XP2 is super!

infrequent

infrequent

Well-known
Local time
7:08 AM
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
864
just got my first roll of ilford XP2 super processed and the entire roll has a bluish / purple tint. is this typical?

apart from that i am really impressed by the tonality and grain. the results are more attractive to me than BW400CN. i rated it at iso 200 (as recommended here and elsewhere) and will stick to that same methodology next time. looking forward to scanning some of these (the index print looks damn good) and posting them in the near future.

thanks everyone who recommended this film and prompted me to buy a test roll!
 
After all it is C41 process, there is always a "tint" of some sort.

Good to hear that you like XP2. It's been a while I used it, but it might be a good idea to buy some rolls today. It is easier to scan than "true" B&W films like Tri-X or Fomapan.
 
Most minilabs have a setting when scanning chromogenic film, which gives the option of printing sepia or b&w. If it's been scanned as colour neg it will look ill. Either the lab where it was processed didn't have the option or the operator was not experienced.
 
its definitely a distinct tint...very different from any other c41 film i have used. but its all good. when i first saw the index sheet i was happy...finally getting a handle on RF photography!
 
There's allways a tint when processed on colour paper. That's what I recently found out when getting my easter photos back. The big lab made them on colour paper and the upper part is red-ish and the lower part mostly blue-ish.
 
There is a local lab in Pensacola that will only print C-41 B&W negatives on B&W paper. Their results are awesome on AGFA paper.
 
The mystery continues.

I seem to be one of the few who shoots C41 B&W that doesn't like XP2 and vastly prefers BW400CN.
 
I am reading this as meaning the film has the tint rather than the prints.
If so, I think that is usual for XP2; I use the Kodak BW400CN more--and much more recently--that XP2 but I remember that the XP has the blue/purple negs as opposed to the Kodak which has the usual orange film base of color print film.
Ought to make the XP2 easier to print on BW paper than the Kodak.
Rob
infrequent said:
just got my first roll of ilford XP2 super processed and the entire roll has a bluish / purple tint. is this typical?
Click to expand...
 
I get that blue/grey/purplish tint even in the lab scans too, easy enough to get rid of, though I often leave a slight amount in to hint at selenium-toning. When Ilford introduced XP1 it quickly became my preferred B&W film, with many long printing sessions in the darkroom. I already had tried printing orange-base color neg film onto B&W paper, not satisfactory especially with multi-grade papers, so when eventually Kodak introduced its chromogenic with orange base I was simply not interested. Now, with digital scans rather than darkroom prints, I don't think the film base tint matters. But I still like XP2 Super better for some reason.

Leighgion, I'd be interested to hear why you prefer BW400CN :)
 
XP2 does look off when printed on color paper, but I like the look of the prints when done on B&W paper. I do shoot the Kodak when I can't find XP2 though.
 
Leighgion said:
The mystery continues.

I seem to be one of the few who shoots C41 B&W that doesn't like XP2 and vastly prefers BW400CN.
Click to expand...


The BW400CN has more contrast than the XP2, and this is maybe what you like about the CN over the XP2. Also, XP2 looks creamier when rated at 200 and not 400.
 
Leighgion said:
The mystery continues.

I seem to be one of the few who shoots C41 B&W that doesn't like XP2 and vastly prefers BW400CN.
Click to expand...

You are not alone for sure.
I use XP2 when I have no choice only.
I like Kodak better as well.

But the best one for me is Neopan 400 CN
 
Contrast is certainly a big part of why I prefer 400CN. XP2 has an exceptionally weak contrast to me.

Describing things further than that used to be hard to put into words, but some recent discussion here on the RFF helped me there. XP2's texture comes off very harsh to my eye. It's almost digital-looking.

People talk all the time about rating XP2 at 200, but I feel like I shouldn't have to underrate a film to get it to perform nicely and even samples of XP2 rated to 200 don't impress me. Kodak's 400CN has better contrast and is much smoother right at box speed and it retails for less too.

I hear the orange mask on 400cn makes traditional printing on B&W paper a non-starter, but that's not been an issue for me since I don't do traditional printing at the moment.
 
CN400:

482155-R1-15-15A.jpg


XP2:

482154-R1-13-13.jpg


Each film has its advantages and disadvantages.
 
yes i did mean the *film* as having a purplish tint. apologies for not being very clear in the first post. my guess at the results was based on the index print which looks very beautiful and creamy as raid mentioned. apparently fuji frontier machines handle c41 b&w well. i will try to get some prints done and scan them this week. my epson 4490 doesn't come in until may.

also its clear that overexposing by a stop provides very nice results with xp2. but what are results like rated at box speed and pushed to 800?
 
I'd shoot it at 400; I don't think you gain much of anything overexposing the whole roll. I always shoot at 400 and the results are great. You get excellent contrast, and there is almost no grain. It's very milky looking when printed. I haven't noticed any blue tint when I've got prints made.

 
Last edited:
I have been rating XP2 at 200 but will next time use the film as a 400 film to see the results. I expect to see additional contrast.
 
Another 400CN fan here. I vastly prefer it to XP2. I particularly like the way it handles metallic surfaces - it gives a 3-D effect. I also appreciate the contrast. My local lab delivers neutral prints when asked.

2357967913_fa7578f3fd.jpg


2321952354_9a9ffebec2.jpg


2173381104_63bee37c01.jpg


1386773297_bf7c624d32.jpg


All 400CN, last two tinted in PS.

Regards,

Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom