First roll of Ilford's XP2 Super (photo samples)

R

Rich Silfver

Guest
I've always sort of shunned B&W C41 film - thinking that it was not even close to what traditional B&W negatives could deliver.
To an extent I still feel that way but my latest experiments with first Kodak's BW400CN and now Ilford's XP2 Super has opened my eyes to an option that may find its way into my camerabag on a more frequent basis.

I picked up a roll of Ilford's XP2 Super and spent a couple of hours taking photos. Below are some samples from that roll:

68179902.jpg


68179904.jpg


68179906.jpg


68179907.jpg


68179910.jpg


Some more ramblings about this test shoot - and some more photos at Batteries Not Included

.
 
I like all of them. Very contrasty, but a nice scale of grey. I should test that XP2 (not very fond of Ilford films, but that one seems good).
What camera/lens, Rich?

Marc
 
Marc-A. said:
I like all of them. Very contrasty, but a nice scale of grey. I should test that XP2 (not very fond of Ilford films, but that one seems good).
What camera/lens, Rich?

Marc
Click to expand...

Thanks Marc. I used my Leica M3 and Summicron 50/2. I also normally don't use any Ilford film but I was very pleasantly surprised by how well XP2 Super handled highlights and how fine its grain was.
 
Very nice tones Rich! As usual, I can learn more from you. I have tried the Kodak B&W C41, but not the XP2. Perhaps I ought to give it a spin. Thanks for the lesson!
 
As always, I'm never sure how much credit to give the film or the lab when dealing with C41 B/W film. (Most likely its a combination.) My attempts with XP2 have always left lab scans with what I'd describe as a milky cast. On the other hand I've had great luck with 400CN with no cast showing after scans from the same lab. These pictures look very good. I'll have to give the XP2 super version a try. Thanks for the posts. Oh ya, very nice compostion in your images too. Thanks for sharing.
 
I have had variable results from XP2, some the result of bad processing, some due to underexposure. Rich, what EI did you use to expose? My latest foray with 400CN was shot at EI 200, which was better than at 400. My next roll of XP2, which I've exposed at 400 previously, will be at 250, perhaps with some bracketing for testing purposes.
 
Well done, Rich. I have been using Xp2 for quite a while, and I like it a lot. I expose it at ASA200, but wonder if keeping the ASA at 400 would make the images contrastier or not. I have the same set-up as you do (M3 plus rigid Summicron first version). It can be argued that this is one the best classical set-ups possible. I liked the most the last two of your posted images, Rich. The girl's face looks like a part of a statue.

Raid
 
Thanks for the comments, some more from that same roll:

68179909.jpg

Another hip shot

68179911.jpg

I really liked the tones and sharpness here

68203289.jpg

Now, I don't particularly like this photo but I do like the fine grain and contrast in it​
 
raid amin said:
Well done, Rich. I have been using Xp2 for quite a while, and I like it a lot. I expose it at ASA200, but wonder if keeping the ASA at 400 would make the images contrastier or not. I have the same set-up as you do (M3 plus rigid Summicron first version). It can be argued that this is one the best classical set-ups possible. I liked the most the last two of your posted images, Rich. The girl's face looks like a part of a statue.

Raid
Click to expand...

The 200/400 contrast issue would be easy to answer for yourself. Just shoot the same image on the same roll at 200 and then the next frame at 400. Process as per normal. Yes, Rich does good images and I am glad to see that C41 B&W is at least acceptable. I always thought that C41 B&W films were under valued.

Bob
 
These are beautiful, rich and contrasty. My previous expereience with C-41 B&W has not been good. It was Kodak's 400 speed film and came back from the lab with a definite greenish cast. It had to have been the lab's fault. I think I will get some XP-2 and change labs.

Tom
 
Rich, fantastic pictures as always!

but i'm wondering about any toning on your uploads? they have your "look" to them which leads me to believe that they had some sort of toning done.

also, were these scans of actual prints of of the negatives? i'm guessing negs.

thanks for sharing.

- chris
 
Yes, with the right work on contrast, XP2 can really do well. I find it super flat as straight scans, and I need a harsher curve to get it right. But once I do that, it's great.

One thing, and this is not just for Rich...my laptop is 1024x768. Your image is 640 wide. With the all the stuff on the left, I have to scroll. Can folks use slightly smaller images so those of us stuck on XGA on smaller laptops don't have to scroll?

Rich, I hope you know that I like your work very much. I presume that's BART. I love stairwells and escalators.

allan
 
Okay, guys, based on Rich's results and the other positive comments, I bought a roll of IP2 Super and gave it a try yesterday afternoon. Was surprised with the results in that they all came out a bit dark and too contrasty for my tastes. And lightening the scanned images then brought the grain up. Maybe it was just the Walgreen's processing but they've done me right with the Kodak BW400CN in the past. Not sure what to make of my experience except to say that it's made me gunshy of using this film. Anybody have any thoughts on what may be causing the difference versus Rich's nice results?

Thanks,
Randy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom