Ilford XP-2 film

[daleeman]

Does anyone have any experience good or bad with this film? I would like to experiement with it and would enjoy any input by others.
Lee

 

[Mike Wilde]

xp-2 - my spin on it

I have shot one roll - it was given to me as a part of a larger lot.

It is a chromogenic film - meaning that the final image is a dye, not silver. It is processed in conventional C-41 colour negative minilab type manner - so you don't need any darkroom or extra processing fees to have a lab process it. The dye, like all dyes is subject to fade with time, while a traditional silver image based negative should last until the film base falls apart , if that is important to you.

It has a clear base, and is suitable for use with traditional black and white photographic paper for making enlargements. It also scans well, and should allow scratch reduction -'digital ice' routines in the scanner software to work.

It is not easily printied by most minilabs onto traditional colour photo paper to get a black and white image. To do that the machine's standard filtration expects that there is an orange mask built into the film. There is a Kodak B&W chromoginic film that has this mask; its name escapes me.

The film itself, when exposing it, has huge exposure latitude. Ie it can still yield a printable image even when parts of the image are under or over exposed. It can be exposed at different ISO/ASA ratings to suit the siutuation much more easily that convetional silver films.

Hope this gets you started.

 

[daleeman]

I see, Thanks for the insight Mike, a long lasting image is important but I will probably see what I can do with it and hope others will chime in and let me know if they have have any since they started making the film. any idea how long they made this film?

I'll look for the Kodak one too. Seems I shot some in Northern Arizona once, the Kodak stuff. It looked bad, but that could be because I got it from a drug store and who knows how old or poorly kept it was when I got it. Shooting Indian Ruins with the Kodak film did add to the flavor of the image.
Lee

 

[nworth]

I've shot a number of rolls with excellent results. It prints well on ordinary grades of ordinary (black and white) paper. It has good latitude, but it is better at overexposure than underexposure. It's best to use it at the rated ISO or a bit less. This is similar to color negative films, which it resembles. Grain is very fine.

 

[Mike Wilde]

I think it has been on the market for about 15 years - not sure when the 'super' moniker got tacked onto it. I can find references to it's predicessor, xp-1, which was not so great, but started the market up to about '90. I think can remember it being in the trade press sometime in the md to late 80's

 

[Venchka]

Try rating it at ISO 200 and dropping it in Rodinal 1:100 for an hour. Very little agitation. Semi-stand developing.

 

[Resoman]

XP2 is my main film...

I've been using Ilford XP1 and XP2 since the mid eighties, and it's my primary film in 35mm and medium format. I'll be out in Honolulu later today with XP2 loaded in my Mamiya 6, as a matter of fact.

The "smoothness" of XP2's image quality, is the primary reason I like the film so much, but it has some unique characteristics that make it a great film to have in the camera when I'm not sure what I'll be encountering (which is almost always my situation).

I use XP2 because, with a box speed of 400, it's fast enough for weakly lit situations and, when the sun comes out, there's no "graininess penalty" for using such a fast film. The way XP2 renders grain is interesting (and very useful, in my work): the densest areas of the negative such as white clouds or light sky are extremely fine grained; finer grain than TMax 100, in my experience. Where XP2 gets a bit grainy is in the shadows, where it's not an issue.

Although I can't control XP2's contrast by varying development as with conventional films, I can control contrast to an extent with exposure. XP2's response to exposure is unique, I think, and also very useful. I expose contrasty scenes generously to subdue contrast, and slightly underexpose flat scenes to increase contrast.

No matter what the conditions, I don't use XP2 at film speeds higher that 800, and I only go that high in flat, dim light. If I need more speed, I go with TMZ or Delta 3200.

I print all my own film and have no experience with minilab results, etc.

I've always had my XP2 processed by custom labs, but I find myself living in a remote part of Texas with no such businesses in my area. The local grocery store minilab does a very nice job of processing my 35mm negatives (for $1.95!), but they can't handle the 120 film, of course.

When I get home, I'll be attempting my own C41 processing at 100F. I guess, in Texas, that shouldn't be too tough...


Gary,
East Snook, TX

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have limited experience with this film, but prints from 35mm negatives enlarged to 9x12" display little grain at all and the tonality is very very nice. What mostly impressed me was the smooth gradation from bright to dark, but also from minute differences in similar gray tones. The print looks as if it was printed with a medium format negative.
That's what I like about the film.
What I dislike about it is what Gary is alluding to - processing. So I don't bother with it. When I can develop a roll of film at home for mere pennies, I have no reason to pay for C-41 processing. Even doing C-41 at home is comparatively expensive.
- Thomas

 

[srs5694]

any idea how long they made this film?

Just to be clear, Ilford XP2 is discontinued. I'm not sure how long it was made. Ilford XP2 Super, though, is still in production. Most people seem to drop the "Super" from the name when discussing this film, which usually isn't too much of a problem, but your use of the past tense makes me think you're either asking about the old film or you've been misinformed about its current production status. Or maybe I'm reading too much into tenses!

I'll look for the Kodak one too. Seems I shot some in Northern Arizona once, the Kodak stuff. It looked bad, but that could be because I got it from a drug store and who knows how old or poorly kept it was when I got it.

The Kodak film is known as BW400CN, although I believe there's at least one other name, and I've seen some claims that there are two varieties (pro and amateur) with slightly different characteristics.

In what way did your film "look bad?" It's entirely possible -- in fact, I'd say likely -- that the problems you had with it were a result of printing difficulties rather than with the film itself. As others have noted, the Ilford film can produce prints with ugly color casts when processed by some photofinishers. (Others do a fine job with it, though.) In theory, this should be less of a problem with the Kodak film, since it's got an orange color mask that should make printing on color paper easier; however, in practice some photofinishers just can't get it right even with the Kodak BW400CN. If you got color casts or poor contrast (either too high or too low), I'd blame the print-making. Take the negatives elsewhere for printing, or do it yourself in your own darkroom if you've got one. Kodak BW400CN doesn't print on conventional B&W papers as easily as Ilford XP2 Super, but it can be done. Typically, you'll need to double or triple your exposure times compared to conventional B&W films, and usually print at grade 3-4.

 

[Aurum]

XP1 / XP2 / XP2 super is the wife's black and white of choice as she can get it minilabbed.
Ilford has been making this chromagenic film for about 15-20 years.

Its a good general purpose film, and performs well. Little grain, but can be a little "soft" in appearance like the colour films its based on. If you want a hard gritty appearance it may not be for you,
As for minilabs not being able to cope? Not a problem. Modern photo processing equipment will remove any of the cast that older equipment used to give. Only downside is that not all C41 minilabs can handle 120 format

 

[Ian Grant]

I started with the first B&W chromogenic film Agfa Vario, it was dire, awful. Then as soon as XP1 came out I began using it and never stopped, but I never really liked it for normal use, it's OK but not as good as FP4 or HP5, however for uprating it was outstanding. I kept using XP1 & XP2 alongside the special push process Fuji E6 film for many years, shooting hundreds of rock concerts, only stopping after the E6 films disappeared and a break of 3 or 4 years from band photography.

I'd qualify Aurum's "Soft" in appearance to it's tonality, not its sharpness.

Ian

 

[aparat]

I have used this film mostly in 35mm and a bit less in 120. It is overall a great film. It has a different look from traditional BW films - slightly smoother tonality, different grain (less compact, more like a regular color film). The film does not, in my opinion, tolerate underexposure well - you will get good tonality, but grainy shadows. If you expose at ISO 200 or 400, you're going to end up with great negatives, with smooth tonality, and very nice highlights. As others have noted, the problem with the film is primarily the C-41 processing - it tends to be expensive for 120, especially if you're looking for scratch-free and dust-free negatives, as only pro labs will be able to achieve that. Having said that, it is a great film if you're planning to have your negatives scanned and digitally printed - you will get "traditional" tonality and smooth, noise-free images - much nicer, in my opinion, than color digital files converted to BW.

 

[eddym]

I've used it a good bit, and like it very much. Only problem I have ever had with it was contamination in processing; dirt seems to stick to it more than other films. Here's an example I shot with XP2 on 4x5:

 

[Colin Corneau]

Overall it's a nice film. Having C-41 developing is arguably the most notable feature of this film, along with its very wide exposure latitude.

Its different look has been noted here also, and that's a personal decision.

My experience (and it's just that, my personal experience) is that the negs aren't fun to print. I have a few frames that are a bit over-exposed and therefore thicker. True, they render much better than if I overexposed regular film, but...they are a PITA to print. Very very thick and difficult to print.

So, basically you should look at XP2 Super's unique characteristics and see if they are a fit for your circumstances.

 

[nworth]

... I'll look for the Kodak one too. Seems I shot some in Northern Arizona once, the Kodak stuff. It looked bad, but that could be because I got it from a drug store and who knows how old or poorly kept it was when I got it. Shooting Indian Ruins with the Kodak film did add to the flavor of the image.
Lee[/QUOTE

There have been a number of versions of Kodak chromogenic black and white film. The current one is TMax BW400CN, but others with fairly similar names came before. I haven't tried them, so I can't comment on their performance. Kodak does not recommend printing the current version on ordinary black and white paper. It has very low contrast, and I understand it can be difficult. The Kodak black and white chromogenic film that was available in drug stores was part of their Select series (APS and 35mm). It was designed to be processed and printed along with Kodacolor in the usual 1 hour lab machines. The difficulties you had may have had something to do with this and with its unusual printing requirements.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

XP2 Super is an excellent film. It has more mid-tone contrast than XP-2. If you do your own C41 processing, you can use the zone system with it. See the book, Way Beyond Monochrome, where Chris Woodhouse has a chapter on this. The ability to shoot from about 50 ei to 800 ei is terrific. It has very fine grain when exposed at EI 200 or lower, even lower than TMX in Xtol. It also scans well, and digital ICE and other infrared scratch/dust removal systems work when scanning it. When printed on color paper, as might happen at a minilab, the results are bad. On regular BW paper, though, it's a great film. That said, if you do enlarge it enough to see the grain, which would take quite an enlargement, the grain isn't very attractive, being a bit on the mushy side. I've used it quite a bit on overseas vacations. I had it developed on location to avoid hassles with the x-raying of film.

 

[daleeman]

I finally found the images I wanted to share of the Kodak version of the B&W film that runs in C-41. This was shot with my M-2 with the 35mm sumacron. This was what made me think I would like to try the Ilford x-2 super.

It could be that this film was old and mistreated, considering the source, CVS drug store, but it was in date on the box.

Take a look at this and see if this is normal for that kind of film? Does one think I would get better results out of the Ilford film?

Lee

 

[pentaxuser]

Lee Interesting pics from a cast point of view. This was exactly the kind of pinkish look I had with Kodak chromogenic. This was back in the days when I knew nothing about film at all. I had simply bought it from a shop(it was fresh) and had then simply sent it off to a mail order lab for processing.

I haven't bothered again. No such problem with Ilford XP2 Super.

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I finally found the images I wanted to share of the Kodak version of the B&W film that runs in C-41. This was shot with my M-2 with the 35mm sumacron. This was what made me think I would like to try the Ilford x-2 super.

It could be that this film was old and mistreated, considering the source, CVS drug store, but it was in date on the box.

Take a look at this and see if this is normal for that kind of film? Does one think I would get better results out of the Ilford film?

Lee

Typical odd casts like the old minilab/XP(x) days. Sometimes they came out a beautiful sepia, many people were ecstatic. Then again, another batch might just as well come out with green peeps. Ugh.

If I had a choice of only one film to work with, it would be XP2. But I'm an incorrigible DIY'er and the chromogenics are not much amenable to such things. Yes, I've done my own C-41 a few times, what a pain. And no fun, no experimenting with 2 grams eye of newt or whatever.

The other downside is the lack of sharpness. That fine grain comes at a price. I just happened to open Thornton's "Eye of Darkness" last night on a discussion of his experiments with grain and sharpness, the conclusions of which fly in the eye of "everyone knows." He spent a year in experiments and concluded that visually, not photometrically, very fine grain films cannot appear sharp! In a nutshell, the eye can't grab a stopping point in a field of mush. Grain actually helps things look sharp.

Off topic, but I thought very interesting. OK, slightly relevant.

 

[srs5694]

Lee, it might be helpful if you said what you find deficient in the photos you posted. A dozen people might look at a photo and see a dozen different flaws. (I'm not saying yours are bad; this is just a general comment about critiques.) The slight pinkish (and in one case greenish) cast certainly isn't a film issue, but a printing/scanning issues.

Have you tried scanning the negatives yourself? Have you tried making prints yourself? If the latter, on what sort of paper? I recommend you try both scanning and printing yourself. If you print on conventional B&W paper, be prepared for long exposure times, and especially if you use VC paper, start out with a higher-than-normal contrast -- grades 3-4 usually work for me, at least using the contrast tables provided with my enlarger.

IMHO, the weakest link with Kodak BW400CN is in commercially-made prints. I suppose that's true of most films, but I think it may be more true of BW400CN than of most films.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

XP2 Super has quite a remarkable characteristic curve. Instead of going in a straight line from shadows to highlights, it looks like a humped back. So you have incredible contrast in the midtones, which explains why it's so useful in portraiture, and why other people were talking about the creaminess and infinite gradations. On the other hand, it will not give you snappy highlights.

Finally, if you don't like the pinkish cast on your scans, just convert them to greyscale instead of leaving them in RGB.

Even the Kodak BW400CN has a cast when printed on photo paper by commercial labs. I've tried printing it in the analog darkroom on RA4 paper, and I could never achieve a real neutral balance. On the other hand, it was useful to make mono-tone prints (e.g. all brown, all green, all blue, etc).

 

[pentaxuser]

Lee and others. I have re-read my post and realise I made one assumption which may be unwarranted and secondly have left something unsaid which mau have given rise to readers forming two different assumptions. Let me correct this.

My assumption was that these were scans of prints which accurately reflected the prints but of course I now realise that they might be scans of the negs.

The unsaid bit is that in talking about a pinkish look( very slight but nevertheless clearly there) in my own case, I was referring to the prints. I had the film processed and prints made from the negs.

I hope this clears thing up

pentaxuser

 

[MamiParis]

In the same range of chromagenic film, I tried the ROLLEI DIGIBASE CN 200. I will try to scan some negatifs.

 

[daleeman]

Lee Interesting pics from a cast point of view. This was exactly the kind of pinkish look I had with Kodak chromogenic. This was back in the days when I knew nothing about film at all. I had simply bought it from a shop(it was fresh) and had then simply sent it off to a mail order lab for processing.

I haven't bothered again. No such problem with Ilford XP2 Super.

pentaxuser

Pentaxuser, I must admit these are pinkish as you say. The images are the scans from the CD when I sent the film off to the lab. I too have not shot any more Kodak since these three rools. In some ways they add a bit to the timelessness of the image. Very hard to control the highlights, exposed as they were metered, but not what I expected.
Lee

 

[daleeman]

Typical odd casts like the old minilab/XP(x) days. Sometimes they came out a beautiful sepia, many people were ecstatic. Then again, another batch might just as well come out with green peeps. Ugh.

If I had a choice of only one film to work with, it would be XP2. But I'm an incorrigible DIY'er and the chromogenics are not much amenable to such things. Yes, I've done my own C-41 a few times, what a pain. And no fun, no experimenting with 2 grams eye of newt or whatever.

The other downside is the lack of sharpness. That fine grain comes at a price. I just happened to open Thornton's "Eye of Darkness" last night on a discussion of his experiments with grain and sharpness, the conclusions of which fly in the eye of "everyone knows." He spent a year in experiments and concluded that visually, not photometrically, very fine grain films cannot appear sharp! In a nutshell, the eye can't grab a stopping point in a field of mush. Grain actually helps things look sharp.

Off topic, but I thought very interesting. OK, slightly relevant.

Paul, May seem off topic, but since we are off topic a bowl of Grits would not look sharp without the individual ground grains of corn, so there is some merit to the idea.