ILFORD XP2 Super 400

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

Developing XP2 Super in B&W chemistry can be helpful here.

p.s. Looks like someone deleted all the scanning related posts from this thread except that of the moderator which triggered the scanning discussion.

 

[macfred]

''True is it that we have seen better days ... ''

William Shakespeare -As you like it

 

[Donald Qualls]

p.s. Looks like someone deleted all the scanning related posts from this thread

Last batch are still there, just page back one time.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

''True is it that we have seen better days ... '' William Shakespeare -As you like it

Bit of a tautology - the only way the statement can be false is if today is the best day of your life, as then all the days in the past would be worse and none would better. And come tomorrow the statement would be true again.

As you get older it is less likely that today is the best day. Geezers like myself get more and more convinced everything is going downhill. No more Tech Pan, no more Kodachrome 25, no more Ektar 25, no more bedding young women - what more proof does anyone need?

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Last batch are still there, just page back one time.

At least 2 posts by @Old Gregg, 1 by @albireo, 1 by @Lachlan Young, 3 by yours truly, and 3 by @macfred were deleted.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, must be older than the last couple days, then.

 

[macfred]

Bit of a tautology - the only way the statement can be false is if today is the best day of your life, as then all the days in the past would be worse and none would better. And come tomorrow the statement would be true again.

As you get older it is less likely that today is the best day; so geezers like myself get more and more convinced everything is going downhill. No more Tech Pan, no more Kodachrome 25, no more Ektar 25, no more bedding young women - what more proof does anyone need?

Nicholas, that's worth thinking about - I will do that !

Some days I tend towards theatrics and drama ....
It was actually an informative and peaceful thread.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Developing XP2 Super in B&W chemistry can be helpful here.

A lot of 'problems' with XP2 Super derive from people not respecting the characteristic curve - and subsequent curve relationships with whatever paper it is printed on. It has a short toe and a fairly long/ softer shoulder - which is what trips people up. Placing your exposure at the correct point for ISO 400 is going to give rather different highlight responses from shoving the exposure another stop or so up the curve - which will then need a short toe on the paper emulsion (ie generally going to need a higher grade number - with knock-on effects for the shadows) to reproduce the highlights well. The softer shoulder helps with overexposure latitude (and higher contrast situations) but its effects need to be respected if the material is to be used to its full potential.

As for extended techniques, you can try pushing XP2 in C-41 (no curves to cross) or using 'looping'/ Rehal processing for as many cycles as desired.

 

[Donald Qualls]

As for extended techniques, you can try pushing XP2 in C-41 (no curves to cross) or using 'looping'/ Rehal processing for as many cycles as desired.

I need to try this "looping" technique. Seems to be more or less the same effect I'd get with very heavy pushing, but combined with bleach bypass on the last pass, still improves shadows a little compared to plain C-41 process or push. This would be color dev, fix, wash, bleach, wash, (color dev, bleach, wash)... and fix with or without final bleaching when done. I suspect diminishing returns would set in after 2-3 cycles, due to limited amount of dye couplers in the emulsion.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's one film I've never used... probably because it's C-41...which I've never done. I'm quite impressed with the examples posted here, though.

 

[Donald Qualls]

That's one film I've never used... probably because it's C-41...which I've never done.

I can't think of a better way to start C-41. XP-2 Super is no harder to develop in C-41 than most B&W films in D-76. If you find 3:15 or 3:30 developing time intimidating (B&W literature always recommends against dev times under 5 minutes for reasons of consistency), with XP-2 you can just lower the temperature and apply the same sort of correction to time that you would with single-agent B&W developers like Rodinal. You can even stand develop -- with color films, this will produce color shifts and/or crossover, but XP-2 doesn't have that problem.

A basic C-41 kit costs about what you'd pay to send out a single roll and get prints -- and most will process anywhere from eight to twenty rolls with minor time extension to compensate exhaustion. Do a couple rolls of XP-2 to build confidence, then try a test roll of consumer 35 mm like Kodak Gold or Superia X-Tra. IMO, it's worth doing.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I can't think of a better way to start C-41. XP-2 Super is no harder to develop in C-41 than most B&W films in D-76. If you find 3:15 or 3:30 developing time intimidating (B&W literature always recommends against dev times under 5 minutes for reasons of consistency), with XP-2 you can just lower the temperature and apply the same sort of correction to time that you would with single-agent B&W developers like Rodinal. You can even stand develop -- with color films, this will produce color shifts and/or crossover, but XP-2 doesn't have that problem.

A basic C-41 kit costs about what you'd pay to send out a single roll and get prints -- and most will process anywhere from eight to twenty rolls with minor time extension to compensate exhaustion. Do a couple rolls of XP-2 to build confidence, then try a test roll of consumer 35 mm like Kodak Gold or Superia X-Tra. IMO, it's worth doing.

Next time I'm in the camera shop near me, I'll pick up a couple of rolls. I think I saw 120 rolls on the shelf... Damnit! I've got way too much film!

 

[markjwyatt]

That's one film I've never used... probably because it's C-41...which I've never done. I'm quite impressed with the examples posted here, though.

I think I shot a roll or two back when I used to work in one-hour photo shops (C-41 only, in-house at least).

 

[drmoss_ca]

Next time I'm in the camera shop near me, I'll pick up a couple of rolls. I think I saw 120 rolls on the shelf... Damnit! I've got way too much film!

Don't be silly. That's not possible!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Don't be silly. That's not possible!

Of course, you are right...sigh...

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Ilford, in its data sheet, says it doesn't recommend push processing XP2 Super and makes absolutely no mention of looping. I know that many have pushed XP2 Super and got 'acceptable' results especially when shooting in low light. However, there doesn't seem to be any first hand report of using looping to increase contrast for this film. Has anyone tried it on XP2 Super and got any data or examples and findings to share?

 

[drmoss_ca]

Yesterday I thought of a real torture test for seeing just how smooth I could get a photo to be in XP2 Super. Use a half-frame camera to double any grain size, and rate it at 1600. Developed for 18 minutes in 1+49 HC-110 in the motorized Rondinax. And if I'm getting out the Pen F, it's triptych time!

 

[AgX]

Ilford, in its data sheet, says it doesn't recommend push processing XP2 Super and makes absolutely no mention of looping.

What do you mean by looping?
Never heard this term in any photographic context other than automated-process feed-back control.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

What do you mean by looping?
Never heard this term in any photographic context other than automated-process feed-back control.

See post #82.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yesterday I thought of a real torture test for seeing just how smooth I could get a photo to be in XP2 Super. Use a half-frame camera to double any grain size, and rate it at 1600. Developed for 18 minutes in 1+49 HC-110 in the motorized Rondinax. And if I'm getting out the Pen F, it's triptych time!

They all look pretty good to me with no real significant loss of shadow detail that matters to my eye

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm pretty sure no film manufacturer will recommend looping, and it's not surprising that Ilford doesn't recommend pushing XP-2, since they claim you can expose at up to EI 800 without any change in development -- why would you need anything faster than that ("Nobody will ever need more than 640k of RAM.")? Still, like any push to C-41 films, it's done fairly routinely by those who process their own, which (really) isn't the market XP-2 is officially aimed at.

So, like all the other tricks we apply to B&W or color films (bleach bypass, toning, bleach/redevelop intensification, special developers), it's all "after market, not recommended by manufacturer" process. If it works, good for you. If it doesn't, Ilford doesn't owe you a replacement roll.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

So, like all the other tricks we apply to B&W or color films (bleach bypass, toning, bleach/redevelop intensification, special developers), it's all "after market, not recommended by manufacturer" process. If it works, good for you. If it doesn't, Ilford doesn't owe you a replacement roll.

You're preaching to the choir though some might think it's a pointless charade just like developing XP2 Super in B&W chemistry. I'm just bemused by the recommendation to use an offbeat technique like looping to boost contrast of XP2 Super for normal and low contrast scenes when a straight forward development in B&W chemistry can do that for you without the extra effort or uncertainty about its effectiveness. I wonder if any commercial labs offered/offer looping. Does it add density in a predictable and consistent way? Are there any side-effects like increase in base fog and grain or unwanted artifacts? Does it affect the stability of the dyes due to multiple rounds of bleaching? There just doesn't seem to be any useful data for or anecdotes on looping in the context of XP2 Super.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Given the limited quantity of dye couplers present, it's probably an exponential decay -- gain N+1 (or similar) the second development, N+1/2 the third, probably no more than N+1/4 the fourth, and nothing worth the effort on the fifth, would be my guess. Combine that with bleach bypass on the last development, and you'd be awfully close to N+3, with a least a stop of real speed increase in the shadows. Guesswork, but seems reasonable to me...

 

[Lachlan Young]

I'm pretty sure no film manufacturer will recommend looping, and it's not surprising that Ilford doesn't recommend pushing XP-2, since they claim you can expose at up to EI 800 without any change in development -- why would you need anything faster than that ("Nobody will ever need more than 640k of RAM.")? Still, like any push to C-41 films, it's done fairly routinely by those who process their own, which (really) isn't the market XP-2 is officially aimed at.

So, like all the other tricks we apply to B&W or color films (bleach bypass, toning, bleach/redevelop intensification, special developers), it's all "after market, not recommended by manufacturer" process. If it works, good for you. If it doesn't, Ilford doesn't owe you a replacement roll.

The rehal/ looping technique is apparently derived from R&D test procedures - and it's the sort of thing that falls far enough into extended technique that recommending it from an official standpoint probably isn't wise - but unlike B&W processing, it seeks to exploit/ maximise inherent characteristics of C-41 materials rather than actively prevent them (as B&W processing does).

 

[albireo]

Learning a lot from this thread. Seems like XP2+ is an even more versatile film than I had suspected.

I have played a bit in the past with it in 120, exposed it as per leaflet and processed it in Tetenal C41. Based on what I've seen, and similarly to what @macfred shows in his beautiful Flickr album, this film shines when developed in C41, and when used in high contrast situations - I really find it unique in its capability to render sun-bleached views. Think Summers in Greece or Southern Italy or Spain. I have now learnt from @Lachlan Young that this must be due to its unusually long shoulder. Another feature which I find immediately noticeable in my negative scans is that the highlights are - for the lack of a better term - pure: completely grainless. whereas a certain noise/graininess is visible in the shadows.

Here's a scan from an old-ish negative. 1PM Summer sun. Fuji GA645i 6x4.5 camera, linear inversion followed by gamma correction, no local post-processing (eg burning/dodging/etc) applied. I have to say I also really like the spectral response of the film. I'm pretty sure I had no filter on, and I like the way the intensely blue sky was rendered. Interesting because the data-sheet shows that the film isn't particularly red-sensitive (doesn't seem to see much past 650nm).