Another off-label use of Ilford XP2… or not

Pixophrenic · Jul 9, 2018

Browsing my 20+year XP2 negative archive, I could not fail to notice how inconsistent the film processing has been through various labs, when I could not process film at home, and through various home attempts. Now, in addition to that, there are long waiting times and high prices for the relatively scarce C-41 kits. I read with great interest the thread on using BW developing routine of this film. Here, I would like to suggest something different. I am still in the process of testing, but I realized that if some of you enterprising types would like to join in, we would get there faster. Or perhaps I missed other threads where the answer was already provided.

My approach borrows heavily from posts by David Lyga, who advocated using modified RA4 chemistry for C-41 processing. The idea I found attractive is that you first process XP2 using color developer, fix it, but do not remove the silver. The processing sequence would be: develop, stop, fix, wash, rinse in PhotoFlo and dry. This is what became known as “bleach bypass”. Surprisingly, the combined image formed by dyes and silver together looks usable, brownish like the one produced by Pyrocat HD on BW films, especially in those shots done with one stop underexposure. Sure, I will need to demonstrate images to convince you, but at this point I am only wondering if anyone had been down this road already. The specific advantage of this approach is that it offers “bleach bypass” images which can be scanned (sorry if this does not belong here) and then bleach-fixed partially or completely and printed/scanned again for a different effect. The “soul” of this film can thus be revealed through various reducers, not developers

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jul 9, 2018

I know at least one person on Flickr who has experimented with bleach bypass on XP2 Super. His results are interesting though I find it a bit grainy. I find developing XP2 Super in B&W chemistry such as Adox MQ Borax works fine for me. It gives a good negative that can be subsequently interpreted to one’s taste.

Pixophrenic · Jul 9, 2018

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
I know at least one person on Flickr who has experimented with bleach bypass on XP2 Super. His results are interesting though I find it a bit grainy. I find developing XP2 Super in B&W chemistry such as Adox MQ Borax works fine for me. It gives a good negative that can be subsequently interpreted to one’s taste.

Would you care for a link? Also, I believe the OP on BW processing of XP2, user drmoss_ca, insisted on using HC110. This makes sense to me, as he could get as much Dmax of as little silver as present. With the intention of not using the dye in the film, you may benefit from a non-solvent developer (low sulfite). In comparison, for an obligatory bleach bypass, one could think of tweaking color developer to make it less contrasty.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jul 9, 2018

Here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/142336920@N07/34316969790/
More: https://www.flickr.com/photos/142336920@N07/albums/72157683806005086

Lachlan Young · Jul 9, 2018

Pixophrenic said:
Browsing my 20+year XP2 negative archive, I could not fail to notice how inconsistent the film processing has been through various labs, when I could not process film at home, and through various home attempts. Now, in addition to that, there are long waiting times and high prices for the relatively scarce C-41 kits. I read with great interest the thread on using BW developing routine of this film. Here, I would like to suggest something different. I am still in the process of testing, but I realized that if some of you enterprising types would like to join in, we would get there faster. Or perhaps I missed other threads where the answer was already provided.

My approach borrows heavily from posts by David Lyga, who advocated using modified RA4 chemistry for C-41 processing. The idea I found attractive is that you first process XP2 using color developer, fix it, but do not remove the silver. The processing sequence would be: develop, stop, fix, wash, rinse in PhotoFlo and dry. This is what became known as “bleach bypass”. Surprisingly, the combined image formed by dyes and silver together looks usable, brownish like the one produced by Pyrocat HD on BW films, especially in those shots done with one stop underexposure. Sure, I will need to demonstrate images to convince you, but at this point I am only wondering if anyone had been down this road already. The specific advantage of this approach is that it offers “bleach bypass” images which can be scanned (sorry if this does not belong here) and then bleach-fixed partially or completely and printed/scanned again for a different effect. The “soul” of this film can thus be revealed through various reducers, not developers

It all seems like a huge waste of time given that it gets significantly grainier if you avoid using the bleach stage. Given this, what does mangling the C-41 process achieve that a regular BW film conventionally developed doesn't?

Pixophrenic · Jul 9, 2018

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/142336920@N07/34316969790/
More: https://www.flickr.com/photos/142336920@N07/albums/72157683806005086

Thank you, Raghu. They all look quite good to me. Hard to tell that bleach bypass was used. As for graininess, it is difficult to argue about that. Some of my regularly developed XP2 that I got from a lab looked just as grainy.

Pixophrenic · Jul 9, 2018

Lachlan Young said:
It all seems like a huge waste of time given that it gets significantly grainier if you avoid using the bleach stage. Given this, what does mangling the C-41 process achieve that a regular BW film conventionally developed doesn't?

IMHO, it does make a lot of sense. First. it should not get significantly grainier except for shots exposed at EI 800. If it were so, there would have been no point in developing it in BW developer, like others do. I think the whole point of relative success in using BW chemicals is that you intend to use a lower EI than 400. The process I describe is exactly like you develop BW film, except using color developer and elevated temperature. It can be made with a C-41 kit and regular stop and fixer for BW film (provided you use any for their intended purpose). If you do not like the bleach-bypassed images, you can always complete processing by treatment with Farmer's reducer and a wash (or a regular blix, if you wish). If you mix from scratch, there is essentially only one color-specific solution that you need to care about (the developer), and a stock of ferricyanide. In addition, you get to play with variable incomplete bleaching.

flavio81 · Jul 9, 2018

The benefits of XP2, like reduced grain, are due to the image being formed by dyes. I'm afraid this process would remove the benefit.

Pixophrenic · Jul 9, 2018

flavio81 said:
The benefits of XP2, like reduced grain, are due to the image being formed by dyes. I'm afraid this process would remove the benefit.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. I suggest to stop processing midway and use the resultant image, then continue processing and end up exactly where standard C41 processing would have ended. What am I going to lose? I am still going to get the usual XP2 image, if I need it, but in addition I get the bleach-bypassed one and its possible artistic merits.

pentaxuser · Jul 9, 2018

[QUOTE="Pixophrenic, post: 2094776, member: 82086". What am I going to lose? I am still going to get the usual XP2 image, if I need it, but in addition I get the bleach-bypassed one and its possible artistic merits.[/QUOTE]

I'd certainly be interested in your results. Let us see them when done Thanks

pentaxuser

Lachlan Young · Jul 9, 2018

Pixophrenic said:
IMHO, it does make a lot of sense. First. it should not get significantly grainier except for shots exposed at EI 800. If it were so, there would have been no point in developing it in BW developer, like others do. I think the whole point of relative success in using BW chemicals is that you intend to use a lower EI than 400. The process I describe is exactly like you develop BW film, except using color developer and elevated temperature. It can be made with a C-41 kit and regular stop and fixer for BW film (provided you use any for their intended purpose). If you do not like the bleach-bypassed images, you can always complete processing by treatment with Farmer's reducer and a wash (or a regular blix, if you wish). If you mix from scratch, there is essentially only one color-specific solution that you need to care about (the developer), and a stock of ferricyanide. In addition, you get to play with variable incomplete bleaching.

Umm... C-41 bleach is not ferricyanide. There are reasons why this is the case & a look around Photrio will tell you why. Blixes are also a bad idea with colour films too - Ron (Photo Engineer) has written quite a lot about them on here over the years & was heavily involved in bleach/ blix design at Kodak. You can potentially make C-41 work at lower temperatures quite easily & given that colour is not a concern, you might find that your margin of error is greater than you thought - and if you can make C-41 work at, say, 24c with XP2 - then you can experiment with bleach bypass considerably more easily. An accurately temperature controlled waterbath is going to be considerably cheaper than time wasted on pet theories & ridiculously baroque procedures.

Rudeofus · Jul 9, 2018

In my experience it is much easier to obtain one of the many C-41 kits out there than an RA-4 kit, therefore I am surprised you went that way. If you insist on lowering process cost, you could still use David Lyga's modified C-41 process described here to lower costs. Bleach bypass should give you slightly higher contrast and possibly a tad rounder toe, not sure whether that helps with underexposed film compared to pushed C-41 process.

The big advantage of processing XP2 in C-41 is that color developers activate DIR couplers, and it's these DIR couplers which are allegedly responsible for high sharpness and good speed at moderate contrast and grain. This benefit remains in effect if you bleach bypass, but will be forfeited with regular B&W developers.

Pixophrenic · Jul 11, 2018

I did not intend to use RA-4 chemicals. I just borrowed the idea that the film should be first fixed, then bleach-fixed and also used in-between. I already developed a couple of clips and confirmed that this sequence works if the film is dried after fixing and treated with Farmer's reducer on the next day. I just developed a whole roll in what is known as C41 first developer suggested by "stefan4u", followed by homemade citro stop and Ilford Rapid fixer. It looks good, and it goes for scanning to a lab soon. One thing I am not sure about if this topic should not be transferred to "hybrid" workflow section.

Pixophrenic · Jul 11, 2018

Rudeofus said:
In my experience it is much easier to obtain one of the many C-41 kits out there than an RA-4 kit, therefore I am surprised you went that way. If you insist on lowering process cost, you could still use David Lyga's modified C-41 process described here to lower costs. Bleach bypass should give you slightly higher contrast and possibly a tad rounder toe, not sure whether that helps with underexposed film compared to pushed C-41 process.

The big advantage of processing XP2 in C-41 is that color developers activate DIR couplers, and it's these DIR couplers which are allegedly responsible for high sharpness and good speed at moderate contrast and grain. This benefit remains in effect if you bleach bypass, but will be forfeited with regular B&W developers.

Kits might be easier to obtain, but these days they do not come in small packages. I used to develop XP2 in a 0.5 L AGFA kit which cost $10 at the time, but it is no longer produced. Besides I resent the idea that I have to wait until I accumulate enough film to use the whole 1-liter kit in one go. The usual 3-solution set is configured for abuse, but I need something as accessible as a regular concentrated BW chemistry, preferably one-shot. In the past I even approached Ilford with the suggestion that they produce C-41 color developer as a standalone chemical, but never got past the promise to consider it from them.

MartinCrabtree · Jul 11, 2018

XP2 has certain characteristics that appear to be lost using alternatives. Why shoot it at all if that's the cost?

Pixophrenic · Jul 11, 2018

MartinCrabtree said:
XP2 has certain characteristics that appear to be lost using alternatives. Why shoot it at all if that's the cost?

Could you please explain what you mean?

Pixophrenic · Jul 11, 2018

Lachlan Young said:
Umm... C-41 bleach is not ferricyanide. There are reasons why this is the case & a look around Photrio will tell you why. Blixes are also a bad idea with colour films too - Ron (Photo Engineer) has written quite a lot about them on here over the years & was heavily involved in bleach/ blix design at Kodak. You can potentially make C-41 work at lower temperatures quite easily & given that colour is not a concern, you might find that your margin of error is greater than you thought - and if you can make C-41 work at, say, 24c with XP2 - then you can experiment with bleach bypass considerably more easily. An accurately temperature controlled waterbath is going to be considerably cheaper than time wasted on pet theories & ridiculously baroque procedures.

Some old time C-41 versions did use buffered ferricyanide bleach, so this is not new. I believe Rollei's current kit offering uses one. What was not explicitly known is that once you fix a C41-intended film with a regular fixer, there is so little silver remaining that even Farmer's reducer (at elevated temperature) can remove it. Thus you can work with a less concentrated ferricyanide. I think, but need to prove experimentally that this bath sequence is more reliable in the long run and less prone to abuse than the regular C41 kit. You are right that eventually I should get a basic temperature-controlled water bath, but so far maintaining 30 C for about 15 minutes seems to work with a Paterson tank and pre-warmed solutions.

MartinCrabtree · Jul 11, 2018

Pixophrenic said:
Could you please explain what you mean?

Sure. Chromogenic B&W films are sharp,crisp and carry some speed w/little grain and scan well for me. The flickr examples posted above do not seem to have true blacks on my calibrated monitor. It seems to be a muddy dark gray with erratic clumps of grain and overall grainy look. I'm not one of this who seeks all photos to be lazer sharp and free of grain but do prefer uniformity in that grain. It in fact adds to some images. Fair 'nuff?

Pixophrenic · Jul 11, 2018

MartinCrabtree said:
Sure. Chromogenic B&W films are sharp,crisp and carry some speed w/little grain and scan well for me. The flickr examples posted above do not seem to have true blacks on my calibrated monitor. It seems to be a muddy dark gray with erratic clumps of grain and overall grainy look. I'm not one of this who seeks all photos to be lazer sharp and free of grain but do prefer uniformity in that grain. It in fact adds to some images. Fair 'nuff?

Now I understand and I agree you have a point. Properly processed chromogenic films are exceptionally fine grained for their rated speed. Unfortunately, in today's reality one is more than likely to have them processed improperly, after having paid a premium for the film, processing and having to wait for a long time. The kit producers make bold claims for capacity, probably to support the elevated price. For example, a 1-Liter Cinestill kit claims to be good for 24 films. Also, the once ubiquitous minilabs are closing. In a small town where I live there is only one such place and I would be charged $10 for processing and will have to wait up to a week. Finally, the Flickr example may not be typical, and I am going to see for myself how bleach bypass would look at different exposures. However, I think abusing the C41 chemistry may have the same result with regard to grain that is seen in this Flickr example. It is not certain that it is specifically a result of bleach bypass.

MartinCrabtree · Jul 11, 2018

Purely by coincidence I've sent a roll of XP2 off to a sponsor of APUG for a test. Along with a roll of Fuji Superia 200. I'll let ya know how they turn out.

Pixophrenic · Jul 12, 2018

MartinCrabtree said:
Purely by coincidence I've sent a roll of XP2 off to a sponsor of APUG for a test. Along with a roll of Fuji Superia 200. I'll let ya know how they turn out.

Oh, I am sure by special arrangement it turns out fine. This is not what I was talking about. Anyway, if it does, I would appreciate the identity and the address of the lab.

Rudeofus · Jul 13, 2018

To all those claiming that 1l kits are too large&expensive, and they want a Rodinal like concentrate for C-41/E6/Kodachrome: these kind of concentrates have long been sought for, even during high times of analog photography. Their nonexistence tells me that they are not feasible, period. Also note, that no one in the photographic industry will put much effort into a "I may process 5 rolls/year" customer base. Those who expose less than 10-20 rolls per year are really better served by pro labs, not just in terms of cost, but also because they will hardly gain the experience to reliably process these few rolls.

Lachlan Young · Jul 13, 2018

Rudeofus said:
To all those claiming that 1l kits are too large&expensive, and they want a Rodinal like concentrate for C-41/E6/Kodachrome: these kind of concentrates have long been sought for, even during high times of analog photography. Their nonexistence tells me that they are not feasible, period. Also note, that no one in the photographic industry will put much effort into a "I may process 5 rolls/year" customer base. Those who expose less than 10-20 rolls per year are really better served by pro labs, not just in terms of cost, but also because they will hardly gain the experience to reliably process these few rolls.

Spot on. I think a lot of small volume users would have better results if they spent a little more & used a top quality custom lab, rather than mucking around hypothesising about different developers.

Pixophrenic · Jul 14, 2018

Lachlan Young said:
Spot on. I think a lot of small volume users would have better results if they spent a little more & used a top quality custom lab, rather than mucking around hypothesising about different developers.

While I still lived and worked in Europe, I was surprised that when large chemical company reps would come into my lab, they would essentially try to shame me for being a low volume user. This seems also to be a strategy of some of the members here. Indeed, George Eastman himself pioneered the strategy where the user would only be expected to press the button on his pre-loaded camera, and leave the rest to those (who call themselves) professionals. Alas, this isn't working in a real world. IMHO, if those companies do realize that the low volume user today may be their best bet, and listen to, cherish, educate, try to lure more of those back, they may just have a chance for survival. Otherwise, there will be more of caffenol users (not that I have anything against this concoction) hunting hopelessly outdated film on Ebay. Just my opinion, man.

Rudeofus · Jul 14, 2018

Pixophrenic, I can assure you, that I am not part of anywhere's chemical industry, and that I reap no financial benefit from you using much or little or any chemical or photographic product. You are free to recruit chemical suppliers for your "I develop 5 rolls/year" customer base. Note, that this recruitment effort has been going on for more than a decade and has yielded nothing so far. There is no Rodinal-41, no HC-C41 and no LC-41 to be found. Sorry.

PS: It would be quite simple to formulate a C-41 two part syrup concentrate, if the pictorial standards of Caffenol are accepted for C-41 work. The typical quest for C-41 syrups start with "and most labs are bad", so I guess Caffenol standards are not that widely accepted yet.

Another off-label use of Ilford XP2… or not

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency