ILFORD XP2 for documentary photography?

[asd]

Hi,

I am shooting a photo documentary on a dairy farm tomorrow afternoon(19th april) for A level exam, i know i am leaving it a bit late to post this but would XP2 400 super give nice results or should i play it safe with normal black and white. Havent got time to dev and handprint so will have to use C41 process. I am worried XP2 might turn out too orange, will have to process at jessops or boots etc, whos the best(or lesser of 2 evils) have heard XP2 is best shot at IS0 200. Will be shooting in low light in places

any help would be great

thanks scott

 

[CT]

I haven't used XP2 for yonks, but you can get colour casts with it. Providing that the processors use the proper filtration at the printing stage you shouldn't have any problems with them obtaining a neutral (B&W) print. Most processors should be well used to processing XP2 by now. Boots have a good reputation for print quality. Jessops should be at least as good being more specialised, but I can't speak from experience.

You have huge latitude with what ISO you rate it at, but I wouldn't handicap yourself by going too slow if you'll be doing low light shots, as it still produces fine grain at faster ratings.

Loads of info on XP2 HERE (PDF File)

Hope that helps mate.

 

[asd]

Thanks CT

will risk the xp2, i think the sepia tone should look good if it all goes well, will risk jessops processing, have read that xp2 doesnt underexpose well, what does this mean please, and how do i avoid doing this.. should i set camera ISO a bit lower than 400?


ps cheers for the advice you gave me on the 17-40L lens a few weeks ago...went for it over the sigmas...got it last week ...wow.....sharp!

 

[CT]

Glad you're pleased with the lens.

XP2 is incredible stuff - you can expose one frame at !SO 400, the next at 800 the next at 200 and so on and can go as low as 50 ISO... all on the same roll of film. The penalty for going slower with the ISO is that you get a progressively denser negative as you lower the ISO rating. This obviously means longer exposure times at the printing stage for the denser negatives. None of this matters one jot as long as the person doing the printing knows what he or she is doing, but it's not always the case, especially at the very cheap end of the processing market, and it's not unheard of for the YOPs kid to be doing the printing... I kid you not!

I think if I were in your position, with important shots at stake, I'd choose an ISO and stick with it throughout the film, and given that some of the shots will be in low light I'd be inclined to rate the film fairly fast. 400 ISO will give you the best available light chances, while 200 ISO might be OK if you were using flash, although I honestly think the grain difference would probably be negligable.

You can under-expose whatever speed you rate the film at - just make sure you meter intelligently for the scene you're taking.

 

[Arkady]

XP-2 is very, very good - I used it almost exclusively for the last 5 years that I was shooting film and never had any problems at all - bear in mind that with C-41 processors such as Boots and Bonusprint that they're printing on colour paper as well, hence the colour cast that sometimes occurs - if you hand-print on conventional B&W paper it behaves very well indeed.
I found the best general-purpose ISO was 200 for outdoor shots with plenty of light and 400 for indoors, though it seemed quite happy at 800 provided you exposed properly.

I still have a freezer half full of the stuff...any takers?