grain down on traditional b&w films and I vary the agitation and times I use guestimated from what I remember when I shot the film.

 

In the street folder they are all filmed scanned, but for my model shoots they are a mixture or flatbed scans from wet prints or film scans if I'm in a hurry to post. Most toned images are flatbed scanned from wet prints.

 

The main thing is that the final image is almost full frame, or if I need a crop then I crop down the size of the image and not try to get them the same size as an un-cropped one.

 

Hope that helps Tony

[tonghang_zhou]

The "Single Photos" folder is quite amazing, in the smoothness of the skin tones you get out of HP5+ even pushed to 800. I see they are in fact 35mm film, but something you are doing there seems magical to me.

[tony_p4]

Hi Tonghang, I guess the most important thing with the way I work is I nearly always use natural light and with models ....... a reflector. Other than that I'm not sure as scary as it is I develop by feel and only pay passing notice of the timer.

 

Scanning is always done to produce A4 prints and reducing the image to the 600x400 jpegs does slam the grain together. Sometimes I do crop a small area and enlarge to something around 600x400 and that really shows the grain off, which is why I sometimes do this.

 

Again nearly all images I post are only changed with software to reflect the actual wet-prints I get from a darkroom, which other than actually shooting is where I really love to play. Tony

[kevin_lam]

Right, so under lab processing conditions, is it alright to rate at ASA320 and use a 25A filter to achieve decent contrast and detail?