Ilford used to make a XP1/XP2 process kit. Would be nice if they made it available again. I still have one full kit, but doubt it's still good after all these years. Of course CineStill Films has a kit that is suppose to process 24 rolls( I imagine that's 35mm) and it would be $35.90 shipped to my door. Trouble is I don't want to save up 20 or so rolls to process at one time. If there were a sure way I could use only half the kit at one time and save the other half from going bad I'd probably get the kit. JohnW
Another off-label use of Ilford XP2… or not
-
A
- Thread starter Pixophrenic
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zeiss hologon camera set 15mm f8 lens center filter grip cable & case
- Started by Redcurtain
-
For Sale Prewar zeiss biogon 3.5cm f2.8 - coated glass - marked M168 with original caps
- Started by Redcurtain
-
Sold Wirgin 24x90 panoramic conversion project -- uses 35mm film
- Started by Redcurtain
-
For Sale Kodak 80mm f6.3 wide field ektar with focus mount
- Started by Redcurtain
-
For Sale 47mm f8 super angulon #6661155
- Started by Redcurtain
Forum statistics
It's 30+ years since I made up my own colour developer, it was simple but worked perfectly, and it should be possible to mix a two part developer for XP2 maybe mixing Part A in Glycol.
I don't think Ilford's kit was ever sold for XP2 just XP1, I have an early XP2 data sheet in my darkroom, I'll look tomorrow.
Ian
I believe that 24 rolls per kit is some kind of a marketing trick, since in other ads I saw that the actual capacity is 8 rolls per kit, while this extended capacity is achieved by processing two films back to back and other tricks. It looks like the original C41 chemistry has not changed. The thing is, you problem is a common one, and the big companies are not prepared to address it. Even 0.5 L kits somehow are a problem to produce.
Last edited:
Indeed a current C41 color developer is much easier to produce and it has a much longer storage time, in my experience.
Pixophrenic, now that some 4 months have passed since your original post, how close are you now to making a form of announcement on your process and the results of such a process? Thanks
pentaxuser
pentaxuser
Ian,
You are probably right about no XP2 kit. My old kit is at home and I'm at my cottage so I can't confirm it. I know I bought it a long time ago. I certainly would use XP2 in 120 size if I could process it myself. I have some pictures I made from XP1 or XP2, can't remember which, that I took with an old Kodak Medalist II that are absolutely perfect. They also printed with ease and that five element Ektar lens and XP1/2 were a match made in Heaven. I sure would be interested in a two part developer and would have no problem making and using it since I'm already use to making Pyrocat-HDC in Glycol. JohnW
It is a booster to my effort to think that you are impatient, pentaxuser. As I said I ran out of funds dedicated for this particular project. Probably because, as proptly noted by other users, it does not seem worthy of being a priority. I assure you, this is going to be rather "revolutionary", and at the same time not big news, hence a need for a proper cache of images to back it up.
Thanks for the reply, Pixophrenic. From my reading of this thread it would seem, that you have largely failed to convince the participating members of Photrio here that your process has anything to offer that either XP2 Plus in straight B&W developer cannot offer or XP2Plus cannot offer in straight C41. The problem seems to be a lack of evidence that substantiates your belief but what I am unsure about is whether your belief is based simply on your belief that it will deliver improvements or whether you have "proof" that it will work.
If it is the former and it would seem to be that way, then until we see evidence that it works, this thread is condemned like the Flying Dutchman to roam the pages of Photrio forever with no end.
As we have already got to 3 pages it might be worth re-stating your belief and aims in as concise a way as possible so we can re-focus on the nub of what you are trying to do.
Just a thought
pentaxuser
If it is the former and it would seem to be that way, then until we see evidence that it works, this thread is condemned like the Flying Dutchman to roam the pages of Photrio forever with no end.
As we have already got to 3 pages it might be worth re-stating your belief and aims in as concise a way as possible so we can re-focus on the nub of what you are trying to do.
Just a thought
pentaxuser
Ok, pentaxuser, let me re-state my belief. As I know from experience that the silver content in XP2S is relatively small, it does not really need to be removed.The composite image consisting of dye (if developed in a proper color developer) and silver may be usable as such for scanning and printing, and not in the way of getting "artsy" images, but in a very normal way. Unfortunately, I encountered a few obstacles on the way of confirming this, one these being that all of the published formulas for color negative developer contain mistakes or omissions, or both. So, it took longer than expected, given that I get my images to scan by a local shop, which takes time and actually gives kind of unpredictable results, as one time they seem to apply some kind of normalization, and another time they do not.
So, I am sorry to abuse your patience, as I was not aware that you are so eager to see my results, so to reward you for your patiecne I am providing a few preliminary images, but I can be better than that, so a final result is still pending
So, I am sorry to abuse your patience, as I was not aware that you are so eager to see my results, so to reward you for your patiecne I am providing a few preliminary images, but I can be better than that, so a final result is still pending
Ian,
Maybe you can refresh my memory since it doesn't do well on its own anymore. I seem to remember after XP1 hit the market articles about it's use and results started to appear in magazines like Modern and Popular Photography. It was in one of those magazines or maybe another, that I "think" I read that you could use any B&W developer as long as the rest of the process stayed the same. The resulting negatives were suppose to be just as good as negatives done in Ilford"s kit. Do you happen to remember anything like that?
JohnW
Maybe you can refresh my memory since it doesn't do well on its own anymore. I seem to remember after XP1 hit the market articles about it's use and results started to appear in magazines like Modern and Popular Photography. It was in one of those magazines or maybe another, that I "think" I read that you could use any B&W developer as long as the rest of the process stayed the same. The resulting negatives were suppose to be just as good as negatives done in Ilford"s kit. Do you happen to remember anything like that?
JohnW
John, yes you can develop XP1/2 as a conventional B&W film and get excellent results however you lose many of the latitude benefits of the chromagenic dye negative and as it's more expensive than say Delta 400 or HP5 it's not really worth while.
At 100/200 EI XP1/2 are much finer grained than at 400/800 although grain is still reasonable when processed in C41 chemistry (or the old Ilford kit), and it's the latitude that many want, you'd need to adjust development times with a B&W developer.
I really noticed how much finer grained (relatively) XP1/2 were push processed compared to HP5 and also how much better tonality and shadow details were. Delta 3200 wasn't available until too late and I still preferred push processed XP2.
Ian
At 100/200 EI XP1/2 are much finer grained than at 400/800 although grain is still reasonable when processed in C41 chemistry (or the old Ilford kit), and it's the latitude that many want, you'd need to adjust development times with a B&W developer.
I really noticed how much finer grained (relatively) XP1/2 were push processed compared to HP5 and also how much better tonality and shadow details were. Delta 3200 wasn't available until too late and I still preferred push processed XP2.
Ian
Yes, that's the main thing I liked about XP1/XP2 was the latitude. I only ran 120 XP1/XP2 and at ASA/ISO 100 to 400 with 200 being a sweet spot for me. Pretty much the only reason I was using it at the time was because I was using much older cameras, like the Kodak Medalist and those cameras from the past always seemed to have erratic shutters. XP1/XP2 helped solve the shutter speed problem rather nicely when ASA/ISO was set at 200. As to the tonality? I really liked it for static shots like buildings, machinery and landscapes, but was not usually thrilled with skin tones in portraits. They almost always looked a little lifeless and flat, but I could have been doing something wrong in that area and not have known it. For people shoots I would use Kodak Plus-X or Tri-X in Ilford IDII. I sure am interested in your idea of a two-part glycol first developer. Would you have a good place to start, chemical wise, to make up a two part developer? You can PM me if you want. And thanks again for the idea of a two-part developer since I would have never thought of it JohnW
P.S. I still use my Medalist I and II's, along with cameras like the Kodak Monitor 620(extremely good"Special" lens) and Zeiss Super Ikonta C with the late 105mm f3.5 coated Opton Tessar. So you can see my interest in a good latitude film for those cameras since I do use the "Sunny-16" light meter from time to time to keep things simple.
I need to do some re-thinking 
and remembering 
Essentially you can process a C-22 negative film in C41 chemistry as long as you use a low temperature, you don't get "perfect results" but it's far easier than mixing C-22 from raw chemistry. There's no colour shift, cross curves, issues with XP2 in a different colour developer.
Ian
and remembering Essentially you can process a C-22 negative film in C41 chemistry as long as you use a low temperature, you don't get "perfect results" but it's far easier than mixing C-22 from raw chemistry. There's no colour shift, cross curves, issues with XP2 in a different colour developer.
Ian
Thanks, Pixophrenic. The scans look fine but no better than what I have seen from full C41 or full B&W. I suppose the key question is how much scan adjustment did the shop have to do. I am not a scanner but as I understand it, scanning can compensate for a negative that otherwise might be quite difficult to print in a darkroom. Not a problem for a hybrid person but not ideal for a darkroom printer. However as these are shop scans I suppose the answer is that you do not have the negatives to show us. Ideally a digital photo of the negative might give a good indication of how a bleach bypass process copes as this is the nub of your belief, I think.
A C41 bleach bypass process saves on bleach but not on C41 developer. To overcome the problems of C41 developer cost and short shelf life, I think you are hoping to achieve a home mix of C41 developer which can be made up on the spot and only in such quantities as are needed each time. Have I got this right? If so, where are you in terms of achieving a result here and what is the cost v over-the-counter C41 developer?
If your bleach bypass process is only as good as say full C41 or B&W process then other than a saving in cost of proprietary C41 developer ( assuming there is one) I am still unsure as to what the advantages of your process are.
pentaxuser
A C41 bleach bypass process saves on bleach but not on C41 developer. To overcome the problems of C41 developer cost and short shelf life, I think you are hoping to achieve a home mix of C41 developer which can be made up on the spot and only in such quantities as are needed each time. Have I got this right? If so, where are you in terms of achieving a result here and what is the cost v over-the-counter C41 developer?
If your bleach bypass process is only as good as say full C41 or B&W process then other than a saving in cost of proprietary C41 developer ( assuming there is one) I am still unsure as to what the advantages of your process are.
pentaxuser
All of your assumptions are correct, pentaxuser. The result of using a BW developer on this film is an adequate negative for scanning, but not ideal for printing, although not impossible to print. The caveat is the very narrow range of densities achieved in a BW developer. So, the ambitious goal is to tinker with a color developer and produce a printable negative without using bleach-fix, some sort of an equivalent you get with Pyrocat HD, a silver and dye/stain image together. Such a negative will be too soft if bleach-fixed, but not impossible to handle with scanning. One cannot achieve this without a tight control of the developer's pH, and this is the thing that took quite some time to figure out how to handle in a home setting and on a budget.
Liquid developer storage, in itself, is not big news and have been achieved by AGFA kits, no longer available, and quite possibly the same in the current Cinestil C41 kit, where color developer comes in three liquid portions. This works, but I found along the way that when you peruse many of the the formulas listed in the patents and also somewhere else in this forum, you do not arrive at pH 10.0 automatically, and it is very critical to get a correct pH. So, yeah, factor in a cheap pH meter, which may not be necessary once the formula is worked out.
Frankly, at this time it is too early to ask about cost. And I am a low volume user, remember? Working out a formula definitely cost me more than a year's worth of kits. But cost for me is secondary to the ability to develop one film whenever I want to, and consistently well, and not to waste any remaining chemicals. I am not KRL but I have a distinct advantage of not having to chase the elusive goal of producing a developer that would suit all or most films on the market, just one. That is all I can say for now.
Which specific BW developer are you talking about?
The result of using a BW developer on this film is an adequate negative for scanning said:
Radhu, let us not get distracted here. There is a thread about using BW developers with XP2. I could also add a couple of developers to your list. But in the process I am after, the film can be used at any EI originally suggested for it by Ilford, in fact EI 400 and above may give the best overall quality.
Sure, but it's your earlier comment on negatives not being ideal for printing that prompted this digression. As far as your 'new' process is concerned, I'll look forward to hear about it when you're ready.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |