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.
I like this idea, go for it! Please come back afterwards and post your results, thanks!If the differences are negligible,I'd rather only have to worry about having one type of developer on hand
+1I 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...
@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.
ThanksI 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.
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.
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.
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?
There have been several iterations:Did the Super replace XP at some point?
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
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.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?