I was concerned that the meter in my Rolleiflex wasn't right, so I used up a film with duplicate exposures, one using the internal meter and one using an external spotmeter. It turns out I was right,and the internal meter underexposes by 1-2 stops, but the funny thing is that the underexposed negatives allow me to pull out more detail in scans. This might be a quirk of the XP2 I was using. Anyway, one of the 'underexposed' negatives:
test film by chrism229, on Flickr
Flickr.4 Member(s) liked this post
Those scans from Rolleiflex Ektar negatives are lovely! Afraid I've never been able to find a groove scanning color neg - I always end up spending way too much time mucking around in the enormous space of possible adjustments, never quite finding a color balance I'm happy with.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Ektar is a bit of a pain to scan. The easiest way to get accurate colour is to scan as raw, having used Vuescan to calibrate the orange tint of the film stock, and then invert the negative in PS with the ColorPerfect plug-in. Unfortunately, that means using the Nikon 9000 and I've been spoilt by the speed of the X1, so I simply scan it in the X1 using a home-made preset, then play with temperature and tint in LR until it looks as if it might have originated on earth. One thing I learned from my brief flirtation with developing E6 is that slides are so easy to scan, but given the longer and more complex development, time saved scanning is cancelled out!
Thanks for the extra details on your approach with color neg. I've tinkered with ColorPerfect and VueScan raw a bit, but alas haven't mastered it. Probably worth some additional effort to see whether I can get that under control.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
When I discovered that XP2 could be processed in B&W chemicals (I still get people who assure me this isn't possible) with very fine grain I bought an awful lot of it for the freezer. I have recently begun to experiment with abusing it in the ways that standard silver halide films can be pushed and pulled, just to see if it stands up to it. So for a starting point I exposed a roll at EI 200, and cut the processing time in half, and wandered about the house taking photos of the relatively dark interior with a bright window in the frame. I just wanted to see if I could get a reasonable image in both areas. This is the kind of thing I got:
Experiments in Pull Processing 1 by chrism229, on Flickr
On scanning this negative the histogram was showing it 1-2 stops underexposed, so I should try again at EI 100, or maybe just a bit longer in the developer. The other thing I'd like to do is find out of pushing it is possible without excessive grain. I know that XP2 goes very grainy in Diafine and in Qualls' monobath and I suspect I'll find I can get one stop but probably not two extra out of it before it gets too crunchy, but you don't know unless you try!
I thought I'd try increasing development time of XP2 in HC-110 to shift the histograms of my scans towards the middle. This is ten minutes in 1+49 rather than the usual eight.
The little Downy Woodpecker has a very regular sort of mind:
Woodpecker patterns by chrism229, on Flickr
and some pretty patterns:
Snow needles by chrism229, on Flickr
Both H500c, Sonnar 150/4, XP2, HC-110, X1 scans.
As vaguely promised a week or two ago, I have continued to abuse XP2. Today's effort was to expose it at 1600 and guess the development time, and since yesterday, I used 10 minutes for ISO400, I used the rule of thumb that a 1/3 increase in time compensates for 1 stop of underexposure, and developed this for 18 minutes in 1+49 HC-110. I am amazed at the lack of grain!
Experiment in Push Processing 4 by chrism229, on Flickr
Experiment in Push Processing 3 by chrism229, on Flickr
It looks like 3200 might be possible if I can bring myself to sit and agitate each minute for 24 minutes!
Well I went and did it. XP2 Super at 3200, developed in HC-110 1+49 for 24 minutes. No grain!
Experiment in Push Processing 5 by chrism229, on Flickr
If you click on the link there's a 4096x4096 85% JPEG. Click on that to see at 100% All this effort to make a file that could have come out of the Monochrom!
Flickr.2 Member(s) thanked for this post4 Member(s) liked this post
Things I sell: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/epixx?language=en1 Member(s) thanked for this post
Ilford Ilfotec-HC is almost the same, and Legacy Pro make L-110 which is said to be the same but without the thickening to make the concentrate into a syrup.
I have developed XP2 in Rodinal 1+100 for one hour, with six inversions at the start and again at 30 minutes. Expose at EI 200 for best results, and it will be sharp and smooth.
I've used Diafine, but the result is too grainy in 35mm, but tolerable in 120. 3+3 minutes will do it.
When I was mixing up Quall's monobath I tried it in there but it's a bit gritty and there's no advantage in XP2 over, say, HP5 if you're getting gritty pictures.
Apart from the 1 stop pull for the Rodinal semi-stand, I haven't tried any other developers at other speeds except for the HC-110. I'm amazed at the smoothness in a film pushed three stops. 3200 has higher contrast, but what doesn't at 3200? The 1600 is a candidate for regular use. I started a thread on this at APUG, and there has been discussion about the longevity of these negatives and whether a dip in C-41 stabiliser after fixing would be better than straight PhotoFlo. It's the old thing about there being little or no silver in the film, and silver inhibits fungi, so the stabiliser contains one of the imidazole anti-fungal drugs that one uses for yeast infections (I think I read it's miconazole - Monistat in a drugstore). I've got XP2 negatives developed this way three years ago that were treated with PhotoFlo alone and there's no sign of mould.
Today I'm trying to finish a roll of 35mm XP2 at 3200 just to see what that looks like. Unfortunately we have a blizzard, so it will probably be all the usual suspects as subjects.
Things I sell: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/epixx?language=en
I've just hung up the 35mm XP2 to dry, and I see a problem. The same thing happened with the 120 film - some of the frames are very thin and are probably unusable. When it happened with the 120 film, I assumed that since some were fine, and some were thin, that perhaps the shutter in my ancient Sonnar 150/4 wasn't working at some speeds (they were taken on a tripod at speeds like 1/8 and 1/4 which I probably hadn't used before). But this 35mm film has just come out of an F6 which hasn't had any problems at all and it's showing the same thing. Is it possible that the film has a threshold below which it won't register much of anything? There were no problems with the films going on the Hewes reels and no indication that the film had been in contact with itself or anything of that sort.
So if it's going to be hit or miss I can't recommend 3200. When it's dry, I'll scan and show any decent ones simply to assess any graininess in the smaller format, but in future I'll limit myself to 1600 which didn't have that problem at all.
Here is the 35mm XP2 at 3200. I don't care for the texture very much - it looks like 3200!
Experiment in Push Processing 9 by chrism229, on Flickr
Experiment in Push Processing 7 by chrism229, on Flickr
I'll stick with 1600 for pushing 120 film, and I'll have to find out if the 35mm will tolerate 1600 or whether that ought to be limited to 800.
Flickr.1 Member(s) thanked for this post1 Member(s) liked this post
I think I've come to the end of my experiments, with ISO 800 now completed. It seems it's easy to pull XP2, and to push to 800 and 1600. 3200 is hit and miss as being a half-stop out in the exposure ruins the picture. Here's an example of ISO 800, using HC-110 1+49, for 13.5 minutes:
Experiments in Push Processing 12 by chrism229, on Flickr
Last edited by Abstraction; 3 Weeks Ago at 06:22.
1 Member(s) liked this post
It's snowing quite a bit today, so I took the Pen F out for a bit, but not the Rolleiflex. I took my 48 pictures and scanned about half of them, and I was surprised to see the presentable ones were from the shots taken indoors. I may add some outdoors ones tomorrow. The XP2 holds up well in the little half-frame negatives, giving smoother results than I've had with other films.
Lladro by chrism229, on Flickr
Shaving by chrism229, on Flickr
Baby Oranges by chrism229, on Flickr
Olympus Pen Festival, Night Prowler Edition
Pen FT / 40/1.4 Zuiko / TX
Pen D / TX
2 Member(s) liked this post
4 Member(s) liked this post
From the Dept. of Small Square Negatives
2 Member(s) liked this post
Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream3 Member(s) liked this post