XP2 Super in C-41 vs. B&W development?

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,291
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
I had understood, before my time away from photography, that Kodak T400CN and Ilford XP2 Super were specifically intended to allow users to shoot black and white, but have their film processed at (then common) local mini-labs, and potentially get their results back the same day, as was the case for many years with color negative materials.

Local mini-labs are gone, and so is T400CN, but XP2 appears to be still popular and readily available in 35mm and 120, and apparently lots of folks process it as silver-image B&W. I recently bought five rolls of each to give the film a good try. I'm processing both B&W and C-41 negatives at home, though obviously B&W is (or can be) much cheaper than using C-41 kits (working on converting to a more budget friendly way of using C-41 chemistry), as well as offering more control over the final negative than is usually considered with C-41 (obviously, though, color shifts from changing temperature or time aren't likely to be a problem with a single-layer emulsion).

My question here is, what are the real differences between XP-2 Super in its canonical C-41 process, vs. in various B&W developers like HC-110, (Pa)Rodinal, or Xtol? Grain, tonal smoothness, resolution, speed?
 

Anon Ymous

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
3,661
Location
Greece
Format
35mm
A C41 film in BW chemicals will probably be suboptimal. It's not that it won't work, but you will likely get considerably coarser grain.
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,291
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Anon Ymous said:
A C41 film in BW chemicals will probably be suboptimal. It's not that it won't work, but you will likely get considerably coarser grain.
Click to expand...

You couch that as a hypothetical. Does that mean you haven't tried it?

I asked in the first place because I've seen examples, even from 35mm, that belie your opinion -- but on the web, one can't be completely sure.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
If you scan your negatives and your scanner has ICE or one of the other IR based dust and scratch removal scanning tools, a C-41 processed roll of XP-2 will allow you to use those tools, while a black and white processed roll will not.
If you over-expose the film, the C-41 processed roll of XP-2 will will show reduced grain, while a black and white processed roll of XP-2 will show increased grain.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
I had a chance to meet Lee Friedlander a few years ago and he indicated he no longer used sliver based films. He used XP2 and had a lab process it for him. He still did his own printing on conventional silver paper, however.

For 3 years I shot only XP2, when I did not have processing capacity. I had them return the 120 rolls un-cut. Most of the time the film came out OK. Some of the rolls were spoiled with dust, finger prints or unusual processing marks that showed when I was later able to make prints from the negatives.

In terms of effective 'grain', the XP2 at EI 400 to 200 was comparable TMX at EI 50 to 100. Tonal quality is great.

The main reason I don't use it now is that it is not available in the common formats I use, and uncertain longevity. But it is a great film.
 
Last edited:

Anon Ymous

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
3,661
Location
Greece
Format
35mm
Donald Qualls said:
You couch that as a hypothetical. Does that mean you haven't tried it?

I asked in the first place because I've seen examples, even from 35mm, that belie your opinion -- but on the web, one can't be completely sure.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I haven't tried it and don't see the point to be honest. Overall, C41 films are finer trained than traditional BW, but this assumes C41 processing, which strips silver from film and leaves only dye clouds. In fact, incomplete bleaching will cause coarser grain in C41 (and E6 for that matter).

Whatever examples seen on the web can look good, but you can't really assess granularity from a usually small photo. Apart from that, it's easy to apply curve corrections that can't be possible in the darkroom, so there's one more thing to consider. @MattKing also mentioned some valid points to consider.

Since you said that you process C41 at home, it's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. Even if your C41 processing is off, you will not get any crossover with C41 BW, just make sure you bleach and fix properly.
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,291
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format

The ICE issue is a reasonable point, but as far as I can tell, that process depends on the scanner's software on the PC -- and I run Linux, therefore almost no scanners have software that will run natively. I use Vuescan, and haven't been offered IR based dust reduction on my old scanner (it predated the ICE terminology, but Vuescan offers IR as a source of gray when scanning B&W, so I presume the scanner had an IR channel).

I did process one roll of T400CN (around 2005) in C-41 with bleach bypass, and got approximately what I expected -- an effective one stop push worth of increased contrast at the cost of increased grain. Hopefully, I'll be able to switch from blix to separate bleach and fix soon, and I may try the same with XP2 Super.
 

Raghu Kuvempunagar

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,724
Location
India
Format
Multi Format
Donald:

XP2 Super (EI 100-150) works well with B&W developers such as Adox MQ Borax replenished and Obsidian Aqua. It is a slightly higher contrast film and gives nice tonality and fine grain. I quite liked the results I got with Adox MQ Borax replenished for 5.5-6.0 minutes @20C. XTol should also give good results. Negatives scan really well and @drmoss_ca has plenty of examples in his flickr stream. Here are two from my flickr stream.
1. XP2 Super in C41 chemistry: https://www.flickr.com/photos/79033393@N04/31307863372
2. XP2 Super in B&W chemistry: https://www.flickr.com/photos/79033393@N04/40684310705

FWIW I even reversal processed this film in B&W chemistry and got very decent slides - no green/cyan cast or purple/pink base.

I think you'll like the results when you try yourself.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,934
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Ian Grant who will make a more knowledgeable contribution on XP2 Super than I, as he has the experience, relates that at EI 1600 such as you might have to for night shots at say a concert and when pushed one stop to 3 mins 45 secs has less grain than a comparable B&W film capable of being pushed to 1600.

pentaxuser
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,291
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
1. XP2 Super in C41 chemistry: https://www.flickr.com/photos/79033393@N04/31307863372
2. XP2 Super in B&W chemistry: https://www.flickr.com/photos/79033393@N04/40684310705
Click to expand...

Images like those are why I was interested in trying XP2 Super -- and trying it in both development methods.


I think I'd read that as well. Just to be sure I read it right, that's push two in camera, but only one in processing? I do recall reading that XP2 Super has exceptional latitude. Especially helpful in medium format where grain isn't that big a deal.

I wonder how we could convince Ilford('s supplier) to coat it on sheet film?
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,934
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Donald Qualls said:
I wonder how we could convince Ilford('s supplier) to coat it on sheet film?
Click to expand...

Isn't it Ilford who do the whole process although the strange thing is that on a tour of Ilford I cannot now recall any discussion on XP2 Plus but I digress. I think the answer is you need to convince Ilford that producing sheet film for XP2 Plus is economically viable. As we have found to our cost on Photrio telling a company that you plus a few others here on Photrio, would be prepared to buy sheet XP2 Plus does not constitute enough evidence of a sufficient demand

pentaxuser
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Ilford is actually just a brand name, not an entity.
Harman Technology Ltd. is the entity.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,934
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
MattKing said:
Ilford is actually just a brand name, not an entity.
Harman Technology Ltd. is the entity.
Click to expand...
True Matt. Perhaps we require an algorithm programmed in to Photrio that automatically changes the word Ilford to Harman Technology in all posts. Would this help or hinder future discussions. It certainly might give problems for a while as would for instance a decision by the U.K. to switch to driving on the right. It would be expensive but we might persuade the Funeral Directors Association to fund it on a pro-rata benefit basis

Then there is the problem of the Brexiteers' position on the matter

pentaxuser
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,291
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Might be easier for them to cut the master roll meant for 35mm into sheets. @Harman Tech Service can perhaps comment on the feasibility of this.
Click to expand...

As I recall, the larger the film, the thicker the base -- 35mm < 120 < 4x5. This was what made pack film, uh, "interesting" to handle, it was on foll film stock so it could go around the corner in the pack without undue effort, and that made it flexible enough it was hard to keep it in place in a daylight tank designed for sheet film.

And seemingly, there hasn't been enough market demand for XP2 Super in the large format sector to prompt Harman Technologies to coat the emulsion (or have it coated -- I understood they only coated silver-image B&W materials in their own facility in UK, and contracted the XP2 Super, presumably from Fuji with a non-compete that explains Fuji never offering a C-41 B&W material) on sheet base. I have to presume this is related to grain being less important in large format and/or large format being strongly divided into "color (and let someone else process my films)" and "black and white (and most likely process them myself)." That is, those who shoot B&W sheet film are likely to want to process their own, and won't do enough volume in XP2 Super to justify keeping and maintaining and testing C-41 chemistry.
 

Raghu Kuvempunagar

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
2,724
Location
India
Format
Multi Format
Donald Qualls said:
As I recall, the larger the film, the thicker the base -- 35mm < 120 < 4x5.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. actually, XP2 Super 35mm film (0.125mm/5-mil acetate base) is thicker than 120 film (0.110mm/4-mil clear acetate base).

Ilford sheet films are coated on 0.180mm/7-mil polyester base.
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,291
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Hmm.. actually, XP2 Super 35mm film (0.125mm/5-mil acetate base) is thicker than 120 film (0.110mm/4-mil clear acetate base).

Ilford sheet films are coated on 0.180mm/7-mil polyester base.
Click to expand...

Still a thicker base than either 120 or 35mm. Though I wouldn't think a 5 mil base would be enough "floppier" than regular sheet film to cause problems (other than some photographers complaining that it's causing focus errors, and never mind there's almost certainly more variation between one load and the next with the same film in the same holder). Okay, special coating probably not needed, just a custom cutting. If Ilford does their own cutting and confectioning on the XP2 Super stock, it might be possible, if someone wanted to order enough at once. Way out of my budget, but perhaps a group buy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…