XP2 push processing

[Lol999]

Hi, just run a roll of XP2 Super at ISO 1600. Took it into my local develpers and asked for it to be pushed to 1600. I was assured that no changes to processing were necessary and that the latitude of the film would accomodate the effective underexposure I had given it. I wasn't convinced but went ahead. The resultant negatives are low in contrast and I'm using quite a contrasty lens. Was the lab people right, or should they have extended dev time as I thought?

Cheers, Lol

 

[Ian Grant]

I always push processed XP2 when shooting at 1600 ISO, I used to use it all the time to shoot rock concerts. Ilford used to give the push times in C41 for XP1 but when they upgraded the film to XP2 said it wasn't push processable, but I found it was no different and could be pushed superbly. It need the extra development as your negatives are showing you.

BTW the reason for the changes were to make XP2 totally compatible with C41 processing lines, XP1 needed a different dev time to normal colour films.

Most processing labs (even professional) now use minilab C41 units for 120 & 35mm film there is often no override for push processing.

Ian

 

[Sanjay Sen]

I haven't shot XP2 Super at 1600, but when I shot it at 800 I asked the lab for a 1-stop push processing. The negs came out as expected. So, yes, you were right.

 

[Lol999]

I
Most processing labs (even professional) now use minilab C41 units for 120 & 35mm film there is often no override for push processing.

Ian

It's a bit poor that with today's technology they can't override the damned thing. I'd have thought if they blanked out the dx coding on the cartridge it might ask for a manual input. never mind. Now I'm torn between pushing Tri-X, which I've done and is okay, or shooting Neopan 1600 to continue to take advantage of cheap minilab processing.

Cheers, Lol

 

[Ian Grant]

If you can push process Tri-x you can push process XP2. C41 neg processing is very easy and the kits are cheap, it takes no longer than B&W.

Ian

 

[Matt5791]

It's a bit poor that with today's technology they can't override the damned thing. I'd have thought if they blanked out the dx coding on the cartridge it might ask for a manual input. never mind. Now I'm torn between pushing Tri-X, which I've done and is okay, or shooting Neopan 1600 to continue to take advantage of cheap minilab processing.

Cheers, Lol

Just as a quick note - Palm Lab in Birmingham use dip and dunk processors and will push or pull if you want - phone them for a price:

http://www.palmlabs.co.uk

 

[Lol999]

If you can push process Tri-x you can push process XP2. C41 neg processing is very easy and the kits are cheap, it takes no longer than B&W.

Ian

Ian, I don't do my own processing,although it looks like I might have to start. I sent my Tri-X off to Peak Imaging who did a good job.

Matt, I've looked at Palm Labs before. Why don't they have an on-line price list?

Cheers, Lol

 

[srs5694]

It's a bit poor that with today's technology they can't override the damned thing. I'd have thought if they blanked out the dx coding on the cartridge it might ask for a manual input. never mind.

All C-41 films take the same processing time, at least in theory. Thus, there's normally no need to adjust the time for different films or different film speeds. AFAIK, if minilabs read DX codes at all, it's not to tweak the development time. Covering the DX codes might seem a clever way to signal that a roll needs special treatment for push or pull processing, but the cartridges used inside disposable cameras usually lack DX codes, IIRC, so this would just slow down the process, perhaps confuse clerks, and maybe even result in errors if the confused clerks enter the wrong data. That's not to say that an override wouldn't be useful, but covering over DX codes wouldn't be a good way to activate it.

Now I'm torn between pushing Tri-X, which I've done and is okay, or shooting Neopan 1600 to continue to take advantage of cheap minilab processing.

Fuji Neopan 1600 is a conventional (non-C41) B&W film. As such, drug store minilabs either won't process it or will return blank negatives. Trust me; I once made the mistake, before I began doing my own processing, of taking a roll of conventional B&W film to a local CVS. They ran it through their on-site minilab machine, handed me back a blank negative strip, and had the nerve to suggest that my camera was at fault.

That said, pro labs will process conventional B&W films. I don't know if minilab machines can be used for this purpose or if they all do it in manual tanks or whatnot. The only remotely pro lab near me will do B&W. I'm not positive, but I think they do the film manually and then make 4x6 proof prints from the negatives on their minilab machine.

 

[Lol999]

Yeah, I'd just got it in my head that Neopan 1600 was C41 Idiot! I'd seen some in a highstreet "film/processing shop for the masses" as I was passing and just couldn't conceive that they would stock anything but C41. D'oh!
Ah well, back to the drawing board.

Cheers, Lol

 

[srs5694]

You might want to consider doing your own processing, at least from exposed film to negatives. You don't need much specialized equipment for that part of the job (just the chemicals, a film processing tank with reels, and common household items like measuring cups). Once you've got a film strip, a 1-hour lab should be able to print from them, although some will give you prints with bad color casts. When you do it this way, you'll have a much wider selection of films and be able to at least partly control the process (for push or pull processing, for instance). It sounds to me like you want the sort of options and control that doing your own processing will get you but that will be hard to get with C-41 B&W films.

 

[Lol999]

You're right, hence I now have lots of darkroom gear bookmarked on e-bay! Most of my images exist as negatives and scans of negatives, I print very few on my printer. I have a Epson 3490 scanner that is more than adequate for web publishing from negative scans. Seems it's time to start souping.

Cheers, Lol