Strike two for XP2 film....

[RdEoSg]

Well. I've taken my second roll of film in my new M6 and all I can say is this is strike 2 for the film. I am in no way happy with the sharpness of it! It used to look amazing in my Contax when it was printed using a wet process, but I can't get a good scan to save my life!!! It's muted, blocked up, unsharp etc.

I was hoping to get away with using it instead of paying more to have Tmax 100 processed since the labs are becoming few and far between but I guess I am going to just have to start doing it. I suppose I could process it myself. It wouldn't be that many rolls in reality! I just don't have a spot to hang the negs to dry and I am not sure the rest of the family will appreciate me developing my film in the kitchen!

I supose I don't have a question in this do I... Anyone with a comment? :bang:

 

[Rich Silfver]

I've never had good results scanning anything by Ilford so I simply don't use their products anymore. (Note: Obviously a very subjective statement and others opinions are bound to differ).

I have found that for ME - in 100 speed Fuji Across and in 400 speed Neopan 400 and Tri-X 400 scans really, really well.

Tmax is good in 120 but I have never liked it in 135.

 

[RdEoSg]

Have you found that Acros seems to be better rated at 50 than at 100. I shot one or two rolls of it but always thought 100 was being generous for ISO...

 

[Rich Silfver]

Dunno. I'm a simple man. I shoot at the box-rating unless I am in situations where I HAVE to push a few stops. Reason for that is that I tend to have the same roll in my camera for a week or more and it would kill me to have to remember what the heck it's rated at 🙂

 

[Ukko Heikkinen]

Hi

Strange.

Ilford XP2 is my favorite film, exposed at 200 ASA.

No scanning problems whatsoever (Minolta 5400 and Epson Perfection V700).

Please consider the fact that the scan is never the final image. Postprosessing is necessary. The aim when scanning is to get all there is to get in the negative
to be fine-tuned later.
The sanners ar made to do this, not to manipulate the scan like one manipulates a print in a darkroom.

Ukko Heikkinen

 

[Socke]

I suppose I could process it myself. It wouldn't be that many rolls in reality! I just don't have a spot to hang the negs to dry and I am not sure the rest of the family will appreciate me developing my film in the kitchen!

You do have a shower, don't you?

I have a tank which can be used without a darkroom or changingbag, mine is a Jobo 2400 an alternative is the Agfa Rodinax.
Of cause both are out of production baut the turn up on ebay once in a while.

I change chemistry in the bathroom, but do longer development in front of the TV. I store used developer and fixer in two jerry cans and dispose the fluids at a local waste management facility.

I hang my negatives on the shower head to dry over night.

All in all my development kit takes not much room in the locker where I store my cleaning stuff.

 

[Tuna]

I just shot and processed a roll of XP-2 and found that it didn't produce the results I am used to from Kodak CN400 (another C-41 BW film). So, I would suggest you try that film before you start stinking up the kitchen with developer and fix.

By the way, I managed decent results - here is the first shot I've worked on from the roll. I believe I'll attribute any good qualities of this image to my new 75/2.5 Color-Heliar...

Tuna

 

[tetrisattack]

Have you found that Acros seems to be better rated at 50 than at 100. I shot one or two rolls of it but always thought 100 was being generous for ISO...

You're not alone on that one. I don't rate it at 50, per se, maybe more like 64, but it seems to handle highlights better than shadows.

 

[captainslack]

Just out of curiousity, what scanner are you using? Also, what are setting are you using when scanning the XP2?

Reason I ask, is I recently scanned a roll of Kodak's C-41 B&W film and had to use the Color Neg setting on my Minolta Dimage IV to get a got scan.

 

[kaiyen]

XP2 is unlikely to achieve the type of sharpness that one is accustomed to with conventional black and white film. Dye clouds just look different. And the contrast of XP2 is weird, too. But, some basic curves and sharpening in PS and I find it to be an excellent film.

allan

 

[Tuna]

I'm not sure about XP-2, but I believe that Kodak's C-41 B&W film is specifically designed to scan well with the recent digital minilabs that have powerful dedicated film scanners built in. So, it is supposed to do pretty good with home dedicated scanners, such as what Nikon and Minolta manufacture(d). Some reviews I've read in the past stated that one might actually have more problems scanning standard B&W film...

I've never had too many problems with any of them and always scan everything as an RGB color neg to achieve the largest tonal scale (information).

Tuna

 

[RdEoSg]

Thanx for all of the replies so far. Some info:

I am using a Nikon super coolscan 4000 ED which should work well. I admit though that I really dislike the Scan 4 software and have heard it is very er.. interesting to use. Maybe some other software is first on my list to try?

I am horrible at playing with curves. If I had levels i'd do a lot better, but i can't find a levels adjustment in that software. I scan it in color negative and then work it in photoshop mostly. I don't do too much to it in the scanning software other than crop.

I use photoshop CS and CS 2 and am used to both of those. I've been using PS since version 4.0 so I know it well enough. I've tried everything from desaturation to channel mixer to get a good result. Multiple levels adjustment layers, shadow highlight etc. a small amount of unsharp mask and even some large radius sharpening to pull the contrast a bit, but nothing comes close to what you guys have shown me is possible.

I'll show an example.

 

[Trius]

I know zip about photo editing software; I have the Gimp on my laptop and PS Elements 2 on a desktop. I opened your example in Gimp, did auto levels and then set the black point. So, 2 clicks, save and this:


Edit: Also, the film is scratched, so I'd look for another lab. I agree your example isn't as sharp as I'd want, but I don't know what the original looks like. Probably good to work on one problem at a time. My latest gallery uploads were consumer lab processed, scanned to "high res" (~2000x3000) TIFF, and when I resized and saved to JPG, I did no sharpening. So I know sharp scans are possible. Yes, different film, but still C-41.

 

[RdEoSg]

Well your's looks a lot better than mine. Yea I noticed the scratches myself so I didn't spend a lot of time on it.. I just don't like the sharpness of it. But I will keep trying. It was my first time using the scanner in a loooooong time so exposure is probably a lot to do with operator error!!

 

[Nick R.]

Are you getting prints made at the lab at the same time you have the film developed? I love XP2, but I find that the prints made at the processing lab are way sharper than the scans I can make from the neg's at home. Ultimately, what I do then is flat scan the prints made at the lab.

FWIW, I have a KM Scan elite II dedicated film scanner and an epson 4870 flatbed.

 

[RdEoSg]

no process only. I may have them do a few just to see what they come up with.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

You mean you can't get your scanner to give you this with XP2?


Leica M6 + 50mm Summitar @ f/2 / Ilford XP2

I'd say toss your scanning software (I use SilverFast SE) 🙂

Edit: ok, I thought I had done this before, but here goes try #2; just in case, a thumbnail too...

 

[Nick R.]

Couldn't load, Gabriel.
Here's one:

 

[glchua]

Well your's looks a lot better than mine. Yea I noticed the scratches myself so I didn't spend a lot of time on it.. I just don't like the sharpness of it. But I will keep trying. It was my first time using the scanner in a loooooong time so exposure is probably a lot to do with operator error!!

I use a Nikon 4000ED too and use XP2 very often. I'll try to avoid clippings at both ends of the histogram to get all info in. This would give me a flat image but it sharpens well with good contrast and shadow details after PS.

Be careful with film flatness for 4000ED. You only have about + or - 4 units of tolerance. If your film is not flat, different points can be off by more than 10 units and you image will appear unsharp.

 

[Graham Line]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/74312783@N00/38328181/in/set-821342/
and:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74312783@N00/38699931/in/set-821342/

are both XP2 Super, exposed about 250, and converted to digital on a Minolta Scan Dual III. Underexposure can eat away at the apparent sharpness. It's been a while, but I think it was scanned as a B&W neg and took only minor adjustments. The original scan is with the Minolta software but all adjustments are in Elements.