XP2 super Lattitude ?

[subhash_tiwari]

I don't understand how a film can have ISO from 50 to 800, as they

say. Is there change in contrast etc ? Anyone done any tests on it ?

[jordan_w.]

They mean that you can get acceptable results when the film is exposed at these speeds. In practice, I usually rate it at about 200. It tolerates overexposure really well but IME it looks really bad when underexposed, so my rating it at 200 allows me to "err on the side of caution" in the form of a one-stop "safety net" for my in-camera light meter.

[glen_evans1]

I have shot this film at 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 on the same roll. It was developed on a Noritsu scan and print so it's hard to say how much the machine tried to compensate for density changes but only the flat scenes at 1600 were at all bad. Some, even at 1600 were good enough to pass for portraits. The only gripe I have is that no one seems to be able to get a true black on this stuff. G.E.

[gaius1]

Simple answer - it can't, however the automated printing of a modern minilab can compensate to a certain extend and fake it. Look at the negs on a lightbox under a loupe and you'll see the true story.

[joseph_mcconnell]

I htink it looks awful at 800 but I use it for weddings because it scans with ICE where my old standby TMY takes hours to dust spot.

[tony_terlecki]

Its proper rating is probably closer ISO 200 to 320. The film curve however is a bit different from traditional B&W films in that it doesn't have much of a shoulder and in fact keeps a fairly straight line for the subject brightness range well beyond the point where a conventional film would start to shoulder out. This characteristic allows you to expose at a lower ISO rating and still get very good separation of highlight detail. In fact if you rate it lower than the nominal 400 you actually get much finer "grain" (actually clumps of dye). The downside to all this is that you usually have to print on a slightly higher grade of paper as the overall image contains slightly less contrast (similar to if you had underdeveloped a traditional film).

 

The ISO settings above 400 give acceptable results but the grain is much worse. You get a decent enough image but it's not something you want to regularly do with this film.

 

If you do your own C-41 processing you can also extend development with this film just as with traditional B&W films (or just ask the lab to push it).

[david_beal___richmond_hts.]

XP2 Super seems to work best for me when exposed at 250. It's good for weddings, with black blacks and white whites; and it's certainly easier to print than Kodak chromogenic emulsions, which have the annoying orange background. Although I very seldom scan negatives, others who do have reported that XP2 Super is easier to scan and manipulate than conventional silver films.

 

There was an excellent discussion of film curves on this forum which compared Tri-X, XP2 Super, and HP5+. It's worth reading.

 

My experience with XP2 Super is that it displays about 5 stops of tone, between III and VII. Maybe some can get it to register II; I haven't been able to.

 

Good shooting.

 

/s/ David Beal

Memories Preserved Photography, LLC

[j_lr]

I've read several times you get more contrast exposing at 100.

[roger_hicks1]

There is no real ISO standard for chromogenics (strange but true) but the nearest you can get to a true ISO for XP2 Super is around 500 at ISO standards of contrast and shadow detail. Use a spot meter and IRE 1 and this will work well.

 

Use any other metering approach and you will have to introduce a 'fudge factor' to allow for not metering the shadows. Metering the shadows is the ONLY way to meter negative films that reflects the way their ISO film speeds are determined -- see Photo School in www.rogerandfrances.com for why -- andf this always means lower EIs. On top of this there are questions of personal preference and equipment variations. I generally set XP2 at 320 or even 250 with the through-lens meter on a Leica MP but have no hesitation in using 400 with a spot meter used properly (NOT for grey card reading).

 

A stop or more of over-exposure (EI 200 or 100, or even 50) will result in reduced sharpness but finer grain; conventional non-chromogenics will give reduced sharpness and coarser grain. Any underexposure will result in coarser grain and poorer tonality. Only you can decide when the bounds of acceptability are reached.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[lex_jenkins]

What Roger said. XP2 Super is excellent at 400. The results are beautiful under most lighting conditions and grain is completely reasonable. Exposures more than a stop lower or higher present problems for most labs unless you plan to pay for custom prints.

[gareth_harper]

Pretty much the same as what Roger said again.

I rate it at 320asa. I find that at 200asa or below and the negs are really too thick for easy darkroom printing.

 

There's nothing revolutionary about this.

Take a 400asa colour neg film. You could shoot it at 100asa and give it a standard process and still get acceptable results, likewise it will just about tollerate a 1 stop underexposure. But again I find it best at about 320asa.

XP2 super is based on colour neg technology.