• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Ilford XP2 film

Do Not Come Here

A
Do Not Come Here

  • 9
  • 3
  • 94
Heavy

H
Heavy

  • 13
  • 5
  • 135

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
201,931
Messages
2,832,220
Members
101,023
Latest member
scodth
Recent bookmarks
0

JW PHOTO

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,148
Location
Lake, Michig
Format
Medium Format
I still think Ilford should offer it in sheets, at least 4x5. Given how many LF shooters work in a hybrid work flow and it's advantages for scanning I think a lot of those folks would really appreciate it. (And I'd probably start laying in a stock in both 120 and 4x5 along with C41 chems for the Jobo!) I agree with Simon, Stone, find a way to wet print - but still, this film does have advantages for scanning in addition to its wet print virtues.

Oh Roger, great minds think alike! Maybe minds that are not so great, but the thought is a great one. After I shot some XP1 in my Kodak Medalist II and saw the results I bought some 4x5 sheet film and shot it in an old Speed Graphic. It was an easy, sharp film to work with. I only went to cropped 11x14 (maybe equal to 16x20) and thought it produced excellent results as easy as pie. If this XP2 Super or + whatever it is is as good as they say then it should be offered in 4x5. Trouble is that most smaller labs/developing outfits might not even do sheet film. Of course that doesn't mean one couldn't process it at home. JW
 

Simon R Galley

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
2,034
Location
Cheshire UK
Format
Medium Format
Dear Roger,

We did actually make XP1 in sheet film.......not a great success sadly.

Dear AGX, Whilst we do look at opportunities around ULF our quality systems would not allow a sheet film size cut from an inapropriate base substrate. Sorry.

Kind Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.
 

Roger Cole

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
Dear Roger,

We did actually make XP1 in sheet film.......not a great success sadly.

Dear AGX, Whilst we do look at opportunities around ULF our quality systems would not allow a sheet film size cut from an inapropriate base substrate. Sorry.

Kind Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

Yesbut, hybrid work flows and film scanning were not nearly as common and routine in the days of XP1, no? I think it might be a different case today. :whistling:
 

StoneNYC

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
XP2 Super is a fine film and as Roger says masses of latitude.

It has no orange mask so as it can be printed traditionally in a darkroom.

Stone....when are you goping to start printing and make your life complete !

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

In September/October :smile:

I'm going back to school for an Associates Degree in photography and they will teach me printing :smile:

When are you coming out with a NEW direct positive paper so I can print my XP2 x-processed B&W transparencies on traditional paper? Hmmmmm??? :smile:
 

StoneNYC

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
Yesbut, hybrid work flows and film scanning were not nearly as common and routine in the days of XP1, no? I think it might be a different case today. :whistling:

Roger, in addition to answering your question above, I'll say that all of the schools that I looked at told me the same thing, they taught traditional B&W wet work, as well as alternative techniques like collodion and tintype and even carbon printing, but they all said the same thing about color "about 2-3 years ago we decided that teaching color wet printing was just not worth it to our students, the fact is any job they might get even for their own businesses would be better served by scanning" the professor even said scanning is better than printing for color because of the difficulty in printing color properly and they completely removed the color labs and equipment because they feel there's no benefit, and all teach scanning techniques for color. They don't even teach how to develop color film, they now have a send out service.

So the cost involved in paying for C-41 that would end up being B&W anyway seems to offset the hassle of dust in a scan. I would never buy XP2 in sheet film, it would cost too much, with little benefit gained, I may use it for transparencies, but really no one is projecting in terms of for financial gain, it's all about the print, I use E-6 for the colors over C-41, but C-41 that's B&W anyway seems futile at the prices it would cost in sheet film AND the cost of having it lab processed....

I'm not saying it's a bad film, it's amazing, but I think that Simon(ilford) understand it's more of a niche product and not enough volume would be sold in sheet.

PS I never ever use ICE to remove dust, it does something to then sharpness and sort of fuzzes the grain, it's subtle but a side by side you can see, so I don't when see the benefit of ICE being worth it for C-41 scanning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AgX

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,972
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
We did actually make XP1 in sheet film.......not a great success sadly.
Whilst we do look at opportunities around ULF our quality systems would not allow a sheet film size cut from an inapropriate base substrate. Sorry.

The times of XP1 are long gone, so I thought that ULF program could also be used to test the current market.
But I have to admit that the clientele buying sheets on inappropriate base (that's why I limited on 4x5) may not actually represent potential clients of regular sheets.
 

Truzi

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,685
Format
Multi Format
In a photojournalism class in my undergrad, the teacher was more photo than journalism - we spend most of our time in the darkroom.

He had us develop B&W right away, just for the experience, then had us use chromogenic film (I believe it was Ilford). He felt it was best to have the negatives developed at a minilab (fast and consistent) so we could concentrate on learning to print.

While I prefer the traditional grain for B&W, XP2 is very good. I've got a roll in 120 and can't wait to try it - I'd only used it in 35mm before.
 

Xmas

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
Hi Truzi

If you are going to wet print shoot one frame at 800 or 1600 ISO.

You will get some grain but unconventional...

Noel
 

Xmas

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
In September/October :smile:

I'm going back to school for an Associates Degree in photography and they will teach me printing :smile:

When are you coming out with a NEW direct positive paper so I can print my XP2 x-processed B&W transparencies on traditional paper? Hmmmmm??? :smile:

They had one and it was excellent would do kchrome 25 (cibachrome) easier than normal mono!

It will never come back in your life time.

Noel
 

Xmas

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
Roger, in addition to answering your question above, I'll say that all of the schools that I looked at told me the same thing, they taught traditional B&W wet work, as well as alternative techniques like collodion and tintype and even carbon printing, but they all said the same thing about color "about 2-3 years ago we decided that teaching color wet printing was just not worth it to our students, the fact is any job they might get even for their own businesses would be better served by scanning" the professor even said scanning is better than printing for color because of the difficulty in printing color properly and they completely removed the color labs and equipment because they feel there's no benefit, and all teach scanning techniques for color. They don't even teach how to develop color film, they now have a send out service.

So the cost involved in paying for C-41 that would end up being B&W anyway seems to offset the hassle of dust in a scan. I would never buy XP2 in sheet film, it would cost too much, with little benefit gained, I may use it for transparencies, but really no one is projecting in terms of for financial gain, it's all about the print, I use E-6 for the colors over C-41, but C-41 that's B&W anyway seems futile at the prices it would cost in sheet film AND the cost of having it lab processed....

I'm not saying it's a bad film, it's amazing, but I think that Simon(ilford) understand it's more of a niche product and not enough volume would be sold in sheet.

PS I never ever use ICE to remove dust, it does something to then sharpness and sort of fuzzes the grain, it's subtle but a side by side you can see, so I don't when see the benefit of ICE being worth it for C-41 scanning.

The ICE should work ok with XP2 with most scanners, but you are correct it wont work with conventional mono or kchrome.

C41 is easy with a kit or scratch mix especially the mono films.

Sheet film needs to be thick like cardboard.
 

Roger Cole

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
Roger, in addition to answering your question above, I'll say that all of the schools that I looked at told me the same thing, they taught traditional B&W wet work, as well as alternative techniques like collodion and tintype and even carbon printing, but they all said the same thing about color "about 2-3 years ago we decided that teaching color wet printing was just not worth it to our students, the fact is any job they might get even for their own businesses would be better served by scanning" the professor even said scanning is better than printing for color because of the difficulty in printing color properly and they completely removed the color labs and equipment because they feel there's no benefit, and all teach scanning techniques for color. They don't even teach how to develop color film, they now have a send out service.

So the cost involved in paying for C-41 that would end up being B&W anyway seems to offset the hassle of dust in a scan. I would never buy XP2 in sheet film, it would cost too much, with little benefit gained, I may use it for transparencies, but really no one is projecting in terms of for financial gain, it's all about the print, I use E-6 for the colors over C-41, but C-41 that's B&W anyway seems futile at the prices it would cost in sheet film AND the cost of having it lab processed....

I'm not saying it's a bad film, it's amazing, but I think that Simon(ilford) understand it's more of a niche product and not enough volume would be sold in sheet.

PS I never ever use ICE to remove dust, it does something to then sharpness and sort of fuzzes the grain, it's subtle but a side by side you can see, so I don't when see the benefit of ICE being worth it for C-41 scanning.

It's not just dust. Scan an image made of dye clouds and one of silver particles and get back to me on it. Well I know you have - a closer comparison would be black and white versus E6 since the XP2 doesn't have the orange mask.

Sheet film is different (C41 and E6 seem outrageous to me) but having 35mm and 120 developed (only) commercially is pretty darned cheap. I used to take my XP1 to the mini labs. Dwayne's charges $3.99 per roll for development only of 35mm and 120.
 

StoneNYC

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
They had one and it was excellent would do kchrome 25 (cibachrome) easier than normal mono!

It will never come back in your life time.

Noel

I meant the B&W positive paper they recently temporarily discontinued because the emulsion maker stopped making their emulsion and they said they might be working on their own emulsion to replace it, it was very popular. I'm just saying for them to bring that back and I can print the transparencies with that (I think someone told me that was what I should use for B&W transparencies).
 

Roger Cole

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
I don't know what the contrast would be like - it was pretty contrast for direct pictorial applications in a view camera or pinhole, but I don't know how that would translate to printing B&W transparencies. I guess it won't matter unless they come out with a replacement. Cool idea though.
 

dorff

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
443
Location
South Africa
Format
Multi Format
I meant the B&W positive paper they recently temporarily discontinued because the emulsion maker stopped making their emulsion and they said they might be working on their own emulsion to replace it, it was very popular. I'm just saying for them to bring that back and I can print the transparencies with that (I think someone told me that was what I should use for B&W transparencies).

While it was popular, it also was a quirky material to work with. I have used the fibre-based, not RC, direct positive paper, for direct exposures in my 4x5 Crown Graphic. It is very contrasty, with a dip in sensitivity in the red wavelengths that can make skin rendition and other reddish subjects appear unnatural. But the fact that it is unique and does the job straight from the camera in conventional chemistry makes it exceedingly useful for LF and pinhole cameras. So I hope along with many others that this isn't quite the end yet.
 

Roger Cole

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
While it was popular, it also was a quirky material to work with. I have used the fibre-based, not RC, direct positive paper, for direct exposures in my 4x5 Crown Graphic. It is very contrasty, with a dip in sensitivity in the red wavelengths that can make skin rendition and other reddish subjects appear unnatural. But the fact that it is unique and does the job straight from the camera in conventional chemistry makes it exceedingly useful for LF and pinhole cameras. So I hope along with many others that this isn't quite the end yet.

Yahbut...Stone is talking about using it in the darkroom to make direct positive prints form black and white slides. For that purpose the spectral response becomes irrelevant. The contrast might or might not be an issue - I'm not sure how contrast as a primary imaging material translates to what we need for prints, but it can probably be modified at least somewhat in either direction by development, flashing, bleaching, or some combination.

As I said - an intriguing idea. And with E6 seemingly at death's door, with no commercial film faster than EI 200 and only 100 for the remaining big brand, I find black and white slides increasingly interesting. I haven't tried doing them yet, but I expect to.
 

dorff

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
443
Location
South Africa
Format
Multi Format
Yahbut...Stone is talking about using it in the darkroom to make direct positive prints form black and white slides. For that purpose the spectral response becomes irrelevant. The contrast might or might not be an issue - I'm not sure how contrast as a primary imaging material translates to what we need for prints, but it can probably be modified at least somewhat in either direction by development, flashing, bleaching, or some combination.

As I said - an intriguing idea. And with E6 seemingly at death's door, with no commercial film faster than EI 200 and only 100 for the remaining big brand, I find black and white slides increasingly interesting. I haven't tried doing them yet, but I expect to.

Yes, I got that. But I believe the market for that would be so insignificantly small that it would never justify the existence of this material. It is the pinhole and LF photography crowd that would drive most sales. It is not coincidence that Harman bundled the direct positive paper with their pinhole camera kits.

As for B/W positives, I struggle to see how they would substitute for E6 and how that relates to B/W printing. Nobody I know of starts with colour slide film to specifically end up with black and white prints. There are better ways to get black and white prints if that is your end goal, and even colour negative film offers a better starting point. Chrome prints are out of the equation, so is direct positive B/W paper (for the time being, at least). That said, nothing prevents anyone from doing B/W reversal - I just see limited use for it apart from projection. I am aware of DR5 and the claimed advantages, which seem to make sense in a digital post-process, but not for traditional darkroom printing.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,937
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
I've used the old Ilford XP1 and it never floated my boat. I never cared for chromogenic BW films, but here's Andrew Sanderson's take on it. I respect him immensely though. I wonder if XP2 is an improvement over XP1? I respect him immensely though.

http://www.thewebdarkroom.com/?p=524

In my experience XP2is a wonderful fine-art B&Wfilm and far better than otherC41 B&WfilmsNevertheless it likes very high contrast scenes and disappoints in flat lighting.I have several framed images hanging,which couldn't have been made with regular B&W films
 

JW PHOTO

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,148
Location
Lake, Michig
Format
Medium Format
In my experience XP2is a wonderful fine-art B&Wfilm and far better than otherC41 B&WfilmsNevertheless it likes very high contrast scenes and disappoints in flat lighting.I have several framed images hanging,which couldn't have been made with regular B&W films

Hmmm! I am little puzzled as to why they(your images hanging) couldn't have been made with conventional B&W film? Just curious! JW
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,352
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Hmmm! I am little puzzled as to why they(your images hanging) couldn't have been made with conventional B&W film? Just curious! JW

I may be wrong but I suspect Ralph means couldn't have been made to the same or acceptable standard but I too would be interested in exactly what he means

pentaxuser
 

markbarendt

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
Can XP2 be compared with standard B&W films developed in pyro? I could imagine that C41 film can have similar effect as pyro stain (I did not developed films in pyro yet).

Sure partially. Pyros kinda go half and half if you get my drift.
 

Xmas

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
Sure partially. Pyros kinda go half and half if you get my drift.

The XP2 image is all dye the pyro is some dye but apple's and orange otherwise.

The chromogenics allow you to

drop off at c41 minilab
shoot half a roll at 100 iso and half at 1000 iso, with better quality than Delta100 and better shadow detail than Delta 3200 respectively in each half.

You need to VC print afterwards but for me that is a given and XP2 is as easy to VC print.

XP2 may be last (c41 mono) man standing soon, but offers another supplier (potential) for c41 colour.

Today it is a different tool in the tool box. And it is on all our large pharmacy shop shelves (in UK).
 

Xmas

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
I meant the B&W positive paper they recently temporarily discontinued because the emulsion maker stopped making their emulsion and they said they might be working on their own emulsion to replace it, it was very popular.

HiStone

Yea sorry forgotten that, but they need to reverse engineer, avoid any patents, or licence etc. so may take some time. You could PM Simon.

You can get same thing with a negative positive process.

Shooting direct positive was hard work.
 

Simon R Galley

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
2,034
Location
Cheshire UK
Format
Medium Format
Dear All,

Stone , good luck with your degree, delighted you are going to start printing I hope you love it as much as me and all the other printers here.

We have clearly stated that we wish to re-introduce HARMAN Direct Positive and we are working on it
as always I will update you when I have soemthing of substance to report.

Our technical service do recommend XP2 Super if indeed the final outcome is a scanned only image.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited
 
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:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom