Ok extremely stupid question to resurrect this thread - I've processed one roll of this in HC-110 (@400) and quite liked the results. I've heard tell that you can expose at several different speeds on the same roll if processing in C-41 chemicals. Can the same be said for HC-110, with results within reason? It seems doubtful, but who knows. I could, of course, try it out myself...I just wish it were like $1 cheaper!
So given the very good results of XP2 Super in some b&w developers what are the drawbacks compared to development in C41?
Has anyone ever taken the same scene shot on 2 XP2 Super films, developed each in C41 and b&w developer to compare the results?
Thanks
pentaxuser
I do this to test developers often - but I find that very short strips mean that agitation is waaaay more efficient - if my normal agitation is 5 seconds every 60, I just pick up the tank every 60 seconds and give it a couple gentle tilts. I've gotten crazy surge marks if I don't do it that way! I tend to do a third of a roll of 35 for tests, so I can throw in some brackets for ISO.
So given the very good results of XP2 Super in some b&w developers what are the drawbacks compared to development in C41?
Has anyone ever taken the same scene shot on 2 XP2 Super films, developed each in C41 and b&w developer to compare the results?
This ability to "exposed at different speeds" is called "latitude" and XP2 has about as much of it as any film I've seen. Yes, it has similar latitude in B&W chemistry. The page Ilford links about this from their web site shows results shooting XP2 at EI from 50 to 1600 -- that +3 and -2 stops exposure vs. box speed -- all processed in HC-110. It also works in other developers; I've done it in Df96 monobath (though I recommend doubling the process time, apparently it fixes like T-grain film). For processes that aren't self-timing like monobath, I recall it uses the same process time as T-Max 400.
But have you ever shot at different speeds on the same roll? That's what I'm curious about, even though I'm sure the results would be sub-par. I think the next time I shoot a roll, I'll sprinkle a couple of shots in at 200 and 800, just to see.
On the other hand, with b&w chemistry, you can adapt the development to the exposure.Unfortunately, XP2 Super doesn't have much latitude in B&W chemistry and the frames that have not been exposed correctly will suffer. My experiments gave me a speed of 100-150 and anything higher than that will result in loss of shadow details (which may be ok for certain scenes and to certain styles of photography). At speed of 100-150 I got very likeable results from a variety of B&W developers.
But have you ever shot at different speeds on the same roll? That's what I'm curious about, even though I'm sure the results would be sub-par. I think the next time I shoot a roll, I'll sprinkle a couple of shots in at 200 and 800, just to see.
Is there a way to reconcile these two quite different experiences?
I was simply trying to find out if a discussion on what seems to be two different findings might reveal that in fact depending on how each person had defined their findings it could explain why from each point of view the two findings were reconcilable. Quoting two members whose conclusions differ and inquiring how this comes about is not automatically an attempt to set one against the other. It is trying to get to the bottom of what is on the surface and without more information, remains a puzzleI was going to tell exactly the same thing to @pentaxuser.
At the risk of being told to try it myself, I'll risk one more question. What do you think there was, concerning the inclusion of the leader, that produced surge marks?I was getting surge marks for short strips of 35mm film if I didn't remove the leader. After removing the leader and using 600ml of developer working solution in Patterson tank, surge marks stopped coming.
At the risk of being told to try it myself, I'll risk one more question. What do you think there was, concerning the inclusion of the leader, that produced surge marks?
I was simply trying to find out if a discussion on what seems to be two different findings might reveal that in fact depending on how each person had defined their findings it could explain why from each point of view the two findings were reconcilable.
On the other hand, with b&w chemistry, you can adapt the development to the exposure.
This was what LostLabours used to do when he needed to use it at 1600 for the likes of rock group shots at concerts. He used 3 mins 45 secs if I recall correctly so not a big push ( about 15%) but he said it gave him the best results compared to all the fast b&w film optionsDefinitely! However, XP2 Super can be push processed in C41 too.
@Donald Qualls can correct me if I'm wrong. From what I remember from previous discussions with him on XP2 Super, he primarily does C41 processing with bleach bypass on XP2 Super
This was what LostLabours used to do when he needed to use it at 1600 for the likes of rock group shots at concerts. He used 3 mins 45 secs if I recall correctly so not a big push ( about 15%) but he said it gave him the best results compared to all the fast b&w film options
FWIW I like it in reversal processing too and I can get rid of the pink color of the base. Resulting slides are quite pleasing.
I'm all (figurative) ears! How do you clear the pink?
Any site showing XP2 darkroom prints from negatives that received B&W chemistry instead of C-41?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?