Ilford XP2

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[Donald Qualls]

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!

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.

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

The main difference is grain. XP2 Super has extremely fine grain (finer than TMY or Delta 400) in C-41, and if shot at EI 200 has even less -- virtually grainless. In B&W chemistry, you have a silver image (albeit one fairly similar to Delta 400), and there will be grain; further, in C-41, more exposure tends to reduce grain (as is the case with most color negative films), while in B&W, more exposure tends to increase the appearance of grain.

Of course, you can combine the two as well; I routinely process XP2 Super in Flexicolor with bleach bypass, retaining the silver image mingled with the dye cloud image; this lets the dye image partially mask the appearance of grain, but gives extra density (equivalent to increased true speed) -- so it's like getting an ISO 800 film with the grain of an ISO 100 cubic grain emulsion. In fact, this is almost the only way I shoot and process XP2 Super at present. I can do B&W an EI400 for about half the price, with bulk loaded .EDU Ultra 400 -- but to get a stop faster with less grain is sometimes worth the extra cost.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

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.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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?

You need only two rolls of XP2 Super to find answers to your own questions to your fullest satisfaction. Why not give it a shot and share your findings?

 

[cptrios]

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.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

If you shoot different frames at different EI and develop XP2 Super roll in B&W chemistry, some frames will be underexposed, some other overexposed and the rest correctly exposed.

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.

 

[fs999]

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.

On the other hand, with b&w chemistry, you can adapt the development to the exposure.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

I used XP2 Super processed with bleach bypass to test my Konstruktor after finishing the build. That's a fixed exposure plus B, and despite some variation in the light (first frame was shot in my office, others in bright sun, cloudy, etc.) and a couple times when the selector slipped to B and what should have been 1/150 became more like half a second. Those were REALLY DARK but still had images my scanner could pull out. Otherwise, it's not so much a matter of intentionally exposing at EI 100, 200, or 800 -- it's a matter of exposing outside the camera's range or miscalculating exposure. Yes, the film handles that amazingly well (though like all films, it does better with overexposure than underexposure) -- I agree with the claims of EI 50 to 800 on the same roll. Works well enough, if for some reason (like a fixed exposure camera) you can't meter accurately.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

If you shoot different frames at different EI and develop XP2 Super roll in B&W chemistry, some frames will be underexposed, some other overexposed and the rest correctly exposed.

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

The first part of my post is a quote from Donald and the second part is a quote from Raghu.

Donald appears to be suggesting that the latitude is the same but Raghu not. In fact in Raghu's case there is what may be quite a serious drawback in developing XP2 Super in b&w

Is there a way to reconcile these two quite different experiences?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

Is there a way to reconcile these two quite different experiences?

Do your own testing?

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Do your own testing?

I was going to tell exactly the same thing to @pentaxuser.

 

[pentaxuser]

I was going to tell exactly the same thing to @pentaxuser.

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 puzzle

In the last analysis the answer to every post on Photrio could be "test it yourself " but this may not always be the most helpful answer for those seeking what the facts with evidence point to

All I can conclude so far is that I have received a short, and pointed message that there is no point in pursuing the puzzle. Message understood

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

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?

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

At my "bottom", I've only been using XP2 Super for a few months, processed fewer than ten rolls.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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?

Maybe the leader affects the flow of the developer solution around the film, especially during the initial agitation, in some ways that causes the surge marks. I don't know.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

@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 plausibly has some advantages, but it is not the same as developing XP2 Super in, say, XTol. Maybe bleach bypass will give useable negatives even when the film is underexposed as the negatives have both silver and dye, I don't know as I've not tried it. Now when you develop XP2 Super in XTol there is no dye image that is formed. You get only the silver image.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

On the other hand, with b&w chemistry, you can adapt the development to the exposure.

Definitely! However, XP2 Super can be push processed in C41 too.

 

[pentaxuser]

Definitely! However, XP2 Super can be push processed in C41 too.

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

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

@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

You are correct, C-41 bleach bypass is my most common process for XP2 Super -- however, I have processed it in B&W chemistry. It works well in Df96 monobath if you give the extra time you would for T-grain films like Delta and T-Max. I have no doubt it'll work in any other B&W developer as well, generally with the same times as TMY or Delta 400. I also stand process in C-41 -- 45 minutes at room temp, agitate one minute after tank fill, then come back to pour out. Also with bleach bypass, and again, results are excellent.

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

I haven't tried this yet, but I probably will soon. The extra 30 seconds in C-41 is close to a full stop push (you'd give 20% in B&W chemistry), and the extra density of silver plus dye should make this more like a one-stop push than the two stops EI 1600 on ISO 400 film would imply. That speed would be welcome for indoor available light with the relatively slow (compared to 35mm RF or SLR) lenses on my medium format folders.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

C41 processing of XP2 Super definitely has some advantages over developing in B&W chemistry especially when it comes to speed. However, in B&W chemistry XP2 Super is quite an interesting film whose characteristics might appeal to some. It is futile to discuss whether it gives results that can't be obtained from other films. Nevertheless those who develop XP2 Super in B&W chemistry, often continue to use it in that mode. So there's definitely something they like in it. 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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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?

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I'm all (figurative) ears! How do you clear the pink?

The dichromate bleach cleared the pink. First I used the regular dichromate bleach in the bleaching step of the reversal process to remove the silver image. Depending on the strength of the bleach, this clears all or most of the pink. Then I used a rehalogenating dichromate bleach on the slides and redeveloped. This is essentially an intensification step but it also removes any remaining pink.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Any site showing XP2 darkroom prints from negatives that received B&W chemistry instead of C-41?

 

[foc]

Any site showing XP2 darkroom prints from negatives that received B&W chemistry instead of C-41?

Would this help? Not darkroom prints but.................
https://filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=ilford+xp2

 

[pentaxuser]

A worthwhile site, foc, thanks. Juan there are several YouTube videos covering XP2 Super and if I recall correctly at least one that shows different speeds on the same roll but I can't recall if this was development in C41 or one of the b&w developers.

The problem with small pics of the negs or maybe even larger pics of prints from XP2 Super negs is that I find it near impossible to work out how much grainier are negatives from b&w developer compared to those from C41, nor, if this is the case, how much worse this becomes on prints from those negatives

I suspect that it may well be the case that there is no alternative to a version of " test it yourself" which is produce those prints and examine for yourself

On a practical level, assuming you never need to do prints bigger than X size and you know that X size gives acceptable prints from negs in both C41 and b&w then it doesn't matter and you are back to whichever is the easier for you

pentaxuser