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

[Roy Keane]

Curious to know if anyone here has developed XP2 in c41 chemistry and if you've also tried developing in black and white chemistry. What was different about the negatives in those two scenarios?

I just developed a roll in c41 and I'm really happy with it. But I'd rather stick to b/w chemistry (D76) if I can get similar results.

 

[Nitroplait]

I have developed xp2 in the same tank as HP5 with HC110 and timed for HP5. The result was slightly denser XP2 negatives than ideal but perfectly printable.
It wasn’t important photos so I haven’t done a comparative analysis and I don’t plan to use XP2 for the purpose of conventional BW. XP2 is for when I want others to process the film.

 

[AgX]

What would be the idea behind classic processing?

It is just the chromogenic image creation that enables the special features of such B&W films.

 

[Roy Keane]

What would be the idea behind classic processing?

It is just the chromogenic image creation that enables the special features of such B&W films.

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

 

[AgX]

The differences are not neglible.

Why, when wanting only to use one developer buying a more expensive film that cannot even yield characteristics as designed in that developer?

 

[Lachlan Young]

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

The differences are vast and relate to the utilisation of inherent properties of types of chromogenic coupler that are very/ near impossibly difficult to enact in a regular B&W film. Anyone who claims a meaningful lack of difference is, sorry to say, operating at below-baseline technical level (which is very low indeed).

 

[Roy Keane]

The differences are not neglible.

A couple of things:

I bought a sampler of films and didn't know anything about it when a shot a roll. The second unexpected thing was that I LOVED the way the images looked when I scanned them this morning, so much so that I want to shoot more of it.

So I did a little reading that suggested you COULD develop in b/w developer, but didn't know what the impact would be on the images. Now, from this thread, I know the answer to that, and will continue developing with the c41 process

 

[Nitroplait]

Anyone who claims a meaningful lack of difference is, sorry to say, operating at below-baseline technical level (which is very low indeed).

Good that nobody has yet claimed that. And now that you made it clear what you think of them, I am sure nobody will ever make such a claim.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I recommend that the OP try a roll in B/W chemistry to make his own judgement.
I recently shot a test roll of 120 size XP2 at EI 200, and processed it in Rodinal 1+25...I got some beautiful, slightly dense negs with a very faint magenta cast to the film base. 1+50 might be a better option for me, but more testing will be necessary to nail down my personal EI & development time.
Haven't had a chance to make any prints yet.
I got a brick of outdated 120 XP2 at a good price, and I process my own film, so I will save money by not sending it to a lab for C-41 processing.

 

[Roy Keane]

I recommend that the OP try a roll in B/W chemistry to make his own judgement.
I recently shot a test roll of 120 size XP2 at EI 200, and processed it in Rodinal 1+25...I got some beautiful, slightly dense negs with a very faint magenta cast to the film base. 1+50 might be a better option for me, but more testing will be necessary to nail down my personal EI & development time.
Haven't had a chance to make any prints yet.
I got a brick of outdated 120 XP2 at a good price, and I process my own film, so I will save money by not sending it to a lab for C-41 processing.

thanks for the feedback

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

XP2 Super gives beautiful results when developed in B&W developers such as XTol and Pyrocat HD. It builds contrast quickly, so 75% of FP4+ development time is a good starting point. It also looses speed in B&W chemistry and you might want to shoot it at EI:100 for best shadow details. At 200 and above there is definite loss in shadow details. Results have a charm of their own and there's no harm in trying and finding out if you are interested. Check Ilford blogpost by @drmoss_ca to see some results. But naysayers do have a valid point about using an expensive film and forgoing its built-in highlight compensation and high speed.

 

[Old_Dick]

From one of our own, chrism, a wonderful person. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry/

 

[Roy Keane]

XP2 Super gives beautiful results when developed in B&W developers such as XTol and Pyrocat HD. It builds contrast quickly, so 75% of FP4+ development time is a good starting point. It also looses speed in B&W chemistry and you might want to shoot it at EI:100 for best shadow details. At 200 and above there is definite loss in shadow details. Results have a charm of their own and there's no harm in trying and finding out if you are interested. Check Ilford blogpost by @drmoss_ca to see some results. But naysayers do have a valid point about using an expensive film and forgoing its built-in highlight compensation and high speed.

Thanks very much for this, Raghu. Can't wait to try your suggestions

 

[Roy Keane]

From one of our own, chrism, a wonderful person. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry/

Excellent link - thanks!

 

[AgX]

Well, Lachlan and me in first instance proceed from the merits of a photographic material and expect that a user has these in mind when asking for processing advice. Cross-processing with different results in mind is a different story. I did not think the OP had such in mind.

 

[pentaxuser]

Assuming I have understood correctly what Roy wants to know from users of C41 chromogenic film developed in C41 and who are also users of b&w developers for such films is: What are the differences in the negative that translate into noticeable differences when done in both b&w chems and C41 chems?

Hopefully he will get helpful responses from such users in sufficient quantities that allow him to decide if the differences in b&w v C41 chems are such that they matter to him. He is the owner of the question and the judge of what he thinks he will then do when we provide him with our own examples.

That's what I think counts for Roy. I hope he can count on responses that address his needs. Unfortunately, Roy. I am not one of those people so the best I can do is point you in the direction of IlfordPhoto where on its website there are, in its Magazine section, some examples of XP2 Plus developed and printed in b&w chemicals. They look pretty good to me

Best of luck, Roy. I hope you find some decent answers- there is at least one member here who did a very good job with XP2 Plus and I think HC110. Unfortunately I cannot remember his name. Hopefully he will see your thread and respond despite getting "some stick" when he showed us his examples

I will have to say this as well. There are times when I shake my head in absolute frustration at the responses to these questions

pentaxuser

 

[Ian Grant]

The differences are vast and relate to the utilisation of inherent properties of types of chromogenic coupler that are very/ near impossibly difficult to enact in a regular B&W film. Anyone who claims a meaningful lack of difference is, sorry to say, operating at below-baseline technical level (which is very low indeed).

I'd add you lose the inherent wide exposure latitude of the chromogenic negative. Used at 100 or 200 EI and you get finer grain than at 400. It's also excellent for push processing, however Ilford never published any recommended times, unlike for XP1. The reason was commercial labs had hated XP1 as it needed a non-standard C41 development time, and labs also didn't want to push process it.

In theory any B&W film can be processed Chromogenicly, you'd need to add the right combination of dye couplers to the colour developer. I've used Chromogenic development of B&W papers and still have the couplers.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

If you scan your negatives, development in C41 will permit using dust reduction tools like ICE. You can't use ICE with film developed in black and white chemistry.
Increasing exposure decreases grain in film developed in C41. The opposite happens with film developed in black and white chemistry.

 

[AgX]

I will have to say this as well. There are times when I shake my head in absolute frustration at the responses to these questions

By no means I can understand your critique on my response. I did my best to adapt to the idea of use I could deduce from the primary post.

Well, I could give a lecture on the emulsion technology behind chromogenic films and the benefitial effects against classic B&W films, added by the different aims manufacturers of these films had over time. But then I likely would be blamed for a lecturers attitude. Moreover I do not feel for doing private teaching just into the blue. On the other hand, keeping my replies short I was already blamed for being enigmatic.

 

[pentaxuser]

By no means I can understand your critique on my response. I did my best to adapt to the idea of use I could deduce from the primary post..

My comments were not specifically aimed at you, AgX but just to the problem that we seem to experience every time with requests for comparisons and actual experience of something. Often the thread starter is looking for information from users in terms of their experiences. In this case such users really need to be those who have done both methods with comparison pictures if possible but those who have only done the method the OP has not used i.e b&w development may have examples to give

Instead of that what he gets is the advice "Do not try b&w developers because this was not the process that Chromogenic films was meant for ". That in some cases and from some members is all he gets with what appears to be implication that the thread is now effectively exhausted. Some then give the theory why b&w developers will not work or not as well and another might disagree with some of the reasoning used. The thread then becomes a fight between those who may well agree with each other on the premise that b&w development is not ideal/ fails in certain aspects/ is a disaster etc depending on their opinion. Now the OP's need for experiences and examples have been sidetracked and we entered into a high level academic debate that gives no help to the OP

There may be a place for such discussions or better still a thread that specifically caters to what has become a totally different subject than that the OP started. However it will certainly no longer be about what the OP wanted to know and the forum is about trying to supply what the thread starters wants to know, isn't it?

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

From one of our own, chrism, a wonderful person. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry/

Well done Old_ Dick for supplying this article from IlfordPhoto

pentaxuser

 

[Huss]

BW400CN, I assume being a C41 B&W film, would behave similarly to XP2 re. use of chemistry.

I took one for the team in the Cinestill DF96 Monobath thread and tried to develop a roll using it. Does not work, at all. Got nothing - just a clear-ish strip.

A public service announcement in case anyone is thinking about developing a roll of B&W c-41 film using monobath!

 

[Donald Qualls]

@Huss, I've developed XP2 Super in Df96 and it worked fine (aside from a little background Sabbatier effect because I didn't give double time and the film wasn't fully fixed when I opened the tank -- and then the fogged residual halide developed).

While I haven't done BW400CN in monobath, I have done bleach bypass on it with a visible increase in speed. The film works the same way (except for the orange mask). If you got clear film your Df96 was probably gone off.

 

[AgX]

BW400CN, I assume being a C41 B&W film, would behave similarly to XP2 re. use of chemistry.

But the various chromogenic films differ in their design. The first two films, introduced same time by Agfa and Ilford, were designed with emphasis on the possibilities that such films yield concerning latitude. Whereas the much later Kodak film was designed with emphasis to make a b&w film that can be developed and printed at any minilab.

 

[Huss]

@Huss, I've developed XP2 Super in Df96 and it worked fine (aside from a little background Sabbatier effect because I didn't give double time and the film wasn't fully fixed when I opened the tank -- and then the fogged residual halide developed).

While I haven't done BW400CN in monobath, I have done bleach bypass on it with a visible increase in speed. The film works the same way (except for the orange mask). If you got clear film your Df96 was probably gone off.

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