- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 462
- Format
- Multi Format
I don't think it will be any surprise to anyone here that Ilford XP2 Super, a chromogenic film normally processed in C-41 chemicals, can be developed in ordinary black and white chemicals too. If you don't do your own processing, this wouldn't make a lot of sense, but if you do, it saves money by not using colour chemistry, and it allows pull and push processing, which is surprisingly satisfying with this film.
When I first started to do this, about three years ago, it was simply to reduce grain. I'm old enough that I was brought up in the day when film was the only option, and the reduction of grain was a constant quest. There isn't so much silver in a chromogenic film as a regular black and white film, and I thought to see if I could find a pleasing balance, avoiding on one hand the excessively smooth (some would say 'plasticky) look of XP2 in C-41 chemicals, but also avoiding too much grain. I saw a couple of examples of dilute Rodinal (or equivalent) being used for stand development. My experience was that this only worked well to give fine grain if the film was exposed at EI 200.
Dan by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 Super in 35mm, Blazinal 1+100, one hour, six inversions at start and at 30 minutes
So I began to experiment with other developers, and the first two here work, but not perhaps so well as the Rodinal. Diafine worked, and it didn't make much difference whether the film was exposed at EI 200 or 400:
Cartwheel by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 Super in 35mm, EI 200, Diafine 3 minutes A and B
Bridge by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 Super in 35mm, ISO 400, Diafine 3 minutes A & B
I even used some oddball mixtures such as Qualls' monobath:
Balmoral Kirk #1 by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 Super in 35mm, Qualls' Monobath for six minutes
But both seemed to be more gritty than I wanted. Then I discovered HC-110, which makes for a sublime pairing with XP2. You can use the traditional Dilution E of 1 part US concentrate to 47 parts of water, but I have chosen to work with 1 + 49, as it makes the math easier in my head! It doesn't seem to make any difference to the development.
So here is medium format XP2 at EI 400 in 1+49 HC-110 for eight minutes:
Pippa 2017 #3 by chrism229, on Flickr
That looked OK to me, but the scan needed quite a lot of lightening and its histogram was crowded to the left, so I decided to develop for ten minutes to darken the negative, and move the histogram towards the centre:
Squirrel 1 by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 in 35mm, EI 400, HC-110 1+49, 10 minutes
Having got to the point where I felt confident using XP2 with HC-110, I eventually decided to see if it could be pushed and pulled like a conventional silver halide film, and I'm happy to report that it can!
First I tried pulling it to EI 200 and reducing what was my standard time of eight minutes to only four. Since I have changed my standard time to ten minutes I think this could easily be extended to five minutes, and furthermore, I think it could be exposed at EI 100 too, based on the histograms of my scans. This image was taken indoors, with a bright window included with the aim of getting something in both the dark interior and the bright outside:
Experiments in Pull Processing 3 by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 in 120, EI 200, HC-110 1+49, 4 minutes
Today I tried exposing a film at EI 1600, and developing it for 18 minutes. I was expecting a high contrast result with some, but, hopefully, acceptable grain. Instead, I got these two:
Experiment in Push Processing 4 by chrism229, on Flickr
Experiment in Push Processing 3 by chrism229, on Flickr
I was very surprised at how normal these photographs appeared to be! In fact, I think I'll try for 3200 and see what happens - it could be a remarkably useful combination if it has as little graininess as it has at 1600. Tentatively, if anyone else wants to experiment, I'd suggest using 1+49 HC-110 at 20ºC, with an agitation regime of four inversions at the outset, and four more every minute. Times ought to be about:
EI 100 4 minutes (not tested yet)
EI 200 6.5 minutes
EI 400 10 minutes
EI 800 13.5 minutes (not tested yet)
EI 1600 18 minutes
EI 3200 24 minutes (not tested yet)
Chromogenic films were introduced as a way to allow the public to get B&W images easily developed once the C-41 process had become predominant and it was both difficult and expensive to find someone to develop your B&W film. Now we live in a different world, and I'd guess that an awful lot of the B&W film sold - maybe most of it - will be developed at home. However, I still get people on certain forums telling me that XP2 cannot be developed this way! It would be nice if Ilford would sanction this way of developing XP2, as more people would use it if they knew they could develop it this way, and anything that sells film is good for all of us. I do apologise for the word 'scans' in the above; I haven't tried to wet print an XP2 negative, and I'm not likely to do so given the dusty state of my enlargers. None of us is perfect.
Chris
When I first started to do this, about three years ago, it was simply to reduce grain. I'm old enough that I was brought up in the day when film was the only option, and the reduction of grain was a constant quest. There isn't so much silver in a chromogenic film as a regular black and white film, and I thought to see if I could find a pleasing balance, avoiding on one hand the excessively smooth (some would say 'plasticky) look of XP2 in C-41 chemicals, but also avoiding too much grain. I saw a couple of examples of dilute Rodinal (or equivalent) being used for stand development. My experience was that this only worked well to give fine grain if the film was exposed at EI 200.
Dan by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 Super in 35mm, Blazinal 1+100, one hour, six inversions at start and at 30 minutes
So I began to experiment with other developers, and the first two here work, but not perhaps so well as the Rodinal. Diafine worked, and it didn't make much difference whether the film was exposed at EI 200 or 400:
Cartwheel by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 Super in 35mm, EI 200, Diafine 3 minutes A and B
Bridge by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 Super in 35mm, ISO 400, Diafine 3 minutes A & B
I even used some oddball mixtures such as Qualls' monobath:
Balmoral Kirk #1 by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 Super in 35mm, Qualls' Monobath for six minutes
But both seemed to be more gritty than I wanted. Then I discovered HC-110, which makes for a sublime pairing with XP2. You can use the traditional Dilution E of 1 part US concentrate to 47 parts of water, but I have chosen to work with 1 + 49, as it makes the math easier in my head! It doesn't seem to make any difference to the development.
So here is medium format XP2 at EI 400 in 1+49 HC-110 for eight minutes:
Pippa 2017 #3 by chrism229, on Flickr
That looked OK to me, but the scan needed quite a lot of lightening and its histogram was crowded to the left, so I decided to develop for ten minutes to darken the negative, and move the histogram towards the centre:
Squirrel 1 by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 in 35mm, EI 400, HC-110 1+49, 10 minutes
Having got to the point where I felt confident using XP2 with HC-110, I eventually decided to see if it could be pushed and pulled like a conventional silver halide film, and I'm happy to report that it can!
First I tried pulling it to EI 200 and reducing what was my standard time of eight minutes to only four. Since I have changed my standard time to ten minutes I think this could easily be extended to five minutes, and furthermore, I think it could be exposed at EI 100 too, based on the histograms of my scans. This image was taken indoors, with a bright window included with the aim of getting something in both the dark interior and the bright outside:
Experiments in Pull Processing 3 by chrism229, on Flickr
XP2 in 120, EI 200, HC-110 1+49, 4 minutes
Today I tried exposing a film at EI 1600, and developing it for 18 minutes. I was expecting a high contrast result with some, but, hopefully, acceptable grain. Instead, I got these two:
Experiment in Push Processing 4 by chrism229, on Flickr
Experiment in Push Processing 3 by chrism229, on Flickr
I was very surprised at how normal these photographs appeared to be! In fact, I think I'll try for 3200 and see what happens - it could be a remarkably useful combination if it has as little graininess as it has at 1600. Tentatively, if anyone else wants to experiment, I'd suggest using 1+49 HC-110 at 20ºC, with an agitation regime of four inversions at the outset, and four more every minute. Times ought to be about:
EI 100 4 minutes (not tested yet)
EI 200 6.5 minutes
EI 400 10 minutes
EI 800 13.5 minutes (not tested yet)
EI 1600 18 minutes
EI 3200 24 minutes (not tested yet)
Chromogenic films were introduced as a way to allow the public to get B&W images easily developed once the C-41 process had become predominant and it was both difficult and expensive to find someone to develop your B&W film. Now we live in a different world, and I'd guess that an awful lot of the B&W film sold - maybe most of it - will be developed at home. However, I still get people on certain forums telling me that XP2 cannot be developed this way! It would be nice if Ilford would sanction this way of developing XP2, as more people would use it if they knew they could develop it this way, and anything that sells film is good for all of us. I do apologise for the word 'scans' in the above; I haven't tried to wet print an XP2 negative, and I'm not likely to do so given the dusty state of my enlargers. None of us is perfect.
Chris
