ISO setting with XP2 Super

[octo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you think it is possible to vary the ASA settings on the same roll of XP2 Super between 50 and 800 ASA and have it developed as if shot on a 400 ASA setting and get usable pictures?

Thanks in advance, and apologies if the question has been dealt with previously.

[Lucklik]

I haven't used XP2 for a long time, but I noticed that if you want detail in the shadows with 400CN I would not go higher then ISO 200.

rgs

Luc

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Andrew Spackman]

I use XP2 Super a lot, and normally rate it at 400 or 320 ISO. I think the most important point with XP2 is to avoid underexposure; that gives lack of detail in shadows and an unpleasantly grainy appearance in the underexposed areas. My films are processed in a minilab using the standard C41 process. Images exposed as for ISO speeds less than 400 should be fine - just a bit denser but with all the detail retained, and with finer grain. I too would avoid exposing at ISO 800, particularly when using the C41 process for a standard 400 ISO rating. (In the distant past I used Ilford's XP1 chemicals and you could extend development for higher ISO speeds, but I didn't like the results for 800 ISO.)

 

Andrew

[octo]

Thanks for your answers: the message is clear, no underexposure to achieve a better result.

But, with all due respects, it doesn't answer my question: same roll of 36 exposures, some done at 50 ISO some at 100, 200, 400, 800; develop it C41 at if all had been shot at 400. Would you get usable pictures?

[john_r_smith]

Well, it all depends what you mean by "usable". You will get prints from most of your negs if you are prepared to stand there in the darkroom, juggling paper grades, making test strips, burning and dodging, and playing with development times. But they will not be the greatest prints in the world, and nothing like as good as if you had shot all the frames correctly exposed in the first place. XP2 has terrific latitude, certainly, but that doesn't mean you can just play hell with exposure. So why do this? Modern films will often get you out of a hole if you screw up the occasional shot, but they are not a "one size fits all" solution. Choose the best film for the job, expose correctly and process by the book. Why mess around like this?

 

John

[cbretteville]

Thanks for your answers: the message is clear, no underexposure to achieve a better result.

But, with all due respects, it doesn't answer my question: same roll of 36 exposures, some done at 50 ISO some at 100, 200, 400, 800; develop it C41 at if all had been shot at 400. Would you get usable pictures?

Why don't you do a test and see? Shoot a roll where you set your meter to 400. Under- and overexpose shots by up to two/three stops in half stop increments. Take notes so you see which is which. Judge it by the results.

 

Personally I've only rated XP2 at 400, but it seems I will get better overall results rating it a little lower. One thing that impresses me is how tolerant it is to my missing the exposures.

 

- Carl

[octo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did shoot a roll juggling the ISO ratings, but there are a few frames remaining so my question was to satisfy my curiousity. Nothing in that roll is likely to be earthshaking: more of a test... Hey, but who knows!

I do, of course, agree with John that it is more akin to 'messing around' than anything half way serious.

I just thought it interesting to have a film with a rather large latitude. I guess that when I use it for a purpose, I will set the meter no higher than 400, probably 200, if possible. But I'll know that, if needed, I can get away with an occasional shot at 400.

Otherwise, I normally use films properly exposed etc...

Thanks for your comments.