Rating XP2 Super at 200 and 800?

[film_guy]

Anyone rated their XP2 Super 35mm at 200 or 800 before (not on the same roll), and developed normally? How's the grain and contrast like? I heard that XP2 Super and chromogenics have a really wide exposure lattitude (wider than traditional B&W film like Tri-X and HP5+) so is something like this doable/advisable? Thanks!

 

[donbga]

Anyone rated their XP2 Super 35mm at 200 or 800 before (not on the same roll), and developed normally? How's the grain and contrast like? I heard that XP2 Super and chromogenics have a really wide exposure lattitude (wider than traditional B&W film like Tri-X and HP5+) so is something like this doable/advisable? Thanks!

You can change the speed right in the middle of the roll. 200 is my prefered speed for this film. Using an ISO of 800 will result in more contrasty images and IME, using 800 is not my cup of tea.

But the easy part is to try some and experiment. I never worry about the grain, BTW. I think you will find XP2 much less grainy than Tri-X or HP5+.

 

[eddym]

I've done it on the same roll, and I agree with Don's post. The film at 200 is finer grained and sharper than at 400; it is grainier at 800, and you will lose some shadow detail, which is to be expected. But it still yields still printable negs at either speed.

 

[film_guy]

Thanks, Don and Eddy for your answers. If I have the roll processed normally by the lab, is their machines making adjustments to the over/under-exposed negatives to make printable prints?

 

[Roger Hicks]

. The film at 200 is finer grained and sharper than at 400.

Dear Eddy,

Have you actually tested this (with test targets), or is it merely an impression?

Both my tests and Ilford's -- and all the others I know -- indicate that it is indeed finer grained at 200 (unlike a conventional film) but less sharp (just like a conventional film).

From memory -- it's some years since I did a formal test -- you lose about 10 lp/mm at maximum resolution with a top-flight lens and tripod if you give the extra stop. Of course you are very unlikely to see this in hand-held photography.

Cheers,

R.

 

[nworth]

My experience with XP2 is limited to about 50 rolls of the older stuff in MF. When I was using it, I found that it tolerated overexposure fairly well, producing excellent exposures at EI200 as well as 400. But it did not tolerate underexposure well at all. Shots at EI640 were quite acceptable, though noticeably worse than the 400 shots, and those at EI800 were poor. Incidentally, I think XP2 is an outstanding film. It prints beautifully.

 

[eddym]

Dear Eddy,

Have you actually tested this (with test targets), or is it merely an impression?

Both my tests and Ilford's -- and all the others I know -- indicate that it is indeed finer grained at 200 (unlike a conventional film) but less sharp (just like a conventional film).

From memory -- it's some years since I did a formal test -- you lose about 10 lp/mm at maximum resolution with a top-flight lens and tripod if you give the extra stop. Of course you are very unlikely to see this in hand-held photography.

Cheers,

R.

Hey Roger,
No, admittedly I have not done tests, and I don't shoot a lot of XP2. But I have used it in my Leicas as a "walking around" film and camera combo, shooting outdoors at 200 and going as far as 800 when I was in a dark interior of a building. Enlargements up to 11x14 from the "200" frames are practically grainless and very sharp. But I did not shoot the same frames at 400 for comparison. And being hand-held shots, perhaps the sharpness difference would have been minimized?
So let's call it "merely an impression."

 

[donbga]

Incidentally, I think XP2 is an outstanding film. It prints beautifully.

I agree completely. It's great for portraits.

 

[Roger Hicks]

And being hand-held shots, perhaps the sharpness difference would have been minimized?
So let's call it "merely an impression."

Dear Eddy,

I think that's a fair assessment. I didn't want to overstate the case -- the images don't fall apart, and you'd need test targets to see the difference -- but in the unlikely event that you wanted to do such a substantially pointless test, instead of your vastly superior approach of taking real pictures, I think you'd probably find a detectable but rarely significant loss of sharpness.

Oh, yes; and I'll back all the others who say what a great film it is.

Cheers,

r.