Ilford XP2

[richard_l]

I'm new to using XP2 but have really liked it a lot. Seems like everyone who's replied rates it at less than 400. I haven't tried that yet, but am curious as to why those who do rate it this way prefer that.

Rated at 400 it seems more prone to blocking shadows than blowing out highlights. Therefore downrating it to 320 or 250 seems to put the exposure more toward the center of the latitude range. It doesn't make a huge difference, but you might try it and see if you prefer the effect.

 

[skimmel]

Thanks Doug and richard_l. I see what you mean (having had some issues with blocked shadows). I'll give it a try. (To date, I've been a bit lazy and just tweak the image in Photoshop to fix the shadows which seems to work well as long as I'm not making large prints.)

 

[rich815]

XP2 is wonderful stuff. Great latitude, good tonal range, really performs well in high contrast situations (see attached). It is NOT the same as traditional B&W films and will give a different look----sort of more creamy and smooth instead of gritty and biting. I use both depending on my purpose. Give it a try! It scans very easily (and you can use ICE too).

Richard

 

[Doug]

XP2 ... is NOT the same as traditional B&W films and will give a different look----sort of more creamy and smooth instead of gritty and biting. I use both depending on my purpose.

Good point, Richard... when I'm looking for attractive grain, the traditional films have it. With a half-frame camera for instance, I figure the grain is inevitable (except with really slow films), so I might as well celebrate it with a traditional film.

Giving the C41 films generous exposure helps enough with 24x36mm (or larger) to retain its smooth and creamy look, and richness of tonality. Nice to have the choices!

 

[meyman]

I found XP2 too muddy for all but bright outdoor shots. It somehow reminded me of Agfa Scala with nice blacks, excellent grays and no real highlights. Or maybe color film converted to greyscale in PS. Perhaps I stopped using it too quickly and should have experimented more, but with Tri-x, Neopan and APX being much cheaper here in Poland, I just didn't have the motivation

 

[Doug]

I found XP2 too muddy for all but bright outdoor shots.

Getting low contrast muddy prints is a fairly common complaint with XP2, but it's the lab's fault, I suggest, not really the film's. Since it's the light-dark contrasts that are important for B&W, poor attention to this in printing is quite obvious... whereas with color film it's not so notable because of the presence of color to define the subject matter.

I've found it's usually necessary in the darkroom to use a higher contrast paper with XP2 to get that sparkle, but honestly this is ok with me. I'd prefer to capture a wide range of light-dark values in the negative, giving me more choices in printing. With scanned XP2 negs, it's easy enough to pump up the contrast a bit in post-processing (with Photoshop or whatever).

Here's an indoor low-contrast situation, illustrated below. Fluorescent ceiling lighting, Contax G2, 35mm Planar nearly wide open, and XP2... And then a 100%-scale crop of part of the scan for a closer look.

 

[saxshooter]

How archival is XP2 and Kodak's version of it? I've found that some of my C41 color negative film has indeed shifted in color (fade) after a few years and most certainly has gone "flat". These are observations I've made from scanning.

I fear that chromogenic black and white film would suffer the same fate? Perhaps its something that can be compensated with an increase in contrast filter grade when printing?

 

[rpsawin]

I like XP2 but my experience with it is that the negatives are easily damaged. I always have an inordinate number of frames that are scratched. This is consistant even when I use different labs for processing. I also find the negatives difficult to evaluate for wet darkroom printing. On the other hand they scan nicely.

Since I do wet darkroom processing, and prefer to do my own developing, I am going to stop using any B&W C-41 films expect for non-critical uses.

Bob

 

[nwcanonman]

I like XP2 but my experience with it is that the negatives are easily damaged. I always have an inordinate number of frames that are scratched. This is consistant even when I use different labs for processing. I also find the negatives difficult to evaluate for wet darkroom printing. On the other hand they scan nicely.

Since I do wet darkroom processing, and prefer to do my own developing, I am going to stop using any B&W C-41 films expect for non-critical uses.

Bob

.............
Bob,
I'd try a good pro-lab with a roll of XP2 and see th results. I've used a TON of it and never had a scratched neg, using Photo-Vision in Oregon or even the local Ritz/Kits lab.
And yes I do make regular 8"x10"'s scanning the negs at home. But since you have you're own darkroom, use what works best 🙂

 

[saxshooter]

Re scratching, that was my experience with XP2 also. At the time I was using a Nikon LS1000 that didn't have digital ICE, but I'm sure current scanners can handle the dust and scratches OK.

I thought the benefit of using chromogenic black and white film was to easily get it processed at your neighborhood lab. But if I had to send it out at a "pro" lab and the costs associated with that, I'd rather have a small set of B&W chemistry at home and a couple of tanks and do it myself, using regular black and white film. For me, shooting black and white film goes hand in hand with permanence -- I'd want it to last (dyes fade, silver halide doesn't).

If I were to scan black and white, then I'd rather just shoot color neg and do black and white conversions in Photoshop (most basic method using monochrome channel mixer). Some of you may be offended by this suggestion, but you would be surprised to know that much of the black and white photojournalism you see in the news magazines today are made on digital cameras (color) and converted to black and white! Most use Fred Miranda's black and white conversion tools.