XP2 processed as C41 vs traditional B&W chemistry

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

More grain examples

 

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!

[LocalHero1953]

More examples of grain

 

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!

[LocalHero1953]

And a last one (I have plenty)

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!

[LocalHero1953]

On 11/30/2022 at 6:41 PM, hansvons said:

Agreed. But when scanning, I like the grain to be as sharp as meaningfully possible evenly across the image, as the original camera's lens doesn't influence its sharpness/gestalt. That's the most significant advantage of a scanner. But then, all affordable scanners have many other deficiencies. 

I don't have a suitable target, so I made one: a grid on transparent film, printed on my Epson P800. A bit clunky, but OK in the absence of anything better. I used a mirror on the light panel to check the camera was exactly aligned. The target was just 36x24mm, so I could check the lens at 35mm film scan size. So here is a shot of the target, four corners and the centre. I'm pleasantly surprised.

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!

[hansvons]

@LocalHero1953 Another great test! 

Looks like you have a good setup. Will copy/paste!!

[Doc Henry]

Paul ,  I sent this morning a personal message to Chris . I hope he will answer me and intervene in this thread for you 😀

Good job Paul ....   because I love film, no digital for me for a long time 

C41 is more beautiful and have a good definition ...  I hope Chris agreed 

His contribution to Ilford :

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/ilford-xp2-super-in-black-and-white-chemistry/?___store=ilford_brochure&___from_store=ilford_uk

Best

Henry

[chrism]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Behold! I have returned! I'm afraid the editor at Ilford mangled the text for that article. The correct text and some additions to it are to be found at http://drmoss.ca/xp2.htm

I'm afraid I must disagree about c-41. It works, after all it is supposed to do so! But with care about exposure and developing times there need be no worries at all about mid-tones being dark, scanning being difficult etc. I have minimal experience with using B&W developed XP2 in an enlarger, so perhaps C-41 still wins there. My favourite way to expose and develop it is at EI 50-100 for 4 or 5 minutes in 1:49 HC-110 respectively. But you can go safely to 1600 if you don't mind developing for 18 minutes. Probably the simplest way to amaze yourself is to expose at EI 200, and develop in Diafine. I used to think this increased grain, but the smooth continuous agitation of my motorized Rondinax or Lab-Box, makes it come out perfectly! Here's a pair to make you laugh, a before and after with a bone marrow transplant in between. Same camera, lens, XP2 Super, EI 200, Diafine:

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!

 

Possibly, or even likely, not good photos, but it shows what the combo can do. Here's one with HC-110:

Start experimenting!

Chris

(Who hopes that one day his cameras will be unpacked and he can join you again here!)

 

[Doc Henry]

Chris answered me he will probably intervene ... it' s done  . Thanks Chris 🥰

It reminds me Kodak BW400CN that I developed in C41 to then enlarge with the enlarger , the photos on paper are magnificent !

... " Who hopes that one day his cameras will be unpacked and he can join you again here "

unpack them quickly  and  please come back !

...    and Chris hair will regrow 😀

Edited December 3, 2022 by Doc Henry

[LocalHero1953]

44 minutes ago, chrism said:

Behold! I have returned! I'm afraid the editor at Ilford mangled the text for that article. The correct text and some additions to it are to be found at http://drmoss.ca/xp2.htm

I'm afraid I must disagree about c-41. It works, after all it is supposed to do so! But with care about exposure and developing times there need be no worries at all about mid-tones being dark, scanning being difficult etc. I have minimal experience with using B&W developed XP2 in an enlarger, so perhaps C-41 still wins there. My favourite way to expose and develop it is at EI 50-100 for 4 or 5 minutes in 1:49 HC-110 respectively. But you can go safely to 1600 if you don't mind developing for 18 minutes. Probably the simplest way to amaze yourself is to expose at EI 200, and develop in Diafine. I used to think this increased grain, but the smooth continuous agitation of my motorized Rondinax or Lab-Box, makes it come out perfectly! Here's a pair to make you laugh, a before and after with a bone marrow transplant in between. Same camera, lens, XP2 Super, EI 200, Diafine:

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!

 

Possibly, or even likely, not good photos, but it shows what the combo can do. Here's one with HC-110:

Start experimenting!

Chris

(Who hopes that one day his cameras will be unpacked and he can join you again here!)

 

Thanks, Chris - much appreciated. The discussion since my original post has convinced me that my conclusions were premature, and that I ought to try some different development.

[LocalHero1953]

I have finally completed another couple of rolls of XP2, which I have now developed in B&W chemistry according to @chrism's suggestions: HC110 in Dilution E for 10 minutes (with less agitation than I usually give).

These four are from a film shot at Wimereux and Boulogne, northern France. These were genuine Sunny 16 bright sunlight open beach conditions. I am happy with the outcome - the longer, gentler development has given more detail in shadows, while still controlling sky tones (though I really should have used a yellow or orange filter).

All photos shot with a Leica iif and Nikkor 3.5cm f/2.5. It's worth clicking on the images to see the sharpness/detail.

Digging for lugworms, Boulogne.

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!

Sandyacht school, Boulogne

Boulogne beach.

Boulogne beach and port industrial area.

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

Same camera, lens, film and development, photos taken in Cambridge with swarms of tourists going punting.

For some reason this sequence in Cambridge, starting half way through a film that started in France, was denser and perhaps under-exposed, but recoverable. All metering was checked with the same incident meter (and I have since checked that the meter ISO was set correctly!)

Punting on the Cam at Queens' College, with the Mathematical Bridge.  

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!

Queuing for punt hire outside Darwin College.

The Mill Pond

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[hansvons]

12 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Digging for lugworms, Boulogne.

I was digging into C41 home development recently. I found it relatively easy, comparable to B&W. Keeping the water bath a 39 *C  is convenient with a sous-vide stick, and B&W dev profits as well, as I can develop at 24 *C, effectively cutting down dev time.

But I experienced similar issues as you do (where's the grain?) with digitising when I had my cine negative telecined to video back then (90ies until 2009). Without special adjustments, the video material lacked micro contrast, despite being relatively sharp. Because I didn't operate the telecine (I was that annoying sofa person), I can't remember how the colourists pushed the micro-contrast, but they did and so popped up the grain. Of course, that was a balancing act. For some reason, I don't experience that with proper B&W negative. With a sharp developer, only sharpening on the pixel level is needed.

Turning a negative into a positive and subsequently nailing the colour and contrast is quite challenging in colour without third-party help. But I figured it out, nonetheless. I learned that using the clarity and structure slider carefully (which I never do elsewhere) and the even more careful use of sharpening makes all the difference with colour negatives in terms of texture. 

XP2 may need a similar approach, as it's essentially a colour negative without the colour?

Below are two images of the same shot—the first shot with simple, pixel-level sharpening, the second with the full treatment. Kodak 5207 (250D) at ISO 200, scanned with SL2-S and Sigma 70mm Macro (extremely sharp at f11!). Click to enlarge.

 

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!