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

[Oldwino]

Diafine is the way to go for XP2 (other than C-41).

 

[Cerebum]

C41 no, at the moment I don't have the chem and I can't afford lab costs but C41 developing is on the list and I have a bulk roll of the xp2, so it will happen.

 

[Cerebum]

Diafine is the way to go for XP2 (other than C-41).

I have hc110 and rodinal, oh and some id11 which I am not sure about. I need to look at Diafine. I keep reading good things about it

 

[Cerebum]

yesterday i went a bit crazy and developed the XP2 along with a roll of very expired Orwo NP27 in Caffenol. I semi stand developed it in the C-L recipe for 65 minutes at 20c. i gave it 3 agitations at 2,4,8,16 & 32 minutes. the results were fairly good but not a patch on C41. Stand isn't my favourite method. whilst it allows you to go off and do other stuff you are still tied and the results don't blow me away. i need to do another roll in Rodinal but i suspect the rest will be in HC110. i dont think buying this film was a big mistake, it was cheap, but Rollei Retro 400s has just come in stock for less than this "cheap" roll and that is both beautiful and predictable in the chemicals i use. The XP2 in B&W chem experiment will be fun but i dont think i will be repeating it.

 

[Cerebum]

This is another shot from the roll. coming from digital i was always messing up exposure. comments in this thread have helped me immensely and encouraged me to work on it. it is still a work in progress

 

[Cerebum]

just for comparison, this was the 30 year expired Orwo NP27 that shared a tank full of caffenol with the XP2

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

both beautiful and predictable in the chemicals i use

You can get beautiful and predictable results in HC-110 if you use a reliable meter and get the effective speed and developing time right. It is not too hard if you try. Of course, good photographs are not just about film-developer combination.

 

[Cerebum]

You can get beautiful and predictable results in HC-110 if you use a reliable meter and get the effective speed and developing time right. It is not too hard if you try. Of course, good photographs are not just about film-developer combination.

I am trying to get to grips with exposure and am erring on the side of over exposure. I have a meter on my phone and a selinium cell Gossen Sixon which is fun. I came from digital a year ago and am mostly self taught but I'm getting there. In the caffenol roll there was quite a difference between the negatives that were perfectly exposed and the ones that were maybe a stop out, leading me to wonder if the film whilst pushable, isn't very forgiving. The roll I have in the MX is being shot at 100. This will be one of the last experiments. I feel I have a handle on Rodinal and HC110 exposure times for rolls shot at box but I will be using stock ID-11. I was reading that you have to reduce developing time by 20% per stop when pulling, is this correct? If so, the time for HC110 would be very short, probably too short. I have some ID-11 mixed. The developing time is 13:30 (massive dev) which reduces to 8:30 to allow for the pulled exposure. As this will be the sixth film out of the mix I will be adding 50% so it will be 12:45. Another option may be Rodinal but I want to use up the ID-11 before it dies. Like you said, nailing exposure is key and of all the films I have shot it seems to be most critical with the xp2. One thing about film, it never stops challenging you but the buzz you get when you see a perfect negative is worth it.
Thanks for all the encouragement and guidance, I cannot begin to say how much I appreciate it

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I was reading that you have to reduce developing time by 20% per stop when pulling, is this correct?

It's just a rule of thumb.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

The roll I have in the MX is being shot at 100. This will be one of the last experiments.

This graph could be of use to you in case you decide to develop in HC-110 1+49 dilution:

 

[Cerebum]

This graph could be of use to you in case you decide to develop in HC-110 1+49 dilution:

Thanks I am going to shoot another roll at 400 but I may be sticking with 100 after that because whoever suggested shooting XP2 at 100 is a genius. I have never been happier with a set of negatives.this image has not been enhanced at all.
Below is Ilford xp2 shot at 100 & developed at 20° in stock ID-11 as per massive dev. I reduced the time by 20% + 20% to allow for pulling then added 40% because this is film 5 in this solution.

 

[Cerebum]

This graph could be of use to you in case you decide to develop in HC-110 1+49 dilution:

If I shoot xp2 at 100, hc110 at 1:31 develops too quickly for pulled film. This dilution would give me a dev time of about 6:30 which is ideal. Thanks you have just given me a great option

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Thanks I am going to shoot another roll at 400 but I may be sticking with 100 after that because whoever suggested shooting XP2 at 100 is a genius. I have never been happier with a set of negatives.this image has not been enhanced at all.

Fantastic! Can you share the negatives as before?

 

[Cerebum]

Fantastic! Can you share the negatives as before?

 

[Cerebum]

Fantastic! Can you share the negatives as before?

I did another roll in ID-11 but i reduced the base time by 30 seconds. the results were nice but i think it is still over developed so i will reduce it further. its lovely film though

 

[Cerebum]

ok, this time i developed the XP2 in stock id_11 with a base time of 10 minutes (I am adding 10% for each additional use). i am happier with these than i was with those developed for 13 minutes. this will do for the ID-11 experiments. i am going to do the next roll in HC110, following Chris's development time

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

For some reason I really like that picture as a negative!

 

[Cerebum]

For some reason I really like that picture as a negative!

lol i hope you dont find the positive too disappointing Say hello to george

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

lol i hope you dont find the positive too disappointing Say hello to george

The positive is good, but somehow the negative is better in my opinion

 

[grat]

The positive is good, but somehow the negative is better in my opinion

So you're being positive about the negative, and negative about the positive.

Got it.

 

[Cerebum]

The positive is good, but somehow the negative is better in my opinion

Yeah, I suspect my scanning will be the next thing to address

 

[Cerebum]

So you're being positive about the negative, and negative about the positive.

Got it.

Hahahaha excellent

 

[MattKing]

So you're being positive about the negative, and negative about the positive.

Got it.

Clearly, this requires a musical response - how about Aretha's version:

 

[Cerebum]

Clearly, this requires a musical response - how about Aretha's version:

Best post in the whole thread well, maybe not the best but i enjoyed it, a lot

OK, back to the experiments. these were shot at 200 and developed using Chris's time of 7 minutes at 20C in HC110 1:49

I made a mess of the scan, I went a bit dark, but i just haven't had time to go back.

 

[drmoss_ca]

Delighted to see you chaps still experimenting! If I ever get back on my feet and back out into the world I'll be joining you again.

C.