Ilford XP2 Super in B&W chemicals

[MattKing]

I often find myself using PhotoFlo on colour negatives after the stabiliser

If you do this, you will negate the effect of the stabilizer. The Photoflo will just wash it away, leaving the film vulnerable to bacteria.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There are basically 2 methods for getting B&W images from this type of film. One is to use a "black" coupler which gives a black image of unknown stability in a color process. There is no silver left, and usually no DIR is present. Another uses a compound which forms a black image in a B&W process and is combined with a silver image at the end. IDK which method Ilford uses, but Kodak uses the one that virtually requires a color process.

Based on the quality of the results, who cares! I always say if it works, use it.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

If you do this, you will negate the effect of the stabilizer. The Photoflo will just wash it away, leaving the film vulnerable to bacteria.

The stabilizer or final rinse contains Photo Flo.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

What would be the point in using XP2 if you develop it as ordinary film. You lose the two advantages of this film, easy commercial development and a grainless negative.

 

[Craig75]

because the results at high iso especially are impressive.

 

[pentaxuser]

In addition to what Craig75 has said, presumably with B&W chems and at ambient temp it is easier develop and probably cheaper. If you were a hybrid user then it would appear that whatever reservations that may exist around darkroom printing of such negs the scans we have seen suggest that no such reservations are relevant.

pentaxuser

 

[drmoss_ca]

What would be the point in using XP2 if you develop it as ordinary film. You lose the two advantages of this film, easy commercial development and a grainless negative.

Good question. I don't have the option of commercial development, save for driving a 100km roundtrip to deliver the film and again to pick it up a week later. So I develop myself, and only landed on XP2 when I saw that it could produce little or no grain. I stocked up my film freezer, not knowing at the time that a surprise was in store for me that now means I can use a film a day. After I finished chemo I started experimenting and now I'm confident of my results. It's only in the last few weeks I decided to try pulling and pushing it after being told on an unnamed forum (no, not APUG), yet again, that it wasn't possible to develop XP2 in anything other than C-41. So rather than just bumbling along doing it at ISO 400, I thought it might be worthwhile to try to pull and push the developing just as one does with silver halide films - I assumed those who didn't believe it possible at box speed might be inspired to look more closely if really good results were easily obtained at unusual speeds. It turns out that it is possible, and the noteworthy thing is that I can push it 3 stops and still have no grain. So my only interest here is to inform people that this is an option - easy, cheap home developing, and the option of pulling and pushing, and no grain. I'm no darkroom wizard, and I can't do the last bit with Tri-X or HP5, though perhaps others can.

I've started a 35mm XP2 at 3200, and I'll do my best to burn through it tomorrow and show some results.

The other big outstanding task is for an experienced wet printer to see if these negatives can usefully sit under enlargers (I assume Ilford feels they can do so quite nicely after C-41 processing, as they bothered to make a chromogenic film that could be printed on B&W paper, unlike Kodak's BW400CN, which requires colour paper and RA-4). I'm doing stuff here that is rather out of my depth - for example, I'm using the histogram that I see in the scanning software of my X1 to adjust the developing time - I've not heard anyone talk about that but it seems reasonable. But as long as I'm getting somewhere it seems worth the bother. Believe me, I wouldn't venture into this dragon's den unless I felt it was worthwhile.

C.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Chris, Thank You for posting. I've done a D76 regimen w/ a water bath in between & been quite happy w/ the results. 'Didn't know HC-110 was also useable.

'Love your work. The portraits of Pippa have been wonderful & the recent station shots also. All Best to you & yours.

 

[winger]

The other big outstanding task is for an experienced wet printer to see if these negatives can usefully sit under enlargers (I assume Ilford feels they can do so quite nicely after C-41 processing, as they bothered to make a chromogenic film that could be printed on B&W paper, unlike Kodak's BW400CN, which requires colour paper and RA-4).

I'd be willing to try (pretty sure others here are far more experienced). I'm not sure when I'll have a chance to shoot any XP2 (I think I have a roll around here somewhere). If there's any chance of someone sending me a strip of negatives, I don't mind printing it. I've printed from XP2 developed by C-41 a fair amount and it prints like other B&W negatives. There's an image in my gallery here of a pair of boots in front of a chair that was shot on XP2 - it's a scan of the print.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I've just hung up the 35mm XP2 to dry, and I see a problem. The same thing happened with the 120 film - some of the frames are very thin and are probably unusable. When it happened with the 120 film, I assumed that since some were fine, and some were thin, that perhaps the shutter in my ancient Sonnar 150/4 wasn't working at some speeds (they were taken on a tripod at speeds like 1/8 and 1/4 which I probably hadn't used before). But this 35mm film has just come out of an F6 which hasn't had any problems at all and it's showing the same thing. Is it possible that the film has a threshold below which it won't register much of anything? Perhaps PE can enlighten us? There were no problems with the films going on the Hewes reels and no indication that the film had been in contact with itself or anything of that sort.
So if it's going to be hit or miss I can't recommend 3200. When it's dry, I'll scan and show any decent ones simply to assess any graininess in the smaller format, but in future I'll limit myself to 1600 which didn't have that problem at all.

Chris

 

[drmoss_ca]

Here is the 35mm XP2 at 3200. I don't care for the texture very much - it looks like 3200!


Experiment in Push Processing 9 by chrism229, on Flickr


Experiment in Push Processing 7 by chrism229, on Flickr

I'll stick with 1600 for pushing 120 film, and I'll have to find out if the 35mm will tolerate 1600 or whether that ought to be limited to 800.

Chris

 

[Rudeofus]

There is certainly some threshold effect, which is called "the toe". If you measure and expose for some spot, you typically get about 4 stops of latitude downwards, below that your frames will be blank. If you already underexpose by 3 stops (i.e. expose an ISO 400 film @EI 3200), then your latitude downwards shrinks to 1 stop. If your subject has mostly dark areas and you measure just that one small bright part, there's a good chance that the film won't record much. In other frames you'll measure in darker regions and the image will look ok.

It all leads back to my mantra: the EI number is meaningless unless one states where inside the frame it was measured. If I measure in the right spot, I can expose PanF+ at EI5000 and get normal negatives.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

While companies like Ilford are interested in selling their film they also wish people to be satisfied with their products. Ilford makes no mention of developing XP2 in anything other than C-41. In fact this film is consciously separated from their other films in their literature. I consider this a good example of "deafening silence."

 

[Craig75]

dude's gone to a lot of effort here and freely shared his findings.if you arent impressed that's cool but you are adding nothing with comments like this.

 

[Pioneer]

This is the only thread on APUG that I am currently following. I will have to reserve judgement until I have tried it for myself but it certainly looks promising, at least with 120 roll film. Screen shots are always tough for me to really evaluate so I generally follow up with my own trials when something piques my interest like this thread.

Thanks drmoss-ca

 

[drmoss_ca]

There is certainly some threshold effect, which is called "the toe". If you measure and expose for some spot, you typically get about 4 stops of latitude downwards, below that your frames will be blank. If you already underexpose by 3 stops (i.e. expose an ISO 400 film @EI 3200), then your latitude downwards shrinks to 1 stop. If your subject has mostly dark areas and you measure just that one small bright part, there's a good chance that the film won't record much. In other frames you'll measure in darker regions and the image will look ok.

It all leads back to my mantra: the EI number is meaningless unless one states where inside the frame it was measured. If I measure in the right spot, I can expose PanF+ at EI5000 and get normal negatives.

I expect you're right. It's a strange sensation to be bumping one's head on a toe.

 

[MattKing]

I expect you're right. It's a strange sensation to be bumping one's head on a toe.

Not if you are standing on your head .

My guess is that the biggest reason to do this would relate to how easily the result can be scanned.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The two scans in post #36 are typical of what you get when you develop ANY chromogenic film in conventional developers, lack of contrast and density.

 

[pentaxuser]

I hadn't noticed any lack of contrast and density in the earlier scans the OP showed despite some being at two stops under. If he had shown his scans in the gallery other than the 3200 ones in post #36, I wonder how many of us would have said they lacked contrast and density?

My conclusion is that 3200 in B&W is a stop too far but 3200 in C41 may be a stop too far as well but if you are a hybrid user then XP2+ in B&W chemicals appears to work and in the OP's circumstances appears to make sense.

pentaxuser

 

[flavio81]

While companies like Ilford are interested in selling their film they also wish people to be satisfied with their products. Ilford makes no mention of developing XP2 in anything other than C-41. In fact this film is consciously separated from their other films in their literature. I consider this a good example of "deafening silence."

...so?

The two scans in post #36 are typical of what you get when you develop ANY chromogenic film in conventional developers, lack of contrast and density.

Those are tests at EI 3200. The examples when using XP2 at 400 and 200 look good, they don't seem to show any "lack of contrast and density"

 

[drmoss_ca]

The two scans in post #36 are typical of what you get when you develop ANY chromogenic film in conventional developers, lack of contrast and density.

I'm perfectly happy with the results up to the last two, where I have taken it too far. Perhaps you would show us some of your chromogenic films developed in B&W developers so we may see why you hold your opinion?

 

[sedwards]

The two scans in post #36 are typical of what you get when you develop ANY chromogenic film in conventional developers, lack of contrast and density.

Uh... Did you read the first page and see the results? The scans you are referring to are shot at 3200 so your statement doesn't really pass muster.

 

[Mick Fagan]

At one stage the photographic lab I worked at, did a fair amount of work with C41 process B&W films, Ilford XP and then later on Kodak had their version, which we rarely used as it required a colour paper and colour processing to get a good print.

The Ilford product was in demand by fashion photographers as it allowed them to shoot in the studios attached to our lab, then get the film processed dry to dry inside 30 minutes. Followed by a session on the light box and a loupe for assessment of how they were travelling. This was the early 80’s to mid 80’s, after which their passion for this process died off and they went back to transparency film.

Essentially the Ilford XP film used the yellow dye layer, or at least something like the yellow dye layer as the final thing left on the film with which to get an image from. These negatives were usually thin looking compared to what we were used to with regular B&W films of the day. That said, they printed well. Enlarging Ilford XP and later on, XP2, was easy as anything, apart from using maybe a slightly higher contrast filter setting, say ¼ of a grade more contrast.

The shot of the spade handle in the garden looks good, which may be being helped a little by the flat lighting. I would surmise the shadow to highlight range would be somewhere around 4 stops. To print a negative with that range usually means you have a wonderful looking print on paper. As for an electronic output, I don’t know.

The candelabra is also a low contrast shot, although it doesn’t look it. Same rules apply.

I myself used XP2 film for a while as the convenience factor was great when travelling; one can get negatives on the run while you have lunch nearby. Back home I would print them, not a problem.

I remember reading in some photographic magazine that XP could be developed in B&W developer. I did this, but was never enamoured with the results. I would have been using either Ilford ID11 or Kodak D76 packaged product as I didn’t have a permanent darkroom and was living a more transient lifestyle.

I have a tendency to agree with Gerald Koch about generalisations realised when processing B&W C41 films (Ilford specifically). You almost always get an increased grain look, probably because you have dramatically altered the processing from the original intent of the C41 process. An increase in density and a lack of contrast has been what I remember from my limited days of B&W processing of Ilford XP. I’ve just checked my Ilford XP negatives, which were exposed and processed in 1984. 1984 was a big year for me travel wise, so I used XP as it allowed me to ride my motorcycle on an ambitious route and at the same time drop into photo shops and have a hot chocolate nearby while the film was processed.

All the rolls developed in C41 look excellent, printed well and I have a couple of interesting prints in my photo album of that big trip. It was about then that I read about the B&W processing in normal B&W developer of XP film, I tried it on at least two films that I just found in my folders. After looking at the films on a light box a few minutes ago, I see examples of flat and denser negatives; however they were printable, I have prints from them in my photo album of the time.

I wonder if Ilford XP2 Super; which is what is being discussed, is that much different than the original XP that I used.

As for film speed. My memory of XP was that at 320 ASA it was on the sweet spot, with minimal grain. The studio photographers used it from 200 ASA to 800 ASA, but generally speaking, they mostly settled on 320 ASA as the best speed for the best prints.

Wonderful thread, could be tempted to try a roll or two of XP2 Super and process them in B&W developer and see what gives. I would though, use D76; it's what I use.

Mick.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I'm perfectly happy with the results up to the last two, where I have taken it too far. Perhaps you would show us some of your chromogenic films developed in B&W developers so we may see why you hold your opinion?

1) I don't do scans, don't even own a scanner. That's digital.
2) Why would I have examples of what I really do not recommend? Seen too many bad results of it here.

Glad that you're happy.

 

[Craig75]

"In one of his simulating columns,the late Victor Blackman caused something of a stir by reporting early in 1987 that he had obtained remarkably good results after processing an xp1 film in black and white developer... from time to time it may be convenient or even necessary ...to process an xp2 film in a black and white developer.

Apart from increased graininess and loss of speed xp2 negatives ... will also be less sharp than if they had been processed in a colour developer"

Ilford Monochrome Darkroom Practice, Coote, Jack H 3rd edition