Is this Ilford comment good for other films, too?

As quoted in The Online Photographer:

So here's how to shoot XP2 Super, according to me. It's simple. This yields the highest percentage of results of the best quality—I don't care a whit for "make do" solutions that yield only acceptable results. Using camera metering:

• For regular shooting in most normal lighting, use EI (ISO) 200.

• For shooting in extremely bright and/or contrasty lighting, like harsh full sun and shadows, use EI (ISO) 100. This insures adequate shadow detail, and the highlights won't block up.

• For shooting in low and low-contrast lighting—and this includes indoor shooting and "available darkness"—use EI (ISO) 400—or even a little higher, although I personally don't recommend ever going all the way to (gasp) 800.

That's it. Beyond those adjustments made to accomodate the prevailing light, you can let the camera's meter set the exposure and you'll get a high percentage of good results (a bit higher, of course, if your metering skills are good). And you can switch settings on the same roll all you want—the processing is not adjusted and is always the same.

What's the connection between the Online Photographer and Ilford comment?

pentaxuser

Interesting, but I would use a meter to validate those adjustments before counting on them... no matter which film I were using - chromogenic or otherwise. On the surface, though, these seem oriented toward avoiding underexposure... which might be a good thing for any film.

pentaxuser said:

What's the connection between the Online Photographer and Ilford comment?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

just the source of the quote.

It is a film that is processed using the color (C-41) process -- so no, it would not be wise to lump its qualities with other films.

I have read the little blurb six times and it means nothing as far as I can tell. "Regular" shooting in "normal" lighting. What is that? Where I reside it is normally bright as the devil and shadows are darker than Hades. In Seattle, everything is gray with a gray background except in the summer which will be this year on Wednesday, I think. Many camera light meters don't give you a reading that is worth a darn especially if you point your camera at the sun and have yards of sky in the frame. Everyone develops his/her film a bit different so how can you say this way will give me perfect shadow detail and non-blocked highlights?
If you want perfect photos, wrap a clove of garlic inside some cabbage leaves and bury it in an old Volkswagen Bug in the back yard.

kivis said:

just the source of the quote.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the quote is solely from the Online Photographer? It was the use of the phrase Ilford Comment that puzzled me. I think you are saying that it is a comment from the Online Photographer about an Ilford film and not a comment issued by Ilford about its own film. Have I got this correct?

Thanks

pentaxuser

No the comment is only good for chromogenic films like eg BW400CN and XP2 which are processed in C41 chemistry, where you get best quality at x2 or x4 the box ISO exposure...

The retained silver films eg HP5+ have a different rule set... for high quality printing on grade 2 paper (or RC).

Do I need that fancy garlic, or just the regular bulbs? I lived in New Orleans a while, so I may go w/ some chicken bones wrapped in colorful foil too. Popeyes will do fine. Spicy, if they have it.

snapguy said:

If you want perfect photos, wrap a clove of garlic inside some cabbage leaves and bury it in an old Volkswagen Bug in the back yard.

Click to expand...

Done.

Part of what Ilford says on the fact sheet. http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201142711321939.pdf

EXPOSURE RATING

XP2 SUPER film has a speed rating of ISO 400/27° (400ASA, 27DIN, EI 400/27) to daylight. The ISO speed rating was measured using standard C41 processing. Although rated at ISO 400/27°, XP2 SUPER can be exposed over the range EI 50/18–800/30. When higher speed is needed, XP2 SUPER can be rated at up to EI 800/30. For finer grain, when speed is less important, rate the film at EI 200/24, although for finest grain it can be rated as low as EI 50/18 if required.

The practical implications of this wide exposure range are very important. XP2 SUPER can be exposed at a setting to suit the job. The benefit of variable speed also provides security against inadvertent over- or underexposure.

It should be noted that the exposure index (EI) recommended for XP2 SUPER is based on a practical evaluation of film speed and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO standard.

CHOOSING THE RIGHT FILM SPEED FOR THE JOB

Best overall quality EI 400/27
Finer grain (with easy printing) EI 200/24
Finest grain (but with denser negatives) EI 50/18

Note
No matter which film speed is chosen, standard C41 processing is recommended.

Click to expand...

The C-41 process films I've played with are all quite forgiving and typically follow these generalizations. That includes Kodak's BW400CN, as well as Kodak and Fuji color negative films of various and sundry stripes.

It is great fun and very reliable to put a roll of 800 speed color negative film in a manual camera, set the shutter at 100 and the aperture at 11, and just focus & shoot anytime between just after dawn to just before dusk. Open shade, full sun, whatever.

Non-C-41 films typically also have a wide exposure range across which they can produce excellent prints, but they act differently with regard to grain. Extra exposure on non-C-41 films tends to make graininess stand out more, as does extra development.

I do try to avoid under-exposure with any negative film. I find that with an incident meter 400 is just fine with XP2 for me with any subject, and keeps the shutter fast.

Shooting at 200 adds a bigger safety factor, shooting at 100 or 50 typically just allows me to keep my aperture closer to where I prefer. All reasonable ideas.

With film based on dye-image forming certain means can be employed that yield sensitometric effect different from classsic films.

AgX said:

With film based on dye-image forming certain means can be employed that yield sensitometric effect different from classsic films.

Click to expand...

How so?

pentaxuser said:

Are you saying that the quote is solely from the Online Photographer? It was the use of the phrase Ilford Comment that puzzled me. I think you are saying that it is a comment from the Online Photographer about an Ilford film and not a comment issued by Ilford about its own film. Have I got this correct?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Yes that is correct

So, Akiva, I have to ask... you are an accomplished photographer... what do you think of this; does it ring true to you?

BrianShaw said:

So, Akiva, I have to ask... you are an accomplished photographer... what do you think of this; does it ring true to you?

Click to expand...

After reading it, I think I will stick to 400 ISO for 400 ISO except maybe go down to 240 ISO at the beach. Has always worked for the last 40 years.

pentaxuser said:

................... not a comment issued by Ilford about its own film. Have I got this correct?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

That is the way I took it.

kivis said:

After reading it, I think I will stick to 400 ISO for 400 ISO except maybe go down to 240 ISO at the beach. Has always worked for the last 40 years.

Click to expand...

If it's working for you, that's what matters, I wouldn't change anything until you test it, if you feel like it.

I do want to make one point though with regard to the EI change that the online photographer suggests

kivis said:

• For shooting in extremely bright and/or contrasty lighting, like harsh full sun and shadows, use EI (ISO) 100. This insures adequate shadow detail, and the highlights won't block up.

Click to expand...

This statement is very misleading. If one has metered well, at 400 there should be quite adequate shadow detail, and yes at 200 the film will have more shadow detail, and again at 100 more shadow detail yet.

The problem is that with each step toward more exposure you move the highlights closer and closer to the upper limit of the film and blocking up. And just because you put that detail on film doesn't mean it will print without a change in paper grade

The classic instructions that Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford used to include with each roll of film were designed to provide the best results for the most people. The classic setting on all those sheets for the beach in full sun was essentially sunny f/22, a reduction in exposure from the normal full sun front lit sunny f/16, this can also be accomplished by moving the EI from say 400 to 800 on your meter. This is exactly the opposite of the info the Online Photographer is suggesting.

Essentially Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford have been telling the world for longer than I've been alive to limit exposure at the beach, not increase it.

To put this another way, Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford have been saying; "for the best results as the scene gets brighter you should limit the amount of light that reaches the film (this protects the highlights) and as the scene gets darker you should make sure you get plenty of light into the camera (which protects the shadows).

So, who ya gonna believe: Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford or; the Online Photographer?

I don't believe the Online Photographer writer has a satisfactory grasp of the meaning or an understanding of a couple of aspects of exposure. I would not take his/her advice for exposing XP2 in that manner (it's a very flexible and forgiving film). I am confident the overwhelming majority of photographers using this (among many other films) will have settled on better and more effective methodology that what has been described.

Poisson Du Jour said:

I don't believe the Online Photographer writer has a satisfactory grasp of the meaning or an understanding of a couple of aspects of exposure. I would not take his/her advice for exposing XP2 in that manner (it's a very flexible and forgiving film). I am confident the overwhelming majority of photographers using this (among many other films) will have settled on better and more effective methodology that what has been described.

Click to expand...

I agree.

markbarendt said:

If it's working for you, that's what matters, I wouldn't change anything until you test it, if you feel like it.

I do want to make one point though with regard to the EI change that the online photographer suggests



This statement is very misleading. If one has metered well, at 400 there should be quite adequate shadow detail, and yes at 200 the film will have more shadow detail, and again at 100 more shadow detail yet.

The problem is that with each step toward more exposure you move the highlights closer and closer to the upper limit of the film and blocking up. And just because you put that detail on film doesn't mean it will print without a change in paper grade

The classic instructions that Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford used to include with each roll of film were designed to provide the best results for the most people. The classic setting on all those sheets for the beach in full sun was essentially sunny f/22, a reduction in exposure from the normal full sun front lit sunny f/16, this can also be accomplished by moving the EI from say 400 to 800 on your meter. This is exactly the opposite of the info the Online Photographer is suggesting.

Essentially Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford have been telling the world for longer than I've been alive to limit exposure at the beach, not increase it.

To put this another way, Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford have been saying; "for the best results as the scene gets brighter you should limit the amount of light that reaches the film (this protects the highlights) and as the scene gets darker you should make sure you get plenty of light into the camera (which protects the shadows).

So, who ya gonna believe: Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford or; the Online Photographer?

Click to expand...

Chromogenic film is different from retained silver film, bit like apples and oranges.

Your classic rules only apply to classic film.

The rule that Ilford provide is shoot at 50 EI for XP2.
The second rule is if you can tolerate less quality 800 EI is ok.

I have paraphrased Ilfords rules they have been quoted verbatim in the thread.

You won't be able to scan the EI 50.

The XP2 is like a digital HDR mode camera! At EI 800 you get something like digital noise in the shadows, but it is not as bad as digital.

Try a film... one of my chums only uses XP2.

Shoot at least one at 1600!

The Kodak film is more difficult to wet print.

Xmas said:

Chromogenic film is different from retained silver film, bit like apples and oranges.

Your classic rules only apply to classic film.

The rule that Ilford provide is shoot at 50 EI for XP2.
The second rule is if you can tolerate less quality 800 EI is ok.

I have paraphrased Ilfords rules they have been quoted verbatim in the thread.

You won't be able to scan the EI 50.

The XP2 is like a digital HDR mode camera! At EI 800 you get something like digital noise in the shadows, but it is not as bad as digital.

Try a film... one of my chums only uses XP2.

Shoot at least one at 1600!

The Kodak film is more difficult to wet print.

Click to expand...

Some things are different, some the same. There is a fair amount of mis-understanding that surrounds this too.

For example, for any film, reducing exposure is a challenge to keeping detail in the shadows. Shooting any ISO 400 film at 800 or 1600 reduces the amount of shadow detail available on that film. (Whether it affects the print or not is a different question.)

One difference between C-41 and retained silver films is where graininess shows itself. C-41 films shows their grain mostly in the lower tones, retained silver film shows their's in the higher tones. This is one reason why many C-41 shooters are happy as clams to increase exposure and retained silver film shooters try to avoid extra (un-needed) exposure.

One thing that is not commonly understood is that C-41 films can be pushed, just like retained silver films can and good results can be had with XP2 at 1600.

With regard to latitude, the ability to shoot XP2 (and other iso 400 C-41 films) at EI's between 800 and 50 without adjusting development, this is also available to retained silver film shooters. Tmax 400 is a poster child for this, I do this regularly with Delta 400 too (and with FP4 over a different range); it is a common trait of all negative films.

This trait is described well in "The Theory of the Photographic Process". Unlike slides, we get to choose what we print from the negative. This concept has been tested and defined well enough, that it is known that longer toe films actually have wider ranges that excellent prints can be made from than short toe films and that short toe films can reach slightly higher print quality but only across a significantly shorter range.

What's happening here is that most any negative film captures a larger range of information from the scene than the paper can print. In this sense, negatives of all stripes are HDR capture devices. That is true of both retained silver and C-41 films.

With regard to Kodak's film being tougher to wet print, it prints very nicely on the RA-4 paper it was designed for. RA-4 isn't hard, just different.