The point of chromogenic B&W films is that ordinary "point & shoot" users can shoot black and white without having to pay extra and wait longer for processing
What is bleach bypass?
Their first, the T400CN has no mask
I finally finished my 100ft roll of XP2+ Super. And I will never be using it again. Before I list my reasons for disliking the film, I will make the mandatory acknowledgement of user skill/error and other YMMV bits. And now here are my reasons to stay away from it:
If you expose and develop it the same way as any other color negative ISO 400 film, you will end up with rough shadow grain and high contrast in all but the flattest lighting conditions. While the highlights will be remarkably smooth, the shadows look really nasty. The base+fog density is quite high and perhaps its a contributing factor. On the recent vacation I exposed the last 6 rolls of it, often side-by-side with Delta 100 and Portra 160. The results were not pretty: zones 2-4 look rough, then you have a compressed mid-range, and the highlight density shoots up quickly but never really 100% blocks. It works better on scenes that are brightly lit with minimum shadows. If you take advantage of its highlights-compressing ability the result can look really neat, but you get the same look if you just over-expose a regular CN film and properly convert to B&W. You will get more tonal range and less grain for the same price.
In most situations you'll need +2EV exposure compensation to minimize that harsh look. Essentially this is an ISO 100 film which competes with Delta 100 or TMX. But Delta 100 is far sharper and finer grained. And you get to deploy the usual B&W development tricks to expand/compress the range.
I also suspect that one can get better results from XP2+ by exposing it as ISO 100 film and also pulling or developing at a lower temperature. But this would require developing it separately from all other chromogenic films which is too much pain for me. And finally, I am noticing that the emulsion itself is more fragile and prone to scratching. In that sense it's similar to Fomapan films.
TLDR:
Basically I see no point in using XP2+. When you do need true ISO 400 speed something like Delta 400 or TMY will work better. If you need chromogenic latitude, shoot Portra and convert to B&W. And if you need super fine grain, shoot ISO 100 T-grain B&W films. I think whoever said that the only point of it is to allow consumers to get B&W photos from 1-hr minilabs is true. That is not my use case.
- Not really compatible with C-41. I think it requires pulling to tame high contrast and expand the range.
- You must pick: rough ISO 400 grain or ISO 100 speed
- Low acutance when over-exposed
- High price
[EDIT] Regarding the price: it used to be more expensive than Delta 100 but not anymore. So perhaps that point is no longer valid or geo-dependant.
Below is the typical example. +1EV compensation, center-weighted metering. The highlights are on the verge of being completely blown out, while the shadows are still crushed. Giving it more light would not have helped. Meanwhile the light is fairly soft, the sun is behind a cloud. From the lighting perspective this scene is quite manageable and it would have looked much better on Delta 400. This is also quite noticeable when you look at a linear histogram while scanning. This film just doesn't hold much range!
View attachment 350344
I've only used it in 120, and it's a wonderful, unique film. I wonder if it's a slightly different product in 35mm? I don't recognise the product I have used at all from the above description or example.
The only poor results I've seen around, perhaps even worse than the above, is when it gets developed in B/W chemistry. Looks like a different beast altogether.
In fact this thread reminds me to buy a few dozens rolls. I just can't get that trademark highlight detail from any other film I use.
Ironically, it's the one B&W film that actually delivers real-world 'compensation' effects - yet, funnily enough, all those who obsess over various half-baked 'compensating' developers often put a remarkable amount of effort into denial about XP2...
It has a pretty sharp toe, like most general purpose 400 speed films, but if you expose up the scale to open shadows, the DIR couplers kick in harder to restrain highlight contrast/ density, thus the long highlight roll-off. Developing in regular B&W doesn't make the couplers form, thus no DIR/ coupler effects etc.
As a result people either complain about 'poor' shadow detail, because of how they are used to (mis-)using normal BW neg stocks, or if they overexpose it, they complain about the highlights being flatter than they expected
Can you say which of the "half-baked" compensating developers come under this label of "half-baked" and which work OK and why?
Sounds accurate. Except I would add that if you expose it as a true ISO 400 film the shadow grain will not be pretty compared to D400 or TMY. But if you give it more light, the compression will not a problem (I think most people like it), but you lose effective film speed and sharpness in the highlights because dye clouds growing too large. Can't win. That's why I am leaving it behind. I seriously doubt that anyone would pick an XP2+ neg which was identically exposed to a TMY or D400 neg.
How do you shoot it?
Shot even marginally competently, an XP2 neg on 6x7 should deliver an astonishingly clean and sharp 8x10/ 11x14 darkroom print.
TLDR:
- Not really compatible with C-41. I think it requires pulling to tame high contrast and expand the range.
- You must pick: rough ISO 400 grain or ISO 100 speed
- Low acutance when over-exposed
- High price
This is a laughably low bar. All films manufactured in 2023 should deliver an "astonishingly clean and sharp" 11x14 print from a 6x7 neg!
I only shoot it in 35mm and it's nowhere near Delta 100 in sharpness. I am comparing it to Delta 100 because its grain in zones 2-5 is nasty looking unless it is exposed as an ISO 100 film. I can see how you may not see these problems in medium format where its Achilles' heel is hidden by the large negative size.
There is, of course, the possibility that I may NOT belong to the category of photographers who shoot XP2+ "marginally competently".
I also would disagree with these concerns based on my own experience. I routinely shoot XP2 Super at EI ranging from 200 to 1600 (800 and above with bleach bypass to leave the silver density as well as the dye image). I find it has a true speed with bleach bypass of around 640 (about 2/3 stop gain) and is relatively insensitive to the common C-41 mistakes like temperature drift and over/under development. Further, it doesn't develop the green and grainy shadows of underexposed C-41 color films (of course).
If it didn't cost so much it would be my number one choice in 35 mm and in 120 it's unparalleled (but again, pricey by comparison to the Fomapan and Kentmere I usually shoot).
Steven is scanning it while those of us who really like it darkroom print it?
I've never had the opportunity to make a wet print from XP2 Super. I scan everything at present (still working on getting my enlarger fully operational and having time to hole up in my darkroom for most of a day at a time). With or without retained silver image, it scans very well, both 35 mm and 120, on my Epson V850 Pro. If scanning makes it worse, it's because the scanner in use can't carry the load -- and as you note, the lesser or older scanners generally have more trouble with a silver image than a dye image.
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?