Ilford XP2 Shooters?

[thegman]

XP2 Super is probably by favourite B&W film, along with BW400CN. I doubt I could tell the difference between them, but XP2 is available in 120, so gets my vote.

 

[Cpitch]

M2 Ilford XP2

M2 Ilford XP2

 

[Ming The Merciless]

I've used Ilford XP2 for years and I love it.

 

[lynnb]

I love it too. Only problem here is the appalling damage to negs at local processing labs - both retail, camera-store based, and even my local pro lab. Scratches, tramlines, fingerprints and drying marks are the rule rather than the exception. I must give Rodinal stand development a try.

 

[KansanTim]

With the limited rolls I've shot, I found XP2 Super to be an excellent film, and would probably use it more if I didn't develop traditional films myself at home. It scans beautifully, as people have mentioned, but prints well, too.

However, I actually have used Kodak's BW400CN quite a bit more than XP2. My preference between the two depends on end-use: I like the Kodak one better for scanning, and I also got better quick-prints from the mini-lab with Kodak. I've never even tried printing it conventionally, though (To those that have: Does the orange mask mess it up?). So, Kodak if I wanted scans and/or quick mini-lab prints, and Ilford XP2 if I thought I might be trying to print it in a darkroom someday. It didn't hurt that BW400 was cheaper than XP2 where I was at the time.

 

[Rodchenko]

You've given me the nudge. I used to use XP1 for the range and definition, as well as the ease of getting it processed. Of course, all my prints had a colour cast, bit that was ok.

Coming back to film, I've been using Delta 400 and Neopan 400, partly because getting XP2 at a decent price wasn't easy.

But next purchase will be XP2.

Just bought 5 rolls of 36 on ebay as soon as I got home (why is so much XP2 in 24 exp rolls?).

Really, the only reason for my not shooting XP2 would be if I were doing my own neg processing, but that's two steps down the line (after buying a scanner). I used to shoot & develop my own HP5 from bulk rolls, but I've not got the funds to buy the equipment again.

 

[kossi008]

I don't shoot XP2 often, but when I read that you can process it in regular b/w developers, I couldn't resist.

This one's exposed @ 200 and developed in Xtol 1+1:


Picknick von Georg Erley auf Flickr

 

[BW400CN]

Nikon F90 Kodak BW400CN024 par BW400CN, bei ipernity


Nikon F90 Kodak BW400CN031 par BW400CN, bei ipernity


Nikon F90 Ilford XP2026 par BW400CN, bei ipernity


Nikon F90 Ilford XP2035 par BW400CN, bei ipernity


Nikon F90 Ilford XP2041 par BW400CN, bei ipernity


Nikon F90 Ilford XP2072 par BW400CN, bei ipernity

I love the way how this films drws the grey and how easy it is to scan!
​

 

[lonemantis]

XP2 is quickly becoming my favourite film, I love its versatility and convenience. I also love that its shadow/highlight response is the opposite of traditional B&W film - the highlights retain lots of detail and low grain, making it hard to overexpose. Great for Sunny 16 shooting!

I've also find it adds a lot of contrast to older, low-contrast lenses. I took two identical shots on XP2 with a Konica M-Hexanon and a Collapsible Summicron, and their contrast was exactly the same!

Here's one from my (former) S3 2000 + Millenium Nikkor:

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I don't shoot XP2 often, but when I read that you can process it in regular b/w developers, I couldn't resist.

Yes, but unfortunately, your negatives will gradually become thinner and thinner (image-wise) until there's no image anymore.

 

[Godfrey]

I've used chromogenic B&W films since they first debuted in the 1980s (Agfa Vario, IIRC). I like 'em a lot. Ilford XP2 Super is terrific, so is Kodak T400CN (and its APS sibling, Advantix B&W).

Overexpose and they give lovely, soft contrast, with incredible resolution.
Underexpose and they give sharp, high contrast, with lots of grain texture.

This one on XP2 from the Perkeo II:

​

Normally, I have the local photofinishing lab run the negs for me, but I've also processed XP2 Super in HC-110, XTOL and Rodinal with great results.

G

 

[Monochrom]

lambretta restoration workshop...

leica iiif elmar 5cm f3.5 and ....xp2!!!

 

[kossi008]

Yes, but unfortunately, your negatives will gradually become thinner and thinner (image-wise) until there's no image anymore.

Wait... are you saying my negatives will degrade over time?

 

[mszargar]

Wait... are you saying my negatives will degrade over time?

I had never heard about this!

 

[Zonan]

As I understand it, dye-based films are not as archival as silver-based. Practically speaking, they will probably outlive most of our needs. Very few of Ansel Adams' negative have been reprinted after his death (there are a few available, printed by alan Ross)- most of us won't have a problem 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

As I understand it, dye-based films are not as archival as silver-based. Practically speaking, they will probably outlive most of our needs. Very few of Ansel Adams' negative have been reprinted after his death (there are a few available, printed by alan Ross)- most of us won't have a problem 🙂

They're as archival as color negs are. My Agfa negs from the 1980s are still fine, my color negs from the 1960s are still fine too.

I really don't care one way or the other, tho. Once I scan my negatives, I never look at them again and usually shred them nowadays. The scanned data is what I archive.

G

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Wait... are you saying my negatives will degrade over time?

Unfortunately, yes. I'm speaking --well, typing-- from experience. Unless I didn't get the secret handshake club's manual (which is not improbable), you need to get it fixed the C-41 way.

Fix it a lot the way you've already done it. A lot. And it may last longer, but once developed this way I'm not sure if you can go back. In about three, four years, you'll see it.

I *think* if you take the uncut roll to a lab they may process it for you; this is what I was recommended I should do, and I still doubt it would work --don't know since I never tried it. Fortunately for me, the roll I did that with (and it was an accident, btw: I didn't pay attention that the roll I had grabbed wasn't TMax...I was batch-developing) was just a test roll.

 

[BlackXList]

I asked this in the last XP2 thread, but since I've shot a roll of it since then, and I'm still struggling, I'll see if anyone has any tips.

What ISO are people shooting XP2 at?

My results at box speed are ...not ideal, to the point where the grain texture is obscuring some of the detail, the way bad old 400 or even 800 ISO films looked with huge grain.

this is across a number of cameras, that I've tried other films in and they're exposing correctly, I get lovely creamy results with BW400CN at 400, but the Ilford comes out gravelly.

Ilford's based near me, I'd like to support a local company with a real commitment to film, (even with the price premium) but I'm clearly doing something wrong.

I'm basing this question on the lab scans on a fuji frontier, given Ilford's involvement in Fuji's C41 Neopan (and the results I get with other films) I don't believe that's the problem, and there are some lovely images in this thread, so it's not the film, the cameras are reliable, so the problem is clearly with the user, so what am I doing wrong

 

[BW400CN]

BlackXList - I shot the Ilford XP2 in my Nikon F90 with box speed and in my Avus @ 200 Iso. The BW400 I allways used with box speed but now tried one in may Canon A-1 with Iso 200.

 

[Michael Markey]

What ISO are people shooting XP2 at?

/quote]


I just shoot it at box speed and find it a very forgiving film.
I see people shooting it at 3200 and 6400 with acceptable results.
I`d be surprised if it was an exposure problem.