XP2 developing

[conradyiu]

I am new to the film XP2.
Though it is black and white film, the process is C41, is the development process same as other common colour negative?

Conrad

 

[lZr]

Yes Conrad. It is

 

[John Robertson]

When Ilford originally brought out XP 1, they had a development kit for 4 films. Easy to use with excellent esults. I find the shop processing less predictable

 

[markinlondon]

As already stated it's standard C41 process. You may get better results by overexposing slightly, I always used to rate it at EI250 for better shadow detail and contrast.

 

[wdenies]

Excellent film.
Slight overexposure will increase quality (250-300 ASA).
Standard C41 process.

But....
Local 1 hr color labs will ruin the prints (green color cast) because they will tread the B&W negs as standard color negs.

So....
do the printing yourself (my way)
or access to a prof. lab ($$$$$$)

Wim

 

[John Robertson]

I used to shoot XP-1 at 100 to 200, this made the images almost grainless. Sadly does not work with scanners as it makes the negs far too dense to scan well!

 

[peter_n]

Local 1hr. labs can also be dodgy with the development. I've had very variable results from my local Motophoto. I also overexpose 250-320 ASA. Expensive film here in the US - I buy bulk rolls. Ilford includes nice XP2 stickers you can put on the cassettes so they look at least semi-professional. 🙂

 

[Todd Frederick]

Nowadays, when I use film, that's about all I use...either XP-2 or Kadak CN400. I no longer have a darkroom so I ask the lab to "develop only," or develop only and make a CD.

I do not find the film too dense to use on a scanner. I have excellent results. I also sometimes scan it as a color film and then I have many of the color tools in Photoshop to work with as well.

As mentioned, lab prints (especially from mini-labs) are not good quality and you should print them yourself.

 

[peterm1]

I love XP2. It has a nice "creamy" quality and beautiful gradation from blck to white. Here are a few tricks for shooting and developing. (Although I never develop my own)

Shoot at 200 ASA or even 100 ASA. It gives nicer rendition. 400 and out gets a bit grainy for my liking.

If you are getting it developed "professionally" make sure that the photo lab you use knows how to set their colour channels correctly for this film. Many street corner photo developers just do not. If you do not do this, you will almost certainly end up with "lovely" colour casts - sometimes sepia which is not too bad I suppose, but more often, weird blues or pinks. (You can always get rid of these if you digitise so thats one wayout.)

If you really want a true black and white outcome in your prints, find a lab that will let you pay a little extra to print using black and white photo paper rather than colour paper. Most will not as this disrupts their prduction -or used to, it may not be a problem these days with so many moving to digital. My lab used to do this for me and I always got a good result. The cost was only a few bucks more.

If you follow those hints you will get good outcomes.

 

[Trius]

I concur with the recommendations here regarding exposure (EI 250 or 320), and finding a good lab that is consistent and careful. My lab will develop and scan to high res TIFF (3089x2048, ~43" x 24" print size), a roll of 36 costs about $11US.

I think scale down the image to the desired size, maybe do some light levels or curves work, very light sharpening (not always necessary), and I'm done.