exposure and XP2 [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

jaffa_777

05-24-2007, 17:04

I need some help in learning how to expose xp2 and black and white film in general.

I have noticed that when I am in flat, even light, exposing xp2 at 400, the negs come out really beautifull and a bit more contrasty than I originally saw the situation. When I move someone into some more contrasty light like some nice window side lighting, most of my pics are coming out blown with non retrievable highlights and shadows falling to black. This confuses me because I thought film had way higher latitude than digital, and my digital pics of the same subjects are coming out nicely. Why is this?

I come from digital where I have learn't to expose for the highlights and bring the shadows up a little in post. This works well. I am exposing the same way for film, but have a feeling from my results that this is the wrong way? Do I need to overexpose in contrasty situations with XP2? What do I need to do? I know this film is cabable of much better results!

(I have a digital brain which automatically tells me "Save the Highlights!")

Cheers

amateriat

05-24-2007, 17:42

We'll need a bit of background here: what camera and metering setup are you using? (Also: are you scanning the film yourself, and, if so, how?)

XP2 does have a ton of latitude, but hardly infinite, and its limits can be tested easily with inattentive metering, which sounds like the issue here. It's important to know your meter, whether built into the camera body or handheld. There's also the matter of finessing the film-speed setting. I tend to pull the film to EI 320 for extra detail, rather than shoot it straight at ISO 400 (just made a beautiful 13x19" from scan off a "forgotten" 2002 roll last night, exposed just this way). Underexposure will reduce contrast somewhat, but the emphasis here is on knowing and understanding the contrast range of what you're photographing, which boils down to knowing your meter and your film. I'm certain others will chime in here with their experience; XP2 is rather popular around here.

- Barrett

sirius

05-24-2007, 17:52

XP2 does not respond well to being under-exposed. It becomes very contrasty. Rather than setting your ISO to 400 try metering for 250. I think you will find your images improve a lot. Mine did.

jaffa_777

05-24-2007, 17:59

thanks Barrett,

I am using a nikon f3 using the camera's 60/40 metering . And yes I am scanning the film myself using a nikon 9000 using silverfast Ai HDR. Even though I am scanning the contact sheet shows many shots to be blown as well. I am really confused as whether I have underexposed or overexposed. Maybe I should be using a handheld meter?

richard_l

05-24-2007, 18:06

A lot of people rate it at 200 instead of 400. For me it seems to work best at 250 or 200.

amateriat

05-24-2007, 18:17

Jaffa: Well, your setup certainly isn't lacking. :)

Try pulling the film: XP2 can be easily rated down to EI 200 (or even down to EI 50, but that gets a bit esoteric). Try rating the film at 200, then 320 (yep, you can do it on the same roll), shooting the same or similar subject(s) that gave you trouble before.

Also, you might want to tweak your scanning routine, starting with your basic settings. (Are you using Nikon's software, or a third-party application such as VueScan or Silverfast?) As you can tell, you have a lot to play with here, which is actually a good thing.

- Barrett

jaffa_777

05-24-2007, 18:26

Ok, well I think the message coming through so far is to overexpose in these situations.

Exposing film is certainly different to exposing digital. If I was to overexpose the pic in digital, it's say goodbye to the photo and hello beautifull white snow storm. I think I have to relearn my evil ways. ;)

But I tell you, the pics that have come out good, certainly make me want to keep perservering with this film. Portraits look wonderfull with this film when exposed properly, and give me gorgeous rich and smooth textures that I can never get with digital.

Unfortuantely I cannot show the good exposed pics here, as they were taken for a company shoot.

amateriat

05-24-2007, 18:51

I think you're on your way. And, IMO, XP2 is an amazing film. You'll likely be up to speed with it almost before you know it, especially, but hardly limited to, portraiture. Show some examples here once you have them.

- Barrett

jaffa_777

05-25-2007, 16:34

Ok, here is one I can show.

It is probably the best of the blown bunch. I had to burn the side of her face quite a bit and also dodge the other half. Saying that, I was able to perform a lot more rescue work on this film photo and make it look half decent vs a digital one. If a digital image is blown I usually just throw it out, unless if that is the look I want.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/192/514062899_260a173470_o.jpg

I didn't focus on her eyes in this shot. I focussed on her hair which is why she wanted the pics. I wish I had focussed on her eyes now.

fishric

05-26-2007, 01:01

Trius

05-26-2007, 06:37

Richard: What about two scans, one for shadow, one for highlights, and combining the two in post processing?

OT, but these two images were on Kodak 400BW CN, mini-lab scans (high rez TIFF) with very little post processing -- Olympus XA:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/112/312481647_19468519b1.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/104/312426189_2deb505683.jpg?v=0

I have XP-2 in two bodies right now; I'm going to make some bracketed exposures and see how the scans work.

Earl

Avotius

05-26-2007, 06:58

Mmmm xp2 yummy when shot at box speed:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/184/409748691_0d47d4d94e_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/409748460_aacd7985f4_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/464118182_294bd854f3_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/464118972_234ca8f63e_o.jpg
notice blown out area on newspaper

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/464119306_c84124fe3a_o.jpg
dog is blown out

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/464119958_7f0f2b79cd_o.jpg
high contrast situation, no blow outs

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/494651949_d138036fdd_o.jpg

Avotius

05-26-2007, 06:58

yes xp2 is not a very forgiving film, because but if you are worried about blown highlights then underexpose, for the most part I find a blown highlight here and there but most of the scenes I shoot are very high contrast and its ok for me in most situations.

These shots at 320 are a little nicer in overall tones but I prefer the contrast of shooting at 400 a little better.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/3840/U3840I1157933794.SEQ.0.jpg
Love those skin tones

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/3840/U3840I1157803642.SEQ.0.jpg
Good full range here but just not my taste

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/3840/U3840I1157933783.SEQ.0.jpg
Some bright spots here, it was a very bright day

amateriat

05-26-2007, 07:35

Hello Jaffa,
I love XP2 and have used it a lot, but it is designed for an enlarger , not a scanner. It produce quite dense negatives even at "normal" exposure, take a look through a loupe against a bright light and you will see the highlight detail you thought was lost.
The darkroom user can use pre-flashing to bring up the highlight detail without losing the shadow detail. Not an option with a scanner.
Burning in will only work if there is something there to burn.
Regards, Richard F. Richard: with all due respect, I would say nothing could be further from the truth regarding XP2 and scanning. I regard XP2 to be among the most scanner-friendly films available, and it has long been my go-to film with scanning and wet-darkroom printing in mind. I find myself having to make but few post-scan adjustments to make good-looking prints in fairly short order. If one cannot strike a reasonably decent scan from a frame of XP2 (barring some serious error in either exposure and/or development), the fault most likely lies elsewhere.

And, there's quite a bit of adjustment that can be made to a scan in the name of highlight/shadow retention, arguably with a higher degree of precision and control than with anything short of a serious darkroom setup and a seasoned tech at the enlarger (and, for the record, I'm the last person to take a swipe at the wet darkroom vis-a-vis digital, but I wanted to try and get this one matter straight).

(Of course, Avotius says more in a handful of images than I've said here)

- Barrett

fishric

05-26-2007, 15:20

Perhaps I was a little careless with the wording of my last post. The point I wanted to make was that Xp2 and Fuji ncn400 have a lot of latitude and it's worth making the effort to get the detail from negative to paper.
Having said that, is it always desirable ?
I really like Avotius' images and I don't think for one moment I'd admire them any more if I could see more print on the newspaper or hairs on the dog's back, I smiled at the two young rascals in the doorway, I don't need to see the warp and weft of their clothes.
I'm quite pleased with my scanned prints, the equipment I use is middle to low budget. My darkroom is in crates since I downsized to a bungalow. If I tapped into Mrs. F's retail therapy fund there are printers now available that can equal darkroom print quality.
To summarise before I wander even further off topic, XP2 is brilliant, good images can be recovered from exposure errors that most other films wouldn't allow. Considered exposure will yeald wonderful images.
Regards,
Richard F.

raid

05-26-2007, 15:29

I use XP2 quite often, and now always at ASA200 setting. It works for me this way. The images come out very smooth looking. I don't worry too much about a "wrong" exposure with XP2. The film can handle it.

Raid

Wayne R. Scott

05-26-2007, 18:04

jaffa_777,

Here are my 2 cents worth. In my opinion it is not an ISO rating problem per say but a metering problem that you are dealing with.

I looked at your example photo and the histogram suggests to me that the over all average value would be about a Zone III or a little higher in film speak. Your camera meter wants everything to be 18% gray or Zone V so it suggests an exposure setting that is in reality 2 stops over what the scene represents. In your example the girl's face on the highlight side should be about Zone VII with her skin that is not highlighted should be about Zone VI for caucasian skin. When your camera over exposed the scene by two stops it placed the highlight value of the girl's face on Zone IX which results in blown highlights. Is my explanation clear as mud?

When you meter a scene with film you need to decide what is the most important part of the scene and meter to render that part accurately. For portrait photos I would meter to expose the face correctly and let the rest of the scene fall where it may.

Here are a couple of photos that I took using XP-2 rated at 200. This allows me to take a meter reading and my meter wants to have 18% gray or Zone V but I am placing my portrait values at Zone VI in reality because I am over exposing by one stop.:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c191/Wscott601/FarmersMarket2.jpg

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c191/Wscott601/JennyRollei.jpg

There are still some highlights that are "hot" in the examples.

Wayne

raid

05-26-2007, 18:43

I always use a spotmeter for critical exposure control.

Raid

gavinlg

05-26-2007, 18:47

MAN some of these examples are nice! I've used bw400cn before and I didn't really like it - too little contrast and too fine grain, but these xp2 examples are awesome!

I'm going to try some @ box speed this week

raid

05-26-2007, 18:56

I have hundreds of uploaded scans with XP2. Here is a link for photos taken with a Pentax 85mm/1.8 SMC and XP2:

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=630690

Raid

Wayne R. Scott

05-26-2007, 18:56

Here is a night shot on XP-2 that has plenty of contrasty lighting:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c191/Wscott601/Nelson%20Walk/11-07-2006-04-1.jpg

Wayne

raid

05-26-2007, 18:57

Here are more XP2 photos:

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=704199

Raid

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/874324-R1-36-35A.jpg

amateriat

05-26-2007, 19:55

Raid: Fabulous portrait!

I guess I simply grok chromogenics in general. XP2 is my top pick, but, as mentioned earlier, Kodak's BW 400 will do nicely as well, although I find myself approaching it a little differently in terms of exposure. But the stuff works.

The top image was taken with XP2 in a Ricoh GR1, taken in summer 2001. The bottom image, taken last autumn at dusk, was with Kodak BW 400 in a Hexar RF, 50mm f/2, wide open (I think).

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=45604&stc=1&d=1180238042
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=45605&stc=1&d=1180238042

- Barrett

raid

05-26-2007, 20:19

Barrett,
Both images are great,but the second one is intrigueing.

Raid

jaffa_777

05-26-2007, 20:24

amateriat

05-26-2007, 20:43

Raid: Thanks!

In the case of the second photo: shiny things intrigue me in daylight, but they really mesmerize me at night. They're also tougher to capture at night, making it an interesting challenge. A playground slide takes on an interesting aura (perhaps reminding me of my shildhood bedroom, where objects that were familiar and innocuous by day became mysterious, and sometimes scary, at night). This particular night, the entire playground [more pictures in my Gallery] took on quite a different persona under stadium-style lighting, and I spent a good half-hour chasing reflections while Sig. Other looked on (far from being bored, she pretty much got into my antics as well).

- Barrett

Wayne R. Scott

05-27-2007, 01:24

Barrett,

Love the slide at night photo!!

Wayne

Igor.Burshteyn

05-27-2007, 02:07

I shot a lot of XP2. I like how it looks - pretty close to real b&w. kodak 400cn film looks more like desaturated color film. Though sometimes I get muddy blacks with XP2.

Avotius

05-27-2007, 20:56

ok, heaps of feedback. Love this forum!

So it looks like I may be metering incorrectly?

Avotious, your pics at 400 in contrasty light are excellent. Now I am even more confused, obviously I can shoot at 400, but have I overexposed or underexposed, now that is the intriguing question. Now I am not sure which one. If I am to downrate my iso, surely I will overexpose even more. Surely this will blow highlights even more? Or does it work the opposite on way on film evening up the contrast between light and dark?

Thanks, a few tips from what I have noticed using this film:

Be careful of strange grain in image. I have shots some at 320 and 400 and every once in a while I get an odd image that is overly grainy for some reason that has to do with the film.

The lens I used for those shots for the most part was the Voigtlander 35mm pancake 2, a lens known for being a pain in the ass with contrast, but I find with a little extra care scanning its not a problem and makes good punchy black and white images. Some of the shots like the dog were from the leica 50 elmar redscale, not the most contrasty lens every but no slouch and a few blown highlights show that, but over all great.

My opinion is this film is not the most forgiving ever but not so bad. For instance HP5 can take a lot more punishment but we all know why we shoot xp2 if we are shooting it. I find that xp2 when you shoot it at 320 then scan with a less aggressive contrast curve it doesnt have and problem with blowing out, when I shoot at 400 then adjust for aggressive contrast it can be a little over the top but thats the way I like my bw.

jaffa_777

05-28-2007, 00:51

ok thanks Avotius,

so if I was to shoot at 320 in the same contrasty situations, should I be metering for the highlights on the bright litt side of the face, (which is what I do for digital and get good results), or should I be metering for the mid shadows which will tell the camera to use a longer shutter.

Actually I have been thinking, that if digital performs well by metering for the highlights and film performs better metering for the mid greys, then that makes digital at least one stop faster at any comparative iso for the same results? What do you think?

Igor.Burshteyn

05-28-2007, 06:37

hmmm
b&w film - for low key pictures: meter for shadows, -2.5 stops if I want shadows near black with details; for high key pictures: meter for highlights, +2.5 stops if I want highlights really white.
C41 (color&mono, XP2 included) - I meter from mid tone, sometimes +1 stop.
Slides/digital - meter from highlights.
Now the tricky part. How do you meter if you scan your picures (or print from scans)? I meter C41 for highlights if I scan - for me black without details is less ennoying than pure whilte - I am nocturnal beast :)

szekiat

05-28-2007, 09:03

hmm, starting to dig this xp2. I've been shooting tri-x for the better part of the last 3 years, but recently, looking at avotius' works, i'm giving this film a lot more thought!

SCOTFORTHLAD

05-28-2007, 11:17

Fascinating to read through this thread.Thoughtful and generous advice,and great picture examples throughout!

Over the years I have generally been using 400asa. colour neg film without paying too much attention to my camera's meter,other than taking a reading off the ground,and then generally intentionally overexposing by a stop, as the film is very forgiving.My results have always been pretty satisfactory,subjectively speaking of course.

I have employed the same 'technique',if you can call it that,with XP2, but to be honest,with not the same success/satisfaction ratio.

All of my films have been lab printed,but as I would like to get into scanning and printing myself,probably using XP2,perhaps I need to think about exposure a lot more,if I want to succeed

This advice is a great start.

Brian.