Ilford XP2 thoughts

[giannis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't use it *that* much due to price and availability - I have a wide variety of films and developers to achieve the different looks I like, for cheaper.

That said, XP2 has some real advantages. Lack of grain is one - or equivalently, "inky blacks". Dye clouds are softer and less defined than silver grains, so you don't get the characteristic grain in your images. This is particularly obvious in 35mm of course, and naturally less so in 120 and above. Secondly, compared to normal development of a "traditional" B&W film in a general purpose developer, I find XP2 has more latitude and dynamic range. Especially when talking about *perceived* latitude and dynamic range, which grain can negatively affect, so XP2 with its lack of grain comes on top. Lastly, if you're not doing your own development, XP2 has the huge benefit of standardised C-41 development. The lab can't "mess" development, either by using an inappropriate developer for the film (for cost reasons, many labs standardise on a cheap and long lasting developer, say like Rodinal, which is substandard for many films); or by human error, since traditional B&W is done by hand even in labs, while C-41 runs in reliable and accurate machines. This last reason is the biggest benefit (followed by lack of grain), that XP2 gets pleasing end results (prints/scans) for most people, and explains its praise.

In a nutshell, if you want to drop a roll in your camera and shoot around a variety of subjects in a variety of light, especially people, and then drop off at a lab and get back scans/prints, I doubt there's a single film that will give more pleasing results, on average. This is the perfect use case for XP2 and you can't do wrong with it. You'd be exploiting all its benefits (lack of grain, latitude, standardised development).

I also use it from time to time, for portraits especially, due to its lack of grain mostly and latitude secondarily. If I wanted to achieve a similar look with traditional film, I'd shoot 120 and pull half to one stop, which I also do when not using XP2.

Here's an example of XP2 in 120, development in C-41, which I think is the "characteristic" look of the film and what most people could expect to get when using it, with little fuss.

 

 

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!

 

Edit: I forgot one benefit of XP2, versus say shooting a typical colour C-41 film and printing in B&W: XP2 doesn't have an orange mask and has a pretty clear and neutral base, so it can be printed in the darkroom like a traditional B&W film. This is really inconvenient to do with a colour C-41 film due to the increased density of the mask that ruins contrast, particularly when printing on variable contrast paper. Secondarily, it gives decent results in traditional B&W development, again unlike colour films that have the yellow mask (made of silver) plus all the colour couplers, which add *a ton* of extra density and obliterate contrast (very low contrast), making them virtually impossible to print in the darkroom, and even scan and print digitally.

Edited May 6, 2022 by giannis
Additions.

[Ornello]

9 minutes ago, giannis said:

I don't use it *that* much due to price and availability - I have a wide variety of films and developers to achieve the different looks I like, for cheaper.

That said, XP2 has some real advantages. Lack of grain is one - or equivalently, "inky blacks". Dye clouds are softer and less defined than silver grains, so you don't get the characteristic grain in your images. This is particularly obvious in 35mm of course, and naturally less so in 120 and above. Secondly, compared to normal development of a "traditional" B&W film in a general purpose developer, I find XP2 has more latitude and dynamic range. Especially when talking about *perceived* latitude and dynamic range, where grain can negatively affect, so XP2 with its lack of grain comes on top. Lastly, if you're not doing your own development, XP2 has the huge benefit of standardised C-41 development. The lab can't "mess" development, either by using an inappropriate developer for the film (for cost reasons, many labs standardise on a cheap and long lasting developer, say like Rodinal, which is substandard for many film); or by human error, since traditional B&W is done by hand even in labs, while C-42 runs in reliable and accurate machines. This last reason is the biggest benefit (followed by lack of grain), that XP2 gets pleasing end results (prints/scans) for most people, and explains its praise.

In a nutshell, if you want to drop a roll in your camera and shoot around a variety of subjects in a variety of light, especially people, and then drop off at a lab and get back scans/prints, I doubt there's a single film that will give more pleasing results, on average. This is the perfect use case for XP2 and you can't do wrong with it. You'd be exploiting all its benefits (lack of grain, latitude, standardised development).

I also use it from time to time, for portraits especially, due to its lack of grain mostly and latitude secondarily. If I wanted to achieve a similar look with traditional film, I'd shoot 120 and pull half to one stop, which I also do when not using XP2.

Here's an example of XP2 in 120, development in C-41, which I think is the "characteristic" look of the film and what most people could expect to get when using it, with little fuss.

 

 

 

But, if you're doing only scans, why not just use Porta 400 and convert to B&W when wanted? The only benefit to XP2 is in a darkroom situation.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Ornello

[Advertisement]

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

[giannis]

3 minutes ago, Ornello said:

But, if you're doing scans, why not just use Porta 400 and convert to B&W when wanted? The only benefit to XP2 is in a darkroom situation.

I was typing that edit, just as you replied. You can read what I wrote now.

Yes the major benefit of it is darkroom prints, and usually price.

Edited May 6, 2022 by giannis
addition

[cp995]

I really like the XP2 since several decades!
Even today it is easy to develop (C-41)

 

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!

[250swb]

5 hours ago, Ornello said:

But, if you're doing only scans, why not just use Porta 400 and convert to B&W when wanted? The only benefit to XP2 is in a darkroom situation.

It's about discipline, shoot B&W or shoot colour, your eye doesn't get better by using a colour film when you know you are looking for B&W photographs. I mean, you set yourself as some sort of 'scientist' but you have no understanding of making a photograph with any vision, just a uniquely biased formula based reaction to a situation. And when I say 'uniquely' it's not a compliment.

Edited May 6, 2022 by 250swb

[4r36]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb 250swb:

XP-2 has a very wide exposure latitude, so it's an ideal film for difficult lighting, such as a dark room with daylight streaming in, or just leaving in the camera as a general everyday film. Processing it at home takes the same amount of time as regular B&W, it can be done at 30C, and while as always instructions should be followed even you mis-time it, or too hot or too cold (I should know) you'll still get a nice negative, even if it's not the negative you aimed for 😉 So it's not difficult, all you need is a Paterson tank and something like a Tetenal C-41 kit, nothing special.

That's why I really liked it. The picture above was taken handheld indoor, at 7 o'clock in the evening, portraying a subject side-lit by natural light coming from far away windows. It's not in situation like this that one can expect the best sharpness, tonal range, and fine grain of a film. Yet it did its job!

[Studienkamera]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/4/2022 at 8:49 AM, Studienkamera said:

I am picking up my first XP2 later this week. I bought a 10 pack after I found out that a framing shop in my neighborhood offers C41 processing.

Just scanned my first roll of XP2 Super. Very happy with the results. I posted a few shots from this roll in the "I like film" thread.

[JoshuaRothman]

Just read this thread and am pretty excited. I shoot a lot of color and develop C-41 at home. I have that process down and it’s no stress for me. I like the idea of developing both color and black and white simultaneously. And XP2 can be bought in bulk, and it looks like the cost would work out to just over $6 a roll.

I’m ordering some individual rolls to try them out today, and will develop them in C-41 and see how it goes…..

[Doug A]

I was intrigued by comments above that C-41 is as easy to develop at home as B&W so I watched a couple of YouTube videos. It looks easier than I expected, but it is still quite a bit fussier than my B&W process:

I start with a tiny bottle of Rodinal, a 1 liter bottle of working strength generic fixer, and a half gallon jug of distilled water. Total time from taking the gear off the shelf and setting up to having the film hanging up to dry and all of the gear back on the shelf is less than 30 minutes. All done at room temperature and with no running water.

And for me, at least, cost is also an issue. It costs me less than $1 (one US dollar) to develop a roll of 35mm B&W film. (5 ml of Rodinal, 1.25 liter of distilled water, and the I liter bottle of fixer is good for 20 rolls of 35mm film)  

[oldwino]

1 hour ago, Doug A said:

I was intrigued by comments above that C-41 is as easy to develop at home as B&W so I watched a couple of YouTube videos. It looks easier than I expected, but it is still quite a bit fussier than my B&W process:

I start with a tiny bottle of Rodinal, a 1 liter bottle of working strength generic fixer, and a half gallon jug of distilled water. Total time from taking the gear off the shelf and setting up to having the film hanging up to dry and all of the gear back on the shelf is less than 30 minutes. All done at room temperature and with no running water.

And for me, at least, cost is also an issue. It costs me less than $1 (one US dollar) to develop a roll of 35mm B&W film. (5 ml of Rodinal, 1.25 liter of distilled water, and the I liter bottle of fixer is good for 20 rolls of 35mm film)  

C-41 IS fussier than tradition B&W for sure. 

But you can also develop XP2 in B&W chemicals. I've very successfully done it in Diafine. I'm sure Rodinal would work, too, but I've never tried it.

[Doug A]

56 minutes ago, oldwino said:

C-41 IS fussier than tradition B&W for sure. 

But you can also develop XP2 in B&W chemicals. I've very successfully done it in Diafine. I'm sure Rodinal would work, too, but I've never tried it.

But then you've given up the  unique characteristics of the film. The dye clouds are gone. The silver grains remain. Digital ICE doesn't work. And I suspect some of the touted dynamic range is gone as well. But I must say many of the examples I see online are very nice indeed, albeit at a price. 

[250swb]

I'm not sure why people think XP2 is fussier to develop, there are essentially only two temperatures, use the lowest, and after choosing that only one set time for each film when you follow the instructions for compensating for developer exhaustion. Gone are the mind boggling developer and development time battles over film processing, take your brain out and follow the C41 kit instructions, they work! 

[Doug A]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

I'm not sure why people think XP2 is fussier to develop, there are essentially only two temperatures, use the lowest, and after choosing that only one set time for each film when you follow the instructions for compensating for developer exhaustion. Gone are the mind boggling developer and development time battles over film processing, take your brain out and follow the C41 kit instructions, they work! 

I agree that many people seem to enjoy complicating B&W film development but it can be pretty simple. Instead of choosing a particular C41 developing kit I choose one B&W film, one developer, whatever generic rapid fixer is currently the least expensive, and follow the film manufacturer's directions. As I described above I do no temperature control and use no running water. On a nice day you will sometimes find me developing film out on the patio, with my camera pre-set and pre-focused in case anything or anybody interesting comes down the path behind our building.