Question re: 35mm Ilford XP2 super

[luvmydogs]

I've been absent for over a year (sadly!) but I am getting back into the swing of things again (that is, my love of film photography). I have a question about this film - I just got a roll developed (my first time using XP2 super) at a local, one hour lab. I normally would go to a pro lab, but this was in a way a "test roll" and didn't contain anything mind-bogglingly precious.

Anyway, from the prints, I am loving the contrast. I am also loving the sharpness. However, the colour....(there shouldn't be any!) is greenish! So, it must be the lab right?? My question is, does this mean that if I take these negs to my pro lab I can possibly get better prints, or do you think my negs are ruined too? I am hoping that c41 processed negs are all processed the same way at these labs, and it is only the prints that have wide discrepancies based on how good the lab is. Am I wrong here?

 

[mabman]

I had the same reaction the first time I shot some XP2, and mine was 120 format, which I *did* take to a local pro/am shop as they were one of the few locally who could process it.

I asked the shop's developer about that - some rolls came back with a greenish tint, others with a magenta/pinkish tint. Apparently (so I was told) it's because that's the base colour(s) of the film backing itself, and they're printing on colour paper. Some (all?) digital minilab machines have a "black-and-white" setting that forces a b&w conversion before printing, but from what they said it doesn't work with XP2 (they also have a Konica-brand machine, which I don't think is terribly common).

In terms of b&w straight out of the machine, I've had better success with Kodak BW400CN - the film base has an orange mask which apparently most minilabs don't have any trouble with.

Incidentally, I had the same issues with some 35mm Chinese film - Lucky SHD400CN (no longer available apparently) - also C-41 process, also like XP2 it had a greenish cast, but these I took to a Costco that had a Noritsu machine.

Usually I believe the suggestion with XP2 (I did some searching on it as well) is to print it (or have it printed) on real B&W paper, or take scans of the negatives and convert them to B&W in your software package of choice, and then have those printed wherever.

 

[luvmydogs]

Great advice!! Makes a lot of sense indeed. Thank you!!

 

[srs5694]

I'll add that some labs do a much better job at printing at least close to neutral tone on color paper from XP2 Super than do others. The best I've seen is at a local Walgreen's, which used a Fuji Frontier machine. (I've had fewer than half a dozen rolls of XP2 Super commercially processed, though.) Some labs will print onto B&W paper, which is ideal; one mail-order outfit to which I sent a roll did this without explicit instructions to do so, but I imagine most places will use color paper.

Also, your negatives are not ruined (as far as I can tell from your post). As mabman says, you can always print on regular B&W paper, or give your negatives to somebody who'll do so. XP2 Super appears to be designed with this in mind, since it's got very little base color (just a mild purple, like some conventional B&W films when they're slightly underfixed). I've had no problems printing on B&W paper. Kodak's BW400CN (or whatever they're calling it this week) is a similar film that's got an orange base color. In theory, this makes it easier to get a neutral tone on conventional color papers, but I don't think it'd make much difference on a good digital printing system (like the Fuji Frontier). The orange base will require longer exposures and possibly higher contrast settings when printing on conventional B&W paper, though.

 

[bob100684]

the biggest problem with xp2 super is printing on an analog minilab like a fuji SFA. Building a chanel for it is a royal PITA because its base colors make the chanel settings at the edge of the machine's capability.

 

[luvmydogs]

Makes lots of sense - thank you! So it sounds like what I can do is take these negs to Elevator (15 minutes away only) and have them print on B&W paper, at least for the images I really love. The next roll that i have in my camera will be processed at Elevator. I'll see whether that makes a difference. (I'm guessing it will)

Thanks again for all your help!

 

[thebanana]

Elevator does a great job on this film. They did about 70 rolls this past weekend during Bill Schwab's workshop, and they turned out great.

 

[GeoffHill]

I've had similar results with Kodak BW400 CN. Wierd casts sometimes. The solution was in a lab who knew how to use the machine, and pressed the B&W button, instead of running everything through on 'auto'. Once I found somewhere who employed someone who knew a little about how the machine worked, the results were loads better

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

My local (Kodak) one hour lab had no problem printing my bulk rolled XP2 correctly and even return3e the empty canisters to me to load again - I never had a problem with colour casts with XP2, but I had blue casts often with Kodak 400CN. Weird.

 

[radiantdarkroom]

I haven't shot much with Kodak or the XP2 but if you want true B&W prints which is what I do, just color filter out the base color and then you are able to get awesome contrast adjustments using VC B&W papers. Your getting the weird color casts because the labs are using color paper without exact color correction. It also means they have no control over contrast.

 

[pentaxuser]

Before I had my own darkroom I had Jessops develop and print XP2 super on B&W paper. They were fine. Then recently I did some re-prints myself. Also fine.

So in my experience there isn't any casts if properly printed. A big exponent of XP2 super is Frances Schultz. In any R Hicks and F Schultz books there are numerous examples of such prints.

Have a look and decide

pentaxuser

 

[luvmydogs]

Ok...REALLY STUPID question here...(I've processed B&W film before but have yet to print, which I am planning to do shortly as I just set up my darkroom for printing).

So...now that I have the negs...I can do enlargements on my own just like as if the negs were true B&W negs???

 

[bob100684]

Ok...REALLY STUPID question here...(I've processed B&W film before but have yet to print, which I am planning to do shortly as I just set up my darkroom for printing).

So...now that I have the negs...I can do enlargements on my own just like as if the negs were true B&W negs???

yes

 

[srs5694]

Your getting the weird color casts because the labs are using color paper without exact color correction. It also means they have no control over contrast.

If the photofinisher uses digital equipment, chances are they do have contrast control, via digital manipulation. Of course, most commercial photofinishers will just leave everything on automatic, so there'll be no human in the loop to decide that a given print needs more or less contrast and make the appropriate adjustment, so the end result might not be much different....

 

[AgCl4ever]

I use a lot of XP2Super. The color cast is all about the lab getting the settings on their printer correct - or at least close enough. I use a basic mini-lab most of the time, going to the pro lab with critical or valuable shots. The mini-lab does OK most of the time. Many of them are set up for Kodak or Fuji and don't know how to set XP2.

Printing on "real" B&W paper is a lot more expensive; I would not go that route if I mostly want proofs the first time around.

Ken

 

[srs5694]

So...now that I have the negs...I can do enlargements on my own just like as if the negs were true B&W negs???

They are true B&W negatives. They aren't conventional B&W negatives (with images formed in silver compounds), since the images are formed in dyes, but the paper you use won't care about that. That said, there may be some subtle differences; for instance, condenser enlargers are often said to produce slighter greater contrast than diffusion enlargers with conventional B&W films, but I've seen claims that this isn't so when using Ilford XP2 Super. (I've not tested this myself, though, so I can only pass on what I've read elsewhere.) This effect isn't something you'll need to worry about, though; just adjust exposure and contrast as you normally would and don't concern yourself with how you'd print the negative on another enlarger. This effect would only be important to somebody who has both condenser and diffusion enlargers.

 

[luvmydogs]

Thank you again!!!!! Much appreciated!!

 

[radiantdarkroom]

Oh i forgot about digital. I guess I'm totally wrong and i thought this was APUG

 

[srs5694]

Oh i forgot about digital. I guess I'm totally wrong and i thought this was APUG

Your post made a very broad statement about commercial photofinishing. Although this is APUG, most commercial photofinishers use digital equipment, and ignoring that fact does a disservice to readers who don't already understand the issues involved.

 

[bob100684]

If the photofinisher uses digital equipment, chances are they do have contrast control, via digital manipulation. Of course, most commercial photofinishers will just leave everything on automatic, so there'll be no human in the loop to decide that a given print needs more or less contrast and make the appropriate adjustment, so the end result might not be much different....

contrast controll on the frontier is kinda a fishy buisness. we can do "highlights hard(or soft) same for shaddows, or "all hard" or all soft" directly from film. If we scan the film like making a cd you can adjust the contrast with a slider there, but it's far from an ideal situation as compared to the darkroom or even photoshop.