Author Topic: XP2 @1600  (Read 503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Indofunk

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,888
    • photog & music
XP2 @1600
« on: December 10, 2017, 05:15:31 PM »
A few weeks ago, I discovered that I had a lonely, orphaned roll of XP2 in my fridge, probably bundled in with one of the cheap package deals on used film that I score from time to time on the electronic bay. My normal B&W film is Tri-X, and these days I pretty much exclusively shoot it at 1600 and stand develop in HC110. I like the look and have no plans on changing it up, but it then occurred to me that I have never shot XP2 @1600. I've shot it at 400 and developed in HC110, and I've shot at 400 and developed normally in C41, both of which I like quite a bit. So I decided to do a fun experiment and shoot this roll of XP2 at 1600 and stand develop it in HC110 as if it were Tri-X. Massive Dev doesn't have a listing for XP2 @1600 in any developer, so I don't have that to go off of.

Then I made the mistake of searching Flickr for XP2 @1600. I found people use a few different dev schemes:

This dude manages to shoot it at 1600 and develop it normally (!) at CVS (!!) and it turns out perfectly exposed (!!!)

A few people say they pushed it +1 stop, I assume they mean in C41. That makes more sense to me, and it is very similar to the way I shoot Gold @1600. For example: https://flic.kr/p/apTNrB (love the grain on that one)

So now I have 3 different dev schemes to try. To wit:
1. C41 normal (!)
2. C41 +1.5 stops (like when I push Gold @1600)
3. HC110 stand 1.5hr.

(I chose not to add a trial of HC110 pushed +1 or +2 stops, because that has never worked well for me with Tri-X and I have no reason to believe it'll work any better with XP2.)

So I went out and bought 2 more rolls of XP2, shot all 3 sequentially in my Pentax ME Super with (usually) a SMC Pentax 50/1.7 so at least those two variables are removed. So without further ado, the results.


My initial prediction was that C41 +1.5 > HC110 stand > C41 normal. Boy was I wrong :o First off, the clear winner is, to my absolute shock and near horror, C41 NORMAL :o :o :o


(look at that shadow detail in this outdoor night shot! yes there was a decent light to camera left, but even the bumper on the right is decently exposed, for 1600...)






Next up, HC110 stand developing isn't that bad, as long as the lighting is decent. (Like the C41 shots, I scanned these as color, which is why the purplish base gives it some toning.)


(I don't know why I focused on her ass instead of her head. in any case, I did get her approval to post on social media, so apparently she doesn't mind)


What do you think? Not as much shadow detail as C41 normal, no?


This one's not bad, and it's pretty much close to what I'd expect from Tri-X under the same conditions.


Last (and definitely least ::) ), C41 for 5 minutes. I expected this to be the best because of my experience with Gold, but it looks like XP2 doesn't have a very long tail. All the extra 1.5min in C41 did was to block up a lot of the highlights. No visible improvement in the shadows. Also, much grainier. I like some grain, not quite this much :D




(This is Clem Burke, the drummer from Blondie, playing with the band LAMF last week. The band I was playing in opened for LAMF on their short bicoastal tour.)



Now of course, this wasn't quite as scientific as it could have been ... although I shot everything on the same camera and lens, I didn't take the exact same shots for each dev scheme under precisely the same lighting conditions. And even among those, I chose to show you guys the ones that came out best from each roll, because I am more concerned with vanity than I am with perfect scientific evidence ;D

Anyways, I will still draw these conclusions: If I ever get any more XP2, first of all I'll probably shoot it at box speed :) If I do decide to shoot it @1600, I'll definitely develop it in C41 normal (3.5min) because it is a completely confounding film that even science can't explain ;D

Thank you for your time :)
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 01:40:40 AM by Indofunk »

zapsnaps

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 534
  • Get Zapped!
    • http://www.NowSeeThis.co.uk
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2017, 05:35:53 PM »
Really like the Merc shot. I used to push film on occasions - I must get into it again. Nice post
Nudes make the world go round
www.NowSeeThis.co.uk

cs1

  • Peel Apart
  • ***
  • Posts: 256
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2017, 07:53:52 PM »
Thanks for sharing your experiences with the XP2. My favourite shots of the lot are the concert shots. XP2 is the strangest film. I've never thought about pushing it... I usually overexpose it two stops and have it developed at box speed. I think that I still have one roll in the fridge somewhere. I really need to try it at EI 1600 developed at box speed.

Indofunk

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,888
    • photog & music
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2017, 10:58:37 PM »
Thanks for sharing your experiences with the XP2. My favourite shots of the lot are the concert shots. XP2 is the strangest film. I've never thought about pushing it... I usually overexpose it two stops and have it developed at box speed. I think that I still have one roll in the fridge somewhere. I really need to try it at EI 1600 developed at box speed.

So you're saying that you shoot it at ISO 100 and develop it normally in C41? And I just said that I exposed it at ISO 1600 and developed it normally in C41, so that means that XP2 has a 5 stop latitude when developed normally?? :o This film is getting curiouser and curiouser...

MaxR88

  • 35mm
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2017, 08:05:12 AM »
Well clearly I need to dig out a roll of XP2 and give this a try. What fantastic results!

chris667

  • Peel Apart
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2017, 11:01:25 AM »
Interesting to see the different kinds of development.

My experience with XP2 has mirrored that. I reckon five stops is about right. It truly is the stuff of wonders.


Mike (happyforest)

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2017, 07:12:09 PM »
Iflord used to say that XP1\XP2 could be pushed and developed normally.  Particulary because they had designed it to be used in C41 chemistry and processed in high street photo labs.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1911/product_id/703/

Mike
« Last Edit: December 11, 2017, 07:15:55 PM by Mike (happyforest) »

Indofunk

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,888
    • photog & music
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2017, 09:12:39 PM »
Still seems magic to me  ;D

cs1

  • Peel Apart
  • ***
  • Posts: 256
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2017, 06:20:21 PM »
Still seems magic to me  ;D
I agree that it's quite versatile film. :)

Indofunk

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,888
    • photog & music
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2017, 02:51:38 PM »
While talking with Peter about this, we came up with another idea to qualitatively test the latitude of the film when developed in C41 normal. I'll just set the camera on manual at f/5.6 and 1/125 and shoot in all sorts of conditions. I'm not going to bother recording what the EI was for every shot, but qualitatively, we'll see if everything from bright daylight to poorly lit indoor shots work :)

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,501
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2017, 03:59:49 PM »
While talking with Peter about this, we came up with another idea to qualitatively test the latitude of the film when developed in C41 normal. I'll just set the camera on manual at f/5.6 and 1/125 and shoot in all sorts of conditions. I'm not going to bother recording what the EI was for every shot, but qualitatively, we'll see if everything from bright daylight to poorly lit indoor shots work :)

I often do this when I shoot in the street, and that's with HP5+. 1/125 and focus set at 3m/10ft. The only variable is time of year: f/5.6 in the cold, low sun angle half, f/8 the rest of the time. There's no reason it shouldn't work with XP2 in the vast majority of situations.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

Indofunk

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,888
    • photog & music
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2017, 06:59:33 PM »
While talking with Peter about this, we came up with another idea to qualitatively test the latitude of the film when developed in C41 normal. I'll just set the camera on manual at f/5.6 and 1/125 and shoot in all sorts of conditions. I'm not going to bother recording what the EI was for every shot, but qualitatively, we'll see if everything from bright daylight to poorly lit indoor shots work :)

I often do this when I shoot in the street, and that's with HP5+. 1/125 and focus set at 3m/10ft. The only variable is time of year: f/5.6 in the cold, low sun angle half, f/8 the rest of the time. There's no reason it shouldn't work with XP2 in the vast majority of situations.

You forget that I often shoot indoors in really low light ;) In those situations, ISO1600 : f/1.8 : 1/30th is about where I'm hovering. I may ride the aperture and/or shutter in those situations...

cs1

  • Peel Apart
  • ***
  • Posts: 256
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2017, 07:42:36 PM »
While talking with Peter about this, we came up with another idea to qualitatively test the latitude of the film when developed in C41 normal. I'll just set the camera on manual at f/5.6 and 1/125 and shoot in all sorts of conditions. I'm not going to bother recording what the EI was for every shot, but qualitatively, we'll see if everything from bright daylight to poorly lit indoor shots work :)
That sounds like a brilliant idea. It works with a box camera, why shouldn't it with XP2. :)

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,501
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2017, 01:54:07 PM »
While talking with Peter about this, we came up with another idea to qualitatively test the latitude of the film when developed in C41 normal. I'll just set the camera on manual at f/5.6 and 1/125 and shoot in all sorts of conditions. I'm not going to bother recording what the EI was for every shot, but qualitatively, we'll see if everything from bright daylight to poorly lit indoor shots work :)

I often do this when I shoot in the street, and that's with HP5+. 1/125 and focus set at 3m/10ft. The only variable is time of year: f/5.6 in the cold, low sun angle half, f/8 the rest of the time. There's no reason it shouldn't work with XP2 in the vast majority of situations.

You forget that I often shoot indoors in really low light ;) In those situations, ISO1600 : f/1.8 : 1/30th is about where I'm hovering. I may ride the aperture and/or shutter in those situations...

Well, that's a jump from roughly EV10 to EV3. If XP2 manages a seven stop difference with no change in development I will be forced to conclude, based purely on the empirical scientific evidence, that it's voodoo.
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.


-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

Indofunk

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,888
    • photog & music
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2017, 12:45:01 AM »
So I did it. I loaded up some XP2 in my Graflex Ciro 35 so that I'd have very little control over the exact exposure, and I shot *mostly* at f/5.6 and 1/100th. There were times when I pulled it out of my pocket, shot it, and looked at the settings and they had changed, and then for the darkest exposures, I opened up to f/3.5, but this wasn't a scientific test anyways ;D It was a "bring it, XP2" challenge :D

Here are some examples from what I *think* are highest EVs to lowest EVs. No idea what those EVs were though ;D All developed normally in C41.










(this one I pulled way up in Lightroom, of course)


Here's a bonus multiple exposure of a few rooms in my apartment, which I like because it really conveys what a mess the place is :D




cs1

  • Peel Apart
  • ***
  • Posts: 256
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2017, 08:16:28 AM »
The latitude of the XP2 is incredible. How much did you have to pull the shot on the market? In any case the XP2 gets top marks on my amazing-list.

Indofunk

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,888
    • photog & music
Re: XP2 @1600
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2017, 01:10:52 PM »
The latitude of the XP2 is incredible. How much did you have to pull the shot on the market? In any case the XP2 gets top marks on my amazing-list.

Honestly I have no recollection :D I probably shot it at 1/100th, and either 5.6 or 3.5. How many stops that was off from the actual EV, the world may never know  ;D