Ilford XP2 problems

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

 

So I picked up two Ilford XP2 films from the developer, but had a bit of surprise. These were my 2nd and 3rd film since returning to film with my newly arrived M6. Anyways, yes there were a few focus hiccups and the odd exposure mistake and compositional and framing errors galore. But what's baffled me is the weird streaks and blobs everywhere: these weren't apparent on the film developed and scanned a few weeks ago.

 

This is one of a few with small white dots across the image:

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!

 

 

This one has a vertical line down the frame:

 

 

The next one has what I'm calling panzer tracks across the frame. About twenty of the pickies had this problem.

 

 

Lastly, this one has a line of black dots along the bottom where there was in truth normal sky (please ignore the cr@p composition).

 

 

Folks, can anyone tell me how two films (likely developed and then scanned as a batch) can have so many different artifacts? I confess to misloading one film which lost me a few frames from light leaks. But these problems are to be seen across both sets of negatives. Is this a botched development or a bad day with the scanner or did a gremlin climb into my M6?

 

Ric

Edited December 31, 2014 by Guest

[pop]

So I picked up two Ilford XP2 films from the developer

 

Does this mean you had them developed and scanned at a lab? If so, take them to the lab. They have botched the job, and gloriously so.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Doc Henry]

Ric, Who developed these two films you or a laboratory ?

Best

Henry

[250swb]

The Panzer tracks are disturbing but the rest look like dust and scratches. You could say every now and again a bit of dust is excusable, but not all these problems put together in one or two films. So it is a processing problem.

 

Steve

[Michael Hiles]

This is almost certainly incompetent processing.

[Guest]

Developed and scanned at a lab.

 

Ric

[gbealnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Time to go back and see them then. It's bad enough if you do this yourself, but inexcusable if done commercially.

Gary

[Doc Henry]

Developed and scanned at a lab.

 

Ric

The repeated and periodic traces on the film due to the teeth of the machine that advance the film. The other traces are due to development

Ric develop yourself, very easy, cheaper and careful work

Best

Henry

[Keith (M)]

A crying shame that your first foray back into film should be spoiled by dreadfully careless work by the 'lab'. Go DIY!

[becker]

Would make the process on my own and take a " real SW " film, for example the

new AGFA, its easy to handle. and not exp. just bought twenty / 2,60 €.

THe XP2 is unmasked which sometimes makes trouble in the lab.

The lab century is over most in total, so I preffere to be independent.

I know there are still some very good guys in processing. But You dont

need whichcraft do it on Y own.

 

tight lines M

[NJH]

The first frame I am sure would clean up if scanned using ICE and a touch of PP afterwards. Its one of the great things about XP2 but I guess for most scanners one has to select either colour negative or positive for the scan. If the lab scanned as B&W negative its likely the ICE is off by default or can't be set. In my case I do all my B&W scans on a KM5400 as a positive (much wider range of tones pulled out of the scan) then invert in photoshop, XP2 for example I scan 16 bit TIFF colour positive with ICE on, then in photoshop convert to 16 bit greyscale and invert and work form there.

 

Agree with everyone else though its a botched job.

[Michael Hiles]

Simple C41 processing is NOT the main reason for using XP2 - it is by any standards a very fine film. Don't abaondon it. It competes very well with all other 400 ASA films.

 

Either find a place that is consistently competent (this is not necessarily a "professional lab"). All commercial operations use a machine - it does not need a technical expert (just someone who is a bit careful).

 

If you want to process yourself (a good idea), Tetenal has a very easy-to-use kit. A developing tank and a thermometer will cost very little, and processing is rather fun.

[chrism]

I'll fall for it since no else has: this isn't an XP2 problem, it is an incompetent lab problem. So far, so good. Here I go a little further—the main reason why an ever increasing proportion of my film freezer is filled with XP2 is not because it is a C-41 film, it is because it develops beautifully with B&W chemicals! While I like it best in 1:100 Rodinal, it does well in humble old Diafine (for both processes it is best exposed at 200). The only conceivable reason to be leary of doing this is the theoretical one that there is little silver left in the film after development, and it might eventually be more prone to fungus than a conventional silver halide film (which is why the last step in C-41 processing is a stabiliser composed of anti-fungals). That remains theoretical for me, as no XP2 I have developed in B&W chemistry has yet become mouldy.

 

In short, XP2 is an excellent B&W film, and I wish Ilford would issue it in 4x5!

 

Chris

[Guest]

Cheers all, shall return to the lab for a few words on Saturday when it reopens after the holidays.

 

Ric

[Broadside]

I don't trust machines to process negatives - too much potential for scratching, dirty rollers, dust etc. I would go to a lab using the dip & dunk method. Much safer, hopefully.

[robert blu]

Sometimes I develop my B&W silver films myself. But recently I use more and more the XP2 developed by C41 lab because scanning with ICE or other dust removal sw requires that much less time dedusting it spotting with Photoshop.

robert

[Michael Hiles]

Dip-and-dunk labs are probably hard to find, except perhaps in very large cities. I have never had any problems with machine processing in 30 years (XP1, XP2, XP2 Super). There are never any guarantees, other than a competent and dedicated operator.

 

XP2 has many merits - it is very sharp, it produces creamy grays and is very fine grained. It prints beautifully and scans perfectly (unless the negatives are very thick).

[Sandokan]

Ric,

 

If you got them developed in Zurich I can imagine how much you paid. Much cheaper to take several films and drive across to Germany or Austria to get them developed.

[Guest]

Ric,

 

If you got them developed in Zurich I can imagine how much you paid. Much cheaper to take several films and drive across to Germany or Austria to get them developed.

 

 

 

I've been having ideas in that direction over the last few days. But that you for the confirmation.

 

There's a hobbyist place in Zug that can reliably develop and scan, I've been told, but the cost is outrageous. CHF 10 to develop and CHF 50 to scan. :-(

Ric

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[fotohuis]

I would suggest: Send in your XP2 films to me and I can preform a perfect C-41 rotary processing in Jobo 2502 reels without touching the film. It is almost handwork but your films won't be spoiled.

 

Alternative: Your own C-41 processing. Chemicals from Fuji Hunt/Rollei Digibase or Tetenal. The only difficult part is to keep during 3:15 minutes the C-41 developer on 100F/37,8C. The rest is already less critical.

Expose your XP2 on iso 200-250 for the best result in a standard C-41 process.