Ilford XP 2

[BBonte]

Anybody any experiences with this film regarding making prints on Ilford Multigrade ?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Not on Ilford multigrade, but on many other papers, and as long as I used a VC paper (same as Multigrade) with the VC filters (to compensate for the purple tint in the film base) I thought I got fine prints.

I say, go for it! It's a great film.

- Thom

 

[nworth]

I've used it with both Ilford and Kodak papers. It's the easiest film of any I've seen to print. Although masked, the image is quite neutral in the blue-green region, and filters work exactly as expected.

 

[Mark H]

I've used Ilford xp2 on both Ilford MG fiber and Agfa VC fiber. I found it much easier to print on the Agfa, which is why they are discontinuing manufacturing it (I'm taking it very personally!).
By the way, some time ago I bought a quantity of Ilford xp2 at a discount price and discovered there is quite a difference between xp2 and xp2 super. The super is much nicer to work with. It's great film. If you bring it to the local drug store for developing, remind the kid processing it to keep his grimy fingers off the negs...

 

[gnashings]

I actually tried a roll recently, out of pure curiousity. I don't think I will be going back for seconds. Not that its a bad film - very fine grain for a 400 film, seems to have a nice tonal range... but: its great when your exposure is spot on, when it falls apart, it really falls apart. I know - this is my fault for not getting the right exposure, but I shoot a lot of available light stuff where I am on the ragged edge of what light I have available, and when even slightly underexposed the film gets that ugly, mushy grain that looks like a rash or something...
As far as printing, I found slightly (again, very slightly) more exposure required, and the difference in contrast is there, but its very slight - I have not found any consistant need to go up a whole filter grade or anything. In light of that I am willing to deduce that the differences are probably in the scene itself and how I personally want the image to look, not in the film to any large extent. The last thing maybe just a personal obsevation at all, but it took me a few minutes to get my focusing right - I think its just a matter of looking at something that looks different than what you're used to.
Overall, not for me - but a perfectly viable option.

Peter.

 

[grahamp]

No, it doesn't like being underexposed. But you can overexpose it a couple of stops and just push up the density. Since it is a dye image film it is sometimes a challenge to focus under the enlarger. You need to use an image boundary, and not rely on the (non-existant) grain.

If you have a good C41 processor available it is worth trying, if only because it is very different from a pure silver emulsion.

 

[Paddy]

I mentioned this some time last year, but you may not know that there have recently been problems with pinholes, very small ones, noted with this film under higher magnification. I spoke with the owner of a local pro-lab, and he was aware of the problem and trying to find out what the cause was. (It was a recent problem last summer, and I don't know if it's persisted)

 

[leeturner]

No, it doesn't like being underexposed. But you can overexpose it a couple of stops and just push up the density. Since it is a dye image film it is sometimes a challenge to focus under the enlarger. You need to use an image boundary, and not rely on the (non-existant) grain.

If you have a good C41 processor available it is worth trying, if only because it is very different from a pure silver emulsion.

Before I got my darkroom set up again I used XP2 super in 120. Last night I was printing one of the negs and was struggling to use my grain focuser. Now I know why. I learn something from APUG everyday.

Apart from that I find it one of the nicest C41 b&w films and very convenient when travelling. The worst I tried was the Konica, I found it very difficult to print from.

 

[titrisol]

Very easy to print, even though the images are quite low contrast.
Nice neutral base, and good for over exposing. I preferred it as EI200 for wet printing, since I could print with VC filter #2.

 

[nworth]

... but: its great when your exposure is spot on, when it falls apart, it really falls apart. I know - this is my fault for not getting the right exposure, but I shoot a lot of available light stuff where I am on the ragged edge of what light I have available, and when even slightly underexposed the film gets that ugly, mushy grain that looks like a rash or something...

Peter.

I haven't had your bad luck. A little over a year ago I really abused some XP2+, including some badly underexposed available light stuff. It does not really like being underexposed, but I got some quite usable pictures where I really shouldn't have. I think you can get a usable, but not excellent, image at EI800 most of the time. It's a very versatile film. BTW, there is a limit to what you can get away with on the overexposure side. It works very well at EI200, but the quality deteriorates noticeably at EI100. I understand you can usually get a usable image at even EI50, however.

 

[gnashings]

I haven't had your bad luck. A little over a year ago I really abused some XP2+, including some badly underexposed available light stuff. It does not really like being underexposed, but I got some quite usable pictures where I really shouldn't have. I think you can get a usable, but not excellent, image at EI800 most of the time. It's a very versatile film. BTW, there is a limit to what you can get away with on the overexposure side. It works very well at EI200, but the quality deteriorates noticeably at EI100. I understand you can usually get a usable image at even EI50, however.

I suppose this may be a matter of personal aesthetics - when underexposed, there was still a very useable image (ie. the neg was plenty dense), just the look of the "pseudo-grain" looked like some kind of blackish-gray "rosacea" in my eyes... to me it was just a "yuck!" reaction when I saw it. But like I said - it is most likely my personal preference.
Just whatever you do, DO NOT make your judgement based on the 4x6's you get from the "lab"... Unless you deal with one that is very good at doing due dilligence, they look like used toilet paper... but that is NOT a fault of the film by any stretch.