Ilford XP2 Super E.I. range

A relatively simple question with what I am sure will be a complex answer. I have some Ilford XP2 Super in 120. If I develop it in C-41, what range of E.I. can I expose it at to get good results? I don't mind grain or thin negatives as long as the end results (scans mostly, also prints) look nice. Ilford on the datasheet says 200-800. Has anyone here done 100 or 1600? How did it look? Does it react to overexposure more like a color film or a b&w film?

I have certainly seen negatives at the 1600 range and if 200 is regarded as part of the normal range then I'd imagine that 100 is perfectly possible. There are a number of YouTube videos on this film with the results shown at 2 stops under and 2 stops over so if no one provides their experience and/or photos, check the videos out.

If recall correctly, IlfordPhoto has published photos provided by contributors who have used XP2 Plus at 2 stops over

pentaxuser

The advantage of that film is how little grain it has for an ISO400 film when we need darkroom printing negatives... So there's no real reason to use it beyond EI200-EI800. I mean, no reason to buy a Chromogenic ISO400 film for EI100 photography.
EI100 and EI1600 are beyond optimal for image quality, 1600 worse than 100.
For EI800 it can be pushed (just some seconds) by labs and with home C-41 kits: mostly for low contrast scenes.
It's a great film, though too clean for some uses.

If you're after higher EI, there's a little trick -- bleach bypass your C-41 process (which you can do using B&W rapid fixer, if your C-41 kit has blix) you can add approximately one stop EI -- which would mean you'd get good image quality even at 1600, and if you can push one stop in development (easy if you're doing it yourself) that would get you to 3200 without much loss (shadow detail would be thin, but overall it'll look as good as, say, HP5+ at EI 800). I've shot 6-7 rolls with bleach bypass at EI 800 and got very normal-looking results (including pretty good shadow detail).

Some good advice on how to shoot XP2 Super here.

I regularly shoot XP2 at EI 200 in the bright, blazing sunlight of the desert and I'm always pleased with the results; from the film, anyway, maybe not so much my compositions!

Raghu Kuvempunagar - thanks for the article, very informative. I've just been given an M4 - XP2 will be a good way to test it out.
One question - about fading. I have some XP1 negs, processed in C41 that I took in the 80's and 90's, kept in PrintFile books, which are in perfect condition.
Is this fading an issue more with XP2, or just when kept in open light?

Fading is possible with chromogenic films, just because the dyes are organic and enough exposure to light or UV will degrade the dyes. This doesn't happen with silver image films (though there are other things that can make them fade, like incomplete washing). On the other hand, have (somewhere) Ektachrome slides shot and processed in the 1980s, and last time I saw them (six or seven years ago) they looked fine -- at about 40 years of age.

Most reasonably modern color films, if properly processed and stabilized (which doesn't require a separate process step for C-41 films made since about 2000), will last long enough to be lost before they fade significantly. The same is true of chromogenic B&W films like XP2 Super.

I use those chromogenic films (XP2Super and Neopan 400CN) from EI 100 - 800 lab-processed in C-41 with very good results. Most of the time I shoot them at EI 200.

I don't find any noticeable increase in grain with bleach bypass. I first did that with Kodak T400CN, and didn't see any additional grain there, either. I suppose you might see that if you printed XP2 Super with Grade 5, but I've seen little grain when I've processed it in B&W chemistry,either -- to my eye it's finer than T-Max 400 done that way, so with bleach bypass, you're adding that fine grain to the nearly grainless dye image.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/early-before-shift.63670/full?d=1602454161

That's a fascinating approach, Donald and based on your experience, worth a shot. Just for clarification: You use b&w rapid fixer, say Ilford Rapid Fixer, instead of the bleach which adds one stop but isn't one stop 800 and not 1600? Then if you extend the developer time to say 3 mins 45 secs you get another stop but again isn't this now 1600 rather than 3200?

Or is it the case that exposure at 800 is as near damn it just as good as exposure at 400, in which case the bleach bypass is one stop to 1600 and extended dev time one more stop to 3200?

Thanks

pentaxuser

George Collier said:

Is this fading an issue more with XP2, or just when kept in open light?

Click to expand...

If you're talking about fading of the pink colour of the film base, then it's not a real concern.

If you're talking about fading of the image itself, then it is not going to be any worse than other good quality C41 films.

Grim Tuesday said:

A relatively simple question with what I am sure will be a complex answer. I have some Ilford XP2 Super in 120. If I develop it in C-41, what range of E.I. can I expose it at to get good results? I don't mind grain or thin negatives as long as the end results (scans mostly, also prints) look nice. Ilford on the data sheet says 200-800. Has anyone here done 100 or 1600? How did it look? Does it react to overexposure more like a color film or a b&w film?

Click to expand...

Chris Woodhouse did a fairly detailed analysis of this in or book 'Way Beyond Monochrome Ed.2. I think, that chapter is aavailable on the web or from him as pdf.

RalphLambrecht said:

Chris Woodhouse did a fairly detailed analysis of this in or book 'Way Beyond Monochrome Ed.2. I think, that chapter is aavailable on the web or from him as pdf.

Click to expand...

Summary from the book: "Expose XP2 at EI 200 to get more shadow detail, and use it for normal and high-contrast subjects. However, XP2 is too ‘soft’ for low-contrast subjects, even if developed for twice the normal development time."

This is of course in the context of C41 processing of the film.

pentaxuser said:

That's a fascinating approach, Donald and based on your experience, worth a shot. Just for clarification: You use b&w rapid fixer, say Ilford Rapid Fixer, instead of the bleach which adds one stop but isn't one stop 800 and not 1600? Then if you extend the developer time to say 3 mins 45 secs you get another stop but again isn't this now 1600 rather than 3200?

Or is it the case that exposure at 800 is as near damn it just as good as exposure at 400, in which case the bleach bypass is one stop to 1600 and extended dev time one more stop to 3200?

Click to expand...

When I've done it, I've used Flexicolor fixer, bypassing the bleach step. You *can* used B&W rapid fixer if, for instance, you use a kit for C-41 and your kit has blix instead of separate bleach and fixer.

In my experience, the density of the silver plus that of the dye image is about equivalent to one stop of extra real speed -- EI 800 -- and there's still latitude enough to shoot at one stop higher EI with no change in development, EI 1600 (with about the same image quality you'd get with standard C-41 at EI 800). If you then push development one stop, at the expense of even more reduction in shadow detail, you'll get EI 3200 (and you can push +2 if you feel your negatives are too thin after this much abuse).

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:

Summary from the book: "Expose XP2 at EI 200 to get more shadow detail, and use it for normal and high-contrast subjects. However, XP2 is too ‘soft’ for low-contrast subjects, even if developed for twice the normal development time."

This is of course in the context of C41 processing of the film.

Click to expand...

sounds about right

What bleach bypass does is it adds image-wise silver density to the dye image. This has the obvious consequence of increasing the contrast of the image. The other noticeable effect is increased shadow density. In these respects it is very similar to an intensifier except that the intensification is not done post development. However, one must really take claims on speed boost due to bleach bypass with a pinch of salt. Noticeable increase in contrast and shadow density can be misinterpreted as increase in the speed of the film. Bleach bypass can't create density where there was none except perhaps increase base fog. Same is true with any intensifier. As XP2 Super produces somewhat low contrast images when processed normally and low contrast scenes can look very soft, bleach bypass can be a useful tool to boost the contrast. However, it's unlikely that there is any real and significant increase in speed due to it. Interestingly, @RalphLambrecht's book says that the effective speed of XP2 Super when processed normally in C41 process, i.e. for 3:25 minutes at 38C, is 1 2/3 stops less than the box speed!! (see Fig.4 in page 248 and Fig. 5 in page 249, C41 Zone System chapter) If bleach bypass can recover these 1 2/3 stops and give you more then it's really magical.

As an aside, 1 2/3 stops less than the box speed is what I get when I develop the film in B&W chemistry.

Yes, generally agreed conclusions are hard to come by. In the case of XP2 Super acceptable film speed for an OK negative seem to vary between about 125 and 800

I suppose that most of us and certainly me are simply looking for how to expose and develop a negative that at its maximum speed, should circumstances demand maximum speed, still produces an acceptable print which most and certainly me would define as one that still retains enough shadow detail for it not to be seen as a reasonable print

Certainly I have seen a good number of prints in articles for instance from XP2 Super negs that look good at 800

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Certainly I have seen a good number of prints in articles for instance from XP2 Super negs that look good at 800

Click to expand...

It is possible that those negatives were obtained by extended development in C41 process. In fact @RalphLambrecht's book reports that the effective speed of XP2 Super increased with increased development time from ~125 (3.5 minutes) to ~300 (7.5 minutes) in the tests they did (see Fig.5 page 249).