Ilford XP2 Super Test: wow

Years, and years, ago I shot XP1 when it was new. Gosh, it was an awful experience. I was pretty sure it was because the labs couldn't manage it, but it was a disaster.

I think it correlated with the general decline in lab quality in the US, and subsequent attempts with the film were dismal, so I wrote of chromagenic B&W.

Well, there's a big portrait project coming up. Lots of families. Lots of proofs needed. A fund raiser, not unlike Suzanne Revy's upcoming work. I'll scan the selected image for publication, and make pictures for the family. If I can lab the film out, get good proofs back, great. Ilford's new film has gotten some great reviews, and some friends like it a lot. So, I did a test roll today.

Open shade, graycard, macbeth checker, kodak grey scale: incident reading.

Nikon F5, 105/2. Threes shots at the reading, and a 4 stop bracket, and three more shots right on. Processed locally, in a Frontier.

Here's the good news: even the +/- 4 proofs were acceptable: Frontier magic. And ilford magic. On the densitometer, the film performs at box speed: zone V = .75.

Enlarged, the film looks sharp/mushy like straight D-76. OK, so I can live with it looking like TX and D-76.

And the whole Frontier thing is great: I still whimper when I remember the decade of crappy lab work that is responsible for digital. Like proofing 35mm film through mylar sleeves because the work was done so fast by wage slaves they couldn't afford scratching the film, but it was always scratched anyway... and totally blurry to boot.

But this XP2 Super stuff looks great. The project just got easier.

Reading density patches and plotting them, it looks like Ilford's curve at the website is dead on. Great.

Just wanted to share. Thanks Ilford.

d

.

I had a similar experience. Years ago I tried XP-1. The local labs would scratch it, and it didn't look all that good. Last year, though, I used 120 XP-2 for a London vacation. The prints look great!

Processing 120 XP-2

Peter De Smidt said:

I Last year, though, I used 120 XP-2 for a London vacation. The prints look great!

Click to expand...

I'm fairly new to MF ... so, how do you process 120 XP-2? ... or get it processed?

hortense said:

I'm fairly new to MF ... so, how do you process 120 XP-2? ... or get it processed?

Click to expand...

It's a monochrome color negative film. C-41 process. I also love this film. I use it when I'm shooting MF for travel or whatever. Good speed, fine grain, not much reciprocity effect. And (I probably shouldn't say this here) it scans VERY easily. It's my film of choice for making digital negs for pt/pd printing. Still prefer in-camera ULF negs, but for MF, this stuff is the bomb.

Don,

I recently taught a six week beginners photo course for two sixth graders. Based on a little experience with XP-2 a while back, I chose XP-2 Super for their first assignments, shooting depth of field and shutter speed samples to make a visual sampler of the effects of changing parameters. That way we got machine prints for those tests without spending hours in the darkroom, and a faster start on understanding the basics.

I used to shoot XP-2 at 1/2 box speed to lessen the "grainy" appearance in shadows, similar to the way I shoot most C-41 films, and it had plenty of latitude to do that. I had the kids shoot the Super at EI 200 as well, but we didn't do our own printing from it, going straight to HP5+ for the images they printed themselves.

How did your prints at EI 400 hold up? Did you find the shadows less "noisy" or grainy looking at EI 200 than at EI 400, or did things look fine at 400?

Lee

I just bought some 120 XP-2 film which I hope to use soon. I thought it would be the ideal film to use since I don't have a light meter, sounds like it should tolerate my guessed exposures!

Peter De Smidt said:

The local labs would scratch it

Click to expand...

Your local lab was likely using the one hour mini-lab with roller transports, which if not kept scrupulously clean, will end up causing scratches. The other downside to the one-hour quickies, is that all of the chemistry is at much higher temperatures than a pro-lab's dip&dunk system. The result? Grainier film!

I've used XP-2 Super, and at this point I'm kind of split down the middle regarding the results. But it's certainly convenient.

Paddy said:

...
I've used XP-2 Super, and at this point I'm kind of split down the middle regarding the results. But it's certainly convenient.

Click to expand...

That's about as nice as I could be about this film. I actually found that when exposures were off, the film looked like some kind of liquified rash, so I am puzzled as to this wide exposure range acclaim. With exposures spot on, it did look remarkably fine grained among 400 speed films, I must admit (although as already mentioned, a touch "mushy").
The prints from my local lab looked disgusting - but I think that is a lab issue, not a film issue by any means.
My reaction to this film is at best luke-warm, I find it hard to go into sperlatives much beyond "adequate" in terms of apperance - especially when the exposures are not exactly spot on.

Peter.

I also used quite a lot of XP2 Super, when there was no facility for developing my own negs. I've been really happy with it, especially in MF. The only thing I find is that I've got to print a grade harder than say with HP5+. Other than that it's a great way to get into b&w if you're worried about processing your own film, and for a lot of beginners that's a major concern. My first 1/2 dozen rolls have turned out pretty good since I started developing film again but previous results were dire to say the least. I even sent normal b&w film for processing but sometimes the results were dodgy as well. Hence I spent quite a while using XP2.

The reason it is exciting to see a system ( XP2 Super & Frontier ) produce good results over an impossibly long 8+ stop range is that my work is seldom off by half a stop. That means I have a snowball's chance of having my proofs look good.

And when every dime of income is from your pictures, if your proofs look like cr*p, you eat dogfood that month.

And, let's make it clear, from 1980 to 2000, labs generally declined to the point there was seldom a relation between the quality of the input and the product. THAT has been changing because of the Frontier and related machines.

And if I can send B&W for suitable work to a lab and get back good results, it means I have more time to work,and sleep, and do all those things one does.

Grain ? C41 B&W will show grain in the shadows ( like color film ! ) where trad B&W shows it in the highlights. If the shadow grain is an issue, simply give more exposure. Every material has it's strength and weakness: it's the craftsman's job to make it work.

As for SEEING the grain, if anybody looks at the grain in a picture, it's not a sign of poor film, it's a sign of a weak image.

.

Ilford XP2 Super is great stuff. Standard B&W darkroom prints show it at its best, IMO. Just as you wouldn't judge the true capability of a conventional B&W film from a develop-'n-print job done at a cheap lab, don't judge the XP2 until you've printed it the old-fashioned way.

I also agree about underexposure. I set my in-camera meter to 200 as a "fudge factor" for this reason.

Another preference for using a pro-lab, is that the prints can be made on b&w RC paper, while I believe a mini/one-hour lab, use colour RC paper, and will "tone" to your preference,...yikes, that's an ugly looking result!

df cardwell said:

Years, and years, ago I shot XP1 when it was new. Gosh, it was an awful experience. I
.

Click to expand...

I used XP1 as soon as it was released having tried the older Agfa Variopan first.

It was a brilliant film, but I only ever really used it for 35mm push processing at 1600 ISO+ at rock concerts, prefering FP4 and 120 for all my other work.

When XP-2 arrived Ilford seemed to drop the push processing potential however it performed even better than XP-1

Would add that tonality and grain of Xp-1 /2 was always far superior to HP5 or Tri-X .

However what makes the differance was I always did my own C41 processing and B&W printing so had total control. Only stopped using XP2 about 3 years, ago.

Ian

I haven't tried XP2 Super yet, but I would expect an improved XP2+. I have used XP2 and XP2+. Fantastic films for great images. One of the nicest things about XP2 was the ease of printing. It produces beautiful prints on ordinary graded or VC paper with very little work.

df cardwell said:

The reason it is exciting to see a system ( XP2 Super & Frontier ) produce good results over an impossibly long 8+ stop range is that my work is seldom off by half a stop. That means I have a snowball's chance of having my proofs look good.

And when every dime of income is from your pictures, if your proofs look like cr*p, you eat dogfood that month.

And, let's make it clear, from 1980 to 2000, labs generally declined to the point there was seldom a relation between the quality of the input and the product. THAT has been changing because of the Frontier and related machines.

And if I can send B&W for suitable work to a lab and get back good results, it means I have more time to work,and sleep, and do all those things one does.

Grain ? C41 B&W will show grain in the shadows ( like color film ! ) where trad B&W shows it in the highlights. If the shadow grain is an issue, simply give more exposure. Every material has it's strength and weakness: it's the craftsman's job to make it work.

As for SEEING the grain, if anybody looks at the grain in a picture, it's not a sign of poor film, it's a sign of a weak image.

.

Click to expand...

Wow... I think there is a lesson in all this: never disagree with Mr Cardwell. Again, silly me...

gnashings said:

Wow... I think there is a lesson in all this: never disagree with Mr Cardwell. Again, silly me...

Click to expand...

gnashings:

What's up ?

don