ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology ILFORD XP2 Super

Dear All,

Just by way of explanantion.....we needed to put out a press release as we were getting a lot of calls and questions on our website and 'social media'.....

On APUG we are very fortunate and very happy to have a direct channel of communication with over 70,000 people, who pretty much know who we are, what we do and why we do it and even what our long term business and marketing strategy is, but obviously a lot more people than the 70,000 APUGGERS buy and use film, dip in and dip out ( excuse the pun ) and need clear and concise information, I always copy our press releases to APUG so you continue to get the whole picture.

We need ( we all need ) to continue to bang home the message that film, paper, chemistry is widely available, the purest and most important part of Photography in our humble opinion, that we have many manufacturers, Eastman KODAK / KODAK Alaris / Fuji / Foma / Rollei / Adox and many, many more... and that analog photography has a bright future, like we say, Defend The Darkroom, Shoot on film... use the products that started photography, have made, and will continue to make the real images of worth, using skills that make this an art with value not a fleeting image to be lost forever
( and I'm not knocking D****l at all, its where many of our future users ( and our customers ) are camped right now, they just have to know that they can truly express their photographic skill and artisanship by making the images themselves...once they do that part of their photographic future will be analog for sure....

And that needs all of us to do that....

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Because of this I will have to buy some rolls. I normally have no use of this type of film but one cannot do anything else than applaud the commitment of Ilford photo/ Harman technology to film. And since my appluase cannot be heard through this forum I'll buy some film instead.

Peter de Groot said:

Because of this I will have to buy some rolls. I normally have no use of this type of film but one cannot do anything else than applaud the commitment of Ilford photo/ Harman technology to film. And since my appluase cannot be heard through this forum I'll buy some film instead.

Click to expand...

If you've never used it before you may get hooked. It's really good stuff.

Though there was a thread here about it before where some folks don't care for it - but the most common reason is that it doesn't have enough grain, and some folks want more than it has. Bear in mind it will, like color neg, appear finer grained with MORE exposure. Works fine at box speed but I think it's best at 200.

It's probably the single best black and white film to load into a camera to hand to a film newbie too, for the simple reason that it's almost impossible to functionally over expose it. Oh maybe you could if you shot it at EI 3 or something but any reasonable exposure from EI 800 down to at least 50 and probably 25 will produce a good print.

Roger Cole said:

If you've never used it before you may get hooked. It's really good stuff.

Though there was a thread here about it before where some folks don't care for it - but the most common reason is that it doesn't have enough grain, and some folks want more than it has. Bear in mind it will, like color neg, appear finer grained with MORE exposure. Works fine at box speed but I think it's best at 200.

It's probably the single best black and white film to load into a camera to hand to a film newbie too, for the simple reason that it's almost impossible to functionally over expose it. Oh maybe you could if you shot it at EI 3 or something but any reasonable exposure from EI 800 down to at least 50 and probably 25 will produce a good print.

Click to expand...

I have a bunch of the Kodak film but I heardly use it because of the orange mask. Useless (more or less) in the darkroom. But I'll gladly buy some to give it a try.

XP2 Super, without the orange mask, prints absolutely conventionally.

Roger Cole said:

If you've never used it before you may get hooked. It's really good stuff.

Though there was a thread here about it before where some folks don't care for it - but the most common reason is that it doesn't have enough grain, and some folks want more than it has. Bear in mind it will, like color neg, appear finer grained with MORE exposure. Works fine at box speed but I think it's best at 200.

It's probably the single best black and white film to load into a camera to hand to a film newbie too, for the simple reason that it's almost impossible to functionally over expose it. Oh maybe you could if you shot it at EI 3 or something but any reasonable exposure from EI 800 down to at least 50 and probably 25 will produce a good print.

Click to expand...

It is good at 50 but a bit grainy at 1600 subjective though...

How is long term stability with this film? Will it be ok after 20-30 years? I know that some where complaining that color negatives are fading after couple of decades.

Simon R Galley said:

Dear All,

Just by way of explanantion.....we needed to put out a press release as we were getting a lot of calls and questions on our website and 'social media'.....

We need ( we all need ) to continue to bang home the message that film, paper, chemistry is widely available, the purest and most important part of Photography in our humble opinion, that we have many manufacturers, Eastman KODAK / KODAK Alaris / Fuji / Foma / Rollei / Adox and many, many more... and that analog photography has a bright future, like we say, Defend The Darkroom, Shoot on film...
And that needs all of us to do that....

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree here Simon. Spot on! A shame that Ilford has to carry such a disproportionate amount of the load in brining this message to the masses.

Xmas said:

It is good at 50 but a bit grainy at 1600 subjective though...

Click to expand...

I would agree with that. It's workable at 1600 (probably better if pushed) but I don't like it. Anything over 400 I'd choose something else, but at 50-400 it's really excellent.

Hi Roger

The grain tends to be in shadows and looks digital...
But pushed? Your lab does pushed?
I just turn up the ISO on the Weston mid film.

Noel

I got XP2 in the mail yesterday, and it will be the first time I use it! It's also interesting that Tri-X is mentioned in this thread, because I got Tri-X with in the same packet. I'm also planning to use Delta 3200 for the first time this fall and winter.

Simon,

You could've stayed silent for one or two months. We then could have enjoyed some juicy speculations about XP2!

Bests,

Ashfaque

So other than the lack of an orange mask, KodakBW400CN and XP2+ are basically the same? BW400 is my favorite film, because I really like the look. The lack of grain and the slight sepia toning in my eyes looks really good. Can a similar look be had when I take it to the local lab?

Ashfaque said:

Simon,
You could've stayed silent for one or two months. We then could have enjoyed some juicy speculations about XP2!

Click to expand...

madgardener said:

So other than the lack of an orange mask, KodakBW400CN and XP2+ are basically the same? BW400 is my favorite film, because I really like the look. The lack of grain and the slight sepia toning in my eyes looks really good. Can a similar look be had when I take it to the local lab?

Click to expand...

The sepia tone in your prints from your lab means that they don't really know how to color correct your black and white pictures, which they print on color paper. If they yield a tone on the print with Kodak BW400CN, then you'll probably get a tone of some kind from Ilford XP2-super too, but who knows if it's going to be sepia or not.
The Kodak film has orange base, like color negative film, and the Ilford film has a slight purple tint to its base.

In the past, when there were many analog minilabs around, Ilford XP2 used to give prints that had a very strong sepia tone. I was very surprised the first time.

madgardener said:

So other than the lack of an orange mask, KodakBW400CN and XP2+ are basically the same? BW400 is my favorite film, because I really like the look. The lack of grain and the slight sepia toning in my eyes looks really good. Can a similar look be had when I take it to the local lab?

Click to expand...

Similar lack of grain unless you use 800 or 1600 ISO, but the colour is dependent on the labs white balance and XP2+ does not have an orange mask like BW400CN - so maybe.

darkosaric said:

How is long term stability with this film? Will it be ok after 20-30 years? I know that some where complaining that color negatives are fading after couple of decades.

Click to expand...

I think the concerns were more about 100-200 years stability. The dyes that are now used are pretty stable, if you process and store your negatives correctly. For starters, that means a cool, dry and dark place. Your XP2 Super negatives should last long enough for you to print them many more times in your lifetime. Unless you plan to live forever.

My first two rolls on 6x7 were shot with XP2 Super in an RZ67. That is what got me hooked onto MF photography. Since then I have shot little XP2, but I have kept a few rolls handy for those occasions where other films can't beat it. Those who say it is soft: Maybe. On MF I have not encountered any situation where XP2 didn't have enough resolution for the purpose. And it is absolutely the most forgiving film one can hand to a novice. Very hard to stuff it up beyond salvation.

I admire Harman for sticking to their commitment, and going about it the right way - doing what they are good at without ever trying to knock competitors. That they understand a monopoly would not be good for the analogue user base, their customers, says a lot. So long live Kodak films, long live Ilford films. We need them all.

Xmas said:

Hi Roger

The grain tends to be in shadows and looks digital...
But pushed? Your lab does pushed?
I just turn up the ISO on the Weston mid film.

Noel

Click to expand...

I thought they did but I don't see it on their form - but I was thinking "when I start doing my own C41 again" which I will. Easy enough to extend time in the developer, just like black and white. With color you can get less accurate color but this doesn't matter with XP2. Like any push it isn't perfect but I bet it would improve things a bit.

And yeah, C41 will have more "grain" in the shadows (actually dye clouds, since all the grains of actual silver are bleached out) and least in the highlights, opposite of regular black and white, for the same reason it has less grain when exposed more - there are more dye clouds and they overlap more. What appears as grain is actually the space between the dye clouds.

JPD said:

I got XP2 in the mail yesterday, and it will be the first time I use it! It's also interesting that Tri-X is mentioned in this thread, because I got Tri-X with in the same packet. I'm also planning to use Delta 3200 for the first time this fall and winter.

Click to expand...

Delta 3200 is awesome in T-Max developer, probably similar in DD-X. I, and many others, find best results by developing per the instructions for one stop more - that is, shoot at 3200, develop for the time/temperature listed for 6400.

Roger Cole said:

And yeah, C41 will have more "grain" in the shadows (actually dye clouds, since all the grains of actual silver are bleached out) and least in the highlights, opposite of regular black and white, for the same reason it has less grain when exposed more - there are more dye clouds and they overlap more. What appears as grain is actually the space between the dye clouds.

Click to expand...

The same argumentation will apply to both kind of images (silver and dye ones).



The basic difference between classic and chromogenic b&w films is that the chromogenic way yields more freedom in designing the image forming process for the emulsion designer, yielding benefits for the user.

Basically those benefits were better communicated with the first chromogenic film (from Agfa).

My first photo teacher used this film a lot for a lot of his portrait work. He found it advantageous to be able to shoot the same film from EI 50 to EI 800 without doing anything to the developing time, on the same roll, depending on the lighting situation.
I used to always shoot it at box speed and got nice prints from it. 8x12" prints from 35mm are surprisingly sharp and grain free, on par with many ISO 100 films. It gives a good normal negative.

What I don't like about XP2 is that I like to work with developers, agitation, exposure, and developing technique to alter the characteristics of a film, which is tougher to do with a C-41 film.

Basically those benefits were better communicated with the first chromogenic film (from Agfa).

Click to expand...

The first chromogenic films from Agfa and Ilford were introduced pretty much at the same time.
Some nice reading:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=C2tHd0-73sgC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=ilford+xp1&source=bl&ots=W7-ILaYf-d&sig=P-KWYn0Q1ks_fOTSL___ATDAD_E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YV33U_KYLInVaoGpgtAM&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=ilford%20xp1&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=0CDQQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=ilford xp1&f=false