XP2 - poor photolab processing

[optique]

Just got back a roll of xp2 from Walgreens.

If I look closely, I can see shades of blue and green in the prints.

I am wondering if xp2 commonly shows problems like this?

Would it be a waste of time to have them reprint?

I know xp2 and tri x will not look the same though.

thanks.
steve.

 

[Markok765]

They just didn't color correct the print, as the automated printing probably screwed up the color balance with the B&W film.

 

[wogster]

Just got back a roll of xp2 from Walgreens.

If I look closely, I can see shades of blue and green in the prints.

I am wondering if xp2 commonly shows problems like this?

Would it be a waste of time to have them reprint?

I know xp2 and tri x will not look the same though.

thanks.
steve.

If you look at a roll of colour negatives, you will see an overall orange mask, Kodak's black and white C41 films also have this orange mask, XP2 does not The printing machine normally expects this cast, unless it's programmed specifically to expect XP2. Different machines deal with this differently, some will produce a Sepia like tone, as they try to correct for it, in other words the colour print of your B&W negative is overall and uniformly off. Other machines will see that the colour is off, and simply give up. In many cases the operator can hand correct it, but most drug store people are not trained well enough, and don't care enough to do so.

 

[winger]

In other words, the prints may be "off", but the film itself (the negatives) are likely perfectly fine. XP2 prints quite well on "real" black and white paper. It just needs a good operator to be printed well by a minilab (especially one like Walgreens) because it's being printed on color paper.

 

[ic-racer]

In other words, the prints may be "off", but the film itself (the negatives) are likely perfectly fine. XP2 prints quite well on "real" black and white paper. It just needs a good operator to be printed well by a minilab (especially one like Walgreens) because it's being printed on color paper.

I agree. I used XP2 for a while between apartments with darkrooms and when I printed the negatives I was impressed with the lack of grain. 16x20s with XP2 had the same grain as my 16x20s from T-max 100.

Though, if I were to continue to use it I would need to process it myself. The uncut rolls I would get back from the lab would be plagued with fingerprints, dust and uneven development. A lot of wasted film.

BTW, during that same 'darkroom-less' period I also used silver based film and froze it after shooting. Years later when I had a darkroom, I processed the frozen film and negatives were fine.

 

[nworth]

XP-2 is designed for normal black and white printing, and the prints from a color processor are likely to be high in contrast and oddly colored. Try making a regular print or try scanning the negative as black and white and doing a digital black and white print before judging the film.

 

[optique]

Thanks to the responders

Ok, I thought I had read that xp2 and c-41 "black and white" did poorly in the photo lab but could not dredge up the posts from the archives.

I will put them in the enlarger and see what happens.

Thanks to all.
Steve.

 

[Ian Grant]

Kodak made an RA-4 colour-B&W paper, this was a paper designed for Minilabs etc for printing B&W from the Kodak, Ilford & Fuji chromogenic films. This paper overcame the colour balance problem as the only colour dyes formed during processing were black/grey, the paper's been discontinued but there still a bit left in the market place.

Ian