XP2 in B&W Developers

[monopix]

I've been processing XP2 in FX-39 recently. I have no problems with the results I'm getting but wonder if there might be a stability issue. A long time ago I developed some XP1 in a b&w developer (probably Acutol) and some of the negs are now looking faded.

Anyone know if using b&w developers might be a problem in this respect? Is there some vital ingredient missing which makes the negs less stable when compared to C41 processing?

 

[Photon42]

sorry for not answering the question, but may I ask why you do this?

Rgds
Ivo

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

To save a trip to the supermarket, no doubt.

I've never tried this--I didn't know it was possible!

 

[monopix]

sorry for not answering the question, but may I ask why you do this?

Essentially, because I wanted to go back to developing my own film and I had a stock of XP2 to use up. But also because I've still to find an alternative film that gives me the combination of grain/speed/sharpness/scanability that I want.

 

[mhv]

When developed in a conventional B&W developer, chromegenic films like XP2 will yield a silver image, but none of the dye clouds that only C41 developer can create. The stabilizer of C41 is only for the purpose of stabilizing dyes against fading. I don't see how the silver image could have been attacked, other than because certain compounds were not washed off properly from the film.

 

[monopix]

other than because certain compounds were not washed off properly from the film.

...and that's a possibility because I'm sure my technique all those years ago wasn't great.

 

[ARCHIVIST]

As a previous employee of Ilford Australia I know that the original XP-1 emulsion was not stable.

It would most likely go dark brown, or in rarer cases fade, after a period of only a few years, sometimes less.

The forced age tests on the XP-1 did not reveal this problem - there is agument there to dispute forced age testing in general - but that is for another thread.

This problem gave rise to XP-2.

Regards
Peter

 

[jan normandale]

Since XP2 is a C41 film there are several links you might want to check here since we have covered some of this previously check here for conventional home C41 processing and here and here for processing C41 in BW chemicals

 

[monopix]

Archivist - Thanks for the info. It makes me feel happier about using the XP2.

Jan - Thanks for the links, they make interesting reading. It's interesting that others are saying the actually prefer the C41 films when processed in b&w developers. I have to agree. Though the grain is slightly more, it seems smoother and I do like it. Maybe I'll buy more XP2 when my current stock is used.

Here's an example...

 

[srtiwari]

Monopix,
That is a lovely image. Now I want to try this stuff !

Do you mind posting what developer/time/technique you use ?
Does this work with Kodak BW400CN ?
Wonder if Dgital ICE will still work when scanning XP2 after conventional B&W developing ?

Subhash

 

[monopix]

Subhash,

Development is in FX-39 (Paterson) for 12 minutes at 20 degrees C. ISO is 200. Stop and fix as normal. I've also tried it in Aculux (15 minutes) but I prefer FX-39.

If you read the other threads that Jan linked to, you'll find others using BW400CN.

As far as I know, DICE won't work with films processed this way but I never use it anyway.

 

[jan normandale]

@monopix, that looks really good. You might get better with some other developer but this would work for me. I'm assuming this is 120 due to the format. I like XP2 in 120 more that in 135. It just seems to look better, you wouldn't think it should make a difference but it does to me, go figure.