Is it possible for you to take a pic of this negative and share it here?
Ilford XP2
-
A
- Thread starter campy51
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Black Nikon fm2n
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale 3 boxes of 4x5 Acros
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: 3x4 Pacemaker Speed Graphic Camera with 4x5 Cambo Back
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Want to Buy 135mm 5.6 enlarging lens
- Started by ediz7531
-
For Sale New 55 instant film (replacement for polaroid type 55)
- Started by Early Riser
Forum statistics
Is it possible for you to take a pic of this negative and share it here?
I don't have a light box, anything specific you are looking for?
This is more than adequate. Thanks so much.
I was curious to see the shadow detail in the negative at EI:800. For a ISO 400 film, the loss in shadow detail at EI:800 is substantial though contrast is good. This is not surprising as my own experiments with this film in different developers suggested EI:150 for best shadow detail. Anything higher than 150 resulted in progressive loss in shadow detail. Now I wonder how C41 processing with bleach bypass fares in a situation like this.
Last edited:
Remind me when I'm home, I'll post a scan and negative photo from my own bleach bypassed negatives.
Let us know when youre home and we'll remind you that youre home.
Looking forward to see some of those, I have a some CS-41 on the way and it should be here tomorrow.
It's overall pleasing enough that I really don't mind the loss of shadow detail. I will keep on using it at ISO400-800 personally as I have a use for this look.
I have absolutely no problem with that and by no means my previous post was a criticism of your EI for XP2 Super. The reason for asking you to share the pic of the negative is purely technical - what level of shadow detail does a chosen EI give us. There's definitely a style of photography that can get the best of XP2 Super at EI 400 and higher (in B&W chemistry) and I'm appreciative of it.
I didn't take it as criticism at all.
I have some in 120 on the way too, and really looking forward to see how it works with less contrasty lenses like the Skopar in my 1938 Bessa 46.
Also going to run some in a Pentax 645N.
Looks like you're all set for having a lot of fun shooting XP2 Super!
Has anyone tried pre-flashing XP2 Super? Or any other poor man's SpeedBoost? Does it help this film at EI > 150. I'm asking this in the context of developing XP2 Super in B&W chemistry.
Preflashing ought to gain half a stop or so in the shadows only; combine it with bleach bypass, and you might convince yourself it's a real 800 speed film.
Some cameras make preflashing a PITA, though -- especially folders with double exposure prevention. Some of those manufacturers went far out of their way to prevent defeating the DE interlock. Otherwise, there's the issue of getting a good diffuser dome to get an even preflash, and the extra time it takes.
Some cameras make preflashing a PITA, though -- especially folders with double exposure prevention. Some of those manufacturers went far out of their way to prevent defeating the DE interlock. Otherwise, there's the issue of getting a good diffuser dome to get an even preflash, and the extra time it takes.
Okay, as promised, here's a scan and photo of the negative, XP2 Super at EI800, processed in Flexicolor with bleach bypass.
Mamiya 6, 75mm Zuiko f/3.5, XP2 Super EI800, Flexicolor bleach bypass
Please pardon the background texture -- I, too, have no light box (held the negative page against my screen to take the photo with my phone) Should give some idea what detail is present in the deepest shadows, though. High SBR here, BTW (hard sunlight, nothing to fill the shadow areas).
Mamiya 6, 75mm Zuiko f/3.5, XP2 Super EI800, Flexicolor bleach bypass
Please pardon the background texture -- I, too, have no light box (held the negative page against my screen to take the photo with my phone) Should give some idea what detail is present in the deepest shadows, though. High SBR here, BTW (hard sunlight, nothing to fill the shadow areas).
Pretty damn great for ISO 800 imo.
Thanks for sharing Donald.
Thanks for sharing Donald.
+1
Which is why I'm paying a premium over my usual ISO 400 (Fomapan aka .EDU Ultra ) and processing the XP2 Super this way pretty much exclusively. Now, being a 645 negative helps some, but it's good even in 35mm (I'd have posted that, as a better comparison, but the only 35mm roll I found quickly was from my kit-built Konstruktor).
Any idea why the film looses speed when developed in B&W chemistry?
Probably because it was designed to produce a dye cloud image, and there's only as much halide in the emulsion as is needed to produce the correct density/curve for ISO 400 in C-41 chemistry.
Either that, or the same reason nearly all films "lose speed" by methods other than the ISO testing standard, even in the recommended chemistry (i.e. Tri-X in D-76). If you process to lower contrast than the manufacturer's recommendation, for instance, even in the same developer, you might lose half a stop in the toe. Or if (like Foma) the recommendation is for a "speed gaining" developer and you use Rodinal instead, you'll lose anywhere from 1/3 to a full stop of speed just because of the chemistry difference.
C-41 color dev is a low contrast, full-speed or slightly speed-increasing developer for films without dye couplers incorporated (for instance, process FP4+ in C-41 bleach bypass and you'll gain 1/3 stop but have to increase time a good bit to get back to standard contrast), so using something like D-76 (full speed, but not speed increasing) will cost you a little.
Either that, or the same reason nearly all films "lose speed" by methods other than the ISO testing standard, even in the recommended chemistry (i.e. Tri-X in D-76). If you process to lower contrast than the manufacturer's recommendation, for instance, even in the same developer, you might lose half a stop in the toe. Or if (like Foma) the recommendation is for a "speed gaining" developer and you use Rodinal instead, you'll lose anywhere from 1/3 to a full stop of speed just because of the chemistry difference.
C-41 color dev is a low contrast, full-speed or slightly speed-increasing developer for films without dye couplers incorporated (for instance, process FP4+ in C-41 bleach bypass and you'll gain 1/3 stop but have to increase time a good bit to get back to standard contrast), so using something like D-76 (full speed, but not speed increasing) will cost you a little.
Plaubel Makina 67
Ilford XP2 400 developed in Caffenol CLCS (Cold Start) stand 90min @ 15-20°C
Scanned with Plustek OpticFilm 120 at 2400dpi with Silverfast AI Studio
Near
Brantes • Vaucluse • Provence • France
Caffenol CLCS
500 ml Filtered Water
8gr Anhydrous Washing Soda
5gr Vitamin C
0.5gr KBr
20gr Instant coffee ("Cora")
60 sec. slow agitations then let stand for 89 minutes
Ilford XP2 400 developed in Caffenol CLCS (Cold Start) stand 90min @ 15-20°C
Scanned with Plustek OpticFilm 120 at 2400dpi with Silverfast AI Studio
Near
Brantes • Vaucluse • Provence • France
Caffenol CLCS
500 ml Filtered Water
8gr Anhydrous Washing Soda
5gr Vitamin C
0.5gr KBr
20gr Instant coffee ("Cora")
60 sec. slow agitations then let stand for 89 minutes
That's a lovely pic! And a fine negative too, thanks for sharing! Did you shoot at box speed? Centre-weighted average metering?
Thank you !
Yes 400 ISO. There is only one metering mode in a Plaubel Makina 67.
That's very encouraging indeed! Tempted to try your Caffenol recipe one of these days, only problem is in figuring out how much brewed coffee (decoction) to use in place of instant coffee.
As I recall, my Cs41 kit was on about roll fifteen (near end of capacity) and close to two months old when it failed me. For comparison, I'm running Flexicolor now, with continuously replenished developer mixed last September, though I did just replace the fixer (which isn't replenished), not due to capacity exhaustion or failure, but because I accidentally poured 300 ml of developer into the 1L storage bottle.
What I recall from using Caffenol is that it was mixed to about four times drinking strength (i.e. four times as much instant coffee for the final solution volume as I'd use if I were mixing it to drink). I'm honestly not sure how you'd do that to brew with hot water -- espresso machine, maybe? I guess if you were to use a French Press with four times the usual amount of grounds, and then filter the result to get the gritty bits out, it might work. You may wind up having to do your own testing for times.
If you are new to Caffenol, I wouldn't change the recipe. Once you're confident with a recipe you can try to change a parameter and see what happens.
Especially in the weak Caffenol CL(CS) recipe, the ingredients have to be weighted with a precision of 0.1 gram.
The water you add to your brewed coffee must be reduced by the tap water you add.
You better have to find the cheapest instant coffee and it will work flawlessly. The most important is the caffeic acid amount and Arabica beans (more expensive) have less of caffeic acid than Robusta beans (used in cheap instant coffee).
A more simple, but less compensating, recipe is Caffenol CM for 100 ISO films and CH for 400 ISO films (with Kbr, Potassium Bromide).
Here some interesting sites :
The Caffenol Cookbook www.caffenol-cookbook.com
caffenol.blogspot.com
www.caffenol.org
And Caffenol for microfilms (in French)
photochemical.wordpress.com
Last edited:
This is very useful, thanks! I was weary of using instant coffee because some of the brands available in India claim they're a blend of Arabica and Robusta and they also contain Chicory. OTOH I can get pure Robusta grounded coffee powder.
My interest in Caffenol comes purely from your results on XP2 Super at box speed.
Would like to get the speed advantage as with other developers I'm seeing a definite loss in shadow detail at EI 200 and above.| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |