Ilford XP-2 film

[daleeman]

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.

Very strong and valid points. The commercial labs that mini-lab something will never give more attention than to average things out. These are the scaned the lab did while C41-ing the film.

I will give it a better look see as I come out the other end of moving. My scanner is here at the present house. The computer is over at the new one. The darkroom is half here and half there. I hate this, but it is a process.

What I see and do not like about this is the rather large grains and the hard highlights. I rated the film at 400 but would believe 600 or 800 might be better. Even with a magnifier on the film the highlights are a wash.

In defense of the results, when looking at 600 to 1500 year old dwellings they almost are given a nice kiss of time. They far exceed the interest level of the digital images I gathered at these sights. I just love the old silver look as if the image might be 100 or 120 years old.

I hope to do more with XP-2 Super this year, I'll even try a bit more of the kodak film too. My film or choice is Ilford Delta 100. It comes in all the sizes I shoot and find my life is better when I'm in the dark more often.

Thanks for making me think about what I like and do not like about these. Even a red-headed step child is beautiful when one looks at them honestly.

Lee

 

[daleeman]

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

Interesting, I have never hear of this fil. I'm excited to see what results you get.

Lee

 

[otaku]

Dirty

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.

I'm very glad to hear that. I thought my local photofinisher was a total slob. I have to wash each of my XP2 negative strips before I can scan them because they get so dirty.

 

[otaku]

Color Casts

I've been scanning my XP2 as a color negative, using a cheap Canon scanner.
The pictures get all kinds of weird color casts, which are usually interesting.
Of course, if I scanned them as black and white, they would not get these casts.

 

[aparat]

XP2 is one of my favorite films. Ii has a very long tonal range, its highlights are rich. I used to only scan it, and it scans beautifully. Then I tried printing it and found it very easy to print. The grain is fine, but the film does not like underexposure. With underexposure, you will get more grain in the shadows. I have exposed this film anywhere from ISO 100 to 800, and had good results. These days, I typically expose it at ISO 400.

The only disadvantage is that it might be difficult to find a lab that will process the film well and keep it clean. I have tried several labs, but now I send the film to A&I by means of their mailers.

 

[mjk]

I'm rather partial to this stuff myself. I get my C-41 done at a locally-owned Fuji Frontier outfit that has people who actually know what they're doing running the minilab. I've never had a color cast problem with the scans I get from them and I've been able to make nice silver prints from the negatives too.

 

[johanselmerlarsen]

xp2 super film

I've been using it for years - excellent - the dye grain size so small that a 16 X20 in. print is grainless, as if enlarged from a 4 X 5 in. negative. Also, highlights do not block up as in silver film. Tonal range seems fine.

 

[JBrunner]

For me this film is sort of a one trick wonder. Don't get me wrong, it does that trick exceedingly well. I find myself using it quite a lot when I don't want to bother with developing.

The flip side is it is expensive compared to regular black and white, and also I can't as readily control the speed, as it is C-41. I also find it harder to print, not because there is anything wrong with the negative, but just because I'm used to printing with "my own" negatives. Great tones when exposed properly, but in my experience underexposure with it is a killer, even more so than with regular B&W neg.

All in all I feel it is a fine product that serves its purpose very well. Horses for courses and all that.

 

[srmcnamara]

it's quite popular around school, I have several classmates who use it as well as the professor. Some prints seem too grainy for my taste when enlarged to 11x14 but others look fine. I think it's definitely very dependent on the quality of the lab you take it to. Apparently here in Baltimore it's a crapshoot. I know I've seen some negs with really bad reticulation, really strong color casts and everything else that go wrong so be sure to use a good lab.

 

[Ian Grant]

XP-2 has finer grain when you give it a bit of extra exposure. However another cause of grain is inadequate bleach fixing.

I preferred XP-1 in some ways, but it needed longer development in C41 chemistry than colour films so Ilford changed it give greater compatibility. XP-2 does push process very nicely giving excellent tonality, it used to be my main film for shooting Rock concerts.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

For what it is worth, Roger Hicks has said that XP2 Super is as different and better than XP2 as XP2 was different from and better than XP1. It is his wife's, Frances Schultz's, film of choice. I suspect that, properly kept, the negs will last a long time. Maybe not the 100 yrs or so claimed for B&W silver halide negs but are any of us sure that a means of printing such negs in the trad fashion or by any other means will still be available in a 100 years for our great,(great?) grandchildren or , come to think of it, feel confident that they will want to?

If XP2 Super meets the user's needs more conveniently than trad B&W film, then I think that longevity beyond what a current chromogenic film is known to deliver might not be a major consideration.

pentaxuser

 

[Ian Grant]

I suspect that, properly kept, the negs will last a long time. Maybe not the 100 yrs or so claimed for B&W silver halide negs but are any of us sure that a means of printing such negs in the trad fashion or by any other means will still be available in a 100 years for our great,(great?) grandchildren or , come to think of it, feel confident that they will want to?
pentaxuser

I need you gravelly dulcet Daventry tones when I go to get our family's negatives from Valentine's of Dundee

I have negatives that are well over a 100 years old and show no signs of deterioration at all. Can't say the same for prints though.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

i have shot quite a bit of xp2 super and really like it alot.
besides the convenience factor ( mini lab ) it makes a nice smooth
tone negative that i don't have a problem printing in a conventional
black and white darkroom. from what i read, it was made to print on
black and white paper, unlike the kodak version which was made
to print at a mini lab ....
roger hicks, used to post here quite a bit, is kind of a xp-2 guru ..
he posted a few things in this thread about xp-2 super
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

have fun!

john

ps people have told me that their portrait in this film
( mini lab'ed kind of sepia toned )
makes them look 10-15 years younger .. enjoy!

 

[donbga]

i have shot quite a bit of xp2 super and really like it alot.
besides the convenience factor ( mini lab ) it makes a nice smooth
tone negative that i don't have a problem printing in a conventional
black and white darkroom. from what i read, it was made to print on
black and white paper, unlike the kodak version which was made
to print at a mini lab ....
roger hicks, used to post here quite a bit, is kind of a xp-2 guru ..
he posted a few things in this thread about xp-2 super
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

have fun!

john

ps people have told me that their portrait in this film
( mini lab'ed kind of sepia toned )
makes them look 10-15 years younger .. enjoy!

Unfortunately I just had to throw out almost 200 sheets of Ilford XP - 4x5 since they became fogged from age. Too bad this film isn't still made in sheet sizes.

 

[stradibarrius]

I have shot a couple of rolls of XP2, 35mm, and had it developed,printed and scanned at Walmart 1 hour with great results. It is crisp and lots of contrast. I will be shooting some today in my Nikon F-100. I am trying to learn to process and print my own film and till then this film is great. I have also shot the Kodak CN400BW and am still trying to decide which of the two I prefer.

 

[André E.C.]

Great film (XP2 Super), it's my choice for all 35mm work.


Cheers


André

 

[wogster]

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

I tried a roll once, what this film is intended for is the professional shooter who will take the film to a lab and get it souped and a set of "proof" prints made. With the idea that you can evaluate the proofs and decide which images you want optical prints made of. Easier to evaluate the proofs for subject matter and in camera failures.

If you home process your film and contact print for the first round of evaluation, then your probably better with the more traditional B&W films (PanF, FP4, HP5) or the Delta series films, as traditional B&W processing is much easier then C41 at home.

The film itself, I found a little mushy, while it can go from 200 EI to 800 EI, I found that images with very high contrast would either blow the highlights out completely or block up the shadows completely depending on where your exposure was in it's range. I didn't really like it, and didn't do more with it.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Lee,

I like XP2 Super, but then I would !......I always carry it with me, as it is very flexible, and difficult to get an unprintable neg if you are being lazy, if we are going to scan anything we always shoot XP2 Super it is excellent for that application.

Its biggest advantage was C41 processing so you could get it done just about anywhere..and a set of 'proofs' on colour paper...

As to longevity of all colour films ( including XP2 Super and KODAK CN ) will last way longer than one hundred years if stored correctly...its colour paper that degrades faster than monochrome paper, although correctly stored colour paper should be OK for 60+ years.

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[kraker]

Its biggest advantage was C41 processing so you could get it done just about anywhere..

You know, Simon, this is exactly how rumours get started... The HARMAN representative writing about XP2 Super in the past tense...

 

[wogster]

Dear Lee,

I like XP2 Super, but then I would !......I always carry it with me, as it is very flexible, and difficult to get an unprintable neg if you are being lazy, if we are going to scan anything we always shoot XP2 Super it is excellent for that application.

Its biggest advantage was C41 processing so you could get it done just about anywhere..and a set of 'proofs' on colour paper...

As to longevity of all colour films ( including XP2 Super and KODAK CN ) will last way longer than one hundred years if stored correctly...its colour paper that degrades faster than monochrome paper, although correctly stored colour paper should be OK for 60+ years.

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

I have some colour negatives from the 1970's that are faded to a severe colour shift, when scanned there is no blue channel, and very little green left, will probably toss many of them, it's all crap anyway.... The FP4 and HP5 from the same time period still looks perfect (scans nicely too). You can't convince me that any C41 media will not fade to crap in 30 years, unless you can show me some that hasn't.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I have some colour negatives from the 1970's that are faded to a severe colour shift, when scanned there is no blue channel, and very little green left, will probably toss many of them, it's all crap anyway.... The FP4 and HP5 from the same time period still looks perfect (scans nicely too). You can't convince me that any C41 media will not fade to crap in 30 years, unless you can show me some that hasn't.

Newer C-41 materials are not your father's Oldsmobile. Not by a long shot.

I don't know about the neg materials, but current C-41 paper has a life expectantcy of 100 years on "typical home" display! Can't show you that for obvious reasons. I trust The Great Yellow Father's aging tests far more than anecdotal.

BTW, when this topic came up not so long ago I checked drug store prints of about 27 years of age, most looked just fine. They were in those reprehensible plastic albums from the drugstore or wherever.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Kraker

Most definitely Is not was ...sorry

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[montecarlo]

I used that film but I think it's too expensive. The one I used was expired so it had a lower price (that was the reason I could afford it).
I swiched to Fuji Neopan 400 and Agfa APX 400 when I had the possibility to make my own developing.

 

[tim_walls]

I have some colour negatives from the 1970's that are faded to a severe colour shift, when scanned there is no blue channel, and very little green left, will probably toss many of them, it's all crap anyway.... The FP4 and HP5 from the same time period still looks perfect (scans nicely too). You can't convince me that any C41 media will not fade to crap in 30 years, unless you can show me some that hasn't.

I posted this

example of Kodak 126 colour film from an Instamatic into the (there was a url link here which no longer exists) a while ago; it's got to be about 25 years old. It had been stored in a drawer under the bed, and at some point dumped out of that drawer into a box, shoved in the garage, and then out into the shed, and basically mistreated about as much as you could ask.

Frankly, I don't know if the colour palette is a matter of aging or that's-what-the-film-looked-like, but I certainly wouldn't say it was 'faded to crap'.


Anyway, this does raise a question: I'd kill for an E6 slide film today that reproduced that colour palette. Anyone know of one?!

 

[pentaxuser]

Tim My professionally processed colour neg film of the 1970s produced prints like these even when the negs were new. I almost certainly have thrown out the negs years ago so can't say how these would now look or print ( this was long before getting interested in anything but holiday snapping) but the original prints in albums look just as good now as then. Mind you they have only seen the light of day occasionally when I visit the "old days"

pentaxuser