XP2 developed in B&W chemicals vs C41

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have bought a few rolls of XP2 to see how the grain compares with traditional B&W (Delta 400, HP5). I'm aware that it can be developed in traditional B&W chemicals as well as with the C41 process. Is there any qualitative difference in the results you get by either route? Different grain? Shadow recovery? Ease of digital scanning?

[Advertisement]

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

[ianman]

I remember reading an article a year so so ago on the Ilford website if that can help. I can’t find it right now but I’ll see if I can post a link later.

[Kl@usW.]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb LocalHero1953:

I have bought a few rolls of XP2 to see how the grain compares with traditional B&W (Delta 400, HP5). I'm aware that it can be developed in traditional B&W chemicals as well as with the C41 process. Is there any qualitative difference in the results you get by either route? Different grain? Shadow recovery? Ease of digital scanning?

our forum member @chrism has published about this, he is the author of the article on the Ilford website. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry/?___store=ilford_brochure&___from_store=ilford_uk

[wpo]

too late 🙂

I just noticed that Chrism was logged in last in April. I hope he's ok?

Edited August 28, 2022 by wpo

[LocalHero1953]

59 minutes ago, Kl@usW. said:

our forum member @chrism has published about this, he is the author of the article on the Ilford website. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry/?___store=ilford_brochure&___from_store=ilford_uk

Just read it - an excellent guide. Thanks to you, and to @chrism if he is reading this!
Good that he favoured HC-110, which I am using.

Edited August 28, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[ianman]

1 hour ago, Kl@usW. said:

our forum member @chrism has published about this, he is the author of the article on the Ilford website. https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry/?___store=ilford_brochure&___from_store=ilford_uk

That’s not the article I saw…. This was . The author also uses HC-110

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by ianman

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, ianman said:

That’s not the article I saw…. This was . The author also uses HC-110

 

Thanks. I wonder why both he and Chrism used Dilution E rather than the more concentrated Dilution B which (perhaps in my inexperience) I have seen as more common for B&W films (and which I have been using). 

[oldwino]

I’ve had good results with Diafine. But I only tried it because I have some already mixed and ready. 
As an aside - I also like Fuji’s Acros in Diafine a lot. 

[AZD]

I wanted to know as well so I made my own experiment. Skipping to the end, XP2 performs very well in black and white chemicals. It retains fine grain and sharpness. Think of it as Delta 200 or something like that. I’m not sure that you gain anything over Delta 100 or TMAX 400 though, and I didn’t directly compare. My mind’s eyeball says I’m probably not lying. Probably… On the other hand, XP2 in C41 is capable of handling a huge range of scene brightness, which is its primary advantage, unless you absolutely must have black and white film but can only process C41. 
 

My process was to load my Nikon FE (sorry, but super reliable shutter speeds for testing) and take a broad range of exposures of a very high contrast subject - a fresnel spotlight near a wall. Glowing lens in the frame with the wall in shadow. I also took a few random outdoor shots. This was done on two rolls with identical exposure settings, metered at 200 (more relevant for the outside shots than the tricky spotlight). One roll was processed in C41 by a local lab, the other by me in R09 1+50 for 10 minutes. My results are:

 

- C41 absolutely performs better in high contrast light. You don’t need to squint or use a densitometer, it’s obvious. It has better shadow detail and holds back the highlights, just guessing at least 2 stops above and below the same exposure in B&W. 
 

- C41 is a bit boring in dull light. 
 

- B&W processing looks great but you have to treat it like a normal film. Still, it has plenty of dynamic range. The fresnel was more of a torture test than a real situation. ISO 200 was perfectly usable. 100 might be better, but since I print my own negatives and can burn/dodge if needed I’ll take the extra stop of light at 200. 
 

- As mentioned, B&W processing still yields very fine grain and sharpness. An 8x10 print shows virtually no grain. A detailed area enlarged at 20x30 equivalent still looked good. This is the primary reason I’d use XP2 like this again. 
 

- On the B&W roll, one of those random outdoor shots of a patio table accidentally turned out far better than expected, sort of like a scene from a 1940s noir film. Nikon lens and body, so no sharing here. I really like it though. 
 

My advice, just go ahead and try it. Nobody but you can decide if it’s worth it, and your own experience will be more informative than mine or anyone else. And it’s fun. 

[LocalHero1953]

That's really helpful advice, @AZD - particularly that there is a noticeable difference between processing methods. I shall also try both, though I haven't tried your systematic test shots.

[adan]

For me, using B&W chemicals with XP2 kills the single biggest advantage of XP2 - its compatability with scanner dust-speck erasure (ICE).

Which confuses opaque silver grains with dust, leading to "moth-eaten" scans.

The gray translucent dye produced by C-41 processing (with the silver removed by the bleach/blix step) does not have that problem.

That, of course, is not an issue if one makes chemical darkroom prints anyway - and/or enjoys the "zen contemplation time" of spending 30 minutes cloning out the dust specks manually.