Keith (M) Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share #21 Posted March 7, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) As per my opening post on this thread, I was attracted to the idea of XP2+Rodinal because:- I liked the look of XP2 but whilst wishing to retain control of development did not want the added complication of C41 chemicals and temperature control. had seen some very impressive results on the Flickr Rodinal group. Having blundered with the first roll I ran a second roll through my Rolleicord Vb yesterday and developed it this morning. Scanned it just now and (mainly for the Doubting Thomases) here is a typical result. WDYT? Personally, I think it gives me the wonderfully smooth tonal gradation that I had hoped for. Method? 5min pre-soak in plain water @ 20deg C. 5mL Rodinal in 495mL water 20Deg C. 30secs slow inversions (8 or 9) Stand for 30mins 1 slow inversion Stand for 30mins Stop bath and fix as per normal b&w practice. I will probably use the same combination again once I have run down my current stock of normal films and Ilfosol 3 etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Hi Keith (M), Take a look here XP2, Rodinal & A Big Mistake!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Michael Hiles Posted March 8, 2012 Share #22 Posted March 8, 2012 It is tough to comment convincingly, since this is a scan and you may have changed things in Photoshop or similar software. You also don’t tell us what ASA you exposed for – in my experience 400 ASA produces a 1 stop under exposure. Many intermediate variables. That being said - this is a pleasant picture, but technically I think it is very contrasty. The blacks in the tree have no evident detail, and the highlights in the window frames are blown out with no sense of detail. In all honesty, XP2 carefully exposed for 200 ASA and processed in C41 would not do this. There would be excellent separation in the deep shadows, and the highlights would have acres of detail, and the grays would be as smooth as cream. The picture gives an impression of being very sharp (likely due to Rodinal) (yes, this is a small screen), and it seems to have good smoothness (which I suspect is inherent in the film). But if the screen image represents what the negative has to offer, my view is that it is a failure. Ilford, I am sure, has engineered this film to be optimal in C41. I think it likely that they wanted a film that was easily handled in the ubiquitous C41 process, converging processes and making it easy to deal with for the maximum number of customers. In the process, they got a film that has probably the longest tonal scale available today, with excellent sharpness and is almost grain-free. While there may be some serendipitous matching of XP2 and something, I don't think it is Rodinal. Based on the technicalities of this picture, I won’t be developing XP2 in anything other than C41. However, a very interesting exercise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted March 8, 2012 Share #23 Posted March 8, 2012 Keith, Not unexpectedly, a bit orthochromatic but still not a bad result. It might be useful if you were looking to use XP2 as an ortho film, as the one thing it does not have processed C41 is very intense blacks and bright white whites - interesting. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share #24 Posted March 8, 2012 Michael - thank you for taking the time and trouble to carry out your assessment of my little experiment. Taking your points in turn:- This being my first use of XP2, I used it's nominal rating but as I had a light yellow filter fitted to the Rollei, I set my Sekonic L208 to ISO 320. The original .tiff scan of the negative (3200dpi, 6762x6762 pixels) did not exhibit blocked shadows or blown highlights. My monitor is set to Gamma 2.2 and regularly calibrated with a Spider Pro 3. Presumably the considerable squeeze involved in transforming the image into a 900 pixel 339Kb .jpg file has had an effect. Reference the separation of shadows etc, interestingly on a dedicated film forum the following comment was made - "I see a brilliant picture; sharp, contrasty, dramatic, and perfectly adapted to a subject with lots of edges, tonal steps, and spiky detail. The lack of shadow detail on the tree (slight under exposure?) helps reinforce the graphic form." A different shot from the same roll may illustrate better these attributes - Feeding Centre As I have a freezer drawer full of Tri-X, HP5, Kentmere 100 and Acros 100 to use up, it will be some time before I try XP2 in my Leicas but at some point I certainly will as the results from the Rolleicord have (for my eyes) been very pleasing. As per my original post, I like to carry out my own developing but do not want the added complications presented by C41 chemicals. Therefore, at least for me the experiment has been a success. Railway Village histogram:- Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/174164-xp2-rodinal-a-big-mistake/?do=findComment&comment=1947821'>More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 8, 2012 Share #25 Posted March 8, 2012 Thanks Keith - interesting exchange. I sympathize 100% with not wanting to do C41 yourself - I don't and won't until I can no longer get it done locally, cheaply and with no hassles. I go to my local Walmart, and they sometimes do it (negatives only) while I wait - I get a little shopping done, and 25 minutes and $2.50 later - voila. Not everyone is so situated or inclined. And none of this discussion is about esthetics - that is a horse of a different colour (or tone...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 8, 2012 Share #26 Posted March 8, 2012 Thanks Keith - interesting exchange. I sympathize 100% with not wanting to do C41 yourself - I don't and won't until I can no longer get it done locally, cheaply and with no hassles. I go to my local Walmart, and they sometimes do it (negatives only) while I wait - I get a little shopping done, and 25 minutes and $2.50 later - voila. Not everyone is so situated or inclined. And none of this discussion is about esthetics - that is a horse of a different colour (or tone...) XP1 used a low-temperature version of C41-type chemistry, which was easy to do at home. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 9, 2012 Share #27 Posted March 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I remember it, and used it. It worked well. Often wished it were still available - I would use it. BTW - XP1 was also excellent. I have beautiful XP1 negatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted March 9, 2012 Share #28 Posted March 9, 2012 Wasn't it XP1 that sometimes went purple or brown when you had it processed regular C41, if you had prints done when you had it processed. You can still get a very slight tint on XP2 or BW400CN if you have them printed but it is very slight. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted March 9, 2012 Share #29 Posted March 9, 2012 XP2 is meant to print on classical B&W photo paper while BW400CN is meant to print a neutral B&W photo on RA-4 from the minilab. If you look at the Orange mask of both films, they are different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 9, 2012 Share #30 Posted March 9, 2012 XP2 is meant to print on classical B&W photo paper while BW400CN is meant to print a neutral B&W photo on RA-4 from the minilab. If you look at the Orange mask of both films, they are different. Yes, the Kodak material is intended to be printed on color paper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted October 22, 2012 Share #31 Posted October 22, 2012 What would lead you to process XP2 in Rodinal? That film was designed to be developed in C41 chemistry, which produces results that are extremely satisfactory. I am no chemist, but this (and the agitation regime) does not sound at all promising. XP2 in Rodinal 1+25 for 19 minutes 7 invertions every minute, think it looks ok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 22, 2012 Share #32 Posted October 22, 2012 Keith, some people work to achieve what you did by accident! Good thread. Thanks. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted October 22, 2012 Share #33 Posted October 22, 2012 I like my XP2 in Diafine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.