Developing Ilford XP2 400 Plus (C41) as regular......B&W?

pepeguitarra

pepeguitarra

Well-known
Local time
11:38 PM
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
817
I have several rolls of shot and undeveloped XP2 400 Plus and would like to develop them with Rodinol, or Ilfosord DD-X, or even Tmax RS using B&W chemistry. What will I get? Has anyone done it? I appreciate your comment. Thanks, Pepe.
 
med_U41336I1491279579.SEQ.2.jpg


Sorry I didn't see this thread earlier , but I've just finished developing a roll of Ilford XP-2 in Ilford DDX 1:4 and these are what I got . I wouldn't hesitate to do some more .
Peter
 
When a friend decided to sacrifice his XP2 in b/w chemistry, he did and we saw that it did nothing good. It came out a mess and blank. :(
 
sara said:
When a friend decided to sacrifice his XP2 in b/w chemistry, he did and we saw that it did nothing good. It came out a mess and blank. :(
Click to expand...
The one above is my second roll, my first is below:

3XP2400Super-RodinalStan024 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

Leo Carrillo's Ranch by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

3XP2400Super-RodinalStan054 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

For the first roll, I used the normal stop bath and Ilford Rapid fixer, and two agitation of 30 secs at first and 30th minute (semi stand)

For the second roll, I changed my agitation to 1 initial minute of agitation and nothing there after, at 60min, I dumped the developer, rinsed with water and pour TF4 rapid fixer.
 
The last roll of XP2 I developed (last night, in fact) I had shot at 200 and developed it in Diafine 5+5. The results were excellent considering the film expiration was 11/2000. I did buy the roll new and it was either cold stored or frozen for 19 years. I developed a fresh Tri-X in the same tank, same times, and both films had about the same color and transparency for unexposed areas. I have used Diafine for as long as I can recall...40 or 50 years, perhaps. It seems to last forever (the last batch I mixed was 6 years old..but this was a fresh batch as the last was going down in volume...it never needs replenishment) and is mostly temperature insensitive.
 
Was this C41

Was this C41

I have just had some XP2 processed by a lab in Bangkok.
All my previous rolls, processed by them and other labs, have produced negatives with a purple hue; and the resulting scans have been excellent.

This time the negatives were grey, and the images were grainy and muddy.

When challenged, they insisted they had used C41 (although charged me for B&W) and offered the explanation: "Purple negative was caused by fixer. It happened either C41 or hand-wash in the darkroom" (English is not their first language).

Will C41 always produce a purple tinged negative?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7017.jpg
    IMG_7017.jpg
    33.3 KB · Views: 0
SpikeT said:
I have just had some XP2 processed by a lab in Bangkok.
All my previous rolls, processed by them and other labs, have produced negatives with a purple hue; and the resulting scans have been excellent.

This time the negatives were grey, and the images were grainy and muddy.

When challenged, they insisted they had used C41 (although charged me for B&W) and offered the explanation: "Purple negative was caused by fixer. It happened either C41 or hand-wash in the darkroom" (English is not their first language).

Will C41 always produce a purple tinged negative?
Click to expand...

My XP2 developed as B&W std development in Rodinal are normal looking, just like Neopan 100 Acros.
 
Moto-Uno said:
Sorry I didn't see this thread earlier , but I've just finished developing a roll of Ilford XP-2 in Ilford DDX 1:4 and these are what I got . I wouldn't hesitate to do some more .
Peter
Click to expand...

I just signed up here. Peter/Moto-Uno, your results look good. I have followed Chrism's thread on this at APUG and GetDPI and have shot an XP2 120 film at 1600 ISO that I need to develop now. I'd like to stick to DD-X as that is my standard developer. Since you used DD-X as well, can you provide some more details?
  • At which ISO did you expose the XP2?
  • How did you develop it; time, temperature, agitation?
This will give me a starting point for my development. Thanks.

Menno
 
pepeguitarra said:
My XP2 developed as B&W std development in Rodinal are normal looking, just like Neopan 100 Acros.
Click to expand...

Would you share your dilution and development time for Rodinol here as well as iso? Your images here look good :)

Thanks in advance!

David
 
Now, what is the advantage of using XP-2 instead of Delta 400, if it is developped in B&W chemistry? Why would anyone do that?
 
I can think of three advantages: price, availability, and versatility. I shot a lot of XP2 a decade ago for those three reasons; it was cheaper and easier to get hold of than something like Delta, and I could have it developed in C41 if I didn't have chemicals available. It also stand develops in Rodinal well, which keeps the overall cost down even more.

I grew to quite like the stuff... only to find out a couple of years later that it was a nightmare to print from in a darkroom, no matter how it was developed. I've barely used it since.
 
stephaneb said:
Now, what is the advantage of using XP-2 instead of Delta 400, if it is developped in B&W chemistry? Why would anyone do that?
Click to expand...

I work with XP2 Super when I want to have the option of C41 processing at a photofinisher (convenience and ease of getting it done). Processed in B&W chemistry, it has a different spectral response compared to Delta 400 and other films and responds to B&W filters a little differently, which you can see if you do a couple of controlled test shots of an Xrite color chart. And it can be between a very very fine grain to a coarse grain image rendering, depending on what EI you use and what processing you apply to it.

Regards printing: I haven't done darkroom printing for more than 25 years. All my negatives are scanned and their total tonal range is captured easily in raw scans. Those scans are the masters which I archive, render, and print from; the capture medium once scanned is mostly irrelevant.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom