Ilford XP2 Super 135

[tony_p3]

Hi Guys,

 

I've heard that to reduce grain with films like the Ilford XP2 Super

135 (ie Black & White ISO400 negative film C41 processed) that they

are better exposed at ISO200 but still developed at ISO400.

 

Anyone had any experience of doing this?

 

Many thanks ... Tony

[steven_clark]

It's probably more of a matter of exposing it like any other C-41 film, which is to say expose for the shadows and let the highlights handle themselves.

[mark_scheuern]

It has gobs of exposure lattitude, especially on the overexposure side, so, yeah, exposing it at EI 200 and developing it normally works and probably does result in a bit less grain (though the grain is pretty fine to begin with, IMO).

[jimvanson]

XP2 looks much better (to my eyes) when shot at 200-320. I usually shoot it at 250/320 with my EOS's & 200/250 with my T90's...I've found that the cameras meter differently thus the different settings.<p>XP2 Super has a great glow to it when overexposed and usually a rather hideous look when underexposed...I've NEVERgotten a good print from XP2 Super shot at 800.<p>And to close...I guess you should also consider how you meter or interpert a meters reading...just because my T90 reads 1/125 at 5.6 doesn't mean your F5 is going to give the same reading.

[tony_p3]

Hi Guys,

 

Many thanks for your comments.

 

I agree that for negative film the grain is very good at ISO400, I suppose what it does mean for me is that I can pull it to ISO200 on a bright day when I'm taking street shots and not have to worry about pulling the processing.

 

I usually scan the shots on a Minolta Dimage Dual III Scanner, so I am always looking for film that will scan well in addition to traditional printing.

 

I am fortunate that 99% of the time my Nikon in-camera meter reads the same as my Sekonic, the rest of the time there's only 1/2 stop difference.

 

Best Regards ... Tony

[James G. Dainis]

"<I>I suppose what it does mean for me is that I can pull it to ISO200 on a bright day when I'm taking street shots and not have to worry about pulling the processing.</I>"<P>

 

No, on a bright day if you give one stop more exposure, you will pick up shadow detail (Zone 1 -> Zone 2) but blow out the highlights some more (Zone 8 -> Zone 9). Overexpose and under develop (pull process) would be called for. But in general I rate 400 film at 320 or 320 Tri-X at 160 for more shadow detail. Then, depending on the highlights in the scene, I will develop normally, pull or push. <P>

Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

[jimvanson]

<i>but blow out the highlights some more (Zone 8 -> Zone 9). Overexpose and under develop (pull process) would be called for...</i><p>James with a conventional silver halide emulsion this would be the case BUT we are talking about a chromogenic and on of a chromogenic's characteristics is that is almost impossible to blow out the highlights.<p><i>...ISO200 on a bright day...</i><p>Is exactly what you want to do as a chromogenic's contrast decreases as you overexpose...so XP2 Super at 200 (even 100) with a flash or in bright sunlight light is <i>much more controllable</i> then silver halide emulsions.

[rich815]

The whole idea of better grain when shooting XP2 at 200 in my experience only applies for when you are printing B&W traditionally in a darkroom. I shoot many a roll of XP2 in my darkroom days and always shot it at 200 or 320. But for scanning shooting at thse speeds I find produces a negative that is often a bit too contrasty and "over-developed" for an easy scan. For most B&W, especially the chromogenic films like XP2, I find a less contrasty and slightly flatter negative is more forgiving in the scanning process without blown highlights or too much contrast. Therefore when I'll be scanning the negs (as I do 90% of the time now) I shoot XP2 at 400 myself.

[tony_p3]

Hi Guys, Many thanks for the feedback everyone. Looks like I'll be treating it differently depending on if I'm intending to scan or print.

 

I shot a roll on Saturday at ISO400 ( http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=336724 ), but they didn't turn out punchy enough for my liking.

 

I'll try another couple of rolls at different speeds.

 

Thanks once again ... Tony

[arjen van de merwe]

I dont use XP2 super much any more, now I have invested the time to test my conventional film developing. But if I need the fine grain at ISO200 I use it. I find the negs very hard to print if shot at 400, and reasonably printable at ISO200, but still more difficult than conventional film. And I found the same when scanning. It may be the scanner you use, I use a Nikon LS2000. Testing for yourself may be the only option. For me it turned out to be a good learning experience.

[gareth_harper]

Don't push or pull the film in the conventional sense. Ilford state you should rate it anywhere between 50 and 800 asa and give it a standard C41 process.

Best to experiment with different film speeds and figure out what works for you Tony. I like 320asa. Also this is both the easiest film to scan and print in the darkroom.

Have a look at Jim Vansons stuff to see what you can do with XP2 and a scanner.

[tony_p3]

Hi Guys, Did my first wet print tonight using XP2 negatives. Very impressive, easy to print with very fine grain and excellent tonal range. Many thanks Gareth for suggesting I try it and everybody for all your suggestions. Thats the last of HP5+ for me except for course work ;-) ... Tony