Ilford XP2 Super in B&W chemicals

[pentaxuser]

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

I recall on the Roger Hicks/Frances Schultz site that Roger said that XP2 was a big improvement on the original XP1 and that XP2+ should have been give a different nomenclature as it represented another improvement that simply putting a "+" to the name XP2 didn't do the further improvement justice.

However I cannot recall seeing any amplification on why this was so.

pentaxuser

 

[drmoss_ca]

Just to complete my test series, here's some 120 XP2 Super at ISO 800, using HC-110 1+49, for 13.5 minutes:


Experiments in Push Processing 12 by chrism229, on Flickr

I think I've come to the end of my experiments, with ISO 800 now completed. It seems it's easy to pull XP2, and to push to 800 and 1600. 3200 is hit and miss as being a tiny bit under-exposed ruins the picture. I think the results are quite acceptable at 800 and 1600 with 120 film, and I don't feel any real need to bother doing all this over again with 35mm as 35mm lenses tend to have larger apertures than MF lenses. I understand the theoretical objections to doing this, but if you find yourself wanting to push a film to 1600, this is going to mean a lot less grain than with Tri-X or HP5+. I'll certainly go on using up my stock of XP2 with HC-110, whatever speed it gets exposed at - it's good enough for me and I'm the only person I have to please.

C.

 

[Mick Fagan]

C. or whatever your name is, I think this has been a wonderful thread, many thanks for starting it, certainly plenty of food for thought.

With regard to the actual film you used, I understand it was not Ilford XP, was the film you used XP2, or XP2 plus, or XP2 Super?

Mick.

 

[drmoss_ca]

XP2 Super.

Chris

 

[Mick Fagan]

XP2 Super.

Chris

Chris, many thanks.

Ps:- love the turntable.

 

[drmoss_ca]

Ah! So do I. Between that, the Quad electrostatic speakers and the Loricraft, vinyl rides again in Nova Scotia!


Experiments in Pull Processing 1 by chrism229, on Flickr

To be on topic and to annoy those who dislike experimentation, that's a photo taken with XP2 pulled to EI 200, and developed in HC-110 1+49 for four minutes, just to see if I could get an image both indoors (dark) and outside (sunny). Sadly, it's so compressed, so grainy, and so lacking in contrast, density and sharpness it has warped all my LPs!

C.

 

[cowanw]

Sadly, it's so compressed, so grainy, and so lacking in contrast, density and sharpness it has warped all my LPs!
C.

Hmm.. with a humour that dry, one might think you are Canadian.

 

[drmoss_ca]

Eh?

 

[Pioneer]

It would sometimes appear that these apuggers are so staunchly traditional they have forgotten how to let their hair down and have fun with photography once in awhile.

Good job drmoss-ca, wherever you may be from.

I'm on my way out for a Guinness. Anyone care to join me?

 

[nworth]

I have shot a fair amount of XP2 in 120 using C-41 processing. It is an outstanding film. However, I can testify that a commercial lab can screw up the C-41 processing and give you less than great results. Color films (and I include XP-2 here) are designed as a system with a closely controlled processing procedure. XP-2 with properly controlled C-41 processing yields a fantastic dynamic range with extremely fine grain. Using C-41, you get the finest grain at about ISO 200, the best average quality at about ISO 400, and usable results most of the time at anywhere between ISO 100 and ISO 1600. But this is all about using conventional processing, and I'm impressed. The even, fine grain and outstanding rendition of the results in Diafine are particularly impressive. The HC-110 results are also outstanding. Often color films become quite grainy when processed in ordinary black and white developers. Here the grain is indeed more noticeable than it probably would be in C-41 processed material, but it is very fine and very consistent. Combined with the even, fine rendition of the objects, it produces a beautiful result. Push processing any film is always iffy. The results here for 800 and 1600 are truly impressive. The film holds detail even in fairly severe shadows, and it seems to do so consistently at these speeds. You can shoot XP-2 at speeds up to 1600 with C-41 processing, but the results are not nearly as good.

 

[drmoss_ca]

One last demo - half frame negatives really benefit from a low grain approach. These were taken with an Olympus Pen F at ISO400.


Lladro by chrism229, on Flickr


Shaving by chrism229, on Flickr

Chris

 

[drmoss_ca]

Here's a laugh for you experienced darkroom types as I try to justify the use of XP2. I spent the day setting up my dusty old Besseler 67 VC, RH Designs Analyzer Pro, safelights etc in a spare bathroom, and having done it decided I ought to justify the effort by making a couple of prints. In each case, these are photographs I have already scanned and uploaded to Flickr, so it was easy to scan the prints on the V850 and upload those scans for comparison. What was not so easy was remembering how to work the Analyzer Pro, a black box I loved dearly at one time for saving me no end of paper on test strips, and even saving me doing a lot of dodging and burning with it's ability to assist split grade printing. I'm going to have to study the manual at length if I do this again. One thing I didn't sort out is the vignetting - it's not on the negatives and I haven't figured out why I'm seeing it through the enlarger. Perhaps this Besseler doesn't work too well with 6x6 negatives? It never did that to me in the past with 35mm negs. Anyway, here we go. First the scanned negative, then the scan of the print.


Coffee by chrism229, on Flickr


Scan of silver print 2 by chrism229, on Flickr


Pippa 2017 #1 by chrism229, on Flickr


Scan of silver print 1 by chrism229, on Flickr

Plainly, I shall not learn my living as a printer. It took me three goes on the portrait to burn in the face enough to see what we have there, but it could have done with a bit more (and less contrast too, so must remember all that stuff about split grade printing).

I enjoyed my afternoon in the dark, and have left everything set up in case I get inspired again, but I think I'm getting better results with my hybrid approach, given my abject amnesia ± ignorance of proper darkroom procedure. No doubt with enough time and effort I could improve the wet prints, but for now I think I'll keep them as a second string to my bow, just to be enjoyed when I need an excuse to lock myself into a darkroom alone for a day!

Oh, a big hint for anyone converting a bathroom: north american windows often have detachable flyscreens inside them. Take off the flyscreen, place it in a couple of black garbage bags (or wrap it in them if it won't go inside), then replace the screen and carefully do up the latches without tearing the bag. Perfect removable darkness - easy!

Chris

 

[flavio81]

Perhaps the development time is too long? (contrast too high for printing)?

 

[winger]

The vignetting could be from the condenser not being in the right position. I don't know the Beseler 67, but on the 23C and 45MX, the smallest format is with the condenser head all the way up and the largest all the way down.

Whatever the details, it shows that the negs obtained this way are printable in a darkroom, not just scannable. That's pretty cool!

 

[MattKing]

I'm assuming that you have the standard condenser head on your Beseler 67C.
The Beseler 67C needs two changes to change from 35mm to 6x6:
1) you need to use a longer lens, designed to cover the larger format (75-80mm works well).
2) you need to adjust the position of the condensers. If you don't have the manual, check the inside of the front door to the condenser head - there probably will be a diagram there.
Both changes will make for much better prints.

 

[Don Harpold]

Hello
Here is my first try with XP2 400 EI using HC110 20C
This was in a Minolta Himatic 7S 35mm
I used 1-49 for 10 mins. 6 inversions to start and then 6 inversions every one minute.

DrMoss
Could you give the routine you use, I pre rinsed 3 mins and and 10 min fix with regular agitation after developing.

 

[drmoss_ca]

You've done it exactly as I do, except I don't fix for ten minutes. Nice results!

Chris

 

[klaus3428]

I also recently did a 120 roll of XP2 - GW690ii - Ilfosol3 for 20 minutes, fix 5 minutes, I didn't get rid of the pink hue.

 

[drmoss_ca]

Did you scan as black and white, or as a colour image?

 

[Don Harpold]

Thanks drmoss
Will the extended fix cause any problems?

Klaus,
Mine still had the pink hue as well but doesn't effect when scanning in B&W

 

[klaus3428]

Did you scan as black and white, or as a colour image?

Yes - I tend to use colour setting when scanning which generally doesn't give a problem. I quite liked it but appreciate it doesn't bring across the b&W quality.

 

[Don Harpold]

A couple more from the first roll

 

[Petraio Prime]

XP2 is a chromogenic film. There is no advantage whatsoever in treating it as a conventional film. Why not get some missile tracking film, develop it is rat piss, and fix in pool chemicals?

 

[Oldwino]

XP2 is a chromogenic film. There is no advantage whatsoever in treating it as a conventional film. Why not get some missile tracking film, develop it is rat piss, and fix in pool chemicals?

Sounds like a worthy experiment to me!

 

[spijker]

XP2 is a chromogenic film. There is no advantage whatsoever in treating it as a conventional film. Why not get some missile tracking film, develop it is rat piss, and fix in pool chemicals?

Does that give us superior fine grain and tonality at 1600 ISO?