Ilford XP2 - have you developed in C41 and b/w chemistry?

[Donald Qualls]

The DF worked fine with the next roll of 'normal' film. So I guess just BW400CN is the issue.

Given this film was discontinued years ago, it's probably a moot point, but I can't see how it can have enough halide to create the dye image for C-41 without leaving a silver image in any B&W developer and fixer (including monobath). Something very strange happened there.

 

[Huss]

Given this film was discontinued years ago, it's probably a moot point, but I can't see how it can have enough halide to create the dye image for C-41 without leaving a silver image in any B&W developer and fixer (including monobath). Something very strange happened there.

Yeah I recently sold my last stash of
BW400cn because it didnt work in DF96. If I’m going to pay someone to dev my film it would be for colour.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I develop my own C-41, too.

 

[JNP]

If the differences are negligible,I'd rather only have to worry about having one type of developer on hand

I like this idea, go for it! Please come back afterwards and post your results, thanks!

 

[miha]

I develop my own C-41, too.

+1

I'm not sure why people are reluctant to do it at home. There might be a problem with disposal of the used chemistry though...

 

[JNP]

+1

I'm not sure why people are reluctant to do it at home. There might be a problem with disposal of the used chemistry though...

That is why I do not do it, disposal is not easy in the rest home.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Also more bottles to store, and temperature control is a bigger job than with B&W. Still, if you have an actual darkroom, a dishwashing tub and a $35 sous vide will handle the temperature control. I solved the chemical disposal by replenishing my color developer; fixer and bleach last a long time and the fixer, at least, can go where your B&W fixer goes.

 

[Cerebum]

I bought a bulk roll of XP2, it was very cheap i dont do C41 and was encouraged by images online that it was worth a go in HC110. I hoped I was getting a 400 film to compliment my other bulk rolls but it looks like it may be best at 100. Anyway, so far I have done one roll in HC110 1:49 for 10mins as per Chris's suggestion here. It was OK. I have a couple more test rolls ready to go in, one will be done in HC110 1:31 and the other in rodinal 1:25. In most cases of developing 400iso film there are only a couple of minutes between these dilutions but the wisdom here and on massive dev and dev-it is that rodders needs 18mins whilst HC110 is done in 5:30. I did wonder if 18 was a typo and it should really be 8. I know this isn't an exact science because I am not developing as intended so in the spirit of winging it, what rodders time would you guys go for first? Having a bulk roll means I can experiment to my hearts content so any suggestions will be great fully received. BTW, I am a relative beginner but do love a good experiment. Below is a test shot cooked in HC110 1:49 shot on a very dull day @400

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

@Cerebum: My suggestion is to not use an entire roll for testing. A small strip of 5-6 frames should be good enough to get the development times right.

XTol will give you better shadows and overall better results for this film. Pyrocat HD also works fine.

For EI:100 or 125, use 75% of FP4+ times (at same EI) as the starting point for testing any developer.

There's substantial loss in shadow details at EI:400. At EI:100 the film really shines giving very good overall results.

 

[Cerebum]

@Cerebum: My suggestion is to not use an entire roll for testing. A small strip of 5-6 frames should be good enough to get the development times right.

XTol will give you better shadows and overall better results for this film. Pyrocat HD also works fine.

For EI:100 or 125, use 75% of FP4+ times (at same EI) as the starting point for testing any developer.

There's substantial loss in shadow details at EI:400. At EI:100 the film really shines giving very good overall results.

Thanks I am making up very short rolls for testing, no more than ten frames, the joys of bulk loading

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Thanks I am making up very short rolls for testing, no more than ten frames, the joys of bulk loading

Wonderful!

Now, to answer your question on Rodinal, 18 minutes might be a little too long. Here is what MDC says about FP4+ @EI:125 in Rodinal 1+25:

Ilford FP4+ Rodinal 1+25 125 9 9 9 20C

Based on my rule of thumb, as a starting point, I would do a test with 0.75*9 = 6 minutes 45 seconds as the developing time for XP2 Super @EI:100/125. This film builds contrast quickly and hence I would be a bit conservative and try 11-12 minutes for EI:400. YMMV.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've always wanted to try this XP2 stuff. After seeing Chris's results, now I really want to!

 

[Cerebum]

Wonderful!

Now, to answer your question on Rodinal, 18 minutes might be a little too long. Here is what MDC says about FP4+ @EI:125 in Rodinal 1+25:

Ilford FP4+ Rodinal 1+25 125 9 9 9 20C

Based on my rule of thumb, as a starting point, I would do a test with 0.75*9 = 6 minutes 45 seconds as the developing time for XP2 Super @EI:100/125. This film builds contrast quickly and hence I would be a bit conservative and try 11-12 minutes for EI:400. YMMV.

Utterly brilliant. My gut feeling, based on zero science and even less experience was 10 minutes, 18 mins felt extreme for 1:25, especially as I have seen recipes for 1:50 at 20mins. I have two test films shot, both at 400, one on my MX, the other on a vitomatic who's light meter was fairly reliable. The MX roll is earmarked for hc110 dilution b, 5:30 @20° the vitomatic will be rodders at 11:30. Fingers crossed thank you so much

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've always wanted to try this XP2 stuff.

IMO, it's the most versatile B&W film you can buy at any price. Being able to process it at mini-labs or in a B&W home darkroom is just a bonus.

Now if we could just convince Ilford to make it in sheet sizes, I'd buy it in 4x5.

 

[Steven Lee]

Other than having fun with experimentation, I see no reason to develop XP2 in B&W chemistry. The beauty of this film is in smooth/grainless mid-tones and highlights, that's only possible after all silver is bleached out. You can go ahead over-expose it at EI200 or even 100 and you get the same smoothness in the shadows without blowing up the highlights because of extra latitude. You can capture a wide range of tones with very little grain this way. Almost medium format appearance on a 35mm negative. Why voluntarily give this up by not bleaching?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

IMO, it's the most versatile B&W film you can buy at any price. Being able to process it at mini-labs or in a B&W home darkroom is just a bonus.

Now if we could just convince Ilford to make it in sheet sizes, I'd buy it in 4x5.

That is probably why I haven't tried it, but mostly it being a C-41 film. I would prefer to shoot it in 4x5 sheets.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

That is probably why I haven't tried it, but mostly it being a C-41 film. I would prefer to shoot it in 4x5 sheets.

XP I believe was available in sheet format but not XP2 Super. IIRC Henning Serger explained some time ago in one of the threads why XP2 Super is very unlikely to be ever made available in sheet format.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

XP I believe was available in sheet format but not XP2 Super. IIRC Henning Serger explained some time ago in one of the threads why XP2 Super is very unlikely to be ever made available in sheet format.

Did the Super replace XP at some point?

 

[Cerebum]

Other than having fun with experimentation, I see no reason to develop XP2 in B&W chemistry. The beauty of this film is in smooth/grainless mid-tones and highlights, that's only possible after all silver is bleached out. You can go ahead over-expose it at EI200 or even 100 and you get the same smoothness in the shadows without blowing up the highlights because of extra latitude. You can capture a wide range of tones with very little grain this way. Almost medium format appearance on a 35mm negative. Why voluntarily give this up by not bleaching?

I totally agree. I shot a roll early in my film journey and had it lab developed. It is stunning. In this instance though I am looking to get the best I can from this film. The bulk roll was too cheap to miss out on. I have a tiny budget so never got C41 chems as I couldn't see how I could make them viable, given how little c41 film I shoot (that has now changed of course). Right now I am looking for advice regarding possibilities I have 100ft of this lovely stuff if I can find a way to get nice images with what I have, even if it means I shoot it at 100 then I will be happy. Also, any evidence we uncover broadens all of our options. The evidence is certainly out there that its possible

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Did the Super replace XP at some point?

There have been several iterations:
XP1 (1980)
XP2 (1991)
XP2 Super (1998)

I don't know for sure if it was XP1 or XP2 that was available in sheet format. @Ian Grant might be able to provide more information.

 

[Cerebum]

Wonderful!

Now, to answer your question on Rodinal, 18 minutes might be a little too long. Here is what MDC says about FP4+ @EI:125 in Rodinal 1+25:

Ilford FP4+ Rodinal 1+25 125 9 9 9 20C

Based on my rule of thumb, as a starting point, I would do a test with 0.75*9 = 6 minutes 45 seconds as the developing time for XP2 Super @EI:100/125. This film builds contrast quickly and hence I would be a bit conservative and try 11-12 minutes for EI:400. YMMV.

The Rodders negs were a bit dense and the leader was completely opaque so I think I will try 9mins in rodders next time. I haven't scanned them yet so we will see about the loss of shadow detail. The hc110 ones look lovely

 

[koraks]

The Rodders negs

Let me propose some further linguistical improvements:
XTOL --> Xcess
D76 --> Djeezurs
Pyrocat --> Pee-cat
Caffenol --> Crackpot
Microphen --> Mickey

This place be way cool yo if we all roll by the new wayz.

Seriously though:
Rodinal = 7 letters
Rodders = 7 letters
No economy there. Looks cool though...?

Can we submit synonyms to Google so that all threads about 'Rodders' turn up if someone wants to know about processing XP2 in Rodinal?

Sorry man, really, but I don't see the benefit to 'slangify' developer names. It's not like we're dealing crack cocaine here or anything; it's just darkroom chemistry. You go to the supermarket for a couple of 'avvers' to make guacamole?

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

The Rodders negs were a bit dense and the leader was completely opaque so I think I will try 9mins in rodders next time. I haven't scanned them yet so we will see about the loss of shadow detail.

Sounds good and you seem to be on the right track. You may want to use 1:50 dilution the next time.

Do share your results when you've scanned the negatives.

 

[Cerebum]

Let me propose some further linguistical improvements:
XTOL --> Xcess
D76 --> Djeezurs
Pyrocat --> Pee-cat
Caffenol --> Crackpot
Microphen --> Mickey

This place be way cool yo if we all roll by the new wayz.

Seriously though:
Rodinal = 7 letters
Rodders = 7 letters
No economy there. Looks cool though...?

Can we submit synonyms to Google so that all threads about 'Rodders' turn up if someone wants to know about processing XP2 in Rodinal?

Sorry man, really, but I don't see the benefit to 'slangify' developer names. It's not like we're dealing crack cocaine here or anything; it's just darkroom chemistry. You go to the supermarket for a couple of 'avvers' to make guacamole?

Is this really necessary! Rodders is a colloquial term we use verbally, two syllables as opposed to three! Had I known there was a philological imperative to adhere rigidly to nomenclature I would have referred to it as Adox Rodinal but I presumed, based on the superb guidance I received from other participants, that we were a friendly and helpful group in which I could relax, "man"! You talk of benefits, does it not occur to you that a reply like that benefits no one and we would have been better served by a request to stick to real names.I am extremely open to correction, especially as you and the other participants know significantly more about the subject than I do but no one responds well to sarcasm.

 

[Cerebum]

Sounds good and you seem to be on the right track. You may want to use 1:50 dilution the next time.

Do share your results when you've scanned the negatives.

I tried a 1:50 dilution in RODINAL with the first roll and found it somewhat grainy. I am just working round the possibilities thank you so much for your kind guidance. If I am still subscribed I will post some of the shots I got from both the Rodinal & the Euro 110 (Bellini's take on HC110)