Another off-label use of Ilford XP2… or not

Pixophrenic · Jul 14, 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.

Rudeofus, with all due respect, do you even listen to what you are saying? Next time you will be arguing that space travel is unworthy because it has failed before. You crammed so many fallacious and exaggerated statements in one post, I do not know where to start. The technology of concentrated C41 chemistry is out there, but right now the problem is that the industry is unsure which way it goes. I think what has changed lately, is that (thanks to forums like this one) we have a lot of more educated and discerning users than before, but big companies may not realize that. You, for one, is still beating this old drum about "pro" labs. In my case, it is only a lab in the neighborhood which runs a processor once in 10 days, operated by a generalized Mrs Smith. I need to spend money on transportation or postage to reach a lab that is close to "pro" and even then I can't be sure that when my film gets in the post it will not be abused. You may be better positioned, but I am sure there are increasing numbers of people like me. Besides, I do not see why mixing color developer should be so special. Like myself, I see on this forum people who use scales, stirrers and.. gosh... even measure pH.

Pixophrenic · Jul 14, 2018

Rudeofus said:
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.

I do not understand why you are trying to be combative. Do I threaten your business? Caffenol standards are the same as those of a regular developer. Or at least they can be with some care, inherent to any development. After all, Caffenol is nothing but a mix of tiny amounts of several catechol and pyrogallol derivatives with ascorbate in an alkaline buffer. If you use substandard chemicals to mix a regular developer, you will get the same low quality as you apparently associate with Caffenol.

faberryman · Jul 14, 2018

If you can't process XP2 consistently following the instructions, why do you think you can do so consistently following an alternate process? Which begs the further question: why use XP2 instead of standard black and white film in the first place?

Lachlan Young · Jul 14, 2018

It's likely that the reason high concentration C-41 developers have not been produced is because of difficulty in getting the colour developer etc to work correctly when mixed in diethylene glycol etc. The developer components are likely packaged as close to saturation as possible without the possibility of crystallisation at a range of reasonable room temperatures. Obviously there is some variation to enable sensible sizes of packaging.

Remember that C-41 post dates HC-110 by a number of years - and that if Kodak could have saved on shipping water by mixing it as a non-aqueous liquid or in powder form they would have done so.

Honestly, it sounds like you're making excuses for not posting your films to a good lab that runs a dip dunk line or a Jobo or similar (continuous drive minilabs should really be avoided).

Pixophrenic · Jul 14, 2018

faberryman said:
If you can't process XP2 consistently following the instructions, why do you think you can do so consistently following an alternate process? Which begs the further question: why use XP2 instead of standard black and white film in the first place?

I am sorry, where did I say that I cannot do a standard C41 from a kit? I said that comparing negatives from labs in three different countries with the ones developed at home I do not see a consistency that you seem to be so convinced about, even in the overall appearance. And those that I developed myself do not necessarily come at the bottom of quality range. There are also such that were developed in a lab in Europe over 25 years ago and still look fine.

Pixophrenic · Jul 14, 2018

Lachlan Young said:
It's likely that the reason high concentration C-41 developers have not been produced is because of difficulty in getting the colour developer etc to work correctly when mixed in diethylene glycol etc. The developer components are likely packaged as close to saturation as possible without the possibility of crystallisation at a range of reasonable room temperatures. Obviously there is some variation to enable sensible sizes of packaging.

Remember that C-41 post dates HC-110 by a number of years - and that if Kodak could have saved on shipping water by mixing it as a non-aqueous liquid or in powder form they would have done so.

Honestly, it sounds like you're making excuses for not posting your films to a good lab that runs a dip dunk line or a Jobo or similar (continuous drive minilabs should really be avoided).

You seem to be thinking (again) that I am heading toward a commercial solution rivaling existing kits. Not so. Home user has certain advantages over commerce, such that I do not have to worry if my concentrates freeze away during transport or storage, for one thing. And then again, your argument, if Kodak has not done so by now, it is impossible. Gosh! There was this AGFA kit which I mentioned, it had 6 little bottles with concentrated solutions, and it is not that there are no such kits right now. There are, just not in North America.

pentaxuser · Jul 14, 2018

Pixophrenic, as a relative outsider to the debate who has asked for examples and is not clear as to how using a C41 developer but then switching to a normal B&W process changes the negatives in practical visual terms can you tell me a bit more? I am specifically interested in the outcome in terms of the prints.
In short what do you get that is unique compared to processing XP2 in C41 throughout or processing XP2 throughout in B&W chemicals or is it the case that as yet you do not know?

I hope we can avoid this thread ending in an argument in which the quest for wisdom and truth is the first casualty

Thanks

pentaxuser

Lachlan Young · Jul 14, 2018

Pixophrenic said:
You seem to be thinking (again) that I am heading toward a commercial solution rivaling existing kits. Not so. Home user has certain advantages over commerce, such that I do not have to worry if my concentrates freeze away during transport or storage, for one thing. And then again, your argument, if Kodak has not done so by now, it is impossible. Gosh! There was this AGFA kit which I mentioned, it had 6 little bottles with concentrated solutions, and it is not that there are no such kits right now. There are, just not in North America.

No. What I said was that the small scale kits like the 5L Fuji X-press kit scales pretty closely to the 20L Kodak Flexicolor developer in terms of developer components' concentrations. You are not going to be able to get any higher concentration of the components. There are 1L kits & they are available in Canada, but they all seem to use blix rather than bleach & fix. I'd strongly suggest that unless you are putting 16 or so rolls through every few months (the minimum capacity of the Fuji kit used single shot in Paterson tanks) that you send your films to a professional lab.

Remember too that there have been changes over the years to the XP2 emulsion - to 'super' and another one in the last few years to remove a component that was banned - likely the same reason Kodak re-jigged their C-41 films too. Unless you can account for this, your claims of inconsistencies are difficult to verify given that your throughput is vanishingly low.

Pixophrenic · Jul 15, 2018

Lachlan Young said:
No. What I said was that the small scale kits like the 5L Fuji X-press kit scales pretty closely to the 20L Kodak Flexicolor developer in terms of developer components' concentrations. You are not going to be able to get any higher concentration of the components. There are 1L kits & they are available in Canada, but they all seem to use blix rather than bleach & fix. I'd strongly suggest that unless you are putting 16 or so rolls through every few months (the minimum capacity of the Fuji kit used single shot in Paterson tanks) that you send your films to a professional lab.

Remember too that there have been changes over the years to the XP2 emulsion - to 'super' and another one in the last few years to remove a component that was banned - likely the same reason Kodak re-jigged their C-41 films too. Unless you can account for this, your claims of inconsistencies are difficult to verify given that your throughput is vanishingly low.

Frankly, I do not understand where you are getting at. It was not the original question, you sidetracked me into this discussion about kits. And I would like to limit this thread to XP2. I also do not want this thread to degenerate into what kits are better and how far I have to send my film that it comes properly developed. The only culprit in the C41 kit is the color developer and I think I can make one that will be consistent and convenient to use one shot. BTW, was the chemical banned dibutyl phtalate by any chance?

Pixophrenic · Jul 15, 2018

pentaxuser said:
Pixophrenic, as a relative outsider to the debate who has asked for examples and is not clear as to how using a C41 developer but then switching to a normal B&W process changes the negatives in practical visual terms can you tell me a bit more? I am specifically interested in the outcome in terms of the prints.
In short what do you get that is unique compared to processing XP2 in C41 throughout or processing XP2 throughout in B&W chemicals or is it the case that as yet you do not know?

I hope we can avoid this thread ending in an argument in which the quest for wisdom and truth is the first casualty

Thanks

pentaxuser

Please have some patience. The bleach-bypassed roll is now in the warm hands of professionals and I think in few days it would be easier to argue with images on hand. It was submitted as C41, and I am eagerly awaiting the results. I have to say it again, I used color developer (mixed from scratch) followed by citro stop and rapid fixer that are sold for black and white films.

Lachlan Young · Jul 15, 2018

Pixophrenic said:
Frankly, I do not understand where you are getting at. It was not the original question, you sidetracked me into this discussion about kits. And I would like to limit this thread to XP2. I also do not want this thread to degenerate into what kits are better and how far I have to send my film that it comes properly developed. The only culprit in the C41 kit is the color developer and I think I can make one that will be consistent and convenient to use one shot. BTW, was the chemical banned dibutyl phtalate by any chance?

I think it was - it was definitely a phthalate.

Here's a proper C-41 formula which is going to be far better than playing around with RA-4.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jul 16, 2018

It’s interesting that you use citric acid stop bath with XP2 Super. I remember reading in another forum that citric acid must not be used with C41 films as it can do weird things with the dye cloud. I once used citric acid stop bath with XP2 Super and found that the base came out much darker (purple) than usual. I reverted back to water stop bath after that experience.

thuggins · Jul 16, 2018

Cross process it in E-6 for truly lovely monochrome trannies. Shoot at 100 ASA and increase first dev time by 25%. The results have a beautiful, 3-D, tonality.

Pixophrenic · Jul 16, 2018

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
It’s interesting that you use citric acid stop bath with XP2 Super. I remember reading in another forum that citric acid must not be used with C41 films as it can do weird things with the dye cloud. I once used citric acid stop bath with XP2 Super and found that the base came out much darker (purple) than usual. I reverted back to water stop bath after that experience.

Thank you for your observation. I am not sure if plain citrate is going to be the final version, it was only a test. The commercial citro stop looks like a real bargain, as it could be diluted more than recommended to be used one shot. I checked on short clips commercial citrate (plain) and citrate buffer pH 5 and did not see a tremendous difference, but perhaps less citrate may be a better idea.

Pixophrenic · Jul 16, 2018

Lachlan Young said:
I think it was - it was definitely a phthalate.

Here's a proper C-41 formula which is going to be far better than playing around with RA-4.

Thank you. I have the image of the color developer already, probably from the same post as it looks identical. I also picked up a very similar formula from a Kodak patent. An uncertain ingredient is the iodide. I have no problem measuring out small quantities as a solution, but there is much discrepancy in several formulas I have from various sources. Some have none at all. I am also curious how those powder kits measure out the iodide.

Pixophrenic · Jul 16, 2018

thuggins said:
Cross process it in E-6 for truly lovely monochrome trannies. Shoot at 100 ASA and increase first dev time by 25%. The results have a beautiful, 3-D, tonality.

Nah, E6 is too complicated, even in bleach bypass version.

Lachlan Young · Jul 16, 2018

Pixophrenic said:
Thank you. I have the image of the color developer already, probably from the same post as it looks identical. I also picked up a very similar formula from a Kodak patent. An uncertain ingredient is the iodide. I have no problem measuring out small quantities as a solution, but there is much discrepancy in several formulas I have from various sources. Some have none at all. I am also curious how those powder kits measure out the iodide.

They're likely mixed in big volumes (1000+ litres at a time most likely) as aqueous solutions then dehydrated in the packaging process. Easy to measure tiny amounts of iodide that way. Iodide is critical to the process in terms of edge effects etc as I understand it.

Anon Ymous · Jul 16, 2018

Lachlan Young said:
... Iodide is critical to the process in terms of edge effects etc as I understand it.

Iodide affects the colour balance, it mostly acts on the top layer of the film.

Lachlan Young · Jul 16, 2018

Anon Ymous said:
Iodide affects the colour balance, it mostly acts on the top layer of the film.

Turns out we're both mostly correct https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/diy-c-41-potassium-iodide.141178/#post-1844418

removed account4 · Nov 4, 2018

thuggins said:
Cross process it in E-6 for truly lovely monochrome trannies. Shoot at 100 ASA and increase first dev time by 25%. The results have a beautiful, 3-D, tonality.

times like this i wish i did e6 !

Pixophrenic · Nov 4, 2018

Patience, John, I am pretty close to publishing an alternative process for XP2S using a true color developer. It just needs some scans from the warm hands of the professionals to convince the skeptics. Unfortunately, I have been out of budget for some time for this experimentation.

Ian Grant · Nov 4, 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?

I guess maybe a better option would be looping process used aby Astro-photographers with C41 films. This is Colour developer, rinse, fix, wash well, re-halogenation bleach wash, expose to light re-develop in colour developer this amplifies the image. The cycle can be done once or more but the last steps are bleach then fix to remove all silver.

It's not often realised that XP2 Super can be push processed, XP1 had push process times listed in the data-sheets, it also needed a non standard C41 developer time. Labs didn't like XP1 because of the non standard times or push processing it, and this hampered sales. As a consequence Ilford released XP2 which was standard C41 development, they also stopped mentioning push processing.

At the time I used a lot of XP1 then XP2 push processed to shoot rock concerts, I had a some business contact with Ilford and remember discussing push processing XP2 over lunch with two senior managers and a research chemist. They explained why they'd dropped any mention of push processing, although it could be done

Ian

Pixophrenic · Nov 4, 2018

While push processing XP2S may be a valid idea, this is not what I am after, After some experimentation with C41 color developer, I think there is a conceptional stop that prevents anyone from thinking that a BW film process can't be modified as it is in essence a color process (C41). There is more leeway in processing XP2 than it is in processing a true color neg film. Sorry I have to keep you waiting for so long, but I am close to formulating a non-C41 process specifically for XP2S, nevertheless using a a true color developer. I just got distracted by another project, and I have a limited budget, given that in Canada XP2S is currently one of the most expensive films on the market.

Ian Grant · Nov 4, 2018

Well Ilford's own developer for XP1 wasn't C41

It's some years now (1980s) but I used to mix my own Colour developer for chromagenic processing, it would work with XP2 but you'd get crossed curves with a normal C41 colour film. I used it for prints where I was redeveloping re-halogenised prints (or areas of prints) with the colour developer and relevant colour coupler added. Johnsons of Hendon sold kits "Colour Form" from 1949, later Tetenal made a similar kit.

Ian

Pixophrenic · Nov 4, 2018

Please don't quote me on saying that I am an advocate of " develop 5 rolls a year" thing. You, for all people, should be aware that the keeping quality of developers was a major "thing" for big companies for decades, while if ones allows a two-part solution there are simple and obvious solutions known for a hundred years. It is just that currently the big guys are watching on the sidelines to see if they should court the low volume user or ignore him/her/hir, as before. On the C-41, there has been a 3-part AGFA kit that worked rather well for me, no longer in production.

Another off-label use of Ilford XP2… or not

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency