ILFORD XP2 Super 400

[albireo]

By my metering it was about one stop under. All were scanned the same at my local lab. Personally, I like the results, specially the convenience of having it developed locally with C41.

View attachment 293089

Beautiful. Enjoy!

 

[macfred]

Beautiful ...

+1 !

 

[George Collier]

Shooting it at 800 is underexposing it, and it sounds like you under exposed a bit more.
My experience is that under exposing does not increase grain (how can it?), but if the neg is flat (because of underdevelopment, or for whatever reason), then if you increase contrast when printing (or scanning) the image to compensate, that will increase the appearance of grain along with the tonality of the image.

 

[Acere]

IDK but doesn't under exposing film causes less crystals on the film to be used? As far as I understand this film can be pushed or pulled and developed normally with C41 process without much of an issue. I've pushed other films in the past but made the lab aware so they could adjust developing accordingly. From what I've read in this topic is that this film doesn't need any special treatment if pushed or pulled, just your regular C41 developing process and you should get good results. I'll be shooting a few more rolls of XP2 and keeping detailed notes on the ISO & exposures to familiarize myself with it some more. Maybe if I push it i should over expose the it but then that kind of defeats the purpose of pushing it altogether.

 

[MattKing]

If it hasn't already been made clear:
1) over-exposing the film and then developing it in C-41 results in reduced grain. Probably reduced acutance as well, which would present as reduced apparent "sharpness";
2) push and pull processing doesn't affect the film's sensitivity (much). It tends to affect contrast.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If it hasn't already been made clear:
1) over-exposing the film and then developing it in C-41 results in reduced grain. Probably reduced acutance as well, which would present as reduced apparent "sharpness";
2) push and pull processing doesn't affect the film's sensitivity (much). It tends to affect contrast.

More exposure = more DIR coupler released = stronger inhibition effects, thus why you get finer granularity on C-41 with more exposure. More DIR released is also going to tamp down highlight density and improve acutance/ sharpness - up to a point, until gross overexposure causes halation etc. Ilford published a chart comparing the granularity: exposure relationship for HP5, FP4 and XP1, which essentially showed that at 2 stops under correct exposure, XP1 had worse granularity than HP5 at the same point, but when correctly exposed it matched granularity with FP4 & at one stop over it was significantly better. The other aspect that needs to be considered is the curve of XP2 Super which actually demonstrates real 'compensation', unlike all the weird concoctions and methodologies that purport to do so - it has a relatively normal fairly short toe, but a controlled and lengthy shoulder that compresses quite gently over a long part of the scale - as a result, exposures a stop each side of 'correct' are going to deliver quite different behaviour than people who draw their assumptions from much more conventional curve shapes would expect.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

2) push and pull processing doesn't affect the film's sensitivity (much). It tends to affect contrast.

Please take a look at Fig. 5. in page 249, Chapter "C41 Zone System" of @RalphLambrecht's "Way Beyond Monochrome". In the section Film Speed they write: "One point to note is that the effective film speed, based upon a Zone I·5 shadow reading, can vary significantly with the development time."

 

[Oldwino]

Does anybody know...Has Ilford discontinued XP2 35mm in 100' bulk rolls? I don't see it on their website anymore.
If yes, that would make me sad. Others, likely, too.
(I flipped through this thread, didn't see this being answered...sorry if I missed it!)

 

[Donald Qualls]

I saw XP2 Super in bulk rolls on B&H just the other day; I'd be surprised if Ilford discontinued one of their more popular products in a format that probably has the same or better margin than pre-rolled 24 or 36 exposure cassettes.

 

[Oldwino]

I saw XP2 Super in bulk rolls on B&H just the other day; I'd be surprised if Ilford discontinued one of their more popular products in a format that probably has the same or better margin than pre-rolled 24 or 36 exposure cassettes.

Yes, there is still product out there. But strange it is no longer on the Ilford site. Usually, they will put a "sold out" tag on those things out of stock, not just remove it entirely.

 

[MattKing]

What "site" are you referring to - the Ilford/Harman website doesn't have a "store" on it.

 

[macfred]

Still there ... https://www.ilfordphoto.com/black-white-film/35mm-bulk-length-film

 

[Oldwino]

Still there ... https://www.ilfordphoto.com/black-white-film/35mm-bulk-length-film

You see XP2 bulk rolls on that page? Because I do not.
Maybe its a cached version?

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/black-white-film?cat=30

 

[macfred]

You see XP2 bulk rolls on that page? Because I do not.
Maybe its a cached version?

I do - not sure about a cached version though.

 

[macfred]

Try this : https://www.ilfordphoto.com/1839621

 

[Oldwino]

Here's what I get when I search for XP2, all formats

Maybe it's just not on Ilford's USA site?

 

[Oldwino]

Try this : https://www.ilfordphoto.com/1839621

 

[Donald Qualls]

You see XP2 bulk rolls on that page? Because I do not.

Me neither. Might be on a production hiatus due to Covid-related supply chain issues in England?

 

[tezzasmall]

Just checked and I can see it okay.

Terry S

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

Necro-posting this thread a bit I know but I'm reading up on XP-2 Super (I was writing it as + in previous posts, I seem to always forget how companies label their "now mo better!" versions) in half frame and found it.

A better reason for Ilford to not recommend pushing it would probably be the existence of Delta 3200. I've shot a fair bit of Delta 3200 in 120 and quite like it, though I find 3200 is the effective limit for it, where I could get a pretty effective 6400 out of TMZ (but no 120 of course.) I'm not sure how Delta 3200 at 1600 would compare with XP2 Super at 1600 (especially in black and white developers and not the usual C41 process) and it might be an interesting experiment. I would think that XP2 would give far more latitude on the more exposure side without blocking highlights, at least.

 

[Donald Qualls]

A better reason for Ilford to not recommend pushing it would probably be the existence of Delta 3200.

XP-2 Super and Delta 3200 aren't in the same market. 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 (vs. "one hour" which was common and pretty cheap when these films came out), or buy and store and learn to use equipment and chemicals for processing their own (and never mind "what do I do with the negatives? These aren't 'pictures!'"). XP-2 Super is meant to be dropped off and picked up as negatives and hand-size prints in an hour; Delta 3200 is not.

 

[Roger Cole]

XP-2 Super and Delta 3200 aren't in the same market. 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 (vs. "one hour" which was common and pretty cheap when these films came out), or buy and store and learn to use equipment and chemicals for processing their own (and never mind "what do I do with the negatives? These aren't 'pictures!'"). XP-2 Super is meant to be dropped off and picked up as negatives and hand-size prints in an hour; Delta 3200 is not.

Different matter entirely. My comment was in regard to why Ilford doesn't recommend pushing XP2 Super. People like you're talking about as the market for XP2 (agree that was the market THEN, but probably less so now) don't/didn't push film. They likely don't even know what pushing is. And I was speculating that the reason Ilford doesn't talk about pushing to shoot XP2 Super beyond EI 800 is probably in part that they have another film better suited if one wants to expose at EI1600 or 3200.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Also, mini-lab operators quite reasonably don't like to process push -- the only practical way to do it in some machines is to wait for end of shift and turn up the process temperature, run your push +1, turn up some more for push +2, and still more if there are push +3, and then let it cool down overnight so it's ready for the morning crew.

But I agree, anyone who's likely to request push process is virtually certain to know any film can be pushed...

 

[Roger Cole]

Are there any mini-labs left? Or do you just mean commercial processors using old mini-lab machines? I read stuff sometimes about people not knowing where to get color developed if they don't want to or can't do it themselves and it makes me wonder. Anything I've not done myself I've just mailed off for many, many years now. I think there are a few camera stores in Atlanta proper (I live in the suburbs of Atlanta) that still accept film for processing, but even they mail it off themselves so you're just having someone else send it off in the mail for you. Besides the fact that I'd rather go a round with Mike Tyson as his prime than drive down inside Atlanta proper (I'm exaggerating of course - slightly - I do it if I have to but try mightily to avoid it) with my schedule I can send film off myself and have it back before I could find a chance to get down there during regular business hours anyway.

I did my own color years ago, but the last time I was really into photography (long story how I've come and gone and come back to this hobby over decades) about 2010-13 or so, I wisely decided that with digital now a far easier way to produce color prints, something I did but unlike black and white never really enjoyed before anyway, I'd just send my color (and C41 XP2 Super) out for processing and scanning and if I wanted color prints they'd be inkjet and I could concentrate on black and white. Now that some home updates are giving me a proper darkroom with plumbing at last (holding baths and bringing prints and film upstairs to actually wash being one of the annoying reasons I drifted away from it last time, though not the only one) I'm mulling over the photography I want to do now with several projects in mind and considering, since I have a Jobo anyway, doing C41 myself again. Yes I know you can do it without a Jobo. I did many, many rolls of primarily E6 with a big dishpan of water for a tempering bath, with good results, but it's a huge PITA compared to a Jobo. It would save time, risk albeit small of loss or damage in the mail, MAYBE a tiny bit of money but not enough for that to matter, and give me the satisfaction of doing 100% of everything myself, since I also have an Epson v700 if I want to stick to hybrid workflow for any color. If I do I'll certainly experiment with XP2. Partly I am now really curious how pushed XP2 at 1600 would compare with Delta 3200 at 3200. Honestly I think it might be superior in most ways, save perhaps deep shadow detail. I'm guessing that 3200, while I might be able to get some usable results from XP2, will be quite a bit better on Delta 3200. And THAT makes me want the 80/1.9 for my Mamiya 645 Pro. Well, it's only money. Sigh.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Here in NC, CVS and Walmart still take in film, but they don't process it on site. And heaven help you if you send them a roll of Delta 3200 -- it might take multiple weeks and cost you $40.

I do all my own film after paying $20+ to send my first roll of C-41 on getting back to things -- dropped a hundred bucks or so on Flexicolor LORR , with expectation of saving that before I got through my backlog -- but that's not how common "new to film" folks are going to go; I learned to develop B&W in 1969.

For XP2, my suggestion for pushing is to start with bleach bypass -- that is, leave the silver image in the film along with the dye image from the color developer. That gains some true speed (around 2/3 stop, as nearly as I can tell without actual testing), and you still push that. And pushing XP2 won't produce color shifts or crossover as can happen with color stocks -- you just push the contrast up. I figure with a two stop push (develop for about 5 minutes at 40 C) and bleach bypass you can get EI 2500, may 3200 depending on your eye, metering, and standards -- and you can probably go at least one stop beyond that.