ILFORD XP2 Super 400

[Lachlan Young]

But often I think a ''real'' photographer doesn't use something like that - XP2 is kind of for hobby photographers ... Hey, that's exactly what I am !!!

I'd suggest that the opposite is true - precisely because XP2 in C-41 shows up how ridiculous most amateur/ hobbyist developer 'testing' is and forces them to get on with the difficult stuff - i.e. actually making images. The whole pointless charade about developing XP2 in B&W developers is indicative of this too.

The reason that you ask is seemingly that Agfa cancelled their film after some years, whereas Ilford went on with theirs. To me it seemed consumers just did not understand the Agfa concept. That of extreme latitude, or wide setting of "ASA". One film for all. Thus it was called Agfapan Vario XL.

Something else that is probably worth considering, Vario XL appeared very early in Agfa's foray into C-41 - and I believe Ilford had originally planned to get into colour film manufacturing in the 1980's too (I recall there's an interview from a couple of years ago with Andrew Cross - Ilford's Emulsion Plant Manager - where he states that one of the large empty grassy areas on Ilford's site was where Ilford had planned to build a colour film coating line in the 1980s) - in both cases, the materials may have had relevance to starting up coupler making, dispersion, coating procedures etc for Kodak compatible colour processes, but then (for various reasons) things went in different directions. From what I could track down, the general sense seemed to have been that XP1 seemed to behave better as an emulsion (and there are also articles by people who had previously tortured themselves with microfilms and POTA derivatives who essentially state that they had move over to using XP1 in the place of those materials), but Vario XL had proper C-41 compatibility (and might have had worse apparent granularity).

 

[macfred]

I'd suggest that the opposite is true - precisely because XP2 in C-41 shows up how ridiculous most amateur/ hobbyist developer 'testing' is and forces them to get on with the difficult stuff - i.e. actually making images. The whole pointless charade about developing XP2 in B&W developers is indicative of this too ...

That's an interesting way of looking at it - I hadn't thought of it that way before.
No matter what others (whether professionals or hobbyists) claim - XP2 in C-41 is ideal for my endeavor to create photographs that meet my aesthetic standards and a to get a 'look' that is reproducible with no need for major expiremts in developing.
--
Of course, I've tried black and white developers (Rodinal); even Caffenol CL in semi-stand works. But I ultimately prefer the C-41 development process.

 

[foc]

I remember testing and optically machine printing both XP1 and VarioXL negatives onto colour paper in the early to mid 1980s. I had first processed the films in C41.
The procedure was to put a piece of clear Fuji 100 orange mask negative between the neg and light source. We then did a colour ring around to get a B&W looking print (no colour tint) on colour paper.
The Vario XL was easier to print and gave consistent results for this type of printing. The XP1 sometimes gave localised colour tints, basically, the overall print was B&W looking but a small patch of the print would have a slight colour tint.

I have used a lot of Fuji Neopan400CN and XP2 and much prefer it when processed in C41.

 

[Auer]

I gave it a go with Legacy Eco Pro Replenished, 200 ISO

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

On the topic of processing XP2 Super in B&W chemistry, Ilford published a blog post by @drmoss_ca in 2018 on :
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry/

In 2020, Ilford published another blog posting, this time by charlescavephoto, on the same topic:
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/processing-xp2s-in-black-and-white-chemistry/

And Ilford updated its technical data sheet for XP2 Super to include the following statement: "users have reported that a good quality image may be obtained using conventional black and white chemistry."

Those who want to explore processing XP2 Super in B&W chemistry will find the above blog posts useful and interesting.

 

[pentaxuser]

On the topic of processing XP2 Super in B&W chemistry, Ilford published a blog post by @drmoss_ca in 2018 on :
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry/

In 2020, Ilford published another blog posting, this time by charlescavephoto, on the same topic:
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/processing-xp2s-in-black-and-white-chemistry/

And Ilford updated its technical data sheet for XP2 Super to include the following statement: "users have reported that a good quality image may be obtained using conventional black and white chemistry."

Those who want to explore processing XP2 Super in B&W chemistry will find the above blog posts useful and interesting.

This is pure speculation on my part but I suspect it shows a kind of an change in Ilford's outlook on "experimentation" by users for want of a better word.

I just cannot imagine the Ilford of old and by that I mean Harman Technology of the pre-Pemberstone era, deviating from the conventional stand on the subject of simply repeating that XP2 Plus is meant for C41 and implying if not actually stating that any other process is at best second best and at worse may create problems

That conservatism seem to have given way to recognising that most of its current new users view matters differently and Ilford's approach is now more "inclusive"

pentaxuser

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

This is pure speculation on my part but I suspect it shows a kind of an change in Ilford's outlook on "experimentation" by users for want of a better word.

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/815311629193773057

 

[Acere]

Kodak also sold a differently designated chromogenic B&W -- C400T?

I use XP2 Super because I can carry a couple rolls of that and be able to shoot bokeh in full sun, hand held under streetlights (even pretty weak ones), and if I know before frame 1, even hand held in tavern/bar lighting (with a reasonably fast lens) by pushing a stop or two on top of bleach bypass. ISO 50-1600 or higher on the same film. Not to mention in unmodified C-41 it's effectively grainless at EI 400 or lower -- and unlike silver grain films, grain gets less with more exposure.

If I shoot this roll at its native ISO of 400 and push or pull a few exposures to 100, 200 & 800 can it developed at its native speed? Or do I have to shoot the entire roll at the same ISO and let the lab know so it can be developed accordingly?

 

[pentaxuser]

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/815311629193773057

Twitter needs me to sign-up before it will let me see anything and I am not a member nor do I intend to be one so you'll need to tell me what you link tells me

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[drmoss_ca]

...The whole pointless charade about developing XP2 in B&W developers...

That seems a little uncharitable, but you are surely entitled to your opinion.

In 2020, Ilford published another blog posting, this time by charlescavephoto, on the same topic:
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/processing-xp2s-in-black-and-white-chemistry/

I wasn't aware of the second article, so thank you. And I'm happy to hear Ilford have updated their stance on development of XP2. My fear is that it is, in some ways, a film without a purpose, and that might mean, one day, without a future. C-41 process B&W films were a response to lack of availability of High Street B&W development, whilst colour minilabs were still common in pharmacies, supermarkets and actual camera shops. But even those commercial development options are rare now, so why make a more complicated emulsion and a more expensive film (today B&H sells HP5+ x36 for $8.12 and XP2 Super x36 for $11.23, which itself is still cheaper than Delta 3200)? I don't know what percentage of all B&W film sold today is developed at home, but probably a large majority of it. So I think it healthy that Ilford are aware that XP2 has easy, cheap homebrew options, with results that equal or improve upon C-41 processing. Evidently not everyone agrees with this, but that's my view and I don't intend to start an argument by merely stating it.

 

[drmoss_ca]

If I shoot this roll at its native ISO of 400 and push or pull a few exposures to 100, 200 & 800 can it developed at its native speed? Or do I have to shoot the entire roll at the same ISO and let the lab know so it can be developed accordingly?

Yes, you can, if it's going for C-41 processing.

 

[Acere]

Good to know.
thanks!

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Good to know.

Data sheet.

"Although rated at ISO 400/27°, XP2 SUPER can be exposed over the range EI 50/18–800/30. When higher speed is needed, XP2 SUPER can be rated at up to EI 800/30. For finer grain, when speed is less important, rate the film at EI 200/24, although for finest grain it can be rated as low as EI 50/18 if required. The practical implications of this wide exposure range are very important. XP2 SUPER can be exposed at a setting to suit the job. The benefit of variable speed also provides security against inadvertent over- or underexposure."

"The best balance of sharpness and grain is obtained when XP2 SUPER is exposed at EI 400/27. However, down-rated or overexposed XP2 SUPER negatives have finer grain, the opposite of that expected and obtained with conventional films. Up-rated or underexposed XP2 SUPER negatives have only a slight loss in quality. Furthermore, standard C41 processing is recommended for the whole of the exposure range."

 

[MattKing]

This is pure speculation on my part but I suspect it shows a kind of an change in Ilford's outlook on "experimentation" by users for want of a better word.

I just cannot imagine the Ilford of old and by that I mean Harman Technology of the pre-Pemberstone era, deviating from the conventional stand on the subject of simply repeating that XP2 Plus is meant for C41 and implying if not actually stating that any other process is at best second best and at worse may create problems

That conservatism seem to have given way to recognising that most of its current new users view matters differently and Ilford's approach is now more "inclusive"

pentaxuser

Or perhaps, Harman learned something from what their customers were trying.
In my experience, all truly healthy photographic organizations do that regularly.

 

[AgX]

C-41 process B&W films were a response to lack of availability of High Street B&W development, whilst colour minilabs were still common in pharmacies, supermarkets and actual camera shops

That only was one aspect. And I do not think it was the idea back then when first introduced. As for instance over here there was no high-street C-41 processing either. These films had to be sent in too. That reason only made sense with the introduction of minilabs.

Cromogenic film yields a respose control unobtainable with silver images.


But I would need to search for the respective marketing wording of back then.

 

[macfred]

What I can remember - though I don't have the relevant documentation - is that the Ilford XP was advertised full-page in photo magazines when it was launched, with the promise that the user could change the film speed on a roll at will, without having to make adjustments during development. In this context, the easy use of filters such as red or orange filters was also advertised.

 

[macfred]

Here is an advertisement from 1983 :

 

[AgX]

Thank you. At the marketing of the Vario XL there was more emphasis on that variability. (With the Vario XL yielding one stop more latitude than the XP *, and its range shifted more towards higher sensitivity.)
,
Ilford to my memory put more emphasis on grain.

And much later Kodak on a no hassle b&w film.

Here the correresponding Agfa ad:

*not stated in datasheets

 

[abruzzi]

Kodak also sold a differently designated chromogenic B&W -- C400T?

you probably mean T400CN. I have a roll of it in 120 in my fridge now. The box says “Professional” so maybe one was consumer oriented and the other pro?

 

[MattKing]

From reviewing the respective datasheets, it appears that T400CN was available as 135, 120, 220 and sheet film, while BW400CN was available as 135, 120 and 220.

 

[macfred]

I've used BW400CN but the T400CN I see here for the first time.

 

[AgX]

T 400 CN was Kodak's first chromogenic b&w film.

 

[markjwyatt]

Is it the case that chromagenic B&W (processed in C-41 chemistry- e.g., removing the silver) scans better/differently than silver emulsion B&W? It would make sense since silver is opaque to light, and a greater range of tionality may be possible with translucent/transparent dyes.

 

[MattKing]

Chromogenic B&W film developed in C41 scans a little bit differently, but with one exception I wouldn't say it necessarily scans better.
The exception is that, unlike traditional black and white film, you can use IR based dust and scratch removal tools like ICE with these films.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Today I had my first roll of color film developed in 20 years. While at the lab I picked up a roll of ILFORD XP2 ISO 400 using the C41 process for developing. If you have experience with this film can you post a pic for me, please? Also, any tips or recommendations shooting it.

Thanks in advance,

Rolo

This film is excellent for high-contrast scenes. Bright highlights Will not wash out. For normal-contrast scenes the film is a bit soft and low-contrast scenes will require a very hard gradation to get a good print.