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

[Donald Qualls]

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]

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Anon Ymous]

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.

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Donald Qualls]

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

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

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.

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]

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

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]

Ilford is actually just a brand name, not an entity.
Harman Technology Ltd. is the entity.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ilford is actually just a brand name, not an entity.
Harman Technology Ltd. is the entity.

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

 

[wyofilm]

This Ilford (Harman?) link should help you:
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry/

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

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]

As I recall, the larger the film, the thicker the base -- 35mm < 120 < 4x5.

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.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

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...

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Still a thicker base than either 120 or 35mm. ...

It's in the ballpark of Adox CMS 20 and Efke 25 sheet films (0.130mm). I have not used these films in sheet format but they seem to have had a good run.