Rating Ifford XP2 at 200, normal processing from lab?

[ken_chi]

As in the headline, I see many memebers here that they rate XP2super

at 200 or 250, my question is if sending it to a normal lab, do

people process this rated as normal(400)??? I do my own enlargements

but like the convience of c-41, love B/W!

[tony_brookes]

I have Used XP almost since it started as XP1 and have rated it as low as 50ASA. Now I tend to rate it between 200 and 800 and i do not alter the processing at all. This is because I rate frames differently on the same film. I suppose if you rated a whole film at 50ASA you might be tempted to change the processing time but I have stuck to the same time and temperature for more years than I care to remember.

[johann_fuller]

200 seems to give the finest grain with a slight loss in sharpness - but it's still sharp compared to colour neg. Process as normal - pull processing C41 is a no-no IMO (as is pushing it!).

[al_kaplan1]

Ken, the best thing you can do is shoot bracketed exposure of several subjects under various lighting conditions. See what works for you. The old saying was "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlight" with standard silver based B&W films. C-41 based films work like color neg film - you end up with a dye image. For reasons too complex to worry about, color neg films appear less grainy with moderate over exposure, and get very grainy with under exposure. This is the exact opposite of standard silver B&W films.

 

That said, a lot depends on what you meter and how you meter. I "rate" Tri-x at 400, use a hand held meter, often make incident light readings, and when using a reflected meter take multiple readings of highlight and shadow areas. I then select an exposure biased toward the shadows. If I were to compare my exposure to one made through a modern through-the-lens camera, I'm probably giving 1/2 to 1 stop more exposure. Am I rating the film at ISO 200? No! I'm rating the film at 400 USING MY METHOD OF METERING.

 

There are situations where I'll choose to shoot at 1/125 instead of 1/60 at the same aperture. Right in the middle of a normally exposed roll. I'd rather work a little harder printing that negative than have it suffer from motion blur.

 

Experiment, see what works best for you, try Kodak's chromogenic films, make your own decision. It's the only way.

[jay_.]

I've shot XP2 and XP2 Super and found that ISO 400 was a bit optimistic. EI 200 is more like its "real" speed. I now shoot Portra B&W which I rate at EI 320 with mechanical cameras like my old Nikon F's, all Leicas, Rolleiflexes and Hasselblad because if shutters run a little slow I'm still not underexposing. I do this with all C41 film BTW. With electronic cameras I rate a box speed. With slide film I rate mechanical cameras at box speed (so they'll underexpose up to 1/3 stop if anything)and electronic cameras at 1/3 under. The exception is Velvia, which on mechanical shutters I rate at box speed and electronic shutters at EI 40.

[jay_.]

Switch that all around, I stated it backwards:

 

C-41+mechanical shutters rated at box speed; electronic at 1/3 stop over.

E-6+mechanical shutters 2/3-stop over, electronic at 1/3-stop over

 

Velvia = mechanical shutters EI 32, electronic EI 40.

[gil_gatrcia]

Ken, the best thing going for XP was the ilford chemistry that used to be sold. I wish they still had it. I shot hundreds of rolls at 200 and some of my 16 x 20's were amazing. I would stick at 200 and if you are really in a pinch, change a few in mid roll to as high as 1600.

[johann_fuller]

Also depends what you are doing with the film - scanning or

printing. As scanners deal with highlights better than shadows

i.e thin bits of film rather than dense I slightly overexpose tranny

and underexpose neg - the opposite of what you need for

conventional printing.

[terry_rory]

Kodak T400CN at 400 (or 800 for available light stuff) Fuji Frontier does a phenomenal job with this stuff up to 15" x 10" if the operator cares about what they are doing.

 

100 - 200 on T400CN looks dull. Fine grained but dull. (However in another persons perception this can mean 'muted' so have a go. You may like it.)

 

(Tri-X at 200 then pulled one stop in development. Much nicer. But not C41 of course so a little off topic. Sorry I just love it as a recent convert!)

 

Portra 400BW. Dont like it anymore. Dont know why. T400CN is just much nicer to my eyes. Big Fuji Frontier prints from T400CN at 15x10 have an almost 'Platignum' print look to them. (Maybe its just my lab?)

 

XP2 if you really HAVE to expose at 50 - 100. Retains reasonable contrast and grain is invisible for all practical purposes. Probably better to have it developed at a lab then print/enlarge from XP2 negs yourself. Superb for 'character' portraits but dont let this stuff anywhere near a woman over 30 if you value your life. It reveals every single pore and blemish in loving detail.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

I've not been using XP2 but have been using the similar T400CN. Rated at 200 for sure there, and depending on the subject, will also push one stop. I find that T400CN can be very flat looking unless you have a greater than normal subject brightness range. Hmm let me explain... In Florida sun, we have an excessive brightness range, and in full sunlite, T400CN does well. Better in fact than most standard black and white films do, unless you do some compensation. However, in a more normal subject brightness, on a hazy day where we might actually encounter a 10 stop range, it looks flat. Ditto when I shoot it with controlled lighting such as monolites with softboxes. It just looks flat compared to what it should. Thats why I get the plus 1 stop push. The 200 rating is purely to preserve the shadow detail, which is lacking regardless of the subject brightness range.

 

In many ways, it responds similarly to standard black and white material - expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

 

I'm not sure how XP2 fits into all this, but I'd be suprized if it acted much differently.