ILFORD XP2 Super 400

[Donald Qualls]

In my experience XP2 does not have an orange base coulor. I have developed in C41 and B&W and apart from a slight magenta cast to the film base on some occasions it is otherwise quite clear.

Exactly. You have to replace that orange mask with enlarger filtration to get correct white balance if printing XP-2 Super on RA-4. It's one and done, though -- find the right filter pack, and you don't have to mess with it as long as you're still in the same batch number of RA-4 paper, and you'll need only minor adjustments in a new batch of the same paper product.

Edit: That said, I don't know why a home darkroom worker would want to print XP-2 Super on RA-4 -- it prints well on B&W papers, allowing you to work under appropriate safelight instead of in total darkness or the very dim amber safelights some workers use for RA-4.

 

[AgX]

Basically there were two different approaches when designing a b&w film with dye image instead of a silver image.
At Agfa they wanted to employ the inherit chance for a film with extreme latitutde. At Kodak they wanted to make a b&w film as easy as possible to develop in C-41 and make chromogenic prints. That is why it got a orange tint, to mimick the orange coupler mask in colour C-41 films. In their approach Ilford seem to have stood somewhere inbetween.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I think Kodak's was the only C-41 B&W film to use an orange base so it could be printed on colour paper. I believe the Fuji version was re-packaged Ilford from hints I have had. But there was another mystery film - I bought this from Freestyle many years ago and it behaved exactly like XP2 Super:

There were no edge markings beyond frame numbers, the base was purplish, and the technical department at Ilford looked at it for me and declared it was not a Mobberley product. So if it wasn't old bulk Ilford XP1, XP2, XP2 Plus or even XP2 Super, nor any of those passed on to Fuji, I wonder where it came from? Perhaps the claim it was made in the EU was just a lie and the whole thing is a Chinese knock-off. Whatever it was, it was cheap and good and just like the real thing for exposure and development.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If it's made in EU, it pretty well had to be Ilford or Agfa (did Agfa actually bring a C-41 B&W to market?). "Deniable" isn't a term used only at the State Department. Freestyle was and is well known for rebranding film from others, and there was a day (before the Ilford bankruptcy and buyout by Harman Tech) when Ilford sold their prime-line films for rebadging by (among others) Freestyle.

 

[AgX]

Did Agfa actually bring a C-41 B&W to market?

They were the very first.

Both the Agfa and the Ilford film were presented the same time at Photokina.
Kodak came much later.

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Today was the first I recall hearing that Agfa had created such a product. I knew about the 2-3 (over time) Kodak products, and Ilford's evolution, and the Fuji C-41 B&W, XP-1 was probably while I was away from photography, from about 1981 to 2003 (with a few rolls in 1986 or so).

 

[foc]

There were five brands of chromogenic B&W film on the market at one time or another, that I know of.
Agfa Vario XL (no orange mask)
Ilford XP1 / XP2 (no orange mask)
Fuji Neopan 400CN (no orange mask, IMO this was rebadged XP2)
Kodak BW400CN (with orange mask)
Konica Monochrome VX400 (with orange mask and I suspect rebadged Kodak BW400CN)

I have shot all of them except the Konica, but I have processed them all. I must admit my favorite was Agfa VarioXL and it was a pity it was so short-lived.

 

[AgX]

One may wonder why those films vanished.
But then one may ask, nearer to the topic ogf this thread, who and why is using a chromogenic film today?

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

One may wonder why those films vanished.
But then one may ask, nearer to the topic ogf this thread, who and why is using a chromogenic film today?

I love XP2 Super in B&W chemistry.

 

[drmoss_ca]

One may wonder why those films vanished.
But then one may ask, nearer to the topic ogf this thread, who and why is using a chromogenic film today?

What's not to love about a film that can be exposed at 25 -1600, develops in cheap B&W chemicals, and gives next to no grain at all?

 

[macfred]

One may wonder why those films vanished.
But then one may ask, nearer to the topic ogf this thread, who and why is using a chromogenic film today?

I use chromgenic film (Neopan 400CN ; Ilford XP2 Super) for nearly 70% of my black and white shots,
because I can; because I am used to it and because the results -whether print or scan- are pleasing to me.
The remaining 30% are made with TriX or FP4. If DoubleXX were available at reasonable prices, it would be there as well.
What film do you use ?

 

[albireo]

Question for the experts as well as the long term users.

Can you comment on the durability of the exposed and C41-developed XP2+ negatives? Is it shorter than for conventional BW negatives? Do people experience shifts/dominants on their old/very old chromogenic negatives after a few years or decades?

 

[macfred]

My oldest XP (not XP2) negatives are from 1982 (C-41 developement) - no issues so far when scanning or printing them these days.

 

[AgX]

I asked as to my perception, XP 2 is none of the major issues here at Apug.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I think I am inspired by this thread to try Ilford XP-2 Super again, expecially if I can get good results developing it myself in b&w chemistry. @macfred's images are particularly nice.

I tried only one roll of XP-2 and I thought the negatives were too thin and too flat. However, since then I have discovered that the lab I used is a poor one, and has a long history of C-41 processing problems. You can see my results <here> but be warned they are not likely to be representative because those images were heavily postprocessed by non-analog methods. So I was able to get OK results, despite the too-thin negatives, but at the time I assumed the thin negatives were typical of this film. My bad.

Does anyone have recommendations for what commercially available b&w chemistry gives good results with XP-2? I would prefer to keep the grain on the low side and use an EI in the 200-400 range. If using b&w chemistry, can I expect long-term stability similar to that from C-41? (I am 69 yrs old, so "long term" for me is not all that long.)

 

[macfred]

I asked as to my perception, XP 2 is none of the major issues here at Apug.

Yes, in my opinion there are hardly any problems with XP2 or Neopan 400CN - whether in scan or in print. Sometimes maybe some 'punch' is missing - but it's no problem to correct that; neither in the scan nor in the wet print process.

 

[AgX]

My fault, sorry. Instead of "issues" I should have written "topics" as this is what I mean.
At some german forae I even do not remember having come across a thread on XP-2 (or any chomogenic b&w film) at all.

 

[macfred]

My fault, sorry. Instead of "issues" I should have written "topics" as this is what I mean.
At some german forae I even do not remember having come across a thread on XP-2 (or any chomogenic b&w film) at all.

Now I understand - yes, I guess it is - actually a problem-free film - no one has troubles using it ...
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 !!!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Can you comment on the durability of the exposed and C41-developed XP2+ negatives? Is it shorter than for conventional BW negatives?

In theory, chromogenic films (B&W or color) are less likely to have very long lifetimes because dyes break down more easily than metallic silver or silver coated (via toning) with either gold or selenium, or even silver sulfide formed by sepia toning.

That said, there are a lot of Kodachromes around from as far back as the late 1930s that are still not just viewable, but still bright and clean-looking. Dyes can be very permanent. Chromogenic B&W has only been around for, what, forty years? C-41 was only introduced in 1972, so it can't be more than fifty years, and early C-41 films were still subject to improvement.

Come back in a century or two -- most physically intact silver-image photographs ought to still be viewable (assuming they were fully fixed and fully washed); we'll know then if dye images did anything like as well.

 

[AgX]

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 !!!

Maybe we should have here a forum "Coming Out" ...

 

[AgX]

Concerning dye stability:
At colour films already minor density changes can have nasty effects. At a chromogenic b&w film I expect lesser visible effect.

 

[macfred]

Maybe we should have here a forum "Coming Out" ...

Americans are prudes - that would immediately go into the soap box ...

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Ilford is still making XP2 Super in both 35mm and 120 formats. It is even making 100' bulk rolls. So some number of users must be there who buy all that XP2 produced by Ilford. There seems to be more love for XP2 Super on Facebook than over here.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, I bought ten rolls (24 exposure, by mistake) of 35mm recently, and just yesterday received six rolls of 120. I've thought about getting a bulk roll as well, but all my loaders are full and I'd rather find/make a 400' loader to be able to buy XX Negative at a reasonable cost than have another loader sitting around with 35mm.