Ilford XP2

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Pentax 6x7, S-M-C Takumar 6x7 105mm f/2.4, Ilford XP2 Super (expired 2017), developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:49 for 10 minutes.

That's a nice one! Did you shoot at 200 this time?

Would be helpful to some of us if you could share a pic of the negative if it's not too much of work.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I've been, inexcusably, away from film (all cameras actually) for eleven months. But after a long saga involving three donors and an eventual bone marrow transplant I was finally discharged home a couple of days ago. I had got to the point of feeling perfectly comfortable with XP2 Super exposed at 25 - 1600 with varying development times in HC-110 (there are examples in the link in the signature). I had tried a few times with Diafine, but there was more grain than I liked when it was exposed at ISO 400, so I tried 200 and got much better results (as earlier in this thread). Finding myself home and with camera and film, I decided to jump back in and see if I could automate it a little. I have a home-made motorized base that will take a Rondinax 35u or a Rondinax 60, and it makes my life a lot easier. I've often felt Diafine was prone to increased grain with too much agitation, but it turns out that XP2 @ 200 loves continuous agitation! These are all from an F6, 85.1.4, SB600, and Nikon 9000 scans. My appearance has changed after the transplant, and the intense process and uncertainty it still engenders is written all over me, so they may not be conventional portraits. Never mind that. Judge the film and development. A couple are cropped square.







I'm not unhappy with the results.

That last shot is outstanding! Bravo!

 

[Donald Qualls]

In the beginning, there was XP1. And Ilford saw that it was good.

Over time, it was seen that XP1 could be improved, and there was XP2; like unto XP1 it was, but better.

Then in the fullness of time, there was XP2 Super, which was all that XP2 had been, and more. And once again, it was good.

And so it is until the present day.

 

[foc]

In the beginning, there was XP1. And Ilford saw that it was good.

Over time, it was seen that XP1 could be improved, and there was XP2; like unto XP1 it was, but better.

Then in the fullness of time, there was XP2 Super, which was all that XP2 had been, and more. And once again, it was good.

And so it is until the present day.

 

[fs999]

and in the middle there was XP2 Plus...

 

[dourbalistar]

Another from the same roll...

Pentax 6x7, S-M-C Takumar 6x7 105mm f/2.4, Ilford XP2 Super (expired 2017), developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:49 for 10 minutes.


2021.03.06 Roll #272-05986-Pano-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[dourbalistar]

@dourbalistar was that the Elephant rock in the previous picture?

@Old Gregg, it's a rock at Vargas Plateau, a regional park here in the Bay Area. No idea if it has a name or not...

 

[dourbalistar]

@dourbalistar I see. I was referring to this place.

@Old Gregg, interesting, I've ever been there before. Don't want to veer too far off topic, but do you know if Elephant Rock is on private property? By the way, the boulders at Vargas are much smaller, probably no larger than 6-8 feet tall.

 

[eurekaiv]

Fantastic results... what ISO did you rate this?

Another from the same roll...

Pentax 6x7, S-M-C Takumar 6x7 105mm f/2.4, Ilford XP2 Super (expired 2017), developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:49 for 10 minutes.

 

[dourbalistar]

Fantastic results... what ISO did you rate this?

Thank you, @eurekaiv. I rated it at box speed, but as I noted in Post #142 upthread, most of the roll turned out very thin. Haven't tried again yet since that first experiment (for me), but I'd probably add one stop of exposure next time, and maybe bracket some using 135 instead of 120 film.

 

[eurekaiv]

I have 100' of this I've been waiting to use and a 200 speed film would be nice to have on hand. I'll try that soon and see how I get on. Thanks for the reply.

 

[dourbalistar]

I have 100' of this I've been waiting to use and a 200 speed film would be nice to have on hand. I'll try that soon and see how I get on. Thanks for the reply.

Good luck, and hope you can share some results! @drmoss_ca's article was very helpful to me:
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry

As was another article I found published on Ilford's website:
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/processing-xp2s-in-black-and-white-chemistry/

 

[eurekaiv]

Got around to shooting a roll from the box of XP2 super I've had in the freezer for nearly 10 years now. No science here since it was expired when I bought it but in general my negs were thin and it doesn't look any better than HP5+ grain-wise to me. I definitely got some photos I liked but I'd want to experiment more with my particular stash of film.

Expired XP2 super @200 in HC-110 1:47 10' 68°

Untitled by Jay, on Flickr


Untitled by Jay, on Flickr

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

in general my negs were thin and it doesn't look any better than HP5+ grain-wise to me.

I'm a bit confused by your above observation because in the first pic you shared, the highlights appear to be blown out and shadows are fine. Can I request you to share the pic of the negatives to help me understand better?

 

[eurekaiv]

These were two of maybe 5 or 6 images that were a bit better exposed than the others, which is why I shared them. The bolts are also shiny silver so I would expect the areas that were reflecting the sunlight to be bright white, although I do have some detail in them in this particular negative.

This particular photo is more indicative of most of the roll.
https://flic.kr/p/2m2sYfR

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

This particular photo is more indicative of most of the roll.
https://flic.kr/p/2m2sYfR

The highlights in this pic too appear to be blown out and the overall noise is in the pic is quite horrible, I don't know if it is grain or scanner noise. If you could share the pic of the negative, it will be helpful to understand what exactly happened.

 

[eurekaiv]

The highlights in this pic too appear to be blown out and the overall noise is in the pic is quite horrible, I don't know if it is grain or scanner noise. If you could share the pic of the negative, it will be helpful to understand what exactly happened.

I don't see anything approaching a blown out highlight. This photo is pretty obviously underexposed.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Always a good idea to bracket when you are trying a film-developer combination for the first time and especially so with expired film. Next time you may want to try EI 100 and 50. In my experience, this film works best at EI 150 but I use relatively fresh film. Grain is quite fine and unlike anything seen in your pics which I suspect is scanner noise.

 

[eurekaiv]

Always a good idea to bracket when you are trying a film-developer combination for the first time and especially so with expired film. Next time you may want to try EI 100 and 50. In my experience, this film works best at EI 150 but I use relatively fresh film. Grain is quite fine and unlike anything seen in your pics which I suspect is scanner noise.

Scanner noise is not a problem with my Plustek Opticfilm 120. I can scan Kodalith shot at 12 and literally see no grain whatsoever but it does have a problem achieving absolutely perfect focus (the Opticfilm 120 has no focusing mechanism) so these were sharpened a bit after scanning. I also get that bracketing is (one part) of how you test a developer/film combo but sometimes one just wants to shoot a roll for fun and take what one gets. It doesn't always have to be a long drawn out process.

 

[eurekaiv]

Expired XP2+ in standard B&W chemicals? If you'd read my post you'd see it wasn't C41 processed AND it's old. Jesus. My Plustek doesn't have a problem with noise. My Minolta was worse and it's supposed to be a much better scanner capable of higher resolution. I wish I had never posted and I won't be posting anymore.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

@eurekaiv hey sorry I missed the B&W chemicals part, TBH that explains everything.

Not quite. Have you done developing XP2 Super in B&W chemistry and making this statement based on your own experience? XP2 Super gives excellent results when developed in B&W chemistry. This thread itself gives several examples of fine pics obtained with B&W chemistry. Also check Flickr stream of @drmoss_ca for hundreds of well made XP2 Super pics.

 

[grat]

... but eurekaiv also mentioned that most negatives were thin, which explains the noise from the boosted signal from the scanner's sensor.

Everyone's process is different-- expecting identical results with different methods is ridiculous. There are enough variables that the best anyone can say is "This came out different"-- it would take actual discussion of "what did you do?" to narrow down why some results are sub-par-- rather than "this is terrible, you don't know what you're doing", which is what the thread has started to sound like.

I don't blame eurekaiv for being offended, but I hope they reconsider leaving.

 

[fs999]

Yes it is. So much so that it's almost funny to read you say it. I've had this scanner and it's awful for noise, most evident in the shadows and somewhat coarser-looking B&W grain. Add to that the 10+ year old film stock and I honestly don't understand why you even felt the need to comment, as you haven't yet had a chance to properly evaluate this film.

The scanner has nothing to do with noise, it reads what you give him. You had one or more faulty models, so you can't judge this scanner.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I'm ruling out underexposure by the camera or the use of a faulty meter. It is possible that the film used by @eurekaiv has lost significant sensitivity during its life. It's still a mystery how a few frames were exposed fine if the film has lost sensitivity. Nevertheless, my suggestion would be to shoot a roll and get it developed by C41 process and hope that it works well. Here are some useful tips on how to expose XP2 Super for C41 processing:
https://theonlinephotographer.typep...er/2012/10/how-to-shoot-ilford-xp2-super.html

 

[Auer]

Pentax 645N | SMC Pentax-FA 645 45-85mm ƒ4.5 | Ilford XP2 Super 400 @200ISO | Eco Pro | CS F96



Rain Day Still-5 by Eric Auer, on Flickr