Ilford XP2 film

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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

 

[mr rusty]

I can tell you from personal experience that XP2 is a great film. Quite a few of my earlier images in my gallery are XP2. I only moved away from it when I started my own darkroom, and standard B&W is much easier for me to process than C41. (never done C41, but am considering expeimenting with it just for XP2 because I kinda miss it). XP2 prints beautifully.

 

[Rick A]

I inadvertently shot some XP2 and souped it in standard B&W developer, it looks to be outstanding film, especially if developed properly. There's no orange mask, so it prints wonderfully on traditional B&W paper.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I used some a few years back and it's really good stuff. When XP1 first came out I re-spooled onto 620 spools for a "much loved" Kodak Medalist II I had. I was blown away with the results and used it for B&W work after that. I developed my own in Ilfords XP1 kit and it worked fine. I haven't used much since then, but certainly have nothing against it that's for sure. I like the exposure latitude and used it at anywhere from ISO 50 to 800 and had no complaints. JW

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

With all these positive postings, I might give XP2 a try.

 

[JW PHOTO]

With all these positive postings, I might give XP2 a try.

You won't go wrong by trying it. I shoot mainly 120 XP1 and XP2 so can't really comment on 35mm, but it should be darn good too. It's a film that I found had no distinct characteristics other than being very easy to work with. Most B&W films seem to "mush-up" when you start trying to get a fine-grained look and need a little grain texture to add that "bite" that's need to give the look of sharpness. XP@ doesn't need that. You can get "sharp" results with almost no grain visible. Still, its look might not be your cup of tea, but you won't know 'til you try. JW

 

[markbarendt]

Beautiful film, just give plenty of exposure.

 

[pentaxuser]

It is now XP2+ rather than XP2. XP1 was before my time but those who tried XP1 and XP2+ all seem to say that XP2+ is considerably better.

pentaxuser

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Yeap, the current XP2 Super is the third generation. XP2 was introduced in 1991 and the present one in 1998.
XP1 was introduced in 1980 and was the 1st chromogenic film.
I've used XP2 since the 90s and it is a beautiful film.

 

[J.Marks]

XP 2 is a marvelous film. I used it extensively for several years and it never failed me. Excellent for portrait images. For me it loved to be used at 200 asa and worked great for keeping skin very soft and creamy. I also left it when I built my first darkroom and now use HP5 and FP4 in 35 mm and primarily medium format .

 

[StoneNYC]

If XP2 doesn't have an orange mask, could it be x-processed as E-6 and get B&W transparencies?

 

[Rick A]

My usual answer is "try it and get back to us with the results".

 

[skysh4rk]

I like XP2 as well, but I've been recently using quite a bit of Fuji Neopan 400CN, which is apparently made by Ilford on behalf of Fuji, and I would say that I just prefer the 400CN over the XP2.

 

[JW PHOTO]

XP 2 is a marvelous film. I used it extensively for several years and it never failed me. Excellent for portrait images. For me it loved to be used at 200 asa and worked great for keeping skin very soft and creamy. I also left it when I built my first darkroom and now use HP5 and FP4 in 35 mm and primarily medium format .

I found 200asa was the best starting place unless light was failing, but I always tried to shoot it at 200. Actually shooting at 400 made the grain/dye cloud particles or whatever they were, seem finer. I never tried XP2+, but no reason not to. I too, built a nice darkroom and dropped C41 in favor of things like TMY2/HP5+/Acros/PanF with Pyro/Rodinal/Perceptol. A few other films and developers, but you get the drift. I remember a real good article in the old Darkroom Techniques magazine on XP? film and wish I could find it again. JW

 

[pentaxuser]

I like XP2 as well, but I've been recently using quite a bit of Fuji Neopan 400CN, which is apparently made by Ilford on behalf of Fuji, and I would say that I just prefer the 400CN over the XP2.

Probably deserves a separate thread but briefly what is it about the Fuji 400CN that you prefer?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

If XP2 doesn't have an orange mask, could it be x-processed as E-6 and get B&W transparencies?

I have no idea as to an answer, but this is an interesting question.

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree with the praise. It's a great film. I like it best at 200 as well but 400 is fine and 800 is usable.

One advantage of this film is that you can put in the camera of a rank beginner and set the meter to 200 or so and forget about it. It is almost impossible to overexpose it so badly (short of making a real deliberate effort like shooting it at 8 or something and I'm not even sure that would do it) that it doesn't print fairly well and like most C41 films apparent grain gets finer with more exposure unlike conventional black and white.

 

[Rhodes]

If XP2 doesn't have an orange mask, could it be x-processed as E-6 and get B&W transparencies?

My thoughts exactly. Then I try out cross processing it and you got a lovely blue tone/taint transparency. Like a cyanotype slide! Why, I do not know.
Even better that slides, is that this can be developed in rodinal, 1:100 one hour stand, rated at iso 200. Always get great results!

 

[StoneNYC]

My thoughts exactly. Then I try out cross processing it and you got a lovely blue tone/taint transparency. Like a cyanotype slide! Why, I do not know.
Even better that slides, is that this can be developed in rodinal, 1:100 one hour stand, rated at iso 200. Always get great results!

OH! this is good news, so (sorry but there's no printing in this case so I have to talk about it) if you scan it in color the image will look like a cyanotype, and if you scan it in B&W it will look B&W but probably give a "verichrome" type look because of the blue cast giving a sort of fog to the base I assume?

Thank you for sharing! this is very exciting news! I would think with all the people who are experimenting with B&W film to convert it to transparency, this is a much easier way to go.

 

[skysh4rk]

Probably deserves a separate thread but briefly what is it about the Fuji 400CN that you prefer?

Thanks

pentaxuser

The differences are subtle, but I prefer the tones I get out of the 400CN. Both films have great latitude and dynamic range though.

 

[Simon R Galley]

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.

 

[dorff]

Even better that slides, is that this can be developed in rodinal, 1:100 one hour stand, rated at iso 200. Always get great results!

I think the consensus is that for best results, C-41 is preferred. But it is great to have standard B/W development as a fall-back option of C-41 is inaccessible. My own results with XP2 have been good, except that the local lab messed up some of my negatives through careless handling. Now that I am setting up C-41 and E6 processing at home, the XP2 will again be very seriously considered. It has amazing latitude, and as Sandy explains, it really comes through in the highlights. I have over-exposed it by two stops, and had no problems getting decent prints (but scans was another story). It is very easy to print from, and does not require any special approach different from printing with silver-based emulsions.

While I wonder about the practical significance for many, I do think that chromogenic films don't possess the archival qualities of silver films. They have one great advantage for scanning, though: ICE works on them, since the dyes are IR transparent, while silver grains are not. While this is not a thread related to scanning per se, this is one consideration more in favour of XP2 for film shooters who then only scan. And to be fair, I think there are many such photographers.

 

[AgX]

From a technological point of view concerning image forming one even can consider the concept of monochrome chromogenic films as superior to that of image forming by silver.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

 

[AgX]

Why not offer a (4x5") sheet conversion on type 135 base for the next ULF run?